Human Rights Committee

Ninety-fifth Session

2625^th Meeting* (PM)

HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE CONTINUES DISCUSSION ON WORKING METHODS

Meeting briefly this afternoon to discuss its working methods, the Human Rights Committee considered a range of issues aimed at streamlining its reporting procedures and improving interaction and communication with States Parties to the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights.

Continuing a discussion it began yesterday, the 18-member Committee, which monitors worldwide implementation of the Covenant and its Optional Protocol, generally agreed that the efficiency of its work could be enhanced if all States provided comprehensive written summaries answering the list of questions submitted by the Committee’s experts.  In this, speakers noted the importance of having documents arrive at the Secretariat in good time for translation in all official languages of the United Nations.

Abdelfattah Amour, expert from Tunisia, reminded the Committee, which holds three sessions each year -- two in Geneva and one in New York -- that the respective Secretariats were duty bound to provide translation if documents arrived at least three weeks before consideration.  However, States Parties were not required to provide written answers to the Committee’s questions.

Nevertheless, since the Committee’s review of compliance reports took place in open session, it could urge the respective heads of delegations to summarize key points.  As to whether the experts needed to take a decision today on requiring States Parties to provide written answers to questions, he said: “The Committee doesn’t need new rules for everything.  It should concentrate on implementing the ones it already has.”

Before discussion of the matter was closed, the Committee’s Secretary, Nathalie Prouvez, informed the experts that States Parties were encouraged to send their written replies earlier than three weeks before the Committee’s consideration, “because [three weeks] is just not enough time” for translation into all official languages.  The Committee’s Bureau sent out lists of issues as soon as they were adopted, with clear indication that they needed to be received far in advance.  By example, she said that for the current session, which had begun in mid-March, States Parties had been informed that their responses were required by 1 January.

In a brief discussion on whether the Committee could more effectively examine a country’s compliance report over two or more days rather than one, Michael O’Flaherty, expert from Ireland, commented that “to the extent that it’s possible, let’s do it”.  He urged staying flexible and agreed that, if the Committee’s schedule permitted, devoting more time to considering such reports was a good way to proceed.

Delegates next addressed whether the Committee as a whole should be responsible for reminding any States Parties overdue in submitting periodic reports, with most agreeing that, indeed, it should.  For those States substantially overdue, one expert suggested sending letters with slightly different wording.

Mr. O’Flaherty said “let’s not rush it”, and pointed out that most States Parties were late in submitting their periodic reports.  He suggested adopting a procedure that took account of -– and was harmonized with -- procedures in other United Nations treaty monitoring bodies.  He was concerned that the issue was complex, and required reflection based on what those other committees did.

To that point, Ms. Prouvez responded that one United Nations treaty body -– the Committee against Torture -– had asked that reminders be sent.  There was definitely scope for discussion on the issue, perhaps in the inter-treaty meeting.

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

* *** *

__________

*     The 2624^th Meeting was closed.

For information media • not an official record