Human Rights Committee

Ninety-fifth Session

2621^st Meeting* (PM)

HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE CONSIDERS POSSIBLE CHANGES TO RULES OF PROCEDURE GOVERNING

SUBMISSIONS OF INDIVIDUAL COMMUNICATIONS UNDER OPTIONAL PROTOCOL

Proposal Submitted on Undue Delay in Submitting Communications

The expert committee which monitors the compliance of State parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights met this afternoon to consider possible changes to its rules of procedure governing submission of individual communications under the Covenant’s Optional Protocol.

Under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant, 111 States parties recognize the competence of the Committee on Human Rights to consider confidential communications from individuals claiming to be victims of violations of any rights proclaimed under the treaty.

Sir Nigel Rodley, expert from the United Kingdom, proposed a possible footnote to Rule 96 of the Committee’s Rules of Procedure on the admissibility of a communication (CCPR/C/95/R.5).  The document tried to cut through the issues the Committee continued to face regarding undue delay in submissions.

While his proposal did not have a “hard” rule on the inadmissibility of such submissions, he said it was an attempt to prevent the Committee’s constant discussion about whether excessive delays amounted to an “abuse to the right of submission”.  He said he was among those that wanted to see some restrictions on those that wanted to submit communication “at any time whatsoever”, but believed that such restriction must be “flexible and non-arbitrary”.

Among the Committee members who participated in the discussion, Rafael Rivas Posada, expert from Colombia, said it was important to avoid talking in circles, when defining a communication as an abuse of law.  The proposal merely stated that the Committee could label a particular communication as an abuse of law if it was submitted too late.  The Committee must decide if there were other types of inadmissibility that constituted an abuse of law.  Were all delays possible causes of abuse of law?  The Committee must be able to explain that.

Abdelfattah Amor, expert from Tunisia, agreed, saying delay was but one of the possible expressions of abuse of law.  “Are we trying to solve one problem by creating another?” he asked, reminding his fellow experts that previous proposals on the issue had urged the Committee not to close the door to justifiable circumstances behind a specific delay.  That, in turn, implied the need for some sort of arbitration, using clear guidelines, allowing the Committee to decide on a clear ruling.  Did the Committee want a long text of lists of justifiable delays?  Unless the Committee could decide on this, this debate could go on forever, he added.

Next, Ruth Wegewood, expert from the United States, urged the Committee to consider the associated problems caused by delays, such as those related to fact-finding -- “Governments can’t find the files after 10-15 years, for example” -- or the inability to give a real remedy after too much time has passed.  For those reasons alone, the Committee would certainly require rules governing timelines for lodging complaints and pleading. 

On a different note, she said the Committee must do more to obtain cases with some jurisprudential “impact”, and suggested that members push the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to advertise the availability of this remedial procedure.  She said the Committee should spend more time thinking about getting cases that made a difference for as many people as possible.

The Committee on Human Rights will reconvene at 11 a.m. on Wednesday, 1 April, to hear progress reports from its special rapporteurs for follow-up to concluding observations, and for follow-up to views.

* *** *

__________

*     The 2614^th through the 2620^th Meetings were closed.

For information media • not an official record