HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL HOLDS HIGH-LEVEL PANEL DISCUSSION MARKING THE FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF THE TWO HUMAN RIGHTS COVENANTS

The Human Rights Council this morning held a high-level panel discussion marking the fiftieth anniversary of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, with a focus on the universality, indivisibility, interdependence and interrelatedness of human rights.

Choi Kyonglim, President of the Human Rights Council, said that human rights could not stand alone in isolation, and the enjoyment of one right was linked to the enjoyment of others. The balance between the two Covenants was in this regard crucial. Their implementation should be placed on an equal footing.

Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that the rights protected by the two Covenants were inseparable, and they built up a virtuous spiral that primed the forces of sustainable development and peace. There was no valid justification for refraining from ratifying these fundamental treaties. Further efforts were also needed for their implementation. When 62 people enjoy the same wealth as 3.8 billion individuals and the wealth of the poorest part of the world’s population was diminishing steadily, the world was far from the Covenants’ vision of freedom from want.

Gennady Gatilov, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, regretted the skewing toward civil and political rights to the detriment of economic, social and cultural rights. The challenge for the multilateral structure today was to reject double standards and ensure the continuity and equal value of all human rights enshrined in both Covenants. He issued a call on all States to become parties to the international Covenants whose universalization would strengthen the protection of human rights while respecting the cultural and civilizational diversity of today’s world.

Fabián Omar Salvioli, Chair of the Human Rights Committee, said that the Cold War had brought about that artificial division of human rights into categories. The international community needed to move forward with the challenges it faced in the area of human rights, but it should never lose sight of the interdependence of these rights.

Waleed Sadi, Chair of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, said that the two Covenants were the two wings of the same bird, without which the bird could not fly. The separation between those rights was starting to come to an end, and maybe one day only one treaty body would monitor the implementation of the two Covenants.

Catarina De Albuquerque, Executive Chair of the Sanitation and Water For All Partnership, referred to challenges to the universality, interrelatedness and interdependence of human rights, including a lack of legal protection of some rights, unequal wealth distribution, taboos regarding discrimination, misconceptions that some rights were more important than others, and existence of two distinct Covenants and treaty bodies.

Andrey Klishas, Chairperson of the Committee on Constitutional Legislation and State-Building of the Council of the Federation of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, noted that the split between the two Covenants had to be overcome. The Russian Constitution contained the concept of a social State. This meant that at the level of the Constitution, Russia had basic economic, social, and cultural rights. Political and civil rights were also enumerated and protected by the Constitution, while national legislation implemented these essential rights.

Sakiko Fukuda-Parr, Professor of International Affairs, The New School, speaking on development and the essential role of human rights, said that human rights had become increasingly central to development over the past two decades. The concept of development was being redefined, becoming broader and more human focused, incorporating the realization of human rights as an essential element.

In the ensuing discussion, speakers expressed their commitments to the rights protected by the two Covenants. They highlighted the universality, indivisibility and interrelatedness of all human rights, and regretted that civil and political rights were often given priority over economic, social and cultural rights. States called for the universal ratification of the Covenants, and underlined the important role of treaty bodies in monitoring the implementation of the Covenants, and encouraged closer cooperation between the Human Rights Committee and the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. States also stressed the crucial role of civil society, and condemned acts of reprisal and intimidation against them.

Speaking were Kyrgyzstan, Brazil, Botswana, Viet Nam, Greece, European Union, Slovenia, Australia, Finland on behalf of Denmark, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, Russian Federation on behalf of the Like-Minded Group, South Africa, China, France, Ecuador, Bolivia, Namibia, Netherlands, Nepal, Indonesia, Colombia, Mexico, Philippines, Iran, Pakistan, Sudan, Egypt, Romania, India, and Venezuela.

Also speaking were Human Rights Commission of Malaysia, Centre pour les Droits Civils and Politiques, Human Rights House Foundation, National Human Rights Commission of Mauritania, Pacific Disability Forum, Espace Afrique International, and Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom.

The Human Rights Council is having a full day of meetings today. It will continue its work at noon, to resume its High-Level Segment until 9 p.m.

