Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights rights holds informal meeting with States

Chairperson Regrets General Assembly’s Decision Not to Grant Resources to Treaty Bodies, while States Call for More Coordination among Committees

GENEVA (27 March 2018) - The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights this morning held an informal meeting with States, exchanging views on the simplified reporting procedure, work on General Comments, overlapping recommendations of committees, and lack of funding for the United Nations treaty body system.

Virginia Bras Gomes, Committee Chairperson, updated States on the Committee’s work, namely on the good results with non-reporting States, extending the possibility of the simplified reporting procedure to more countries, and the work on three General Comments (on the right of everyone to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications, sustainable development and economic, social and cultural rights, and land and economic, social and cultural rights).  The Chairperson expressed great disappointment with the General Assembly’s decision not to grant resources in accordance with the formula contained in the resolution 68/268, noting that it had serious implications for the Committee’s work.

Rodrigo Uprimny, Committee Member and Chair of the Working Group on Communications, reminded that since the entry into force of the Optional Protocol in 2013, the Committee had formally registered 26 communications, out of which 17 had been dealt with.  For the remaining nine, in four cases there were decisions on substance, there were four non-admissibility cases, and one withdrawal.

In the ensuing discussion, delegations asked about the Committee’s plans to promote the General Comment No. 24 on businesses and economic, social and cultural rights, and inquired whether there had been any increase in the number of registered communications.  They supported the Committee in extending the opportunity of the simplified reporting procedure to other countries, because that procedure was more focused and straightforward.  Finally, some delegations inquired whether committees could coordinate with each other to spread out reviews more evenly to avoid having several reviews in a single year.

Speaking were Mexico, Uruguay, Belgium and Pakistan.

The Committee will next meet in public on Thursday, 29 March, in the afternoon to publicly close its sixty-third session.  

Statements and Discussion 

MARIA VIRGINIA BRAS GOMES, Committee Chairperson, updated States on the work of the Committee, namely on the good results with non-reporting States, noting that three countries had already submitted their reports, while two more were scheduled to submit their reports in September.  Ms. Bras Gomes expressed hope that more States would respond to the Committee’s call and she asked delegations to check what issues contributed to the late reporting and to bring that issue up with their capitals.  She informed that for the first time the Committee had held a dialogue under the simplified reporting procedure, namely with New Zealand and Spain.  The plan was to offer that possibility to more countries.   As for the work on three General Comments (on the right of everyone to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications, sustainable development and economic, social and cultural rights, and land and economic, social and cultural rights), the major concern was to have economic, social and cultural rights at the centre of sustainable development.   The Chairperson expressed great disappointment with the General Assembly’s decision not to grant resources in accordance with the formula contained in the resolution 68/268.  The Committee had expected States to maintain the formula.  The budget cuts were becoming more restricting for the quality of the Committee’s work, especially with respect to the holding of the day of general discussion.   The Committee also did not receive any additional resources for the Optional Protocol, Ms. Bras Gomes noted.      

Presenting his update on individual communications, RODRIGO UPRIMNY, Committee Member and Chair of the Working Group on Communications, reminded that since the entry into force of the Optional Protocol in 2013, the Committee had formally registered 26 communications, out of which 17 had been dealt with.  In the remaining nine cases, there were decisions on substance in four cases, four cases of non-admissibility and one withdrawal.  The Committee had clarified the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies, and the principle of ratione temporis when a communication should be ruled inadmissible.  The Committee had also clarified several aspects of several rights of the Covenant, such as the right to housing, social security, and pension.      

Mexico stated that its recent dialogue with the Committee was very useful.  Mexico was committed to ensuring that economic, social and cultural rights become a reality for all Mexicans.  The Government was committed to addressing the remaining challenges.  What did the Committee have in mind to promote the General Comment No. 24 on businesses and economic, social and cultural rights?  

Uruguay noted that the simplified reporting procedure was a real progress and a very useful tool for States.  It supported the Committee in extending that opportunity to other countries, because that procedure was more focused and straightforward.  It was appropriate for the Committee to keep some sort of general dialogue with States to consider broader policies in the area of economic, social and cultural rights.  

Belgium appreciated the Committee’s work and particularly its work on General Comments.  As for communications received, had there been an increase in the number of registered communications recently, which could indicate the fact that the Optional Protocol was gaining more visibility?  On the simplified reporting procedure, what timing was envisaged for extending that possibility to other States?  

Pakistan highlighted the overlapping of all human rights, as well as the overlapping in most of the recommendations given to countries.  That situation posed challenges for States’ work and resources.  Pakistan had had four reviews scheduled in 2017.  Could committees coordinate with each other to spread out reviews more evenly?

MARIA VIRGINIA BRAS GOMES, Committee Chairperson, responded that the Committee spoke of the General Comment No. 24 on businesses and economic, social and cultural rights whenever it could.  On the simplified reporting procedure, there was a lot of merit in it, namely allowing for a more focused dialogue.  Responding to Uruguay, she said that the Committee tried not to lose sight of the general situation in the country while focusing on specific issues.  The Committee would like to stick to the list of issues prior to reporting, while keeping in mind the general situation.  Responding to Belgium, the Chairperson said it could submit a report under the simplified reporting procedure in the next cycle.  Turning to Pakistan’s comments, she confirmed that were indeed overlapping recommendations under the treaties negotiated by States.  Coordination among committees was possible, but every committee was trying to be true to their respective treaty.  Committees were pursuing efforts to coordinate the review of States’ reports and to look at reporting burdens.  A comprehensive reporting calendar would be a good measure to better plan the work of committees and States, Ms. Bras Gomes clarified.

