Human Rights Committee

Eighty-ninth Session

2434^th Meeting* (AM)

Human Rights Committee Considers Proposal to Formalize Relationship Between

National Human Rights Institution and International Treaty Bodies

The Human Rights Committee met this morning to consider, under the heading of its working methods, a nascent proposal to formalize a relationship between national human rights institutions and international treaty bodies.

Opening the discussion, the Committee Secretary, Patrice Gillibert, introduced the report on the conclusions of the International Round Table on the Role of National Human Rights Institutions and Treaty Bodies, which was held in Berlin on 23 and 24 November, 2006 (document HRI/MC/2007/3).  The document contained the text of a draft on a harmonized approach to engagement of national human rights institutions with treaty body processes.

Many of the Committee’s 18 experts offered their comments on the text, deeming it an important initiative.  Contact between the Committee and National Human Rights Commissions would be very positive in terms of the Committee’s work in promoting respect for human rights, many said.  However, experts also agreed that it was premature for the Committee to commit itself to backing the initial recommendations, as, according to the Committee Chairman, Rafael Rivas Posada of Colombia the discussion was “still rather embryonic” and would be developed, perhaps at the next Inter-Committee meeting in June in Geneva.

Prafullachandra Natwarlal Bhagwati, expert from India, agreed on the need for greater cooperation between the Committee and national human rights institutions.  The National Human Rights Commission in his country had not had any close contact with either him or the Committee.  Insofar as States parties’ reporting was concerned, the national human rights institutions should be asked to play a greater role and to submit a “shadow” report.  In India, the commission was totally independent and headed by a Supreme Court Judge, and its contribution concerning the country’s compliance with the Covenant would be a valuable one.  

Walter Kälin, expert from Switzerland, said it was very important that the document made clear that all the rights of special relationship between the institutions and the Committee be established in accordance with the 1993 Paris Principles, which relate to the status and functioning of national institutions for protection and promotion of human rights.  He said more discussion was needed about reporting, specifically the nature of the formal interaction with the national institutions and the extent to which the relationship would be compatible with the Covenant.  He sought clarification on the recommendation that would have the institutions participate in the concluding recommendations of treaty bodies. 

Michael O’Flaherty, expert from Ireland, strongly supported enhanced cooperation.  He suggested that the draft on a harmonized approach be shared with non-governmental organizations in order to invite their views. However, the Committee must not preclude the possibility of engaging in dialogue with national institutions that were not compliant with the Paris Principles. Many might not be, and that reality should be taken into account.  While the focus in the proposed draft was on treaty bodies, he suggested that national human rights institutions also take a lead in follow-up.  A common approach could also be elaborated with regard to how treaty bodies dealt with civil society as well. 

Compliance with the Paris Principles was not the same all over, said the expert from Tunisia, Abdelfattah Amor, and he, too, had no interest in establishing any exclusivity, but every interest in ensuring that the voice of the Committee was heard.  Cutting off contact with institutions not set up in accordance with the Paris Principles would not be in the Committee’s interest.  There was a risk, however, of stripping a State party of its responsibility, as it might be tempted to shirk its responsibility with the Committee.  It was the State that was the Committee’s main partner, and not the national human rights institutions.  So, the States’ responsibility to the Committee should “not be watered down”, he said. 

Ruth Wedgwood, expert from the United States, warned that institutionalizing formal relations with national human rights institutions could give the appearance that the Committee was acquiescing with institutions that were not non-governmental organizations.  The new Human Rights Council had been equivocal about its relationship with civil society, allowing non-governmental organizations to propose agenda items and take the floor in debates.  States could use a formal relationship with national human rights institutions to tell non-governmental organizations that they must have their comments filtered through the human rights institutions before presenting them to the Committee.

Summing up, the Committee Chairman said the possible nature of the formal relations between the national institutions and the Committee should be spelled out more precisely, leading to more direct cooperation with the Committee.  There was also a possibility of hearing from those institutions in the Committee’s debates and proceedings.  He stressed that today’s discussion and the draft text before the experts was “just a new stab”.  With that in mind, it was a useful document and a launching point for further discussions. 

The Committee Secretary reinforced the practice that non-governmental organizations made a bigger contribution to the Committee’s work, as things presently stood, yet neither the Covenant nor the Committee’s rules of procedure talked about civil society players or non-governmental organizations’ role in that regard.  Nevertheless, it had become established practice for those organizations to confidentially brief the experts.  Among his other points, he said that States parties’ reports should not neglect the realities in the field. 

The Human Rights Committee will meet again at 11 a.m. on Wednesday, 21 March to continue its work. 

* *** *

__________

*     The 2433^rd Meeting was closed.

For information media • not an official record