COMMITTEE ON ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION MEETS WITH STATES PARTIES
The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination this afternoon held a second meeting with States parties to discuss improving its working methods, follow-up to concluding observations, treaty body reform, and the relationship between treaty bodies and the Human Rights Council.
Committee Chairperson Régis de Gouttes, in introductory remarks, noted that the last meeting with States parties had taken place on 19 August 2003. He briefed States parties on recent developments in treaty body reform, in particular with regard to developments within the Committee to harmonize and streamline their methods of work. Among pioneering working mechanisms had been the introduction of an early warning and urgent action procedure; the establishment of a review procedure to reopen the dialogue with States parties whose reports were seriously overdue; and the setting up of a working group to follow up on individual complaints. In addition, the Committee had enhanced its cooperation with non-governmental organizations, and had been working to strengthen its relations with other mechanisms of the United Nations system, in particular the Special Rapporteurs.
In the context of the discussion on rationalization of working methods, the majority of States parties supported the earlier submission of the list of issues by the Committee, to allow time for the preparation of written replies. The real question, many States noted, might be what the objective of the list was – whether to deepen the dialogue in the context of the presentation of periodic reports, or to provide comprehensive written replies. Many delegations expressed a desire to see the written responses to the list of questions either completely or partially replace the periodic report. Other delegations, however, maintained that the list of issues should be used exclusively to deepen the dialogue in the context of country presentations, and noted that, where new questions were raised during the dialogue, States parties should be given the opportunity to later supply written replies, where necessary.
A number of State parties were also concerned to know what criteria were applied in assigning country rapporteurs, and how the list of issues was prepared. One country reiterated its support for the proposal for a single, unified treaty body. Other issues raised included more information on the involvement of national human rights institutions and non-governmental organizations in follow-up to Committee recommendations; information on the Committee's handling of cases dealing with multiple forms of discrimination, in particular racial discrimination and religious issues; criteria for considering cases under the early warning and urgent action procedure; more information on the Committee's interaction with Special Rapporteurs; information about the procedures of the working group that had been set up for follow-up; and criteria for undertaking a country review in the absence of a report.
At the end of the meeting, Mr. de Gouttes gave an outline of the outcome of the Sixth Inter-Committee Meeting and the Meeting of Chairpersons of the Human Rights Treaty Bodies held last June with regard to the new Universal Periodic Review mechanism set up by the Human Rights Council, in particular reaffirming the independence of the work of the treaty bodies, and the recommendation that the work of the treaty bodies should serve, at least in part, as the basis of the Review.
When the Committee reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 15 August, it is scheduled to continue its first reading of guidelines for Committee-specific reports presented by States parties.
Introductory Statement
RÉGIS DE GOUTTES, Committee Chairperson, in introductory remarks, thanked the delegations of States parties for having shown up in such great numbers in the middle of August for this second meeting with States parties. The last meeting had taken place on 19 August 2003. These exchanges were of great value to the Committee as it familiarized States parties with the situation of the Committee, and vice versa.
Briefly resuming the results of the June 2007 meeting of chairpersons of human rights treaty bodies, Mr. de Gouttes recalled that a long debate had been undertaken by the chairpersons on the concept paper submitted by the High Commissioner for Human Rights for a single unified treaty body. A consensus had emerged among chairpersons that it was a better idea to set aside the consideration of such body to replace the current eight Committees, so as not to lose set of the specificity of each Committee's mandate. In addition, it had been felt that there was a greater need to move towards rationalization and harmonization of the working methods of the treaty bodies, as well as improved communications among the treaty bodies. At the meeting, harmonized guidelines for the drafting of reports had been adopted which recommended that States parties avoid excessively long reports, and set out guidelines for core documents, containing country information such as demographic information, and a treaty-specific report.
Turning to the content and format for the present meeting, Mr. de Gouttes said they could begin with an exchange views on the rationalization and improvement of the working methods and procedures of the Committees, to be followed by an exchange of views on the relations between the treaty bodies and the Human Rights Council. Then any other matters that the States parties wished to address could be discussed.