OLIVIER DE SCHUTTER, Committee Member, explained that the General Comment No. 24 on businesses and economic, social and cultural rights had been adopted to clarify the minimum obligations of States under the Covenant.  In June 2011, the Human Rights Council had endorsed the Guiding Principles on Businesses and Human Rights, whereas in 2016 the International Labour Organization had launched decent work in global supply chains.  Against that background, the Committee had felt that it was important to clarify the minimum requirements for States.  There had been increased tension between protecting investors’ rights under free trade agreements on the one hand, and human rights obligations of States on the other hand.

ZDZISLAW KEDZIA, Committee Member, reminded that since the early 1990s the Committee had been increasingly dealing with the impact of businesses on economic, social and cultural rights.  That process had intensified in the past 15 years or so.  In addition to external developments, the Committee needed to respond to States parties which in their reports referred to the impact of businesses on economic, social and cultural rights.  The questions received were becoming more and more complicated.  The Committee had referred to that issue through the prism of obligations of States parties under the Covenant, and it would probably develop its thinking on that issue further.  For the time being, the General Comment No. 24 was a good basis for considering the issue of businesses and economic, social and cultural rights.

RODRIGO UPRIMNY, Committee Members and Chair of the Working Group on Communications, responding to Belgium, explained that there had been an increase in received and registered communications.  

MOHAMED EZZELDIN ABDEL-MONHEIM, Committee Member, remarked on the issue of overlapping of recommendations that what mattered in the end was that the whole work of the Committee did not overlap with the whole work of another committee.  People should pay attention to a distinction between repeated and overlapping issues.  One should not always look at issues from an administrative point of view.  Issues had become more sophisticated since the time of the adoption of the Covenant, and the number of stakeholders had increased.  The broadening scope of rights and stakeholders required a much more sophisticated machinery.  Finally, everything was in the hands of States.

SHIQIU CHEN, Committee Member, stressed that the relationship between the Committee and States was constructive, cooperative and friendly.  Committee Members were not judges and were not there to impose unbearable tasks on States.  Mr. Chen expressed hope that the relationship would be enhanced.  The Committee needed States’ support and assistance, and it welcomed States’ comments and criticism.  He suggested that States provide their comments after each dialogue held with the Committee, as well as their views on the Committee’s concluding observations.  He also invited States to provide comments on the Committee’s General Comments so that they did not become comments unilaterally drawn up by Committee Members.

MARIA VIRGINIA BRAS GOMES, Committee Chairperson, stressed that channels of communication between the Committee and States were always open.  There were country rapporteurs, as well as the Follow-up Rapporteur.  The dialogue was ongoing.  

ASLAN ABASHIDZE, Committee Member, stressed that the only place in the United Nations system where truly independent experts sat were treaty bodies.  States should get more involved in strengthening the human rights treaty bodies system.  The Committee had done a great deal in many spheres, such as in overcoming delays in considering individual communications, drafting General Comments on some of the most complex issues, and coordinating efforts with other committees.  The Committee rarely asked for additional funds, but States should not cut funds for treaty bodies and for the use of official languages.  The more money was devoted to the use of languages, the better the dissemination of committees’ work would be.

HEISOO SHIN, Committee Member, drew attention to the regional imbalance in the ratification of the Optional Protocol, with mostly Latin American and European countries ratifying it.  African and the Asian Pacific regions had a very low rate of ratification of the Optional Protocol.  Ms. Shin appealed for more ratifications.  

WALEED SADI, Committee Member, stated that the problem was an overall general misperception of the operational value of economic, social and cultural rights.  Progressive realization did not mean an open-ended exercise for countries.  It meant that countries had to demonstrate that they had at least begun meeting their obligations.   Mr. Sadi stressed that no right could be pursued without a solid foundation for economic, social and cultural rights.  

IBRAHIM SALAMA, Director of the Human Rights Treaties Division of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, underlined the benefits of the ongoing dialogue between the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and States.  The Office had been involved in the process since 2009, at the very beginning of the process of strengthening of the treaty body system.  The system could not keep going without a lasting solution to the problem of funding.  Mr. Salama appealed to States as the creators of the system to advance economic, social and cultural rights in a way that created change on the ground.  There were increasingly more actors and stakeholders involved, but no one seemed to feel responsible for the entire structure.  States should make prioritization of their investments.  Only States could save the treaty body system.  

Concluding Remarks

MARIA VIRGINIA BRAS GOMES, Committee Chairperson, echoed Mr. Salama’s words, noting that none of the stakeholders wanted to lose their share of the construction.  Everyone should strive to maintain the treaty body system.  States had a major responsibility in enabling the system to move and not get restricted.  She thanked the delegations for coming and expressed hope to see them in September 2018.
__________

For use of the information media; not an official record