COMMITTEE ON ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION HOLDS DIALOGUE WITH HIGH COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE, INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANIZATION

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination this afternoon held a dialogue with representatives of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to discuss interaction between national human rights institutions and United Nations human rights treaty bodies, and a framework for identifying indicators for monitoring compliance with international human rights instruments. It also had a discussion with a representative of the International Labour Organization (ILO) on ways that the Committee and the ILO could work together.

Gianni Magazzeni, Coordinator of the National Institutions Unit of OHCHR, said that, over the past year, the strategy of OHCHR had been to ensure more effective support and integration of treaty body recommendations into the Office's work – with them providing guidance and support to human rights action at the country level by the United Nations and other partners, such as national human rights institutions. OHCHR commended the specific recognition of the independent status of national human rights institutions by this Committee and the specific provision in its rules enabling “A” status accredited institutions to participate in its sessions when their State party report was being considered. It was hoped that the practice and standards set by the Committee would be replicated in other United Nations human rights treaty bodies.

Nicolas Fasel, of the Research and Right to Development Branch of OHCHR, said that OHCHR had developed a conceptual and methodological framework for identifying indicators contextually useful and feasible for monitoring compliance with international human rights instruments. The framework did not seek to prepare a common list of indicators to be applied across all countries, nor to make a case for building a global measure for cross-country comparisons of the realization of human rights. Using that framework, lists of illustrative indicators had been prepared for 12 human rights, including the right to life; the right to participate in public affairs; the right to education; the right to a fair trial; and the right to work. A process of country-level consultations had been undertaken to validate and improve the framework and to identify additional context-specific indicators, and further workshops were scheduled in 2008.

Martin Oelz, Legal Officer at the International Labour Standards Department of the International Labour Organization (ILO), in an overview of new developments, highlighted a new ILO booklet on eliminating discrimination against indigenous and tribal peoples, which was a practical guide to ILO Convention No. 111, concerning Discrimination in Respect of Employment and Occupation. The guide would provide information on how to identify such discrimination in the workplace and how to seek redress. The ILO Governing Body last November had also issued its second plan of action to eliminate discrimination in the work place. Racial discrimination was one of the foci of the plan, and ILO was working with the international community to address that issue.

When the Committee reconvenes at 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 19 February, it is scheduled to take up the combined sixteenth and seventeenth periodic reports of Fiji (CERD/C/FJI/17).

Statements

GIANNI MAGAZZENI, Coordinator of the National Institutions Unit of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), said that, over the past year, the strategy of OHCHR had been to ensure more effective support and integration of treaty body recommendations into OHCHR's work – with them providing guidance and support to human rights action at the country level by the United Nations and other partners, such as members of the United Nations Country Team or national human rights institutions. Recommendations of treaty bodies were more consistently reflected in the priorities for action and country engagement strategies and were often implemented thanks to the support of OHCHR Framework Programmes, as well as in some cases national human rights institutions. More and more, OHCHR work was focusing on follow-up to the recommendations resulting from the international human rights system, including changes in legislation, changes in practice involving the administration of justice, standing orders or implementing regulations, and the setting up of national human rights institutions.

Mr. Magazzeni was also pleased to bring to the Committee's attention the fact that the new Strategic Management Plan for 2008-2009 listed as global indicator number one the number of "A" status national human rights institutions or national human rights institutions that had been strengthened by the OHCHR. A representative of the International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights (ICC) was now based in Geneva, and could speak on behalf of the "A" status national human rights institutions in both treaty body sessions and in the Human Rights Council. The High Commissioner's Office commended the specific recognition of the independent status of national human rights institutions by the Committee and the specific provision in its rules enabling “A” status accredited institutions to participate in Committee sessions when their State party report was being considered. It was hoped that the practice and standards set by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination would be replicated in other United Nations human rights treaty bodies.

