Opening address by Ms. Kyung-wha Kang, United Nations Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights to the Strengthening the Human Rights Treaty Body System Dublin II meeting

Distinguished participants,

             I am very pleased to open the Dublin II meeting on behalf of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navy Pillay, who unfortunately cannot be with you today.  She conveys to you her sincere regrets, as well as her heartfelt thanks to the convening group for organizing this important wrap-up meeting of the treaty body strengthening process.

            As you all recall two years ago, in the General Assembly the High Commissioner called upon all stakeholders to initiate a process of reflection on ways to strengthen the treaty body system, following a bottom-up, inclusive and transparent approach.

Twenty-four months later, we note with great satisfaction that we have come a long way, with several consultations having taken place among different actors, including treaty bodies’ experts, States Parties to international human rights treaties, national human rights institutions and civil society starting here in Dublin, followed by Marrakesh, Poznan, Seoul, Sion, Pretoria, Bristol and Luzern. The result of these consultations have been many and varied proposals. With the exception of the consultation in Sion, organized by our Office for Member States, and a very recent meeting on how to improve the individual communications procedures with a number of treaty body experts, all consultations were initiated and hosted by external partners, such as academic institutions or national human rights institutions, with the support of their respective governments. This process has reflected the very nature of the multi stakeholder treaty body system. Indeed, treaty body outputs provide precious advice to States parties and updated advocacy tools to NHRIs and civil society, contribute to better integrating human rights considerations into the work of UN agencies and programmes, and furnish the UPR with the content to ensure that the peer review is based on objective substance, rather than selective political considerations.

            As you are well aware, since 2004, the human rights treaty body system has doubled in size, with the addition of four new treaty bodies [CMW, CRPD, SPT, and the CED], two new optional protocols for individual complaints [CRPD and ICESCR], and one in the making [CRC]. Today, the core international human rights treaties together add up to 1565 ratifications. This in itself should be seen as a success story for the United Nations and human rights protection in general. However, with the first session of the 10th treaty body on enforced disappearance that just opened this week, the system has reached its limits both in terms of coherence and sustainable functioning within currently available resources.

            This growth, as well as the individual approaches of the treaty bodies, has created major challenges. The fragmentation of the treaty body system and the multiplication of procedures call for continuous, ongoing harmonization and coordination. The Annual Meeting of Chairpersons of treaty bodies and the Inter-Committee Meeting have produced a number of useful recommendations towards harmonization of working methods among the treaty bodies. Yet optimal system-wide coherence, respectful of normative specificities have not been reached. We must also recognize that the harmonization exercise, while important, can only go so far in addressing the challenges posed by the expansion of the treaty body system. No amount of harmonization can make up to the dire need for additional resources which should come from the regular budget of the UN.

            The 2009 call of the High Commissioner aimed at stimulating thinking among treaty body experts, and all other stakeholders to forge a vision for the future, where all treaty bodies can strengthen their impact at country level on rights holders, rather than see their work and relevance eroded by an expanded but weakened, under-resourced and fragmented system.

            Taking stock, we see that no stakeholder has put forward during these two years a comprehensive proposal that would address the root-causes of the problems faced today by all human rights treaty bodies. Such a comprehensive proposal was not necessarily to be expected as the challenges are complex, broad-ranged and multifaceted, there is no easy fix. Nevertheless, several proposals that have been made along the way have, in my view, a very sound justification. For example, nobody disputes the need for the treaty body public meetings to be webcasted and the wish that all ten treaty bodies better align their engagement with States, National Human Rights Institutions and civil society.

            Further, it is evident that strengthening the treaty bodies’ work and impact is a dynamic process which did not start with the High Commissioner’s call and will not end with her report. Strengthening happens almost every day, and some very good initiatives are already underway, such as the new optional and rationalized reporting procedure proposed by three treaty bodies, and the decision of the Chairs to enhance their powers, to meet every other year at regional level and to engage in the drafting guidelines on the independence of members. Also, some treaty bodies have lately been facilitating webcasting by NGOs as a first step towards introducing webcasting by UN Conference Services.  These on-going efforts will be improved with the release of the High Commissioner’s report next year.

             But, back to the task in hand. What lies in front of us towards the finalizing the “Dublin Process”?  This 2-day meeting is expected to adopt an wrap-up outcome that will feed into the High Commissioner report.  Her report, which will be published during the summer of 2012, is expected to represent all proposals in a coherent framework, attempting to assemble many, if not all, the pieces of this complex puzzle. All proposals will be assessed on their merits and they will be costed. Some will be cost neutral, others will have a real cost.  We foresee two rounds of consultations on the principal proposals that will stem from the report, both with States parties in Geneva and New York and with the participation of treaty body chairs. With 195 States parties and 172 treaty body members, it will be a daunting challenge for the High Commissioner to gather full support for each proposal that has been made by you and other stakeholders. But we are hopeful that the High Commissioner’s report nevertheless will be met with wide support from all parties.  

Distinguished participants, we are all aware of the financial constraints that the global community is currently facing. However, we cannot afford to weaken the treaty body system, this central pillar for human rights protection simply for lack of resources. Significant improvements of the treaty body system can be achieved at no cost, as a fair amount of proposals only require the improvement of working methods. But other proposals have a financial dimension and, our Office has been energetically reaching out to Member States to explain this.

The treaty bodies, the Office and States parties are three “movers” of the treaty body system, but each with no full control. Nonetheless, treaty body members are at the heart of this triangular process and hold a privileged position because of their independence and the normative nature of their work.

On the other hand, States parties are the architects and financers of the system, and it is crucial that treaty bodies strengthen their partnership with them, by responding to their call for an optimal harmonization of their methods of work, better time management, stronger chairing, as well as accurate and credible concluding observations.

As I indicated, two more consultations with States are under preparation. Your shared vision will be crucial in facilitating their engagement on clear grounds to achieve the common purpose of all stakeholders: improved human rights protection.

Two years ago, the first Dublin consultation paved the way for the treaty body strengthening process by setting the key principles which have guided all the ensuing consultations and their outcome statements. Today, Dublin II and its outcome document will provide a solid basis for the report of the High Commissioner by refining the major proposals made throughout the process and identifying gaps which have not been addressed so far. For this reason, the High Commissioner, I, and my OHCHR colleagues present here, all see your work during these two days with high expectations and anticipation. We are delighted to take part over in these very important discussions, which I am sure will be very fruitful and intellectually stimulating.

Thank you.

*****