Opening Statements

CHOI KYONGLIM, President of the Human Rights Council, said that the Human Rights Council had decided to mark the fiftieth anniversary of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights through a panel discussion with a focus on the universality, indivisibility, interdependence and inter-relatedness of human rights, pursuant to Council resolution 29/1. Human rights could not stand alone in isolation, and the enjoyment of one right was linked to the enjoyment of others. The balance between the two Covenants was in this regard crucial. Their implementation should be placed on an equal footing.

ZEID RA’AD AL HUSSEIN, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that half a century ago, the General Assembly unanimously adopted the two great Covenants which brought force of law to the principles laid out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Humanity’s collective experience of genocide, devastating warfare, colonial oppression and financial devastation had driven home the fact that respecting human rights ensured that nations and people could live in peace, with development that was sustainable and long-standing. The rights protected by the two Covenants were inseparable, and they built up a virtuous spiral that primed the forces of sustainable development and peace. Together with the indispensable guidance of the Human Rights Committee and the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Covenants had helped to extend the rights of people crushed by tyranny and discrimination for generations, and had sustained the force of grassroots activism by ensuring that governments could be held to account.

Twenty-seven States had ratified neither of the Covenants, and eight States had only ratified one, the High Commissioner noted, while underlining that there was no valid justification for refraining from ratifying these fundamental treaties. He called on those States to proceed to full ratification in the course of this anniversary year. It was also crucial that the Covenants were more widely implemented. When 62 people enjoyed the same wealth as 3.8 billion individuals and the wealth of the poorest part of the world’s population was diminishing steadily, the world was far from the Covenants’ vision of freedom from want, he said. Freedom of the press, of belief, of opinion and the right to peaceful assembly were under acute threat in many countries. Torture and slavery continued to inflict intolerable pain. No valid ground could justify these practices, including State security. This anniversary had to be an occasion to reaffirm the commitment to the International Bill of Rights. These texts were the bedrock of sound governance, and in them lived the world’s hope for peace.

GENNADY GATILOV, Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, said that the Covenants laid the foundation for human rights commitments. The adoption of provisions was a very complex task. Half a century after the adoption of the ground-breaking Covenants, there was a skewing toward civil and political rights to the detriment of economic, social and cultural rights. The challenge for the multilateral structure today was rejecting double standards and ensuring the continuity and equal value of all human rights enshrined in the international Covenants. There was a need to resist ceding to pressure. He issued a call on all States to become parties to the international Covenants whose universalization would strengthen the protection of human rights while respecting the cultural and civilizational diversity of today’s world. Today’s high-level discussion would make a contribution toward that noble goal.

Statements by the Panellists

FABIÁN OMAR SALVIOLI, Chair of the Human Rights Committee, said that it was the Cold War which had brought about that artificial division of human rights into categories, and that division had been growing bigger and narrower in line with the progress made. The 1993 World Conference in Vienna had been a watershed, where Member States had enshrined the universality and indivisibility of all human rights for all men and women. Interdependence meant that the enjoyment of one human right relied on a person being able to enjoy all human rights. The international community needed to move forward with the challenges it faced in the area of human rights, but should never lose sight of the interdependence of these rights. The right to education, for example, was a source for enjoying all other human rights. The International Covenants should act as road maps for all States. The Sustainable Development Goals could not be achieved unless Member States worked on the basis of the Covenants and human rights.

WALEED SADI, Chair of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, underlined the indivisibility of the two Covenants. They were the two wings of the same bird, without which the bird could not fly. The provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on the right to work or the right to education were reflected in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Rights could not be examined in isolation of one another. During the Cold War, when the Socialist Block tried to have one Covenant instead of two, other countries opposed this idea, saying that civil and political rights could be implemented straight away, while economic rights took longer. The separation between those rights was starting to come to an end, and maybe one day only one treaty body would monitor the implementation of the two Covenants.