In November 2007, a treaty body workshop had been held in Geneva, where national human rights institution representatives from different regions around the world engaged with treaty body experts from this Committee, as well as from the Human Rights Committee, the Committee against Torture and the Sub-Committee on the Prevention of Torture. That dialogue had further strengthened the role of the national human rights institutions in the treaty body process and had led to the adoption of conclusions for greater interaction among them. The main objectives of the workshop had been to review lessons learned and best practices, as well as to build the capacity of national human rights institutions in their interaction with treaty bodies, including in follow-up action. National human rights institutions had shared their experience and specific practice in terms of interaction with the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and implementation of its concluding observations.

National human rights institutions currently took part in treaty body work, although actual participation in treaty body reporting in some regions was relatively low, Mr. Magazzeni noted. To address that, last week, in Arusha, Tanzania, an East African sub-regional workshop on treaty body reporting had been organized by OHCHR. In addition to Governments from the region, several national human rights institutions had participated in that event, including the recently established Secretariat of national human rights institutions in Africa, based in Nairobi. The main objective of that workshop had been to share experiences on reporting practices to the various Committees, in particular by looking at how to address challenges in achieving timely and qualitative reporting in East African countries.

Regarding national human rights institutions in the countries whose reports the Committee would review at this session, briefing notes had been provided with specific recommendations. In general, accreditation to the ICC was encouraged in order to ensure national human rights institutions were in compliance with the Paris Principles and played an active role in the international human rights system. Mr. Magazzeni concluded by further recommending that the Committee encourage States parties to establish national human rights institutions in compliance with the Paris Principles where none existed.

During the discussion which followed Mr. Magazzeni's statement, an Expert asked if any of the other human rights committees were working in the same way as the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination was with national human rights institutions. An Expert asked for clarification on the differences in the role between national human rights institutions and country offices of the OHCHR. In particular, how was the Committee to understand or "read" the situation in which OHCHR had a country office in a country where there was already a strong national human rights institution in place?

Responding, Mr. Magazzeni said that the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination was the most advanced in terms of its treatment and work with the national human rights institutions. The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, which had recently met in Geneva, had been looking at this Committee's practice as a model to follow. That was also true of other Committees.

Regarding the meeting in November, OHCHR was looking to have representatives from national human rights institution to interface with the human rights treaties bodies as early as the stage of formulating the list of issues for consideration.

As to why there were OHCHR offices in countries where there were A-accredited national human rights institutions, Mr. Magazzeni noted that, in the past, the country offices had undertaken their work often without discussion or interaction with those institutions. They were specifically looking to fix that. Now, in a number of countries, like Uganda, the office was looking to work with such national human rights institutions as part of an exit strategy, and the eventual transfer of their functions to those A-accredited institutions. There should not be duplication of work or competition at the country level to do the same work. OHCHR had to concentrate its efforts elsewhere.

NICOLAS FASEL, of the Research and Right to Development Branch of OHCHR, said that OHCHR, in consultation with a panel of experts, involving members of treaty bodies, special rapporteurs, United Nations agencies and civil society organizations, had developed a conceptual and methodological framework for identifying indicators contextually useful and feasible for monitoring compliance with international human rights instruments. That framework had been outlined in the Report on Indicators for Monitoring Compliance with International Human Rights Instruments (HRI/MC/2006/7) prepared for submission to the Inter-Committee Meeting in June 2006. At its most recent session, the Inter-Committee Meeting had requested that the Secretariat pursue its work, identify indicators on additional human rights and undertake a validation exercise through piloting and consultations. The Secretariat had been requested to report on progress to the Inter-Committee Meeting in June 2008.

The main features of the framework were a common approach for identifying indicators for monitoring civil and political rights, as well as economic, social and cultural rights, Mr. Fasel said. The identified indicators should bring to the fore an assessment of the steps taken by States parties in addressing their obligations. The framework did not seek to prepare a common list of indicators to be applied across all countries, nor to make a case for building a global measure for cross-country comparisons of the realization of human rights. The framework focused on two categories of indicators: those that were or could be compiled by official statistical systems using administrative records or statistical surveys; and, second, indicators or standardized information more generally compiled by non-governmental sources and human rights organizations focusing on alleged violations. Efforts had been made to keep the indicators simple, and based on objective and transparent methodology.

