Human Rights Committee

Ninety-fifth Session

2622^nd & 2623^rd Meetings (AM & PM)

COMMITTEE MONITORING COMPLIANCE WITH CIVIL, POLITICAL RIGHTS COVENANT HEARS REPORTS

FROM RAPPORTEURS ON CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS, INDIVIDUAL COMMUNICATIONS

Also Continues Discussion on Working Methods,

Including Proposals on ‘Undue Delay’ in Submission of Communications

The expert committee which monitors the compliance of States Parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights met today to hear progress reports from its Special Rapporteurs -- for follow-up to concluding observations, and for follow-up to individual communications -- and continue its wide-ranging discussion on working methods.

Kicking off discussion in the Human Rights Committee, Sir Nigel Rodley, expert from the United Kingdom and Special Rapporteur for follow-up on concluding observations, presented his report (document CCRP/C/95/2), saying that there was a need to “tie down” the question over whether the Special Rapporteur -- or the Committee itself -- should remind States Parties that their reports were overdue.

Aside from that, he noted three gaps in the report’s “recommended action” sections for the Central African Republic, Namibia and Barbados.  Explaining those, he said he had consulted yesterday with Barbados and received a response that he would study and circulate.  The report would need to show that the response had been received and would be considered at the ninety-sixth session.  He recommended seeking meetings with the other two countries.  While he had heard informally that there might have been a response to some concluding observations, the Secretariat had been unable to verify that.  If there had been one, the report would be amended to reflect it.

The Committee then proceeded to a State-by-State read-through of the report, which covered 33States Parties, information requested from them, responses to those requests and recommended action.

Next, Committee Chair Yuji Iwasawa, expert from Japan, introduced the follow-up progress report on individual communications under the Covenant’s Optional Protocol (document CCPR/C/95/4), which compiled information received since the Committee’s ninety-fourth session, held 13-31 October 2008.

Mr. Iwasawa presented the report on behalf of Ivan Shearer, former Special Rapporteur on the follow-up on individual communications.  The report covers nine States Parties and contains communications on rights abuses alleged by individuals, including torture, degrading treatment in detention and discrimination, as well as violations of the rights to freedom of expression and fair trial.  On the one case requiring a decision by the Committee, involving the alleged violation of the right to life and ineffective remedy on appeal, the experts considered that dialogue on the matter was ongoing, and awaited action following the appointment of a new Special Rapporteur on communications.

Building on yesterday’s discussion of working methods, experts then weighed two proposals for handling the submission of individual communications to the Committee without “undue delay”.  A proposal submitted by Mr. Shearer envisaged the creation of a rule 96(g) in the Committee’s Rules of Procedure, whereby the Committee would consider a period of four years following the exhaustion of domestic remedies or, where applicable, two years from the termination of another procedure of international investigation or settlement, as constituting “undue delay”.  Sir Nigel had proposed a footnote to the existing rule 96 on the admissibility of a communication (document CCPR/C/95/R.5).

While the experts generally agreed that the Committee had the inherent power to amend or add new elements to its rules of procedure, a difference of opinion emerged on setting firm time limits by which a delayed submission would be considered sufficiently excessive as to amount to abuse of the right of submission.  Some believed the Committee should set maximum limits, while others thought the issue should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

Further, one expert wondered if the Committee should consider setting a limit after which a submission would be inadmissible and consideration of it would be terminated altogether.  Another wondered if the issue might be better dealt with as a “general comment” on inadmissibility of submissions.  Others remained concerned about letting slip the opportunity to take a decision on the matter, which the Committee had spent years discussing.

Michael O’Flaherty, expert from Ireland, said he was not a strong proponent of including time limits.  Indeed, general awareness was low about the Covenant and the Optional Protocol, much less the Committee’s rules of procedure.  It could not be expected that people would have the level of experience outside, for example Western Europe or some other regions, where time limits would do any good.

He did, however, support the development of guidance on when such delay would constitute an abuse of the right of submission, as outlined in Sir Nigel’s proposal.  Finally, he said that a decision on such an important matter could not be taken unless all Committee members were present.  “We need to move towards resolution […] and lose the old ghosts,” he said to a suggestion that the Committee return to Mr. Shearer’s text.

Rafael Rivas Posada, expert from Colombia, reminded the Committee that Mr. Shearer had never withdrawn his proposal, but had suggested that, since there had been no consensus at the time, discussion of the matter should continue.  Mr. Iwasawa, Committee Chair, agreed, and urged the Committee to return to the matter on Friday morning before the conclusion of the ninety-fifth session.

Focusing next on ways to strengthen the follow-up to concluding observations, Sir Nigel summarized a few suggestions outlined in document CCPR/C/95/5, saying first that he did not recommend, as noted in paragraph 24, an extension of the request to States Parties to send follow-up information within one year on all recommendations.  Explaining that some recommendations could not be implementable within that time period, he suggested keeping the procedure “as is”.

He said paragraph 26 carried the most intellectually challenging aspects, as it suggested classifying follow-up information provided from States Parties by categories that ranged from “largely satisfactory information” to “recommendation not implemented” to “no response” given.  Paragraph 28 raised the possibility of visits to States Parties to discuss issues arising from relevant follow-up recommendations, as had been done by the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women.

In the ensuing debate, experts asked to what extent a qualitative measurement could be introduced to the findings proposed in paragraph 26, and whether consideration had been given to the use of diverse information sources, including non-governmental organizations.  Regarding follow-up visits, one expert wondered how the Committee might work with field offices of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR).

Wrapping up the discussion, Sir Nigel noted that the experts might consider drafting a formal reminder from the Committee that a State Party’s report was overdue.  The Committee agreed on the general thrust of Sir Nigel’s recommendations and adopted the paper, also agreeing that it would be fine-tuned later.  The experts also stressed that the suggestions on strengthening the Committee’s follow-up procedure -- including that it could consider publishing on the OHCHR website individual letters sent to States Parties, as well as consider follow-up visits, which would enable it to more thoroughly monitor the implementation of recommendations at national levels -- be “derestricted” and issued as a public document.

The Committee then moved on to consider States Parties’ reports, and whether countries needed to submit an oral summary of their replies when coming before the Committee.  Sweden had not done so, which raised the question.

Experts were divided on the matter, with some saying it would be a waste of time to have a delegation repeat what it had already put in writing.  Others saw value in highlighting the main points of a country presentation, rather than teasing out too many details that, in the end, did not paint a full picture.

Mr. O’Flaherty agreed with the Chair that providing written responses in all languages in time for translationhad been a great improvement.  At the same time, he believed it was still important that the head of the delegation under review gave an opening statement.

On a related matter, he expressed frustration that the Committee seemed to be pressed for time and had to rush through part of its review of compliance reports.  The Committee traditionally put questions, in the first instance, to a State Party following the order of the articles of the Covenant.  In plenary, consideration was divided over two meetings –- generally articles 1-14 in one meeting and 15-27 in another.  Mr. O’Flaherty was concerned that, because of time constraints, the Committee was often forced to rush through the second half of its consideration.

Ms. Wegwood suggested that perhaps the Committee task force in charge of a particular State Party’s compliance report be allowed to prioritize the list of questions, rather than just follow the order of the articles of the Covenant.  That would allow the Committee to address first the issues the task force felt were most important.  Mr. Rivas Posada cautioned the Committee about considering such significant changes to its working methods without in-depth consultations among all experts.

The Committee on Human Rights will reconvene at 10 a.m. Friday, 3 April, to conclude its ninety-fifth session.

* **** *

For information media • not an official record