COUNCIL DISCUSSES OPTIONAL PROTOCOL TO COVENANT ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS AND RECTIFICATION OF LEGAL STATUS OF RELATED COMMITTEE

The Human Rights Council this morning discussed the report of the Open-Ended Working Group on an Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the rectification of the legal status of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

Catarina de Albuquerque, Chairperson of the Open-Ended Working Group on an Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, hoped the next session of the Working Group would enable it to make significant progress in elaborating and agreeing on an Optional Protocol. Such a Protocol was not the only tool that the international community had at its disposal to improve the realisation of economic, social and cultural rights, but it would hopefully contribute to promoting the vision that the rights and principles contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights constituted a common standard of achievement for all peoples and nations that every person and every nation would respect.

On Monday, 10 December, the Council heard a presentation by Philippe Texier, Chairperson of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, on rectifying the legal status of the Committee to put in on a par with other treaty monitoring bodies.

In the debate on the two presentations, speakers noted that the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights had not been hindered in its work so far by its status and its legal authority to examine States parties’ reports had not been disputed. Any change in status would have to have operational benefits and no negative impact on the work of the Committee. Any change should also be considered only after an in-depth analysis had demonstrated its impact. The Optional Protocol should not undermine the effectiveness of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. It was fundamental that the Committee retained its balanced and fair geographical make-up, and this should not be changed when its status was remedied. While some speakers said an a la carte approach was seen as creating a hierarchy and that could undermine the purpose of the Optional Protocol, others supported the idea of a so-called basic selection of rights which would be subject to monitoring after States’ access to the Protocol.

Speaking in the debate were representatives of Portugal for the European Union, Egypt for the African Group, Cuba, South Africa, Ukraine, Brazil, Switzerland, Italy, Russian Federation, Republic of Korea, Pakistan, Azerbaijan, India, Bangladesh, Mexico, Egypt, Argentina, Thailand, Belgium, Algeria, Venezuela, Chile and Morocco. The International Labour Organization also spoke.

Representatives of the following non-governmental organizations also took the floor : International Coordination Committee in a joint statement with German Institute for Human Rights, National Consultative Commission of France, Danish Institute for Human Rights and the Advisory Council on Human Rights of Morocco; Europe-Third World Centre speaking on behalf of several NGOs1; Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions, in a joint statement with Amnesty International, Food First Information and Action Network; Colombian Commission of Jurists; International Commission of Jurists; Permanent Assembly for Human Rights; Indian Movement “Tupaj Amaru”, in a joint statement with World Peace Council; and Judicial Committee for the Independence of Indigenous Andean People.


The Council is holding three back-to-back meetings today from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. When it concluded its morning meeting at noon, it immediately started its midday meeting to hear an update from United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour.

Documents on Optional Protocol to International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and Rectification of Legal Status of Related Committee

The Council has before it the Report of the Open-ended Working Group on an Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights on its fourth session (A/HRC/6/8), which summarizes the discussions of the fourth session of the Working Group with the mandate “to elaborate an Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights” (16-27 July 2007). At its fourth session, the Working Group completed a first reading of a draft Optional Protocol prepared by the Chairperson (A/HRC/6/WG.4/2), and made comments and amendments to it. Upon conclusion of the first reading of the draft, the Working Group focused the ensuing discussion on the following topics: the criteria to be used by the Committee in examining communications; the scope of the Optional Protocol; international assistance and cooperation and the proposal for the establishment of a fund; admissibility criteria; interim measures; and friendly settlement.

The Council has before it the Report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the rectification of the legal status of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (A/HRC/6/21), submitted pursuant to Human Rights Council resolution 4/7 initiating a process to rectify the legal status of the Committee, with the aim of placing it on a par with all other treaty monitoring bodies. The present report reflects the replies received in response to requests for information and views on this topic sent by OHCHR to Member States, the Office of Legal Affairs, and other stakeholders. Replies were received from the Governments of Australia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Colombia, Cuba, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Finland, Guyana, Ireland, Japan, Liechtenstein, Mauritius, Mexico, Pakistan, Philippines, Switzerland, Turkey, and the United States of America. The report also includes, in an annex, the input received from the Office of Legal Affairs, setting out legal options to place the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights on a par with other treaty monitoring bodies.

