HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE DISCUSSES METHODS OF WORK

The Human Rights Committee discussed its methods of work this morning, focusing on outcomes of the Meeting of the Treaty Body Chairpersons, and the Guidelines against Intimidation or Reprisals (“San Jose Guidelines”). At the end of the meeting, the Committee adopted the San Jose Guidelines. Given that this would be the last session he would chair, Committee Experts thanked the outgoing Committee Chairperson, Fabian Omar Salvioli, for having represented the Committee diligently and effectively.

Opening the discussion, Fabian Omar Salvioli, Committee Chairperson, reported on the Meeting of the Treaty Body Chairpersons, which had been held in New York from 30 May to 3 June 2016, with the attendance of ten Treaty Body Chairpersons. The main issue discussed at that meeting had been Member States which had not presented their reports. The Committee Chairpersons had emphasized the importance that those countries be examined, notwithstanding their reports and even in their absence. The Committee Chairpersons had also discussed the Guidelines on the Independence and Impartiality of Members of the Human Rights Treaty Bodies (“Addis Ababa Guidelines”), as well as the Guidelines against Intimidation or Reprisals (“San Jose Guidelines”). Committee Chairpersons had addressed the General Assembly Resolution 68/268 on the Strengthening and Enhancing the effective Functioning of the Human Rights Treaty Body System. In that respect, Mr. Salvioli was of the opinion that the mandate of the Committees derived from the Covenants and not from the General Assembly.

The Chairpersons’ Meeting had also discussed the necessity to deepen the Treaty Bodies’ relations with National Human Rights Institutions. On that point, Mr. Salvioli informed that he had prepared a document, outlining how the onstitutions could take advantage of the Committee’s recommendations. Another point of discussion had been harmonising the issue of compensations in individual communications. Also raised during the Treaty Body Chairpersons Meeting had been procedures of inquiries and field missions, which were not in the mandate of the Human Rights Committee. Finally, Mr. Salvioli reported that the Treaty Body Chairpersons had adopted the Declaration for Solidarity with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, following the crisis within the institution. A declaration had also been adopted on the fiftieth anniversary of the two International Covenants deriving from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, namely the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights. Mr. Salvioli would provide the Committee Experts with all the outcome documents from the Meeting.

During the discussion on the Meeting of the Treaty Body Chairpersons, an Expert deemed it necessary to clarify the role of the General Assembly and the decisions it adopted with regards to the Treaty Bodies. The Expert stressed that the Treaty Bodies’ mandates and legitimacy derived from the international instruments whose application they were established to oversee. Another Expert stated that that there was very little knowledge of the Committees and their work at the United Nations Secretariat in New York, and that there was a wide divergence between the work of the Committee and the impact it should have on policy in New York. All Experts underlined the importance of the Treaty Body Chairpersons’ Meeting, which was the only forum for discussion and exchange between the Treaty Bodies. While some reiterated the importance of resurrecting a systemic and more formal mechanism for an exchange and dialogue among the Committees, others suggested that lower level, ad-hoc working groups or other structures between the Treaty Bodies be initiated.

In the second part of the meeting, Committee Experts examined the Guidelines against Intimidation or Reprisals (“San Jose Guidelines”). Fabian Omar Salvioli, Committee Chairperson, introduced the San Jose Guidelines, explaining that those had been endorsed the previous year in Costa Rica, in response to a concern on the intimidation or reprisals against people who cooperated with Treaty Bodies. Seven of the Treaty Bodies had endorsed the Guidelines following a lengthy debate chaired by Mr. Malcom Evans, Chairperson of the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture, attended by the Chairs of the Treaty Bodies.

During the discussion, Committee Experts raised their concern regarding reprisals against individuals and groups who sought to cooperate, were cooperating or had cooperated with the Treaty Bodies, and agreed that that was a very important issue. Some underlined that Committee Experts also faced intimidation. While all Experts agreed that the Guidelines against Intimidation or Reprisals (“San Jose Guidelines”) was a very important document, some regretted not having discussed it earlier, and others remarked that it lacked a clear definition of the term “reprisal”, as well as reference to the human rights incorporated in the Covenants. Still other Experts disagreed with certain references in the Guidelines. Given the specific nature of each Treaty Body, Mr. Salvioli informed that the document had been drafted in a general manner, so as to conform to all Treaty Bodies.

The Committee concluded its Methods of Work meeting by adopting the Guidelines against Intimidation or Reprisals (“San Jose Guidelines”).

The Human Rights Committee will next meet in public at 3 p.m. today, when it will discuss the sixth periodic report of Ecuador (CCPR/C/ECU/6).



For use of the information media; not an official record

CT16/023E