CATARINA DE ALBUQUERQUE, Executive Chair of the Sanitation and Water for All Partnership, referred to challenges to the universality, interrelatedness and interdependence of human rights. The first challenge was a lack of legal protection leading to impunity for the violation of certain rights. The fact that certain rights were not justiciable led to a de facto hierarchy between rights. The second challenge was the unequal wealth distribution, leading to human rights violations affecting primarily the most vulnerable people. The third challenge was existing stigma and taboos regarding discrimination affecting persons from sexual minorities, persons with disabilities, or persons belonging to other minorities. The fourth challenge was that misconception that some rights were more important than others, or took longer to implement than others. The last challenge was procedural. The existence of two Covenants and two treaty bodies led to the fragmentation of rights. One way to strengthen the treaty system was to work on the unification of the Committees.

Andrey Klishas, Chairperson of the Committee on Constitutional Legislation and State-Building of the Council of the Federation of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, speaking on translating the universality of the Covenants into practice and human rights in everyday life for everyday people, said that the split between the two Covenants had to be overcome. The Russian Constitution contained the concept of a social State. This meant that at the level of the Constitution, Russia had basic economic, social, and cultural rights, which provided equality of men and women, labour rights, social provisions and other relevant rights. These had real mechanisms for implementation in the Russian legislation. Political and civil rights were also enumerated and protected by the Constitution, while national legislation implemented these essential rights. Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights elaborated the right to self-determination. Many States underestimated this right while in the Russian Constitution it was one of the main principles, and it was implemented through the federal structures. It was not just a question of having provisions for social rights but mechanisms to implement them.

Sakiko Fukuda-Parr, Professor of International Affairs, The New School, speaking on development and the essential role of human rights, said that human rights had become increasingly central to development over the past two decades. The concept of development was being redefined, becoming broader and more human focused, incorporating the realization of human rights as an essential element. Human rights activists were increasingly venturing into fields and terrains traditional to development, such as poverty, peacebuilding, post conflict resolution and fiscal austerity. The substantive meaning of the principles in the two Covenants in the field of development was becoming concretely elaborated and advocated. The recent adoption of Agenda 2030 and the Sustainable Development Goals was a manifestation of these transitions. An academic debate had emerged that was sceptical of human rights as a vector of social change. Around the world, people were mobilizing to claim their rights in the face of economic globalization that had led to dispossession, continued poverty, loss of livelihoods and more. There were environmental destruction and other processes driven by economic globalisation that the Agenda 2030 tried to reverse.

Discussion

Kyrgyzstan said that all States had a right to their own development, taking into account national and other specificities. Brazil said that in considering strategies to overcome current severe crises, the Council had to debate root causes and determine comprehensive action, and that a fragmented approach on human rights was not acceptable. Botswana asked what the factors were that had led to the apparent hierarchy of rights between the two Covenants, and looking ahead, what needed to be done at the level of the United Nations as well as at the regional and national levels to bring the two sets of rights to be at par. Viet Nam said that while strongly believing in the universality of human rights, the regional and national particularities as well as countries’ level of development and historical and cultural backgrounds should not be underestimated, and no single model was applicable to all countries. Greece said that the Human Rights Council should equally focus on both sets of rights, adding that Greece would be supporting an initiative on the right to work as envisaged in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

European Union said that the fiftieth anniversary of the Covenants was an excellent opportunity to reaffirm the universality and mutually reinforcing nature of human rights. Human Rights could not be ranked in a hierarchy; the two Covenants were interdependent and equally important. Slovenia, also speaking on behalf of Austria, Liechtenstein and Switzerland, asked how the principles enshrined in the Covenants could be strengthened within existing monitoring systems, and also how globalization and the rise of non-State actors affected States' abilities to ensure that the guarantees of the Covenants remained the benchmark of development in the future. Australia reaffirmed its commitment to protecting the rights protected by the two Covenants, and underlined the importance of an effective international legal framework and of holding to account those who violated human rights. Finland, also speaking on behalf of Denmark, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, said the Covenants continued to carry the important message and obligations of human rights for all regardless of origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation and gender identity, and underlined the importance of civil society collaboration with the treaty bodies, without intimidation or reprisal. Pakistan, speaking on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, said that Islamic values were deeply rooted in human rights, and linked the implementation of the Covenants with efforts to combat extremism and intolerance. Russian Federation, speaking on behalf of the Like-Minded Group, underlined the importance of implementing the two Covenants without double standards. South Africa expressed concerns about discrimination against women, and underlined the importance of combatting poverty through the full and effective implementation of the two Covenants.

