Human Rights Committee

Ninety-eighth Session

2709^th Meeting* (AM)

Human Rights Committee Adopts Report of Special Rapporteur

 

for Follow-Up on Concluding Observations

 

The Human Rights Committee today adopted the report, as orally amended, of its Special Rapporteur for Follow-Up on Concluding Observations, which provides a country-by-country update on correspondence with State parties on implementation of the expert body’s recommendations on their compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The Committee also considered the draft report of the Tenth Inter-Committee Meeting of the human rights treaty bodies, which was held from 30 November to 2 December 2009 in Geneva.

Opening the meeting, Abdelfattah Amor, expert from Tunisia and the Special Rapporteur for Follow-Up on Concluding Observations, paid tribute to the Secretariat’s work on the follow-up report, but further underscored the impact of the Committee’s limited resources by noting that several country responses, which were been received months ago, had yet to be translated.  Since Sweden had sent information before the deadline ‑‑ and that response had been analysed, but not included in the report ‑‑ he suggested it be added to the final draft.

Turning to the report as a whole, he highlighted the status of the follow-up to reports from 31 countries and one United Nations Mission in the order in which they were received.  Among them, four countries ‑‑ Barbados, San Marino, Nicaragua and Monaco ‑‑ had not responded, and should have reminders sent to them.  A reminder would also be sent to Botswana, which had requested and been granted an extension of its deadline.

He said reports from Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, the Czech Republic, Costa Rica and Japan had been received and were currently being translated and would subsequently be analysed.  Additional information had been received from Tunisia after its report was sent to translation and that information would be included in the final report and examined at a later date.

Austria’s recent response was considered satisfactory overall and the Committee had no other recommended actions, he said.  There were no recommendations for Brazil, since that country had not submitted anything.  Some of the recommendations for Hong Kong had not been followed up on and, although the Committee had requested a fuller response, it currently had no further recommendations, since that party’s next periodic report was due in the first half of April.

For Honduras, Panama and Madagascar, which had been sent numerous reminders to respond, he suggested the Committee consider requesting consultations.  While he had been assured during consultations with Chile last year that its responses would be sent as soon as possible, nothing had been received.  Thus, a reminder should be sent and, possibly, a request for new consultations.

He went on to say that, despite a number of reminders, the Central African Republic had not submitted any response to the Committee to date.  A request was made for consultations with the New York-based representatives of the country without success.  Expected consultations with Algeria to discuss the follow-up procedure had not been possible in New York, and it was hoped they could be held in Geneva.

Meanwhile, a number of responses were incomplete, he said.  After partial replies were received from the United States in May, the Committee had requested the remaining questions be answered in the periodic report due later this year.  Some aspects of both Ireland’s and France’s recent responses also required more detailed analysis.  In the case of Ireland, a request for more information was made two months ago and a similar request should be directed to France.  Likewise, the Committee would be requesting specific recent information on displaced persons from the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

He went to say that, while Ukraine had submitted a response in 2009, the Committee would have to issue further recommendations and also discuss that country’s failure to implement some of the Committee’s earlier observations.  Similarly, the United Kingdom had submitted information last year, but additional information on certain questions was needed.  Moreover, certain recommendations had not been implemented.

Responses from Denmark and Zambia were also incomplete, he said, noting that follow-up questions should be sent.  A reminder should be sent to Spain, which, he said, did not seem “at all happy” with the Committee’s recommendations and had not reacted to the priority questions that were sent.

During this rundown, Michael O’Flaherty, expert from Ireland, suggested that each recommended action in the report should refer to the specific paragraphs in a country’s response that were considered incomplete so Committee members, as well as the general public, would know which actions required further action.  Mr. Amor indicated that his notes to the State parties were explicit and, for the sake of transparency, he would include those details in the Committee’s updated report.

He said that the Sudan’s report covered all of the necessary concluding observations, but the Committee had never received a series of annexes that, in principle, should be analysed along with the report.  A note verbale had been sent requesting those annexes, but if they did not appear, the analysis would have to be conducted without them.  Also, the information Libya submitted was based on a certain perception of that country and was neither complete, nor satisfactory.  Additional information had been requested, and if it was not received soon, a reminder should be sent and an oral request for consultations made.

