HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE DISCUSSES METHODS OF WORK

The Human Rights Committee this morning discussed its methods of work, focusing on the outcome of the General Assembly resolution 68/268 on the treaty body strengthening process.

Opening the discussion, Nigel Rodley, Chairperson of the Committee, informed the Committee members about the twenty-sixth meeting of the Treaty Bodies’ Chairpersons which had taken place in New York several weeks earlier to formulate the response to the General Assembly resolution 68/268. All the participants in the meeting had agreed that it was not their job to implement the resolution; their tasks flew from the treaties themselves. The General Assembly could certainly provide resources and issue guidance on how to use those resources. In the meeting, there had been more reflection on each treaty body practice rather than harmonization or alignment. The Secretariat’s draft had provided an insight into good practices. The spirit in the meeting had been positive, given the fact that the General Assembly had recognized various problems, especially the problem of backlog, and decided to assign additional resources. The resolution was better than many chairpersons had expected, and with very little infringement on the existing practices.

An Expert wondered about the issue of dual chambers, and whether it was up to each committee to devise its strategy in that regard. The Chairperson confirmed that the resolution itself had raised the advantages of dual chambers, but it was up to each individual committee to devise its own approach. Another Expert raised the issue of excessive uniformization without taking into consideration the particularities of every committee. The Chairperson reiterated that the “Poznan Formula” meant that chairs had to consult with their committee members before agreeing to any proposed changes. Another Expert noted that there were still some more fundamental problems behind the treaty body system than had been resolved with the General Assembly resolution, and more work remained to be done. Just having the meetings of chairpersons themselves was not the best formula for cross-fertilization of ideas. Concern over alignment with other committees was expressed, as it might affect the flexibility of the Committee.

Kate Fox, Secretary of the Human Rights Committee, briefed the Committee on the draft conclusions, decisions and recommendations of the meeting of Chairpersons of the Treaty Bodies. Any issues regarding extra meeting time would be considered by the Bureau and brought back to the Committee. The Chairpersons had discussed three papers – on the simplified reporting procedure, the constructive dialogue and the concluding observations. The Committee had an optional procedure to adopt a list of issues for willing States, whose responses would then be considered as their report. So far, 28 States had applied to sign up the list of issues prior to reporting procedure, three States had said that they would not want to, and others had not responded yet. One of the issues was whether the simplified reporting procedure should be open to all States. As an aid and assistance to States parties, a Guidance Note on the constructive dialogue should be made available to States parties. The Committee might want to consider establishing a rapporteur on reprisals.

In the discussion on simplified reporting procedures, Experts expressed an opinion that those should either be available to all States preparing periodic reports or to no States at all. One Expert stated that simplified reporting procedures should not be available for initial reports. All States had been informed of the existence of such procedures, and perhaps some limiting conditions would need to be removed. The issue of resources in the context was also raised – some savings when it came to translation could be made. An Expert asked about the link between the simplified reporting procedures and periodicity. Ms. Fox said that the cost-saving measures had already been included in the resolution. The response to the list of issues was the State party’s report, so resources were already being saved that way. In the bureau meeting the following week, the issue of the backlog, primarily on communications, would be discussed. With the current rate of receiving reports, of about 17 per year, the Committee should not experience a backlog any time soon. The number of the lists of issues that the Committee could receive was still unknown.

On the subject of constructive dialogue, several Experts asked whether speaking time for State delegations and task force members could be limited. During their presentations, State delegations rarely added anything substantial, which had not already been expressed in their reports. Time limits would be further discussed and piloted. Word limits for State reports were already clearly defined and in place. Mr. Rodley said that each time the Committee membership changed, the Committee would need to decide what its three working languages would be, and whether it would need to ask for an exception.

Regarding the establishment of a Special Rapporteur on Reprisals, it was explained that at least two other committees already had that function, as there were pertinent cases that arose from time to time in both communications and periodic reports. An Expert suggested that the function be given to the Chairperson himself, which would prevent the creation of another position. An Expert expressed doubt that such a function was needed or appropriate for the Human Rights Committee, unless there were stronger justifying circumstances. The bureau would look into the issue in more detail.

The Human Rights Committee will resume its work this afternoon at 3 p.m. to consider the fourth periodic report of Ireland (CCPR/C/IRL/4).


For use of the information media; not an official record

CT14/021E