Human Rights Commission of Malaysia noted that Malaysia had established a technical committee on the possible accession by Malaysia to the two Covenants. Centre pour les Droits Civils et Politiques regretted that some States parties were undermining the mandates of the treaty bodies and failed to cooperate and abide by their reporting obligations. Human Rights House Foundation deplored that the rights protected by the Covenants were being violated with impunity, and asked how the Council could address legislation that restricted civil society space.

Response by the Panellists

Fabián Omar Salvioli, Chair of the Human Rights Committee, said regarding the question posed by Botswana on how to tackle the hierarchy of laws, economic, social and cultural rights were as justiciable as civil and political rights. In order to ensure this, the judicial branch had to be empowered. There were regional mechanisms which worked very well in Europe. In reference to the question of Pakistan on the problem of discrimination against Muslims and how to tackle it, he invited everyone to look at the concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee. This problem also came up in individual communications. Regarding the question of Slovenia on the challenges facing the universality of human rights, Mr. Salvioli said human rights did not have a regional perspective or perspectives of States. The Human Rights Committee approach was international and the same standards and benchmarks were applied for all States. There were no doubts on the principles of human rights. On the question on reprisals and intimidations, the Committee had mechanisms such as the Rapporteur on Reprisals, and the San Jose Guidelines. In order to foster relations with the European Union, the Human Rights Committee had held meetings with the social and economic committee of the European Union.

Waleed Sadi, Chair of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, in response to the question on the hierarchy of human rights, said that the Committee had established a doctrine that the rights of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights were justiciable. For a long time it had been thought that economic, social and cultural rights were implementable over a long period of time and thus had no immediate effect. But now they were immediate. There were some rights which were of immediate effect but progressively realised. Regarding the question on whether the two Committees cooperated, he said that there were informal joint meetings and this could be a prelude for a stronger relationship between them. All rights were interrelated and could not be separated. The right to education for example could not be separated from civil and political rights. Regarding the question on the enforcement of human rights, this was done through the examination by treaty bodies of reports of States parties. The problem with that was that States parties were only examined during two meetings every four years or so, for a total of six hours. Thus, if the Committee had only six hours to do examine the implementation of human rights by a State party, and the Committee had not observed the country for 10 years, one could imagine the problem of enforcing the rights. The Committee tried to highlight human rights problems through dialogue, and States parties responded to the best of their ability. Concluding observations were given by the Committee at the end of the dialogue, and Governments hopefully took these home and had bodies which enforced them. However, Mr. Sadi agreed that this exercise was not very effective. He suggested that three year periodic examinations would be more effective.

Catarina de Albuquerque, Executive Chair of the Sanitation and Water for All, responded to the question of universal realisation that had been raised by the representative of Botswana. Justiciability was important and it was important to break silos and look at human rights in a holistic manner. For example, impact assessment on national levels of policies and laws had to be done on a systematic level. But this was not done, hence the rights of marginalized people were often not seen. She referred to a visit to a Member State of the European Union, where there was discrimination against Roma, who were living in informal settlements. Because of this they had no water, due to which there was no hygiene. The result was that children did not go to school because they smelled bad. This was an illustration of the importance to look at human rights through a holistic approach. Regarding the European Union and closer interaction with the treaty bodies, this would be a positive step. However this was in the hands of Member States. Ms. De Albuquerque suggested that it would be interesting to have observers from one treaty body attending meetings of other treaty bodies. On the question by Slovenia, States had an obligation to protect individuals from the violation of human rights by non-state actors, and to ensure jurisdiction on non-state actors. Recalling the Maastricht Guidelines on the Extraterritorial Obligations of States, which affirmed that the obligation to protect and fulfil were extraterritorial, she noted that States human rights obligations did not stop at borders.

