Human Rights Committee

104^th Session

2882^nd Meeting* (PM)

Human Rights Committee Continues Discussion of Working Methods, Adopts

 

Paper on Relationship with Non-Governmental Organizations

 

The Human Rights Committee continued discussion of its working methods today, adopting a paper on its relationship with non-governmental organizations.

Prior to the adoption, the Committee carried out a paragraph-by-paragraph review of the document, which had been drafted by Cornelius Flinterman, expert from the Netherlands, and Iulia Antoanella Motoc, expert from Romania.  Mr. Flinterman said the draft reflected the Committee’s current and past practices, but did not address issues raised in proposals by non-governmental organizations that had not been approved by the Committee.  To suggestions that it also presented an opportunity for the Committee to interact with national commissions of human rights, he said that, generally speaking, those commissions did not wish to be considered alongside non-governmental organizations.

Throughout the meeting, experts raised concerns about wording and tone, particularly in one paragraph that addressed the collaboration between non-governmental organizations and States parties in report preparation.  Some said the Committee was not in a position to impose its views on how that relationship should be conducted.  That might put pressure on non-governmental organizations to collaborate with States in “ways that might not be wise”.  Language that was more descriptive than encouraging was appropriate.  The paper, after all, focused on the Committee’s relationship with non-governmental organizations.

Experts also considered the idea of receiving submissions from non-governmental organizations in public meetings, during the follow-up to concluding observations, with some favouring the introduction of transparency into the process.  As it stood, others argued, non-governmental organizations did not participate in debates on States parties’ reports and, therefore, should not be allowed to speak later on, in the follow-up process.  Further, dialogue with non-governmental organizations at that stage would present another layer of work for the experts, whose time was already stretched.

Debate also focused on whether to make specific reference in the paper to the Centre for Civil and Political Rights, which had taken upon itself to provide webcasts of the Committee’s meetings, raise awareness about its work and facilitate contact with other non-governmental organizations.  For that reason, some argued, it deserved special mention.  Those should be the responsibilities of the Committee, some said, or further, the Secretary-General of the United Nations.  Others wondered why a paragraph thanking non-governmental organizations had been included at all in the paper.

In other business, experts weighed in on which article of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights warranted the next General Comment.  Those Comments express the Committee’s views on the obligations assumed by States parties.  Consensus appeared to gel around article 9, which recognizes the rights to liberty and security of the person.

In that discussion, the Committee had before it a report entitled “Draft General Comments of the Human Rights Committee: statistical and other information”, produced by the secretariat, which ranked the Covenant’s 27 articles according to the urgency of drafting a new General Comment.  Article 9 had been given the highest score.  Criteria used in the index included the number of years passed since the last General Comment, the number of paragraphs dedicated to the article and the number of paragraphs referencing the article in the Committee’s concluding observations.

The Committee will reconvene at 11 a.m. Tuesday, 27 March, to consider the progress reports of the Special Rapporteur on Follow-up to Concluding Observations, and the Special Rapporteur on Follow-up to Views.

* *** *

__________

*     The 2881^st Meeting was closed.

For information media • not an official record