Human Rights Committee

Ninety-second Session

2528^th Meeting* (PM)

HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE DISCUSSES HOW TO RAISE ITS MEDIA, PUBLIC PROFILE,

AS IT HOLDS SECOND MEETING TO CONSIDER WORKING METHODS

 

Meeting to discuss its working methods for the second time during the current session, the Human Rights Committee today focused particularly on matters related to raising the 18-member body’s profile in the media and public spheres, and enhancing dissemination of its concluding comments.

Before the Committee was a report titled “Strategic approach to public relations, including relations with the media” (document CCPR/C/92/CRP.2), which contains 11 recommendations.  It was prepared by Ivan Shearer, expert from Australia, who had introduced the document last Monday, when the members opened their discussion on working methods, which included matters relating to obligations of States parties under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the revision of the guidelines for State reports under the Covenant.

The introduction of the report acknowledges the need for a new approach to the Committee’s relations with the media and highlights its understanding of the need to ensure that its work is made known beyond “a small circle of academics and Government lawyers, who specialize in human rights law and the international human rights NGO community”.

Also today, the Committee continued its paragraph-by-paragraph consideration of the recommendations, which included:  enhancing the website of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, and making that portal easier to use and understand; promoting knowledge of the Committee’s work at the grass-roots level, especially in places where getting access to the Internet was difficult; considering a change of venue for the Committee’s public sessions in Geneva to the Palais des Nations to allow greater public attendance and media coverage; and considering podcasting the Committee’s public sessions.

The experts held a lively debate on whether the public sessions would be better publicized if held at the Palais des Nations or Palais Wilson.  While several experts felt that the Palais des Nations might provide a larger and more widely recognized venue, they were concerned about access to that location, as well as logistical matters, such as the ability of Conference Services to provide adequate assistance.  One speaker expressed reservations about videotaping the sessions, asking how the Committee could be sure the video was being used properly.

Michael O'Flaherty, expert from Ireland, noted, however, that the official name of the Palais Wilson was the “Palais des Droits de l'Homme” (Human Rights Building).  It was where the High Commissioner for Human Rights sat and where the preponderance of United Nations human rights monitoring bodies carried out their work.  All that made it a very important location to continue holding -- and publicizing -- the Committee’s work.  Another expert reiterated his desire to have the Secretariat clarify whether or not audiotapes of the Committee’s public meetings were readily and easily available to the public.

Taking up a recommendation on ways to encourage individual Committee members’ comments on the body’s work, Maurice Glèlè-Ahanhanzo, expert from Benin, stressed that, in most developing countries, especially throughout Africa, few people really knew what the Committee did.  Surely the Committee must recognize that treaty bodies were considered a sort of “elite club”.  The Committee should consider carrying out one- or two-person missions to States parties that were coming up for review.  He also underscored his concern that more Member States did not attend the Committee’s meetings in New York.

During that discussion, the experts considered a related issue on their identity and functions, particularly those members serving on task forces dealing with specific country reports.  There was also concern about the confidentiality of the identity of the rapporteurs in relation to particular communications under the Optional Protocol.  While their identities were traditionally kept secret for fear they might come under improper pressure, some experts believed that fear was being overstated.  Experts with particular interest in a States party’s compliance report had a role to play in speaking publicly about the reasons that moved the Committee to adopt its concluding observations.  The experts decided to ask the Secretariat to begin a study of other treaty bodies’ experience with press conferences and individual press statements.

Moving on to recommendations on the Committee’s annual session wrap-up press conference, Mr. Shearer noted that the event had traditionally been led by the Committee Chairperson and members of the Bureau.  Perhaps the Committee should consider opening the participation in that press conference and holding it earlier in the last week of the body’s work.  Abdelfattah Amor, expert from Tunisia, stressed that the Committee must give priority to reviewing States’ reports and to preparing final comments.  At the same time, it could consider ways to speed up consideration of those reports and the adoption of its final observations.  It should avoid, at all costs, holding the wrap-up press conference on a Friday.

Zonke Zanele Majodina, expert from South Africa, urged the Committee to consider wholesale changes in how it dealt with the press so that it could raise wider awareness about its concluding observations, which were very important.  Everyone knew that they often did not see the light of day outside the offices of the respective members of Government delegations whose compliance reports were up for review.  The Committee must do more to address that issue.  Mr. Amor added that perhaps the Committee could decide not only to hold press conferences or release press communiqués throughout the session, but also hold an introductory briefing just before its work began, to raise awareness about which country reports were being reviewed.

At the same time, Sir Nigel Rodley, expert from the United Kingdom, reminded the Committee that press releases based on the experts’ work were being issued daily and the question was, therefore, how much attention they were getting.  While press coverage of most other treaty bodies was clearly highlighted on the website of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, there was no mention there of the Committee’s activities.  That was troubling, because press releases were certainly being issued.

He also noted that the in-house press releases issued in New York mentioned the experts by name, while that was not the case in Geneva.  Not mentioning the names of the experts was “tailor made” to have the press releases ignored.  Could the Secretariat find some way to harmonize the process?  Iulia Antoanella Motoc, expert from Romania, noted that, at times, the press releases did not accurately reflect Committee members’ comments.  The experts must find a way to correct those inconsistencies.  The Committee must also make sure that its work was distinguished from that of the Human Rights Council.

The experts’ consideration of those issues concluded with a discussion on whether one of its members should be appointed rapporteur for public information to publicize the body’s work in the various official languages.  Some were concerned that, if a single member were appointed, he or she might be mistaken as a “spokesperson” for the Committee.  Perhaps a three-person team would be a better option.  But others noted that, in the eyes of some in the press, the Committee’s Chair was already considered the spokesperson.  The Committee agreed to come back to the matter during its July session.

In other business, the Committee took up an issue considered by its Bureau in closed session:  the inadmissibility of communications under article 2 of the Covenant’s Optional Protocol.  Under that article, individuals who claim their rights have been violated, and who have exhausted all domestic remedies, may submit a written communication for the Committee’s consideration.  Under Covenant article 3, the Committee shall consider inadmissible any communication which is anonymous, or which it considers to be an abuse of the right of submission of such communications or to be incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant.

The Human Rights Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. on Friday, 4 April, to conclude its current session.

* *** *

__________

*     The 2525^th, 2526^th and 2527^th Meetings were closed.

For information media • not an official record