Human Rights Committee

104^th Session

2890^th Meeting* (PM)

Human Rights Committee Adopts Annual Report to General Assembly Covering

 

Results of October 2011 Geneva Session, Current New York Session 

 

Pending Revised Language, Will Include Request for Additional Resources

To Deal with Backlog of Individual Communications Received Under Optional Protocol

The Human Rights Committee today adopted its annual report to the General Assembly, deciding to include — as an annex — a request for additional resources to deal with a backlog of communications received under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, pending a revision of that document’s language.

Lazhari Bouzid, expert from Algeria, presented the report, saying it covered the Committee’s 103^rd and 104^th sessions, held, respectively in October 2011 in Geneva, Switzerland, and March 2012, currently under way in New York.  The next report would cover the three sessions until March 2013.  He then detailed a few clarifications to be made to chapters two and three.

According to the report (document CCPR/C/104/R.4), the Committee considered eight States parties’ reports, submitted under article 40 of the Covenant.  At the 103^rd session:  Iran, Jamaica, Kuwait and Norway; at the 104^th session:  Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Turkmenistan and Yemen.  It had also adopted concluding observations on them.  The Committee also had considered the situation of civil and political rights in Malawi and Cape Verde in the absence of reports, and adopted provisional concluding observations on them.  The Committee deplored that “a large number” of States parties did not comply with their reporting obligations.  Fifty-two States parties were at least five years overdue with either an initial or periodic report.

Throughout the meeting, experts zeroed in on the question of additional resources needed in 2013 and 2014 to address the backlog of communications under the First Optional Protocol, which allows individuals to complain to the 18-member Committee about violations of rights protected by the Covenant.  During 2013 and 2014, the Committee would decide on 140 cases that were currently ready for consideration.  Temporary assistance resources would be required to provide for three P-3 positions for 12 months each, and a General Service (Other Level) position for six months for the years 2013 and 2014.  It was estimated that ten working days would be needed to prepare a draft decision/view for the Committee, and thus, 280 weeks of work by professional staff.

One expert said he was “astonished” at the cost — $8 million to be spent over two years for three P-3 staff to deal with the communications backlog.  There was a “serious disproportion” between that figure and the services to be rendered.  Others asked for clarity on whether those staff would be hired exclusively to take on the Committee’s work, and further, whether training or vacation time had been built into the cost estimate.  Another expert said he was equally amazed by the amount needed for conference services, pressing the Committee to make the best use of time during each session.

More broadly, experts considered where to direct the request for resources — the Secretary-General or the General Assembly, with one expert urging that the Committee first approach the Secretary-General for a reallocation of resources, in line with rule 27 of the Committee’s Rules of Procedure.  Provided that those resources could not be reallocated, the Committee could then approach the General Assembly with the request.  “We have been saying this for many years,” another expert said, adding that he was at a loss as to what more to do.  Others said the Committee first needed to understand how much it spent each year.

Walter Kalin, expert from Switzerland, cautioned against mixing the issues.  The annual report to the General Assembly included a focus on temporary measures, which were separate from longer-term structural issues.  “We want to deal with more individual communications over the next two years,” he said.  Questions around the creation of two working groups to address the backlog and a master calendar were all structural problems that were part of a wider process.

Still others said there was symbolic value to showing the reader that the Committee had decided — in principle — to work in two working groups on the backlog of communications, as it spoke to its efforts to refine its working methods.  A reference to the fact that the Committee had adopted a “more nuanced” way to approach the “follow-up to views” was also in order, as it would put States parties on notice to that fact.

Also today, the Committee adopted a position paper on the treaty strengthening process, put forward by Cornelis Flinterman, expert from the Netherlands.  Mr. Flinterman said this was the second version of the paper, which reflected experts’ concerns.  It was not defensive in tone and recognized the Committee’s ongoing efforts to improve the functioning of the 10 treaty bodies.  It also gave an indication of how the Committee was assessing the outcome documents from various meetings on the issue.

In other business, the Committee held a moment of silence in remembrance of former Committee member and President of the Centre for Civil and Political Rights, Ahmed Tawfik Khalil ( Egypt).  Committee Chairperson Zonke Zanele Majodina, expert from South Africa, recalled him as gentle, kind, humble and compassionate.  His unwavering commitment to human rights was unparalleled.

The Human Rights Committee will reconvene at 3 p.m. Friday, 30 March, to conclude its 104^th session.

__________

*     The 2889^th Meeting was closed.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record