The Council has before it the note by the Secretariat on the Rectification of the legal status of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: report of the Committee (A/HRC/6/20), submitted pursuant to Council resolution 4/7, in which the Council decided to initiate a process to rectify the legal status of the Committee to place it on a par with all other treaty monitoring bodies. In the annexed report in the form of a letter from the Chairperson of the Committee to the Chairperson of the Council, the Committee notes that the rectification of the status of the Committee is desirable "to grant equal treatment to all monitoring bodies of the United Nations human rights system" and considers this to be a timely and advisable measure, bearing in mind the ongoing process for the drafting of an Optional Protocol. An Optional Protocol would enable the Committee to strengthen and enhance its work in monitoring the implementation of the Covenant, particularly by examining States parties’ reports, through a procedure that would deal with individual and collective communications.

Presentation of Report of Open-Ended Working Group on an Optional Protocol to International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

CATARINA DE ALBUQUERQUE, Chairperson of the Open-Ended Working Group on an Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, said during its first session the Human Rights Council decided to extend the mandate of the Working Group for a period of two years in order to elaborate an Optional Protocol. A draft had been produced, which was officially submitted in March 2007, in the preparation of which the views expressed and proposals made in the course of the three previous sessions by all delegations were carefully studied, and, as far as possible, agreed language from existing United Nations human rights instruments was used.

The Working Group held its fourth session in Geneva in July 2007. In the new phase of its efforts, it was asked, not just to discuss options on an Optional Protocol, but to actually elaborate it. The challenge, Ms. de Albuquerque said, was to transform the Working Group’s diversity into an opportunity to elaborate an instrument reflecting the different aspirations and needs of delegations present, but also to take into account each one’s concerns. During the first week of the session, a first reading of the text had been finalised.

The Working Group’s next session would be divided into two parts. With the objective of facilitating future discussions, a revised draft Optional Protocol had been prepared which reflected the discussions held in July. It therefore encompassed the proposals presented in the previous session, and was followed by an Explanatory Memorandum, which set out the rational behind the proposed language. Ms. de Albuquerque hoped the next session of the Working Group would enable it to make significant progress in elaborating and agreeing on an Optional Protocol. Such a Protocol was not the only tool that the international community had at its disposal to improve the realisation of economic, social and cultural rights, but it would hopefully contribute to promoting the vision that the rights and principles contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights constituted a common standard of achievement for all peoples and nations that every person and every nation would respect.

Debate on an Optional Protocol to International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and Rectifying the Legal Status of the Related Committee

RAQUEL TAVARES (Portugal), speaking on behalf of the European Union, reiterated the European Union’s full commitment to the firmly established principles of universality, indivisibility, interdependence and interrelatedness of all human rights. As a matter of principle, the European Union had no objections to the purpose of Human Rights Council resolution 4/7, but it was still considering the merits of the idea of changing the basis on which the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights was established. One advantage of a change would be that only States parties would participate in the election of Committee members.

It was important that the Committee was listened to. It had not been hindered in its work so far by its status and its legal authority to examine States parties’ reports had not been disputed. Any change in status would have to have operational benefits and no negative impact on the work of the Committee. The European Union wanted to avoid any gap between the promotion and protection of economic, social and cultural rights or a two-track situation where some States parties were monitored under different systems.

IHAB GAMALELDIN (Egypt), speaking on behalf of the African Group, said that the work done until now had significantly contributed towards the achievement of the Optional Protocol. The African Group supported this work and saw it as a strengthening of the work of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and of human rights as a whole. Africa had been at the forefront of human rights protection, including in the field of economic, social and cultural rights. However, the Optional Protocol should not undermine the effectiveness of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The parameters and the methodology of the consideration of communications under the Optional Protocol should conform to the working methods of the Committee. The African Group was looking forward to make progress on this subject.

RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said Cuba had always backed the initiative of an Optional Protocol, in order to put economic, social and cultural rights in place at the same level with civil and political rights. Cuba was happy that there was an initial project, and thought it was very interesting. It was thought that it was not enough, when looking at the current scope provided in the Protocol, with regards to the need to develop and monitor international cooperation. There should be the ability to raise individual complaints. Cuba would have liked to see the Protocol include means to deal with legally binding measures, and the compliance of the developed countries with their cooperation commitments.

