HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE HOLDS INFORMAL MEETING WITH STATES

The Human Rights Committee this afternoon held an informal meeting with States, discussing the lack of human resources which continued to hamper the Committee’s ability to address the current backlog of some 650 individual communications, as well as the late presentation of periodic reports by States parties.

In his opening remarks, Yuji Iwasawa, Chairperson of the Committee, regretted that 70 States parties had delays in presenting their reports to the Committee, of which 15 had never submitted their initial reports and 25 were overdue by more than 10 years. Mr. Iwasawa called on those States parties to comply with their reporting obligations as a matter of priority. Speaking about the backlog of some 650 individual communications, Mr. Iwasawa noted that whereas the Committee was willing to examine more communications during its sessions, it faced the challenge of resources in the secretariat. Unless there was a significant increase in the capacity of the secretariat to prepare communications, the Committee’s ability to address the backlog would continue to be seriously compromised. The Committee was greatly concerned that the extra meeting time that it received was not matched by commensurate additional human resources.

In her remarks, Committee Expert Anja Seibert-Fohr highlighted the Committee’s concerns about staffing issues, noting that temporary measures did not allow the Committee to deal with the sharp increase of communications in the past years. Merely increasing five positions of human rights officers was insufficient. If the proposal of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions was implemented, the Human Rights Committee would face the following dilemma: to have the necessary meeting time to reduce the backlog at the expense of not receiving a sufficient number of petitions ready for adoption.

In the ensuing discussion, States said they strongly supported the work done by human rights treaty bodies, which helped States’ understanding and protection of human rights. The ability of individuals to directly contact human rights bodies was a very important feature of the human rights system, and it should be in the common interest of States to maintain the sustainability of the current human rights system. The implementation of the decision of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions not to grant additional resources to treaty bodies would be detrimental to both States parties and treaty bodies. Certain States questioned the effectiveness of the Committee’s individual communications procedure, noting that it was not clear who dealt with complaints and under which procedure.

Speaking were Germany, Canada, Finland, Russian Federation and the United Kingdom.

The Committee will next meet in public on Thursday, 2 November, at 10 a.m. to continue the second reading of the draft General Comment No. 36 on article 6 on the right to life.

Opening Statements

YUJI IWASAWA, Chairperson of the Committee, explained that the Committee had invited States parties to the special informal meeting as the Fifth Committee of the General Assembly would soon consider the allocation of resources to support the treaty body system within the proposed programme budget for the biennium 2018-2019 in the implementation of resolution 68/268. Notwithstanding the extraordinary work and dedication of the secretariat, often working under difficult circumstances, Mr. Iwasawa stressed that the lack of resources continued to hamper the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The Committee had welcomed the report of the Secretary-General which had called for the provision of additional resources in line with the General Assembly resolution 68/268. Should the Committee not receive the needed resources, it would not be able to perform its functions. Mr. Iwasawa informed States that the Committee had made marked advances in addressing the backlog of States parties’ reports. Nevertheless, it regretted that 70 States parties had delays in presenting their reports to the Committee, of which 15 had never submitted their initial reports and 25 were overdue by more than 10 years. Mr. Iwasawa called on those States parties to comply with their reporting obligations as a matter of priority, and to take full advantage of the capacity building programme managed by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Turning to individual communications, Mr. Iwasawa informed that the Committee had a backlog of some 650 cases. Whereas the Committee was willing to examine more communications during its sessions, it faced the challenge of resources in the secretariat. Unless there was a significant increase in the capacity of the secretariat to prepare communications, the Committee’s ability to address the backlog would continue to be seriously compromised. The Committee was greatly concerned that the extra meeting time that it received was not matched by commensurate additional human resources. While extra meeting time was important, without the necessary secretariat support in preparing preliminary documentation, the Committee would not be able to use extra time as efficiently, Mr. Iwasawa emphasised.

