HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE DISCUSSES OUTCOME OF INTERCOMMITTEE MEETING; CONTINUES ITS REVIEW OF ITS WORKING METHODS

This morning the Human Rights Committee heard an update from Committee Expert, Michael O'Flaherty, on the results of the seventh Inter-Committee Meeting, held from 23 to 25 June 2008, and continued its consideration and review of its working methods.

Mr. O'Flaherty said that the Inter-Committee Meeting had concluded that there would be a total of two meetings each year and of those two, one would address the harmonization of issues, with all treaties bodies to complete their revised reporting guidelines by 2009. Moreover, on follow-up procedures, the Inter-Committee Meeting had decided to establish an Expert Meeting made up of committee members designated for follow-up, and where the committee had a Special Rapporteur that person would participate in those meetings as well.

On the issue of the relationship between the treaty bodies and the Human Rights Council, Mr. O'Flaherty noted that interest had been expressed for members of Committees to attend and observe Council proceedings. However, no details had been established as of yet due to the current debate over the conclusions of Committees in the context of the new Universal Periodic Review mechanism. With respect to the current electoral procedures for members, there had been a reaffirmation of the independence of members and the importance of members to protect that right had been expressed. A need had also been expressed for better engagement by Committees with national non-governmental organizations; some countries had no non-governmental organization representation.

It was noted that the Inter-Committee had been engaged with the Secretariat on a statistical project. Mr. O'Flaherty said that the Inter-Committee Meeting had expressed an immediate need for a defined set of indicators, and as a result a deadline had been set for their delivery by 2009.

In the ensuing discussion, Experts raised a number of issues and made suggestions. An Expert said it was important to create a common attitude with regard to examining information within committees to avoid the examination of situations differently. With regard to reservations, there was need for a joint platform on which all committees had agreed. The possibility of webcasting Committee meetings was mooted, as a possible means to enrich the work of the Committee. A number of Committee Experts expressed concern on the way in which State parties' addressed the Committee's concluding observations. Conclusions were decided following a number of negotiations between the Committee and the States parties, and Experts expressed great regret in that regard.

The Experts were all concerned that documents submitted to the Secretariat for timely translation of concluding observations, State parties' written replies, as well as views on individual communications, had not been provided in the other official languages of the United Nations other than English. The Secretariat reassured the Committee Experts that the United Nations was multilingual and that they would make a concerted effort to address these issues ongoing.


Asked what had happened on the proposal of a single, unified standing treaty body, Mr. O'Flaherty said that in fact that had not been discussed as it had been brought up in the past and had not received much support. However, the improvement of reporting procedures and the harmonization of procedures had been discussed. These two points were discussed to try and alleviate some of the challenges States parties' face in meeting the recommendations outlined by the Committee.

Turning to a report on the issue of the Committee's reporting guidelines, Mr. O'Flaherty said that a number of Committees have already adopted their guidelines or were in the process of adopting them, with the exception of the Committee on Torture which had not yet taken any action in this regard. The key issues raised in the report were to revise the common guidelines of the Committee to that of the core document focusing on the legal framework for the protection and promotion of human rights and the framework within which human rights were promoted at the national level. A revision had been made to the core document with the purpose of taking into account the revolving procedures of the Committee and setting out in a clear way all the elements of the reports for State parties'.

Some issues of procedure remained unsettled, however, Mr. O'Flaherty continued, in particular concerning the list of issues. In general, there was support for the harmonization of practice across the treaties bodies using a generic guideline. A key proposal under consideration was whether or not it would be possible to substitute States parties' responses to the list of issues for the periodic reports, following the initial reports received. Many had supported and agreed with such a proposal. Another proposal had been the submission of a comprehensive but short report and an enhanced list of issues.

Commenting on this issue of reporting guidelines, a number of Experts agreed on the need to avoid repetition. It was suggested that the report could be comprised of two sections: the first section included the replies and commentaries to the Committee's concluding observations, and the second section would include the replies to the list of issues sent to the Committee. The issues system could be combined with all the provisions of the Covenant, and a task force could be established to review these issues. However, the matter of priority issues needed to be further discussed, an Expert noted.

When the Committee meets again this afternoon, at 3 p.m., it is scheduled to begin its consideration of the third periodic report of Ireland (CCPR/C/IRL/3).


For use of the information media; not an official record


CT08006E