With regards to the modification of the legal conditions of the Committee for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Cuba was in favour of what had been put forward by South Africa. It was a fundamental objective to ensure that the Committee had an equal status with the Committee on Human Rights. It was fundamental that the Committee retain its balanced and fair geographical make-up, and this should not be changed when its status was remedied. It should be possible to work in a transitional period.

GLAUDINE MTSHALI (South Africa) said that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was an inspirational document and was originally to be accompanied by a human rights treaty. Two instruments, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, were subsequently created and led Professor M’baye to develop the notion of the right to development, embodied in the Declaration on the Right to Development.

The creation of the Human Rights Council effectively de-linked the Council’s work from that of the Economic and Social Council. As constructed, this Council did not have any functional relationship with the Economic and Social Council, which created the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. South Africa proposed that the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights be placed on a par with all other human rights treaty monitoring committees.

TETIANA SEMENIUTA (Ukraine) said Ukraine welcomed the draft Optional Protocol. The first draft had provided a solid basis for the work of the Working Group and an excellent opportunity to identify a number of issues and how to find solutions to them. The Optional Protocol was seen as a means to ensure that individuals had a possibility to be heard as well as that they had access to remedies in cases of violations of their rights.

MURILO VIERA KOMNISKI (Brazil) said Brazil welcomed the hard work done by the Chairperson of the Working Group on the elaboration of an Optional Protocol. The extension of the mandate of the Working Group was also welcomed. The professionalism shown by the Chairperson in managing to provide a draft was commended, and she was also praised for the constructive spirit which had prevailed in the fourth session of the Working Group in July. The provision of the draft had allowed for a useful and frank exchange of information, in particular on the interdependence and indivisibility of all economic, social and cultural rights.

Brazil appreciated the report, and would continue to work fully in cooperation with the Chairperson. The Optional Protocol should cover all the rights in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights without exception, as this avoided a selective approach, which would undermine the interdependence and indivisibility of the rights. Were it up to signatory countries to decide which rights should be included in communications, this would be a major step backwards. Latin America was living in a time of progress with regards to promoting economic, social and cultural rights. Economic, social and cultural rights were just as vital as all the other rights. It was of utmost importance to make progress in elaborating the Optional Protocol, even if the legal status of the Committee was rectified.

JEANINE EDA VOLKEN (Switzerland) said that the need for any change in status should be reviewed, as there might not be any added-value from a change. The legal status of the work of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights had never been questioned. Any change in the status of the Committee would raise questions of monitoring and modalities, independent of any discussion on the subject of the Optional Protocol. Member States that were not currently party to the Covenant should also be consulted on any changes.

ROBERTO VELLANO (Italy) said that Italy remained convinced of the importance and great value of the Optional Protocol. An a la carte approach was seen as creating a hierarchy and that could undermine the purpose of the Optional Protocol. It was considered that reservations should not be used to limit the scope of the Optional Protocol itself. Doubts were expressed on the inquiry procedure, enabling the Committee to be able to react immediately if it received information indicating grave or systematic violations, as this would not be in line with the main purpose of the Covenant.

MARINA VITCKOROVA (Russian Federation) said the Working Group on an Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights was to be commended for the work it had done. It was important for States to start working directly on the text of the document - it was possible to move forward from the stalemate that the international community had spent more than 40 years on. It was high time to highlight economic, social and cultural rights, and give them the same importance as civil and political rights, as they were in essence different aspects of the same issue. It was important that the text be set out in such a positive way that the Committee was able to consider individual communications. States should think once again about the proposal of the Russian Federation on a so-called basic selection of rights which would be subject to monitoring after States’ access to the Protocol.

The Russian Federation hoped that a substantive further elaboration of the text of the Protocol would continue in the same constructive spirit. On increasing the legal status of the Committee to a fully-fledged Committee, this measure was fully supported, as it would confirm the idea of the universality and interdependence of these rights. In the resolution that established the Committee, the principle was enshrined of fair geographical representation, and it was important to retain this principle, regardless of any other possible parameters. A change in the legal status of the Committee would require some technical amendments.

