人权事务委员会和经济、社会和文化权利委员会纪念两大公约通过五十周年（部分翻译）

经济、社会和文化权利委员会

2016年6月23日

人权事务委员会和经济、社会和文化权利委员会今天下午召开联合会议，纪念《公民权利和政治权利国际公约》和《经济、社会及文化权利国际公约》通过五十周年。

经济、社会和文化权利委员会主席瓦利德•萨迪（Waleed Sadi）在开场发言中表示，联合会议旨在向世界展示两大公约如同孪生子。所有人权，包括经济、社会及文化权利和公民权利与政治权利这两方面应被视作是不可分割、相得益彰、相辅相成的。他期待有一天，这两大委员会将不仅在仪式上会面，还能进一步讨论这两方判例所共同包含的问题。

人权事务委员会主席费边•奥马尔•萨尔维奥利（Fabian Omar Salvioli）在开场发言中表示，两大委员会之间的合作问题关乎执行和条约机构的决心。关键问题是如何在实践中尊崇所有人权的不可分割性和相互依赖性。两个委员会的工作和决定必须考虑到那些人权受到侵犯的人。

人权理事会成员莎拉•克利夫兰（Sarah Cleveland）在发言中提到了人权事务委员会和经济、社会和文化权利委员会的补充做法。通过两大委员会在判例方面的发展，增加了对这两方面权利之间共性的理解。这并不意味着两大公约保护的权利相同，也不意味着应该采用同样的方式解读两者。重点在于，这之间的共性比人们通常意识到的多。

经济、社会和文化权利委员会成员奥利维尔•德舒特（Olivier de Schutter）指出，逐步实现并不能成为无限期延迟实现经济、社会及文化权利的借口。经济、社会和文化权利委员会现在面临的挑战是以《公约》的具体优势为基础，将国际人权法引向新的方向，即朝向人类发展的方向，并指导陷入金融危机和所谓“反恐战争”余波中的缔约国。

萨尔维奥利先生在总结发言中强调需要继续向前。新的文书必须提及人权的不可分割性和普遍适用性。委员会无权告诉人们何项权利更为基础。所有的人权都是基本权利。委员会解释文书的方式必须让对人权的最佳效果达到最大。

萨迪先生在结束会议时呼吁加强两方之间的联系。两个委员会需要召开更多定期会议，还需要加强两大委员会判例符合对方要求，因为它们的事业和使命本质上是一致的。

Opening Remarks

WALEED SADI, Chairperson of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, explained that the aim of the joint meeting was to demonstrate to the world that the two Covenants were twins. It was a surprise that such a joint meeting had not been held sooner. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was the bedrock for all human rights instruments. It treated all human rights, including economic, social and cultural rights, on one hand, and civil and political rights, on the other hand, as inseparable, complimentary and supplementary to one another. Mr. Sadi added that he looked forward to the day that the two Committees would meet not only ceremonially, but also to discuss issues on which the jurisprudence of the two sides would converge. That would be in keeping with the spirit and the letter of the Declaration. The divide between the two Committees had to be bridged. The joint meeting was only the beginning of a process that aimed to realize shared visions and goals.

FABIAN OMAR SALVIOLI, Chairperson of the Human Rights Committee, said that the issue of cooperation between the Committees was one of implementation and determination of the treaty bodies. The key question to be asked was how to enshrine in practice the indivisibility and interdependency of human rights. There was impact in both directions. That was the only way to implement indivisibility of human rights. Those persons whose human rights had been violated had to be taken into account in the work and decisions of the two committees.

Presentations

SARAH CLEVELAND, Member of the Human Rights Committee, spoke of the complementary practiced of the Human Rights Committee and the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. When the two Covenants had been adopted simultaneously fifty years earlier, they had been separated by perceived differences. United States President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s proposed “four freedoms” for the post-war international order, which included freedom from fear and want, freedom of speech and belief, acknowledged the interdependence of economic, social and cultural rights and civil and political rights, and were incorporated holistically into the Preamble of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Efforts to transform the Declaration into a single, legally binding Covenant soon had run against the shoals of Cold War politics, ultimately yielding the General Assembly’s solution in 1952 to divide the Covenants into two. Nevertheless, the General Assembly in 1950 had reaffirmed the need to complement traditional civil and political rights with economic, social and cultural rights. The Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights had been drafted with certain distinct differences from the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, with respect to both the general obligations imposed and monitoring procedures. The Covenant notably lacked both a treaty body to monitor implementation and an Optional Protocol to hear claims from individual victims. Nevertheless, the two Covenants had been adopted on the same day, via the same General Assembly resolution, to underscore their unity, indivisibility and equality of importance.

In the past fifty years, many of the original perceived differences between the two Covenants had substantially eroded. In 1985, a treaty body for the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights had been established. In 2008, the General Assembly had adopted the Optional Protocol establishing an individual petition mechanism for that treaty, which had entered into force in 2013. The understanding of the substantive differences between economic, social and cultural rights and civil and political rights had also diminished, through engaged efforts of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, national and regional courts, human rights bodies, victims and civil society. Benchmarking and indicators had advanced the ability to assess progress in the protection of economic, social and cultural rights. Parallel to those developments, the concept of due diligence and recognition of positive State obligations to protect and fulfill civil and political rights had increased the understanding of the commonalities between the two sets of rights. That was not to say that the two Covenants protected identical rights and that they be interpreted in the same way. The point was that commonalities were greater than was often appreciated.