As far as rationalization of working methods, Mr. de Gouttes recalled that, regarding the procedure for consideration of States parties' reports, the Committee's present practice was that the Committee appointed a country rapporteur at the session prior to the consideration of the report. The Country rapporteur then devised a list of issues, which was sent to the State party one month prior to the meeting. One suggestion that the Committee was currently considering was to send the list of issues earlier, in particular with a view to receiving back written responses by the State party at least a week prior to the meeting. Also, in adopting concluding observations on the reports of State's parties a new procedure had been put in place to identify specific recommendations that could be implemented quickly and requesting States to respond on what had been done one year later.
As to issues of concern that the Committee wished to address, Mr. de Gouttes noted that, to date, of the 173 States parties, 18 were behind more than 10 years in the submission of their reports; 8 of them for more than 20 years; 4 for more than 15 years; and 30 for more than 5 years – 4 of whom had never submitted their initial reports. That was a serious matter for concern for the Committee. A second area of concern was the late requests for deferment of consideration of reports, which considerably upset the preparation of the Committee's timetable. A minimum of two months' notice should be established, as other Committee's had done. Once that period was gone past, requests for deferment could be rejected, and the Committee would consider the situation in the State party in the absence of a report.
The Committee had been a pioneer in terms of a number of working methods. In 1993 it had introduced the early warning and urgent action procedure, to prevent situations of conflict from deteriorating still further. Recently, that procedure had been extended to cover situations that were under threat of slipping into genocide. In 2004, a Working Group had been set up to monitor early warning and urgent action situations. Under that procedure, the Committee was currently considering the situation of indigenous peoples whose land, economic, social and cultural rights were under threat. Another procedure – the review procedure – had been introduced for dealing with States parties whose reports were seriously overdue, with a view to reopening the dialogue with State's parties. The review procedure had proved quite efficacious, as since its establishment, 12 reports that had been long overdue had been submitted.
Mr. de Gouttes noted that, under the complaints procedure, as set out in article 14, 51 States of the 173 had accepted that procedure. A working group had been established to follow up on complaints and, since 2004, a single Expert had been designated to carry out follow-up and to ensure implementation of the Committee's Views. In that connection, in July 2006, the Committee had submitted a proposal to the Malbun meeting on treaty body reform for the development of a single, unified body for the consideration of individual complaints, but that was still under discussion.
The Committee had also enhanced its relations with non-governmental organizations, Mr. de Gouttes observed. In addition to sending in shadow reports, non-governmental organizations often had informal meetings to exchange views with Experts before the consideration of State party reports. The Committee had also been working to strengthen its relations with the other organs of the United Nations system, in particular the Special Rapporteurs, and in recent sessions the Committee had held meetings with, among others, the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of discrimination, the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, the Special Adviser to the Secretary-General on prevention of genocide, and the Group of Experts responsible for implementing the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action.
Discussion on Rationalization of Working Methods
Spain asked what the criteria were for assigning country rapporteurs, and how the list of issues was prepared. One of the major areas of progress had been the sending out of the list of issues, which both helped the State party to prepare, and deepened the dialogue with the Committee. Spain suggested that, for any new questions introduced in the course of the presentation of a periodic report, States parties should have the option of providing written answers at a later date.
The United Kingdom felt that the best procedure for the list of issues was to have the Committee adopt the list at the session prior to the consideration of a State party's report, which allowed countries to have enough time to formulate their replies. A number of Committees already used that procedure. The United Kingdom also supported the concept of using State party's responses to the list of issues as the periodic report on an intermittent basis. That is, not every report would be in that format, but in particular for States that reported regularly such a procedure could be used quite effectively.
New Zealand asked for the Committee's specific views with regard to streamlining the work of the treaty bodies, in particular with regard to practices regarding the list of issues; targeted reporting; formulation of general comments and recommendations; and the use of parallel chambers. New Zealand also supported the earlier submission of the list of issues to States parties, to allow them to coordinate responses by various ministries; it took at least two months to do that.
