HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE DISCUSSES PROGRESS REPORT ON FOLLOW-UP TO CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS

The Human Rights Committee today discussed a progress report by the Rapporteur on Follow-Up to Concluding Observations.

Mauro Politi, Committee Member and Rapporteur on Follow-Up to Concluding Observations, presented a draft report on follow-up to the concluding observations of the following States parties: Iceland, Finland, Kyrgyzstan and Japan. The draft report also contained a list of States parties that had failed to respond, thus receiving grade D. Those included Burundi, Côte d’Ivoire, Mauritania, Nepal and Sri Lanka.

The Committee adopted the draft report.

The Committee will next meet in public on Wednesday, 19 July, at 10 a.m. to continue discussing its draft General Comment on article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on the right to life.

Report on Follow-up to Concluding Observations

MAURO POLITI, Committee Member and Rapporteur on Follow-Up to Concluding Observations, explained that the Committee had used new criteria to assess the information received from States parties. The draft report on follow-up to concluding observations concerned Iceland, Finland, Kyrgyzstan and Japan. It also contained a list of States parties that had failed to respond to the concluding observations, namely Burundi, Côte d’Ivoire, Mauritania, Nepal and Sri Lanka.

Experts voiced concern that they were getting further behind with the schedule of countries to be included in the follow-up report due to the word limit, which affected their ability to do their job within the given framework. If there was space for only four countries in the follow-up report, only 20 per cent of the work would be done annually. They proposed to the Secretariat to consider issuing four or five follow-up reports instead of only one. Experts also proposed to the secretariat to send reminders to States parties after the due date of the follow-up report. They noted that Mauritania and Sri Lanka might have received reminders only before the due date for the follow-up report.

Mr. Politi agreed that the secretariat could check whether reminders had been sent to Mauritania and Sri Lanka only before the due date of the follow-up report. If that was the case, they could be removed from the list of countries that had received D grade.

Presenting the follow-up report on Iceland, Mr. Politi said that additional information had been provided on gender equality, equal salaries and the representation of women in decision-making positions, namely in diplomacy and academia. The State party informed that the task force on gender equality had issued two studies on the gender pay gap and the representation of women, the results of which would inform two action plans. The Committee proposed clarification on gender-based career choices, and regretted that sufficient information had not been provided on the representation of women in various fields. As for the issue of sexual exploitation of children, investigation and prosecution of cases, and prevention of sexual abuse of children, the Committee had proposed that education on sexual abuse of children be a mandatory part of formal training of personnel working with children. The Committee regretted the lack of reply regarding that proposal. A letter should be sent to Iceland on the discontinuation of the follow-up procedure.

One Expert observed that States were experiencing reporting fatigue because issues such as gender pay gap and sexual abuse of children were also discussed in other committees. Other Experts noted that a great deal of information provided by Iceland had already been reported prior to the Committee’s observations. The secretariat should change the language of the letters sent to States parties regarding the follow-up report, clarifying that they should not be repeating prior information. Experts also wondered whether the grading should pertain only to the answers received since the last follow-up intervention report, or to the whole period of the follow-up since the concluding observations? They noted that the grading had not been consistent.

Mr. Politi clarified that the assessment was made on the basis of what had happened after the Committee had made the request for additional information, which the Chairman confirmed.

Turning to Finland, Mr. Politi reminded that the Committee had requested additional information on alternatives to detention for asylum seekers and refugees, the Aliens Act of 2015, and the prohibition of detention for unaccompanied minors. The State party’s reply was clear and consistent, and there were provisions against the detention of unaccompanied children. The Committee only objected to the fact that the decision on detention was not subject to appeal. The Committee also requested additional information on the right of suspects to be brought in front of a judge within 48 hours, the right to legal counsel, and the practice of extended detention. The last area of concern related to the rights of the Saami people, namely their right to their traditional land and their effective participation in the preparation of the policies that affected them. The Committee recommended that a letter be sent to the State party on the discontinuation of the follow-up procedure.

On Kyrgyzstan, Mr. Politi reminded that the follow-up report concerned the issue of inter-ethnic violence in 2010, and full investigation of cases of human rights violations. The Committee had requested additional information on the root causes of ethnic intolerance and on efforts to promote inter-ethnic tolerance. The Committee had also asked that prompt and impartial investigation of cases of torture and ill-treatment be undertaken. As for the freedom of expression and intimidation of and violence against journalists and human rights defenders, the Committee found the State party’s reply too generic. The Committee recommended that a letter be sent to the State party on the discontinuation of the follow-up procedure.

Experts observed that more information was needed on the funding of Kyrgyzstan’s Anti-Torture Centre, and on details of initiatives promoting inter-ethnic tolerance. In the case of torture of Mr. Askarov, the Committee should note the referral of the case. Mr. Politi accepted Experts’ proposals and noted as positive the fact that a new trial on the Askarov case was ongoing in Kyrgyzstan.

On Japan, Mr. Politi said that the follow-up report concerned the death penalty, reduction of the eligible crimes for capital punishment, the strengthening of the legal safeguards against wrongful sentencing to death, and the review of the death penalty cases. The Committee regretted the absence of measures to guarantee that confessions under duress would not be accepted in courts. The third area concerned the human rights violations against comfort women, access to justice, full reparations to families of victims, and public apology. The fourth area related to the protection of foreign trainees, labour-related deaths, the number of labour inspections, and the establishment of an independent complaints mechanisms and sanctioning of labour trafficking. The fifth area concerned Japan’s substitute detention system, alternatives to detention, the right to legal counsel, and the complaint review mechanism. The Committee recommended that a letter be sent to the State party on the discontinuation of the follow-up procedure.

Experts proposed that Japan be asked whether the audio-visual recordings in interrogations in all capital punishment cases would be applied. The State party should be more encouraged on the issue of comfort women with a higher grading on that issue, in light of its financial contribution to the Korean foundation on comfort women. Mr. Politi accepted those recommendations.

The Committee then proceeded to adopt the draft report on follow-up to the concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee.


For use of the information media; not an official record

CT17.026E