OLIVIER DE SCHUTTER, Member of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, said that the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights sought to overcome the divide between the two Covenants in different ways. Not all elements of the Covenant were subject to progressive realization. Some rights were immediate rights. Progressive realization could not serve as an excuse for an indefinite postponement of the realization of rights, which was why the Committee systematically asked how domestic courts applied the Covenant. It contributed to the development on solidifying the normative framework for economic, social and cultural rights. Conceptual advances were made in a number of comments, from housing and health to food and water, from education to the right to sexual and reproductive health. The Committee was facing the second generation of challenges. The challenge today was to build on specific strengths of the Covenant and to move international human rights law in a new direction, namely towards human development and to guide State parties during financial crises and in the aftermath of the so-called “war on terror.”

To respond to the international debt crisis, a number of States had imposed restrictive fiscal measures, following the guidance of the International Monetary Fund and the European Central Bank. That was not a new phenomenon; it happened before. However, a number of questions remained unresolved, particularly about the consequences of those restrictive fiscal measures for the right to health, education and social security. How to ensure that States parties would not circumvent their duties under the Covenant? How could international financial organizations be held accountable in that respect? The question of extraterritorial State obligations also came to the fore, as well as the need to analyze public budgets and define spending priorities. Which taxation policies were most in line with the Covenant? How to arbitrate between different priorities where capacity of the State was limited? The rights-based approach needed to be anchored in the definition of development goals. Mr. De Schutter finished his presentation by quoting Nelson Mandela, who said that after climbing a great hill, one only found that there were many more hills to climb.

Discussion

Center for Civil and Political Rights said that over the years the two Committees had developed working methods that strengthened their mandates. Currently, both bodies had underscored the participation of civil society in their work. Harmonization would allow for greater efficiency and it would facilitate the participation of civil society in both Committees. The goal to harmonize should be reached in line with the best practices and not according to the lowest common denominator. Meetings with non-governmental organizations should be closed-door to ensure for a free and safe manner of expression. Consideration of reports in absentia could strengthen the Covenant and help States move ahead. An important part of the process were visits by Experts: follow-up visits by Committee Experts, organized by civil society, were fruitful and constructive. Joint visits by Experts from both committees would also be useful.

FIAN International welcomed the joint meeting and highlighted the importance of the space the Committees offered to victims. The international human rights system seemed to have been losing its legitimacy. States were misusing or bypassing human rights and were delegating those to corporate power, which was only interested in capturing governance space. The Committees were the only fora at the United Nations where human rights were not negotiated. FIAN International expressed confidence that the Committees would continue to defend the primacy of human rights. It welcomed the stress on the extraterritorial powers of States. At the same time, it alerted that the Sustainable Development Goals could distract the Committees’ attention from the whole work on human rights.

An Expert from the Human Rights Committee said that complementarity between the Covenants should be a continuous process. For example, the right to life should be conceptualized as the right to decent life. At the same time, the Committees should refrain as much as possible from dealing with issues covered by other treaty bodies.

Another Expert from the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights stated that it was unfortunate that there were two human rights instruments. The Vienna Declaration urged that indivisibility and universality of all human rights be applied. There was a growing impracticability of international monitoring of the implementation of human rights. He urged that small steps be made in order to make the work of the two Committees to streamline their procedures, such as monitoring and joint complaints procedure. The fiftieth anniversary provided an opportunity to test some new forms of cooperation.

Another Expert from the Human Rights Committee proposed that, without modifying internal regulation and creating new procedures, both Committees institutionalize their relations with non-governmental organizations that worked with the Committees. The Committees were enriched by their observations. There were some rights that were a bit more inherent to human beings, such as the right to life and safety, freedom of speech and thought, and the right to participate in political life.

An Expert from the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights noted that now both Covenants allowed individuals to bring forth their grievances. Protocols for both Covenants were indivisible, complimentary and universal. Direct access of alleged victims to both Committees was perhaps the best anniversary gift.

An Expert from the Human Rights Committee said that the fine way to celebrate the anniversary was indeed by holding a joint meeting to find ways to reconnect the two sets of rights. There was a need to bring end to States’ political impunity in observing economic, social and cultural rights. Those rights were not “toothless,” as the Anglophones would say; quote the contrary: those rights were truly rights that could be demanded. States would talk about the lack of sufficient resources to implement economic, social and cultural rights, but they needed to be implemented just like civil and political rights.