Using that framework then, Mr. Fasel continued, lists of illustrative indicators had been prepared for 12 human rights: the right to life; the right to liberty and security of person; the right to participate in public affairs; the right not to be tortured; the right to health; the right to food; the right to housing; the right to education; the right to freedom of opinion and expression; the right to a fair trial; the right to social security; and the right to work.


Mr. Fasel underscored that a process of country-level consultations had been undertaken to validate and improve the framework and to identify additional context-specific indicators. In 2007, a sub-regional workshop had been undertaken in New Delhi; a sub-regional workshop had been organized in Kampala in October that year; and a national seminar on human rights indicators had been held in Brazil in December. Further workshops were scheduled in 2008.

In the discussion that followed this presentation, an Expert asked whether the indicators were currently available, and which indicators should be considered the most important. Mr. Fasel said the indicators were available, although they had not been posted on the website yet, as they were not finalized. Hard copies of the tables would be provided tomorrow. A list of illustrative indicators was not relevant for all countries. The framework should guide the process at the national level for the identification of contextually relevant indicators. The indicators in the tables could be used as a toolbox for assessing the countries, but additional indicators would need to be identified. Workshops organized at the national level would be critical in terms of the sensitivity of the indicators in regard to particular rights.

MARTIN OELZ, Legal Officer at the International Labour Standards Department of the International Labour Organization (ILO), said that ILO had developed a number of new promotional materials of relevance to the Committee's work. In particular it had a new booklet on "Eliminating discrimination against indigenous and tribal peoples", a practical guide to ILO Convention No. 111, concerning Discrimination in Respect of Employment and Occupation. The guide would provide information on how to identify such discrimination in the workplace and how to seek redress. The ILO not only favoured legal recourse in such cases, but also other methods of redressing inequalities, including development of broader policies that addressed existing inequalities in practice.

The ILO Governing Body last November had issued its second plan of action to eliminate discrimination in the work place. Racial discrimination was one of the foci of the plan, and ILO was working with the international community to address that issue. Unfortunately, Mr. Oelz said, the issue of discrimination was, among the four core labour standards issues, the one that had attracted the least funding. That had meant that there was no specific programme on discrimination at ILO, such as there was for child labour and other areas. Nevertheless, every March a progress report was considered by the Governing Body on the issue of discrimination in work.

ILO had increasingly seen the adoption of legislation against discrimination in the context of work, and more court cases brought, Mr. Oelz said. At issue here was the existence of exceptions clauses to such legislation. It was ILO's stance that any such clauses had to be interpreted as narrowly as possible.

ILO had also recently cooperated with the High Commissioner for Human Rights to address technical issues regarding police forces. From the OHCHR perspective the workshop had been to promote more diverse police forces, whereas for the ILO it had been a workplace issue – the need to combat discrimination in recruitment, etc., Mr. Oelz concluded.

An Expert said that ILO conventions regarding indigenous and tribal peoples were out-of-date and no longer responded to current understanding. They could not effectively address the situation of indigenous peoples and the issues that concerned them. It was no wonder then that they were not being implemented. It was time to move forward and do something for those people. What was needed was an instrument that looked at the issue in terms of dignity and the right to jobs.


Responding, Mr. Oelz said that ILO saw the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as complementing ILO Convention No. 169 concerning indigenous and tribal peoples; indeed, there were a number of synergies between the two instruments, but also with other ILO conventions, including those that looked at child labour. ILO therefore placed hope on the cooperation with the United Nations system on the basis of that Declaration. As for Convention 107, that Convention had been superseded in large part by Convention 169. ILO had a policy of inviting all States parties to Convention No. 107 to adopt Convention No. 169. The latter Convention had sought to take into account developments that had taken place in international law since Convention 107 had been adopted, as well as developments in the situation of indigenous and tribal peoples in all regions of the world. In addition, ILO tried to give a reading of Convention No. 107 in line with more current concepts of indigenous rights, such as the importance of the right to land.


For use of the information media; not an official record

CRD08003E