HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE DISCUSSES DRAFT GENERAL COMMENTS ON REPORTING OBLIGATIONS, NATIONAL LEGAL OBLIGATIONS

Human Rights Committee

Seventy-fourth Session

1999^th & 2000^th Meetings* (AM & PM)

HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE DISCUSSES DRAFT GENERAL COMMENTS

ON REPORTING OBLIGATIONS, NATIONAL LEGAL OBLIGATIONS

The expert members of the Human Rights Committee -- charged with monitoring implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights -- set aside two meetings today for consideration of "general comments" being prepared on ways to help States parties meet their reporting obligations more effectively, and ways to further define the scope of national legal obligations under the Covenant.

The Committee was established to monitor the implementation of the Covenant and its related Protocols in the territory of the States parties.  Its 18 members -- independent experts -- are empowered to consider reports on measures adopted and progress made in achieving the observance of the rights enshrined in the Covenant.  The Committee issues “general comments” in order to draw attention to some aspects of its concluding observations or recommendations on the reports of States parties and can, among other things, highlight insufficiencies disclosed by a large number of reports, suggest improvements in reporting procedures and promote the activities of those States and international organizations in the promotion and protection of human rights. 

Cristine Chanet of France introduced a paper on revisions to the Committee’s draft General Comment No. 1 on States parties reporting obligations under the Covenant.  The eight-paragraph text included revisions to the original comment’s language on ways to remedy delays in the submission of reports by States parties, and other issues, such as the failure of States parties to appear before the Committee on a scheduled date.

While experts agreed on the overall thrust of the proposal, many expressed concerns about the clarity of the language used.  One expert said the Committee should take care not to overestimate what could reasonably be expected from most State parties.  He feared the Committee had a tendency to put forward too many proposals.  It was hard enough, he said, for some States to meet the minimum requirements under the Covenant’s reporting obligations.  Another expert said that overall, a general comment should be a free-standing document without requiring the reader to refer to another document, namely the Committee’s Rules of Procedure.  Every attempt should be made to make such comments as clear as possible, particularly for those that may not be familiar with the intricacies of the Committee’s procedures.

____________

*     The 1995^th, 1996^th, 1997^th and 1998^th meetings were closed. 

Nigel Rodley of the United Kingdom introduced a paper on the Committee’s draft general comment on article 2 (nature of general legal obligations imposed on States parties).  He noted that, if adopted, the paper would replace the Committee’s existing General Comment 3 (1981) and that it did not address the non-discrimination provisions of article 2 and should be read together with General Comment 18 (1989), which addressed that issue.

The 16-paragraph draft covered an overview of article 2 of the Covenant, noting that its provisions formed the backdrop for all the substantive rights specified in the Covenant and provided the overarching framework within which those substantive rights were to be promoted and protected.  The draft also highlighted the article 2 requirement that States parties take the necessary steps to give effect to the Covenant in their domestic order.  It also noted that the Committee believed it was important to raise the level of awareness about the Covenant among public officials and State agents, as well as among wider citizenry and intended beneficiaries of the rights enumerated in the Covenant.

Several experts commented on the overall draft text, noting that it was high time to look at article 2, particularly the importance of highlighting domestic obligations under the Covenant.  One expert hoped that the Committee would consider some of the scenarios States had devised to get around the provisions of article 2 of the Covenant.  Another expert said there must be a way to acknowledge the immediacy of State obligations under article 2, while also acknowledging the fact that the reform of internal legislation often took time.  Another expert wondered if the Committee could in some way address the politicization of human rights, which often resulted in the failure of friendly States to report certain incidents or occurrences.  Pointing out violations of the Covenant was not an act of betrayal, he added, it was the obligation of all States parties.

The Committee is expected to take up the drafts again at its July session.

After its consideration of draft general comments, the Committee held a discussion on the efficacy of transferring its New York session to Geneva, primarily owing to a difficulty of securing effective support services and the new budgetary restrictions imposed by the Secretariat. 

The Committee Chairman, Prafullachandra Natwarlal Bhagwati of India, proposed that he consult with the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, either in early April or when the Committee reconvened in Geneva in July, about the possible move to Geneva.  He also proposed that a “strong” letter be drafted to the Secretary-General expressing concern over the loss of honorariums for independent experts.

The Committee will meet again at a time to be announced.

* *** *