ANJA SEIBERT-FOHR, Committee Expert, highlighted the Committee’s concerns about staffing issues. Additional meeting time had allowed the Committee to eliminate its backlog of reports and to consider additional communications. In 2014 the petitions unit of the secretariat had received additional funds in order to support the Committee, which enabled it to almost double the number of reviewed petitions during July and October sessions in 2014. However, part of those measures had only been temporary in nature and did not allow the Committee to deal with the sharp increase of communications in the past years. The number of registered cases had increased exponentially. As a result, and despite all its best efforts, the Committee’s backlog was growing. When resolution 68/268 had been adopted, the Committee had had a backlog of around 360 communications; nowadays the Committee was lagging behind in over 650 cases. In order to reduce the backlog as envisaged in the resolution, the Committee needed the necessary support by the secretariat.

Even though the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions recognized the need for additional staffing resources to prevent the backlog, it may not be aware of the full picture. In reality, the challenge was not to prevent a backlog, but to actively reduce the sharp increase in the backlog over the past four years. Thus, merely increasing five positions of human rights officers was insufficient. If the proposal of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions was implemented, the Human Rights Committee would face the following dilemma: to have the necessary meeting time to reduce the backlog at the expense of not receiving a sufficient number of petitions ready for adoption. Ms. Sebiert-Fohr expressed hope that delegations would pass on the Committee’s concerns to their counterparts in New York, and that the Committee would overcome its challenges with their help.

IBRAHIM SALAMA, Chief of the Human Rights Treaties Branch of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that the treaty body work was the basis of everything that delegations did in Geneva. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and treaty bodies had fulfilled their part of the deal. But if the formula set out by resolution 68/268 collapsed, there would be negative financial, efficiency and political consequences. Resolution 68/268 had taken some 18 years of hard work, and going back to the situation before it would be a waste.

KYLE WARD, Chief of the Programme Support and Management Services of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, explained that resolution 68/268 was a result of many years of an inter-governmental process that reviewed the human rights system. It was a great opportunity to assess what treaty bodies required in order to effectively conduct their work. It was quite innovative in moving resources and forming a package for the reassessment of resources for committees to expand their ability to address States’ reports and individual communications. It had laid out a formula and parameters - a very mathematical manner – for assessing the workload of treaty bodies. It requested the Secretary-General to incorporate those into his biennial budget reports. The first report had been presented in 2016 and it had proposed less time for the review of States parties’ reports, but 80 per cent more time for the review of individual communications. The Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions had previously concluded that there was no legislative basis for the inclusion of additional resources for treaty bodies, but it had noted that there was an increase in the workload of committees. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights had made it clear that the main problem with the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions was that it had not understood the very clear wording of resolution 68/268.

The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights also had to explain how the workload analysis informed the attribution of resources. There was a disproportionate number of staff to cover the workload in connection to individual communications. There was a vast amount of preparatory work that the secretariat had to perform. Contrary to what the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions had proposed, there would be an increased backlog if additional resources were not made available to treaty bodies, Mr. Ward stressed.

Statements by States

Germany stated that it strongly supported the work of human rights treaty bodies, which helped States’ understanding and protection of human rights. The ability of individuals to directly contact human rights bodies was a very important feature of the human rights system. It should be in the common interest of States to maintain the sustainability of the current human rights system. Germany called on States to support the proposed formula. What were next possible steps to enhance the effectiveness of the international human rights treaty system?

Canada underlined the importance of having a broad communication both in New York and Geneva in order to promote and protect human rights globally, underlining the importance of implementing resolution 68/268. The implementation of the decision of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions would be detrimental to both States parties and treaty bodies. Canada encouraged other States to support the formula, and it recognized that the secretariat operated under constraints. What level of information was provided to the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions prior to its decision?

Finland expressed full support for the efforts made by treaty bodies and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to ensure the efficiency and impact of their work. It wanted to see resolution 68/268 implemented and treaty bodies had at their disposal the necessary resources. Finland also asked that the decision of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions be forwarded to capitals. What mechanisms were in place to address the Committee’s backlog?