Sweden hoped that future meetings with States parties would be more frequent. Sweden was a bit concerned about the short timeline for the list of issue. States should receive the list more than one month before the meeting; ideally the Committee should adopt the list at the previous session.
Canada asked for more information on the involvement of human rights institutions and non-governmental organizations in follow-up to Committees. Also helpful would be an acknowledgement of the common practice of submitting combined reports every four years.
Belgium asked for more insight on the Committee's handling of cases dealing with multiple forms of discrimination, in particular racial discrimination and religious issues.
Greece supported harmonization and streamlining of the working methods of the treaty bodies.
In that connection, it was noted that there had been recommendations made at the sixth Inter-Committee Meeting in June, but once again nothing had been adopted. Greece did not agree that the list of issues should be used as a sort of alternative, targeted report, but felt that it should be used as a basis for the discussion to be held with the Committee. For Greece, then, the time line for the submission of the report was not an issue. However, States parties should be allowed to respond to new questions raised in the meeting in writing, when necessary.
The United States noted that the harmonization of rules among treaty bodies was necessary to avoid confusion by States parties. The United States also pointed out that the real problem of the timeline for the submission of the list of issues related to what the purpose of the list was. If the list was meant to elicit a written response, one month was too short. If it was meant to focus the discussion, one month was probably enough. The United States also felt that the number of issues treated in the oral presentation should be honed down; the more issue discipline the Committee could show, the more effective the entire process could be. Finally, the early warning and urgent action procedure should really be limited to truly urgent matters – such as the threat of genocide. The United States felt that the Committee had taken up complaints under that heading that really should be taken up in the context of the reporting cycle, or under article 14, for States that had made a declaration under that article.
Algeria wondered if the Committee could inform it on how the Committee dealt with situations of ethnic, racial and religious tensions in relation to discrimination. As to the rationalization of working methods, the timeframe was very short between the submission of the list of issues to States parties and the request for replies. Was there a page limit for replies?
Turkey was also concerned about the timing of the submission of the list of issues. Sending the list one month before a State party's presentation, and requiring a written reply one week before, meant that States had only three weeks to formulate a written reply. That was too short. Turkey also asked for more information on the Committee's interaction with Special Rapporteurs, and in particular the Expert Group on follow-up to the Durban Declaration.
Brazil felt that, more important than the timeline for the list of issues, was to determine the objective of the list of issues had to be established. In any case, one month was certainly too short for a comprehensive written reply. Brazil also asked for more information about the procedures of the working group that had been set up for follow-up.
Mexico supported the proposal for a single, unified treaty body, bearing in mind that that measure would be necessary in the long term, as a result of the universality of the human rights treaties. Mexico had submitted six periodic reports in 2006 alone. In some instances, the institutions that dealt with cross-cutting issues had been unable to be present each time. Mexico also supported the early submission of and reply to the list of issues, and that those documents be made available as official documents. Furthermore, it requested the Committee's opinion on the proposal of using responses to the list of issues in lieu of periodic reports.
Libya, like other delegations, felt that one month was insufficient for States parties to prepare replies to the list of issues. The appointment of a coordinator for follow-up was very important to facilitate follow-up and to ensure that countries implemented the concluding observations.
Thailand felt that the review procedure was one of the important innovations of the Committee. In that connection, what were the criteria for considering review countries? Also, what were the criteria for undertaking a country review in the absence of a report and how many such reviews had been undertaken so far.
Senegal welcomed the resumption of the dialogue between the Committee and States parties. Senegal was sceptical about the idea set out by the Chairperson for the consideration of a country situation in the absence of a report. Instead of more rigidity, what was needed was greater flexibility. The recommendations of the Committee were only relevant when they came out of the interaction dialogue between the Committee and the State party. Senegal suggested a review process should be established for the Committee itself: a sort of evaluation process that would track how the Committee's work impacted on the situation on the ground.
South Africa asked whether the harmonization of treaty body working methods, and streamlining of working methods, had enhanced the quality and quantity of reports received by the Committee?