ANDREY KLISHAS, Chairperson of the Committee on Constitutional Legislation and State-Building of the Council of the Federation of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, said that today, the main burden of protecting rights was on the legal system. Respecting State sovereignty was therefore an essential element for ensuring human rights and fundamental freedoms. He also noted that rights and freedoms did not appear 50 years ago with the adoption of the Covenants under discussion, but many rights had roots in the history and culture and religion of States making up the United Nations membership. Many world religions had humanistic potential and their interconnection with the current understanding of human rights was a key mechanism in implementing freedoms.

SAKIKO FUKUDA-PARR, Professor of International Affairs, The New School, said that the wording of the documents was very general in laying out basic principles, and there was quite a wide scope of flexibility in terms of country-specific strategies for implementation.

WALEED SADI, Chairperson of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, said that general comments intended to clarify the jurisprudence on those provisions, and general comments took care of all provisions of the Covenants.

Discussion

China was committed to implementing human rights, democracy and social justice in respect to its specificities, and had succeeded in providing employment and education to its people. It regretted the lack of focus on the right to development. France expressed its attachment to both the Covenants and their protocols, and underlined the importance of raising awareness on the provisions of these texts. Ecuador said that its Constitution abandoned the traditional separation between rights and embraced the concept of good living and the rights of nature. Bolivia said that its Constitution enshrined all human rights, and expressed the commitment to protect collective rights, including the rights of indigenous peoples. Namibia was concerned that 29 States were not party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and that 33 States were not party to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, including – astonishingly – members of the Human Rights Council. Netherlands asked whether reporting and complaint procedures under the two Covenants could be better streamlined. Nepal said that the realization of the right to development would have a significant and positive impact on the realization of all other human rights. Indonesia encouraged all States to ratify the Covenants, and asked how to ensure that the United Nations system gave equal emphasis to both texts.

Colombia said that the enjoyment of one specific right led to the fostering of others, and the denial of a right led to the denial of others. This underscored the interdependence of human rights. Colombia also stated that countries would benefit from enhanced cooperation. Mexico considered that the two Covenants were the bedrocks of the international human rights system and as pertinent today as when they were drafted. Terrorism, hate speech towards religious minorities and migrants, and other violations undermined these rights, while the Covenants and the monitoring bodies’ case law were the best way to ensure these challenges were effectively tackled. Philippines said the two Covenants remained the pillars of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights and emphasized the interdependence and indivisibility of human rights, as well as the important role of development in humanity. Iran said overemphasizing some rights and the politicization of human rights was a threat and went against the high goals set by the two Covenants. All efforts had to be made to ensure national particularities, without discrimination, and with the principles of interdependence, interrelatedness, and indivisibility of these rights.

Commission Nationale des Droits de l’Homme de la Mauritanie said that Mauritania enjoyed a new dynamic and a green light for human rights, thanks to which since 2009, several reforms had been undertaken, such the fight against corruption, combatting consequences of slavery and freedom of expression. Pacific Disability Forum said there was a long way to go to change the mentality regarding persons with disabilities and discrimination against them. It called on the Human Rights Council to ensure that persons with disabilities enjoyed rights and equality with others so that they would be able to enjoy the same rights on an equal basis. Espace Afrique International, said that the hierarchy of the two categories of rights, the declaration of the indivisibility and interdependence of all rights, the adoption of a protocol relative to economic, social and cultural rights, and the increasingly consistent jurisprudence of the two Committees showed that with political will and commitment it was possible to render these more equal and justiciable.