LEE SUK-TAE (Republic of Korea) said the Republic of Korea had participated actively in the meetings of the Working Group on the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and believed it was time to narrow the gap of opinions and would join the related mechanism for the full realization of economic, social and cultural rights. The status of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights should only be in question if the legal status had had a negative impact on its work. Any change should be considered only after an in-depth analysis had demonstrated its impact.

TEHMINA JANJUA (Pakistan) said that the discussions during the Working Group’s session had significantly clarified different issues contained in the draft Optional Protocol. It was sure that by working with the same dedication, consensus could be reached. It was felt that more deliberations were required before taking a decision on adopting a selective or comprehensive approach to the application of the Protocol. The possibility to maintain reservations to the Optional Protocol should also be looked into. Regarding the legal status of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the initiative to rectify its legal status, in accordance with international law, was supported.

SEYMUR MARDALIYEV (Azerbaijan) said the report of the Working Group on the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights described in a comprehensive manner the work accomplished during the last session by the Working Group and progress achieved in the process so far. The last session in July was of special importance in terms of providing an opportunity to discuss and identify common elements and diversities vis-à-vis the provisions in the draft and the positions of delegations. Azerbaijan was encouraged by the active involvement of delegations during the last session, and hoped that they would further actively participate in the deliberations, and that the variety of views would be useful in achieving the best alternative.

MUNU MAHAWAR (India) said that India had no objection to a change in status of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, but the process would be very cumbersome and the current situation had not affected its work, as recognized by the Committee itself. The Committee was currently engaged in developing an Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. This work required the full resources of the Committee and should remain the focus of work for the time being.

MUSTAFIZUR RAHMAN (Bangladesh) said that the report reflected the progress made in the Working Group, leading to a position where the Council could take a decision on the matter. The rectification of the legal status of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights was supported. The change of the status was seen as necessary. The period of transition until all States would have joined the Optional Protocol should not hamper the Committee’s regular work. The possibility for an additional protocol was also considered.

MARIANA OLIVERA WEST (Mexico) said the Chairperson was to be thanked for the way in which she ran the Working Group, as the work had moved forward on a sound footing. The drafting of the Optional Protocol, seeking to provide equal rights in this area and the expansion of the enforcement of these rights, was fully supported. Mexico was ready to keep working to ensure that the instrument could be brought forward in coming sessions. With regards to the modification of the legal status of the Committee, the report by Mr. Texier was commended.

A modification of the legal situation of the Committee was in congruence with the interdependence and universality of all human rights. The legal status of the Committee should be based on the congruence of the legal and political nature of the different rights, via the various technical measures. Mexico considered that the right way forward was the presentation of an amendment to the text of the Covenant so as to bring together a conference of the States parties. The modification of the Covenant should not stand in the way of the normative work currently underway in the Committee.

OMAR SHALABY (Eqypt) welcomed the proposal to change the status of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which would not be too great a burden as the work on the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights was nearing an end. Any way forward would require additional measures, which might be cumbersome, lengthy or costly, but a path should be chosen and followed. The Human Rights Council provided the political will and a road map in relation to human rights. Any other discussion would require a meeting of the States parties to the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Changing the legal status might take years and create parallel regimes, but this would not create the same level of problems as the creation of new bodies after the completion of the Optional Protocol.

SEBASTIAN ROSALES (Argentina) said that Argentina had backed the Working Group’s work since the beginning. It was seen as important to strengthen the work of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and to provide for a broader framework in the area of human rights. There would be a series of indicators that would appear as soon as the Optional Protocol would enter into force. Argentina would continue supporting the work until negotiations would arrive to a sound document, ensuring a major protection of economic, social and cultural rights.

LADA PHUMAS (Thailand) said in principle Thailand welcomed the ongoing negotiations and positive discussions on the drafting of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. It was of the view that this should emphasise how to balance the consideration and examination of the communications received by the Committee, and the efforts and constructive cooperation of the State party in initiating relevant policies, measures and activities to respect and protect the rights in the Covenant. The Committee should assess the relevant steps taken by the State party and take into account its difficulties and the resources used in relation to the communications under consideration.

