Human Rights Committee

104^th Session

2880^th Meeting* (PM)

Human Rights Committee Discusses Working Methods

 

The Human Rights Committee met today to consider its working methods, including proposals to name a case manager, add a second working group on communications, and draw up a master calendar.

The first item on the agenda was the suggestion of a “case monitor” or case manager.  Earlier in the session, it had been suggested that the Special Rapporteur on new communications take on the additional role of managing cases.  However, today, since many experts suggested the job was too onerous for one person, it was proposed that a separate case manager or monitor be created instead.

Sir Nigel Rodley, expert from the United Kingdom, suggested that in the initial stages, the new case manager should simply study the criteria for selecting cases.  The Chair, summing up the discussion, stated that the appointment of a person to be a case monitor should be a temporary one, it should be a bureau member and, once they had discussed the criteria, the Committee can adopt them.  The Committee will also decide then if the position should continue, or if the Rapporteur should absorb that workload.

Moving on to the next item, the issue of adding another working group, Sir Nigel stated that as long as the Committee did not have the work, the Committee did not need two working groups.  Ahmad Amin Fathalla, expert from Egypt, stated that to take a final decision on the proposal, the Committee needed information based on the Secretariat’s calculations.

Next, the Committee discussed the subject of a master calendar, as proposed by Cornelis Flinterman, expert from the Netherlands.  Rafael Rivas Posada, expert from Colombia, stated that he had serious concerns about the appropriateness of a master calendar, as it was necessary to give a differentiated time period to different countries — some countries’ human rights situations were more alarming.  Mr. Flinterman stated that many people around the world looked to the Human Rights Committee to take the lead in strengthening the treaty body system.  A master calendar would help deal with the situations of non-reporting, underreporting and even over-reporting, as in some situations there were no developments to justify the examination.  Finally, it was decided that further reflection and discussions in July would he helpful.

Taking up Mr. Thelin’s suggestion to widen the timeframe for submission of reports to three to eight years, different members of the Committee suggested that six, rather than eight, was ideal as a number for the maximum range of the timeframe.  Fabián Omar Salvioli, expert from Argentina, stated that seven years seemed to be too long to maintain continuity between periodic reviews.  Summarizing the discussion, the Chair said there seemed to be a convergence around three to six years for the time frame.

The Committee also considered a paper on the relationship of the Committee with non-governmental organizations, drafted by Mr. Flinterman and Iulia Antoanella Motoc, expert from Romania.  Many members expressed appreciation for their hard work.  The discussion could not be exhausted and will be continued at the next meeting.

The Committee will reconvene at 3 p.m. Friday, 23 March, to continue its consideration of working methods.

* *** *

__________

*     The 2878^th and 2879^th Meetings were closed.

For information media • not an official record