China was appreciative of all the efforts to streamline and harmonize the working methods of the human rights treaty bodies. The process of reviewing periodic reports from States parties was one of dialogue. In that regard, in submitting the list of issues to States parties, the Committee should allow sufficient time for appropriate replies. China welcomed the information that the Committee was currently reviewing its current practice. As for country rapporteurs, China hoped that criteria could be established to ensure the maximum benefit and the best possible relationship between the Committee and the State party concerned.
Responding to these comments and questions, an Expert said, with regard to criteria for appointing country rapporteurs, that that depended to a large degree on scheduling, but that certainly a regional or local background or knowledge, languages, and a specific expertise was desirable. There was also a practice that Experts did not continue as country rapporteur for the same country twice, and choice of country rapporteur had to be ratified by the whole Committee. What should be borne in mind was that there were only 18 Experts and 173 States parties. After the observations, the role of the country rapporteur diminished and the role of the follow-up rapporteur came to the fore.
On double discrimination, an Expert noted that the Committee had had a meeting with Asma Jahangir, special rapporteur on freedom of religion and belief at this session to discuss the intersection of racial and religious discrimination. In cases treated by the Committee where there was double discrimination on grounds of race and religion, the basis for considering the discrimination had to be racial. It was perhaps more clear in cases of double discrimination based on gender. The intersectionality did not work so well in the case of indigenous people, where issues of ethnicity, culture and religion tended to be blurred, but the Committee had dealt with cases of discrimination involving sacred sites and land rights of indigenous peoples. But there did have to be a fairly clear racial discrimination dimension, as set out in article 1 of the Convention, in addition to other factors
Regarding the objective of the list of issues, and whether it was targeted at provoking a deeper written reply or was to be used as a means to focus the dialogue with States parties, an Expert said that the Committee needed to reflect further on that issue, and recalled that it had begun a review of its procedures in that regard.
As to follow-up by States parties to the Views of the Committee on individual communications, an Expert noted that States parties had shown a very good record of compliance by States parties to the Committee's Views, even where such Views required changes of legislation.
Regarding targeted reports, or using the replies to the list of issues in lieu of periodic reports, a practice that had already been taken up by the Committee against Torture, and was soon to be adopted by the Human Rights Committee, an Expert noted that the Convention against Torture had a great deal of specificity in the topics it considered which might particularly lend itself to such a practice. What could be said was, that the replies to the list of issues were a very important tool for the Committee and for the State party and that procedure should be enhanced. An Expert recalled that the origin of the list of issues had been requests from States parties, who were eager to have some advance notice of what they would be asked in the context of their oral presentation. Some had thought that the response to the list of issues had evolved into something that could replace the report itself, but that would not be the right way to go. The most important matter was the interactive dialogue; the fundamental purpose of the list of issues was to deepen that dialogue.
Discussion on Relation Between Treaty Bodies and Human Rights Council
Mr. de Gouttes, Committee Chairperson, noted that, as set out in the Sixth Inter-Committee Meeting and the Meeting of Chairpersons of the Human Rights Treaty Bodies held last June, the new Universal Periodic Review mechanism set up by the Human Rights Council was complementary to, and did not duplicate the work of the human rights treaty bodies. The Universal Periodic Review was broader in nature, and more political, and based on more limited information that was to be collected by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights secretariat, whereas the reviews of treaty bodies was specific and comprehensive. The independence of the work of the treaty bodies had to be respected and had been reaffirmed. In addition, it had been recommended that the work of the treaty bodies served, at least in part, as the basis of the Universal Periodic Review. All treaty bodies therefore spoke of the need for effective cooperation between the treaty bodies, the special rapporteurs, and the Universal Periodic Review mechanism.
Belgium noted the involvement of the Human Rights Council in the preparation for the Durban review conference. In that connection, how did the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination envisage contributing to the review of the Durban Declaration and Plan of Action?
Mr. de Gouttes noted that the Committee had set out its intentions concerning involvement in that regard, both with the intergovernmental expert group on follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Plan of Action and the upcoming Durban review conference in the document A/HRC/4/WG3/7.
For use of the information media; not an official record
CERD07028E