Before the Committee turned to the report by the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), the experts discussed how to refer to Kosovo in its header to that Mission’s report, with Mr. O’Flaherty suggesting that the title used in past reports should continue to be used and Krister Thelin, expert from Sweden, arguing that it should instead be aligned with the formulation included in a report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

After Mr. Amor explained that the title in the French version of his report read “Report on UNMIK on the situation of human rights in Kosovo, submitted on 2 February 2006,” the Secretary explained that the title was not included in the English and Spanish versions due to a formatting error.  In response, Mr. Thelin said he was happy to use the French version, which was what the Committee had previously used.  Rounding out discussion on UNMIK, Mr. Amor said the information the Committee had received was currently being analysed and the report would be updated to reflect his oral comments.

Before adopting the report, the Committee’s members briefly discussed whether assigning more than one Special Rapporteur based on his or her linguistic expertise ‑‑ or even just having an English-speaker fill that role ‑‑ would speed up the consideration of country responses, before agreeing to address that matter in its meeting on working methods.  They also touched on whether, given the high rates of non-compliance by States parties, the Committee was being too general in its recommendations and should make more targeted comments to help the Special Rapporteur in following up.  Mr. Amor said that, based on his experience, the priority questions should be limited in number and the urgency and feasibility of obtaining the responses to them should be taken into account.  Too often, when considering concluding observations, the experts tended to multiply the questions.

The Committee’s discussion on the draft report on the Tenth Inter-Committee Meeting was led by Mr. Amor and Nigel Rodley, expert from the United Kingdom, who attended that meeting.  They reported that a “fairly substantial” revision to the follow-up work of the human rights treaty bodies had been recommended ‑‑ namely the establishment of a working group on follow-up to treaty-body output, with subgroups on follow-up to concluding observations and to individual communications.  These thematic working groups would be reviewed every two years.

Mr. Rodley said this proposal was intended to move the human rights treaty bodies towards serious harmonization.  While each individual committee would keep its follow-up rapporteurs, the possibility of moving towards group follow-up was “in the air”.  If this happened ‑‑ and it was up to the committee chairpersons to confirm at their July meeting ‑‑ only one session of the Inter-Committee Meeting would be held each year.  Each of those annual meetings would, as a rule, focus on harmonization, with a second theme chosen at the previous meeting.  Moreover, only two representatives of each committee would attend the Inter-Committee Meeting.

Calling the last session of the Inter-Committee Meeting one of its most interesting gatherings, Mr. Amor said these proposals deserved attention.  While the Committee should express its position on them, he believed that the proposed arrangements would provide greater weight to its follow-up.  Targeted reports would also be a good thing.

Regarding the draft report’s mention of the working group on reservations, he believed one or two of the meetings of that group should be convened even though the International Law Commission had already forwarded its recommendations on reservations to the Secretariat, and he hoped the Human Rights Committee could make that request.

In the ensuing discussion, several experts agreed that the working group on reservations should continue to meet.  A few underlined the need for greater cross-referencing of case law among the human rights committees, which, they argued, would strengthen the system of treaty bodies.  A few cautioned that efforts to harmonize the work of these bodies could result in a certain institutional inflexibility that would constrict creativity in the committees and prevent the pioneering of new working methods.

Mr. Thelin asked if the Inter-Committee ever broached what he believed was an “overriding and common problem” of States parties missing their reporting deadlines.  While he realized sanctions were not part of the various treaties, he wondered if thought was ever given to setting up a working group that would consider the effect sanctions might have.  He also noted the backlog problem, with roughly 20 countries failing to submit their initial reports and many delaying their follow-up reports.  Could the Committee discuss this issue at a future session?

With respect to future work, Committee Chair Yuji Iwasawa, expert from Japan, noted the Inter-Committee Meeting’s request, included in part IV, paragraph (f) of its draft report, that each human rights treaty body assess its follow-up procedure and submit a report by 2011.

The portion of the meeting on the report of the Special Rapporteur for follow-up on concluding observations was chaired by Zonke Zanele Majodina, expert from South Africa, while Mr. Iwasawa chaired the discussion on the draft report of the Tenth Inter-Committee Meeting.

The Human Rights Committee will convene its next public meeting at 10 a.m. Thursday, 25 March, to continue its consideration of draft General Comment 34.

* *** *

__________

*     The 2704^th-2708^th Meetings were closed.

For information media • not an official record