One Expert from the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights noted that there was no reason to maintain a division between economic, social and cultural rights on the one hand, and of civil and political rights on the other hand. Both sets of rights affected human dignity. Conceptually, the idea that economic, social and cultural rights implied expensive rights had already been outdated. Both groups of rights required investments. Jurisprudence had shown that it was possible to directly protect social rights in courts as well as it was to defend civil and political rights. A great deal of resistance had been observed by some States to ratify the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. He underlined that if States seriously wanted to defend the indivisibility and universality of human rights, then they could not ratify one Covenant and not the other.

Another Expert from the Human Rights Committee observed that civil society had a lot more to say during the joint meeting than State delegations. He stressed that the work of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights was exemplary and pioneering in gathering experts from all over the world, and from various ideological backgrounds. The Committee had managed to demonstrate that economic, social and cultural rights were genuine human rights inherent in human nature. It had also managed to show that States had obligations under the Covenant that were immediate obligations. He recalled that in the beginning of the 1980s States had been endeavoring to reconcile the two sets of rights within the framework of development. He proposed that the two Committees continue to meet jointly to see what they could do to promote global development.

One Expert from the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights underlined that all rights were interdependent and interrelated. There were 20 States that had not ratified either of the Covenants. The Committees should first make sure that all States ratified both Covenants. The Committees were part of the treaty body system, but at the same time they were the lead bodies, and it was their work that was the foundation for progress elsewhere. The process of the strengthening of treaty bodies, which was under way, depended on the use of appropriate financial resources. The Expert reminded that the Committees’ work was communicated in only three official languages of the United Nations, which meant that it was not sufficiently available to the wider public.

The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia underlined the importance of harmonization and implementation of the rights covered by the two Covenants. Somehow State parties were placed in a very unbalanced position, given that there was a difference in the number of States which had ratified either of the Covenants. There was no equal footing for States during the Universal Periodic Review due to that situation. There was a discrepancy in how the two sets of rights were evaluated in different regions of the world. How could that discrepancy be remedied on the ground?

An Expert from the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights expressed hope that more national ratifications of the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights would gradually take place.

Another Expert from the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights noted that retrospection should help the two Committees move forward. The question of the division between the two sets of rights had already been by and large resolved. Some residual manifestation remained of a fairly negligent attitude towards economic, social and cultural rights, but, in general, the Committees were already back on the right track. A structured approach to the cooperation between the two Committees was necessary. It was extremely important to cooperate on the issue of follow-up to concluding recommendations. All of that required adequate capacities and resources.

Uruguay noted that States did have an interest in participating in the joint meetings of the two Committees. It hailed the joint meeting as a good forum for the exchange of ideas, visions and good practices. The matter of indivisibility should take further root. Uruguay considered all rights interdependent and all its policy design efforts sought to underscore the cross-cutting nature of human rights. Universal ratification of the two Covenants was very important and Uruguay would continue efforts to recommend ratification of the Covenants.

One Expert from the Human Rights Committee underlined the importance to the universal ratification of the Covenants. It was unfortunate that the inter-committee meeting, namely the annual meeting of the chairs of committees, was discontinued. Internationally there was something of a push back against the international human rights project. Civil society needed to be part of the effort that would reverse that trend.

Ecuador stated that the joint meeting of the two Committees was a very rich and informative learning exercise. It expressed hope that such opportunities for dialogue would multiply, as well as the number of informal meetings. Ecuador also noted the need for a more coordinated work among various committees. Thanks to the fact that Ecuador had ratified a number of international human rights treaties, it had a constitution that very much respected human rights.

One Expert from the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights reminded that Chinese within the United Nations system was not a minority language. However, it was now in a worse position than a minority language. Human rights issues at the Human Rights Council were often politicized, but in the treaty bodies there was no such a phenomenon. The function of the Committees was to help State parties implement Covenant rights, rather than to condemn and use criticism.

Another Expert from the Human Rights Committee said that it would be interesting to see how the future jurisprudence of the two Committees would evolve, expressing hope that it would evolve in a manner of complementarity rather than competition. The development of common jurisprudence would strengthen the work of the two Committees and would strengthen the two Covenants.

One Expert from the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights noted that many complaints and communications received by the two Committees overlapped. Perhaps that area could be the starting point for cooperation.

Concluding Remarks

FABIAN OMAR SALVIOLI, Chairperson of the Human Rights Committee, explained that both Committees offered possibilities to States to participate in the adoption of concluding observations. He underscored the need to move ahead because in human rights it was always necessary to forge ahead. New instruments had to refer to the indivisibility and universality of human rights. It was not up to the Committees to tell people which rights were more fundamental than others. All human rights were fundamental. He paid tribute to the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights for having given meaning to the interdependence and indivisibility of human rights. The Human Rights Committee had never said so in its concluding comments. The Committees needed to interpret instruments in such a way that maximized the best effect for all human rights.

WALEED SADI, Chairperson of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, said that bridges between the two sides needed to be strengthened, perhaps through a follow-up to the joint meeting. More periodic meetings between the two Committees were desirable, and it would be desirable to make the jurisprudence of the two Committees correspond to each other because the cause and the mission of the two were the same.

__________

For use of the information media; not an official record

Follow UNIS Geneva on: Website | Facebook | Twitter | YouTube |Flickr