The Government of Thailand attached great importance to the Covenant and the right to development. It believed that both sets of rights were equally important, interdependent and mutually reinforcing. Thailand had made remarkable progress in various areas related to the two sets of rights. With regard to the rectification of the legal status of the Committee, Thailand concurred with the observation of the Committee forwarded to the President of the Human Rights Council that the process of modifying the Committee’s legal status should not hinder the ongoing work to elaborate an Optional Protocol to the Covenant carried out by the open-ended Working Group.

JOCHEN DE VYLDER (Belgium) welcomed the presence of Ms. Catarina de Albuquerque. Under her leadership, progress had been made on this issue which had been stalemated for more than a decade. Today, they were progressing towards an Optional Protocol introducing a procedure of individual complaints for victims of violations of economic, social and cultural rights. Belgium asked whether civil society would be allowed to start complaints procedures on behalf of victims of abuses; and whether it would be possible to consider criteria of reasonableness while maintaining the substance of the Covenant. Belgium stressed that already existing mechanisms had to be considered before creating new ones, and asked why the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights did not better use its capacities to offer technical assistance in the area of economic and social rights.

Belgium was of the opinion that the legal status of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights should be clarified as it was currently a subsidiary organ of the Economic and Social Council and was not established directly by the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

MOHAMMED BESSEDIK (Algeria) said that Algeria was firmly in favour of the process of consolidating economic, social and cultural rights, through the processes that were being discussed today. The current negotiations on the Optional Protocol were supported. Irrespective of the end result, the actual substance of the Treaty should not be changed. It was also hoped that the engaged process would not slow the adoption of the Optional Protocol.

ENZO BITETTO GAVILANES (Venezuela) said the report submitted would be very useful in ongoing sessional work in the Working Group on the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Venezuela had often reiterated its interest and strong commitment in favour of the Working Group - these rights were not goals and aspirations, but human rights which should be enforced. The drafting and ratification of an Optional Protocol was necessary to ensure better protection of these rights. Necessary efforts should be made to end the inequality by providing an instrument with a broad, not an a la carte focus. Venezuela would continue to work in a positive spirit to see that the Optional Protocol was completed, and was convinced that the international community should ensure that the universality and interdependence of human rights should become a reality.

SILVIA ESCOBAR (Spain) said Spain had participated in the sessions that led to the drafting of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and would continue to contribute to the work of the Working Group.

EDUARDO CHIHUALIAF (Chile) said that Chile agreed with the contents of the report of the Working Group on the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and it would continue to support the work as well as the mandate of the Chairperson of the Working Group. Chile had always been in favour of the strengthening of economic, social and cultural rights.

DRISS ISBAYENE (Morocco) said the efforts of making an Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights a tangible reality were appreciated. The presentation yesterday by Philippe Texier, Chairperson of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, was also appreciated. The elaboration of an Optional Protocol would strengthen the legal arsenal in the field of human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights. All human rights, whether they were economic, social and cultural rights or civil and political rights were equal and mutually reinforcing, and there should be no hierarchy or differentiation between them. The Optional Protocol should help to strengthen consistency and balance between the rights.

The Working Group that was set up to elaborate the Protocol had reached a turning point with a draft which was now open to debate. The frankness, spirit of cooperation and compromise that had marked the negotiations had helped with the progress, and this augured well for completing the work in the time allocated. International cooperation and assistance should be duly incorporated and strengthened in the Protocol. It should allow for the broadest possible accession of States, without undermining the effectiveness of the Protocol.

SHAUNA OLNEY, of International Labour Organization (ILO), welcomed the progress made during the fourth session of the open-ended Working Group on an Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The ILO had been contributing on various occasions in the Working Group. In this context, it had provided information on ILO standards and procedures and its cooperation with the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

The ILO and the United Nations had established cooperation with regard to complaints relating to trade union rights received through workers’ and employers’ organizations in an agreement in 1950. If the Human Rights Council were to pursue a collective complaints procedure, that would require further consultations between the United Nations and the ILO.