Russian Federation preferred the meeting with States parties to take place in a formal format and to focus not only on the lack of resources, but also on steps taken by the Human Rights Committee to implement resolution 68/268. What work was being done to streamline methods of work with other treaty bodies? As for the problem of lack of resources, the Russian Federation disagreed that the formula clearly set out the automatic implementation of resolution 68/268; that was only true with respect to additional meeting time granted to treaty bodies. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights should take steps of an explanatory nature. What possible solutions existed within the Human Rights Committee to provide secretarial services with respect to individual communications? It seemed that the procedure could not really be improved as such. Recently, the Human Rights Committee had found that the Russian Federation had breached several articles of the Covenant. However, the Russian Federation was of the view that it could not deal with issues that did not fall under its purview, and that the individual communications procedure was not entirely effective. The Petitions Unit of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights received complaints and decided which committee would deal with certain individual communications. How did the Petitions Unit work and sort out complaints? It was not clear who dealt with complaints and under which procedure.

United Kingdom inquired about additional meeting time foreseen for the Human Rights Committee and asked about its impact on the Committee’s methods of work. The United Kingdom had devoted great attention to the selection of its candidates to the Committee through an open national selection process, and it recommended it to other States as well.

Replies by Committee Experts

YUJI IWASAWA, Committee Chairperson, reminded of the July 2017 informal meeting with States parties when a number of issues had been comprehensively discussed. The Committee was constantly trying to improve its methods of work. Harmonising and alignment of methods of work with other treaty bodies was discussed by chairs of all treaty bodies once a year. In terms of the implementation of resolution 68/268, the Committee was harmonising and aligning its work with other committees and it had adopted the simplified reporting procedure. The Working Group to review the simplified reporting procedure had been established in 2016. The Committee had also started informal discussions on what more could be done to implement resolution 68/268.
On dealing with the backlog of individual communications, the Committee had taken a number of measures, such as splitting them on the basis of admissibility and merits.
The Committee had also adopted the repetitive communications procedure to deal with complaints dealing with similar issues in an accelerated manner. However, the backlog was overwhelming and the Committee would not be able to address it without increased secretariat resources.

Committee Experts reiterated that without the resolution 68/268 formula, the Human Rights Committee would not be able to perform its role. They underscored the need to address 650 pending cases. At the current pace, it would take the Committee some seven years to clear the backlog. However, more communications would be received in the meantime. The process was unsustainable and it had a tangible impact on States and rights holders. Justice delayed was justice denied, Experts stressed.

Experts noted that if until 2020 the resources package was not implemented, it would not be possible to assess the formula. Experts also reminded that in 2020 there would be a need to address the backlog in reporting by States. Another issue was the reporting burden and the need for a more reasonable reporting calendar. The Human Rights Committee was reaching its full operational capacity with Experts working on a voluntary and interim basis.

With respect to the repetitive communications procedure and the decreased number of reports during the reporting cycle from three to two, Experts underlined the need to maintain quality control in the preparation of cases. Experts said they were working on revising methods of work regarding individual communications to streamline them with other treaty bodies, and regarding the list of issues. Treaty body alignment and reform of working methods did not happen without resource support. Experts urged States parties to take account of those resource needs of the human rights system.

Concluding Remarks

IBRAHIM SALAMA, Chief of the Human Rights Treaties Branch of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, thanked participants for the useful exchange, noting that resolution 68/268 was not a permanent solution. There were anomalies, but no single side should be blamed for this. Any backlog in individual communications was endangering lives because people had exhausted national remedies. States parties were at a crossroads: if the formula was not fulfilled by 2020, States parties would have to face the crisis already in 2018. The formula should be saved not just for the sake of the human rights system, but for the benefit of other parts of the human rights structure.

KYLE WARD, Chief of the Programme Support and Management Services of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, thanked the Russian Federation for pointing out a number of areas about lack of information. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights would share information regarding the decision of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions.

YUJI IWASAWA, Committee Chairperson, thanked all States for their attendance and interest and support for the Committee’s work.



For use of the information media; not an official record

CT/17/43E