Pakistan said that Pakistan would be contesting election to the Human Rights Council for the term 2018-2020, and also called for the universal ratification of the two Covenants. Sudan affirmed its desire to implement and cooperate with the rights contained in the Covenants, also expressing hopes that the Council would distance itself from double standards and work with transparency in dealing with human rights in a constructive manner. Egypt reaffirmed the importance of cooperation of countries, and also cautioned that the spread of terrorist acts was becoming a threat to basic rights. Romania said that in the last decades, a rise had been seen in important regional treaties and jurisdictional or “quasi-jurisdictional” mechanisms dedicated to human rights, both civil and political as well as economic, social and cultural, and asked the panellists to elaborate on the influence of the two Covenants at the regional level. India said that an independent judiciary enhanced the further realization of all rights by all citizens, and offered details of housing rights work in his country. Venezuela said there was no division between the rights enshrined in the two Covenants, and expressed alarm at seeing those rights undermined in developed countries to favour deleterious economic and financial interests.

Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom said that one of challenges of the current economic model was that human rights violations could occur across borders, and corporations might violate human rights when their activities had a cross-border nature.

Concluding Remarks

FABIÁN OMAR SALVIOLI, Chair of the Human Rights Committee, concluded by saying that he was pleased to hear many statements on the strengthening of human rights. There was a strong impact on human rights at the regional level, for example through the European Court of Human Rights. Also, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights had a great influence, as well as the African Charter of People and Human Rights, which regularly referred to the decisions of the United Nations. Mr. Salvioli noted that the ball was now in the court of Member States. It was up to political authorities to take up the matter with their peers. As for the rights of persons with disabilities, new approaches had to be adopted, such as reasonable accommodation. That was much more acceptable than the previous paternalistic approach. As for cooperation and follow-up on recommendations, countries could be assessed on the basis of their implementation of recommendations.

WALEED SADI, Chair of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, noted that unifying the two Covenants would not be advisable at this stage because it would require too many changes. Instead, the existing machinery of the two Covenants should be explored. Informal meetings between the two Covenants could be started and step by step the bonds between them could be improved. There was no way of avoiding the unifying of the two Covenants. They were like two wings of the same bird. There was no doubt that the two Covenants were related and complementary. He expressed hope that joint meetings would be held shortly.

CATARINA DE ALBUQUERQUE, Executive Chair of the Sanitation and Water for All Partnership, said that it was possible at the right moment to have a truly unified treaty body system, but that was in the hands of Member States. There was an option to touch the legal protocols. Persistence and hard work were necessary for that. The justiciability of rights was crucial for their realization. Many delegates had referred to the progress in human rights implementation at the national level in diverse areas. Ms. De Albuquerque underlined that they should think of progress through an assessment of advancements in the enjoyment of human rights. If the rate of progress of the most vulnerable population was not at the same level as the rest of the population, that could not be called progress. Member States had to work towards the elimination of inequalities.

ANDREY KLISHAS, Chairperson of the Committee on Constitutional Legislation and State-Building of the Council of the Federation of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, emphasized the importance of the regional aspect of the implementation of human rights. In the context of the Inter-Parliamentary Assembly of the former Soviet Union, models of laws on many issues had been prepared. They made the basis for a broad implementation of fundamental freedoms. The approach to the implementation of the Covenants should be consistent. There should not be any hierarchy of rights, i.e. there should be a balance between economic, social and cultural rights on the one hand, and civil and political rights on the other.

SAKIKO FUKUDA-PARR, Professor of International Affairs, the New School, said that the 2030 Agenda was important for the integrated approach to the Covenants. The Agenda saw the 17 Sustainable Development Goals as something interdependent and they should be implemented in an indivisible way. One could not pick and choose, and human rights elements should not be left out of that process. As for extraterritorial obligations of States, in the future clearly there would be a need to develop new ideas and norms about the interdependence in the global economy.

CHOI KYONGLIM, President of the Human Rights Council, in his concluding remarks, summarized the discussion, noting that the universality of the two Covenants had been reaffirmed. Universal rights might need strategies adapted to national circumstances, but that did not deny their universality or justify cultural relativism. Many speakers had also underlined the interdependence of the rights in the Covenants. Equal and balanced emphasis was needed on all rights in the Covenants to ensure effective human rights protection. One way to strengthen independence would be to have a single treaty body that would consider all treaty obligations together and on an equal footing. The 2030 development agenda and the Covenants were mutually reinforcing, and ensuring the justiciability of all rights could also strengthen their implementation.



For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC16/006E