KATHARINA ROSE, of International Coordination Committee in a joint statement with German Institute for Human Rights, National Consultative Commission of France, Danish Institute for Human Rights and the Advisory Council on Human Rights of Morocco, said that the International Coordination Committee attached great importance to the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. It was important to establish a complaints procedure under the Covenant in order to strengthen the protection of victims in the field of economic, social and cultural rights and to put these rights on the same level with civil and political rights. At the present stage, some States parties still seemed to be undecided on opting-in or opting-out with respect to particular rights in the Covenant. An a la carte approach of any kind should not be pursued.

MALIK OZDEN, of Europe-Third World Centre speaking on behalf of several NGOs1, said that all rights recognized in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights should be able to be the subject of individual or collective communications to the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and that the right to self-determination should be included in the Covenant. A fund should be set up to provide compensation for victims of rights abuses, although international solidarity could not be expressed simply financially. The determination of reasonableness should be the responsibility of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

CLAUDE CAHN, of Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions, in a joint statement with Amnesty International, Food First Information and Action Network, warmly welcomed the work achieved towards the future adoption of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Of crucial importance was the need for the communication procedure to function in the same way as in other treaty bodies. The Council should adopt the Optional Protocol by April of 2008.

ISABELLE HEYER, of Colombian Commission of Jurists, said it was very important to adopt an Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights as soon as possible, as this would be a vital tool to protect the economic, social and cultural rights of those who did not have the facility of living in dignity. This would include the displaced - the living conditions of the displaced in Colombia were very far from meeting the standards stated in the Covenant. Displaced persons were among those most affected by positions of inequality. The Colombian State, despite that it had professed support to the Optional Protocol, had put forward aspects that were contrary to its spirit. All States should give strong support to an Optional Protocol which would be broad in nature and would guarantee rights.

LUKAS MACHON, of International Commission of Jurists, said that the open-ended Working Group on the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights had been given the task of closing the gap between the international recognition of economic, social and cultural rights, and civil and political rights. The International Commission of Jurists was satisfied with the progress as detailed in the report of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and expressed a clear preference for the Optional Protocol, which would provide victims with a complaints mechanism, similar to that available for civil and political rights.

ROSARIO FIGARI LAYUS, of Permanent Assembly for Human Rights, said that it as essential to adopt the Optional Protocol as it would give the opportunity to consider personal communications and oblige States to comply with this procedure, in order to ensure the protection of economic, social and cultural rights. No reservations should be allowed to the Optional Protocol, as it was an Optional Protocol and in order not to impede the integrity of this document.

LAZARO PARY, of Indian Movement “Tupaj Amaru”, in a joint statement with World Peace Council, said economic, social and cultural rights should comply with the three basic requirements of human beings: the right to food, clothing, and proper housing, as these were the material bases to ensuring that there were civil and political rights. States should comply with these needs - and there was therefore an imperious need to draft and adopt an Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. However, the fourth session of the Working Group did not seem to have made much progress in setting up a mechanism to fight poverty. There should be a mechanism to voice the complaints of the victims who were without resources and living in dire poverty, such as indigenous people, and to ensure there was just and fair distribution of wealth. States should be coherent in their policy of universality, interdependence and inter-relatedness of human rights.

TOMAS MARCON, of Judicial Committee for the Independence of Indigenous Andean People, said that it was important for the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to have a mechanism whereby indigenous people and their representatives could communicate with the Committee. The Committee had not so far reported in a way that enabled indigenous people to demand their rights.


Concluding Remarks

CATARINA DE ALBUQUERQUE, Chairperson of the Open-Ended Working Group on the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, in concluding remarks thanked the delegates for the support given for the work done by the Working Group. Informal consultations on the draft would take place during the next Human Rights Council session. She noted that the revised draft, in article number 2, foresaw the possibility for non-governmental organizations to also present communications. Many delegations had mentioned that they did not want to see changes to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. According to the Economic and Social Council, there was no need for this to happen. Also, the draft already contained some language on these criteria of reasonableness.

1Joint statement on behalf of: Europe-Third World Centre; International League for the Rights and Liberation of peoples; Women's International League for Peace and Freedom; Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples ;and Juridical Commission for Auto-Development of First Andean Peoples (CAPAJ).



For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC07081E