COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS MEETS WITH STATES

The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights this afternoon held an informal meeting with States, exchanging views on simplified reporting procedures, time dedicated to country reviews, the San Jose Guidelines, communications and General Comments.

Waleed Sadi, Chairperson of the Committee, informed about the work done by the Committee since the adoption of General Assembly resolution 68/268, emphasizing the adoption of the San Jose Guidelines on reprisals against human rights defenders and the limited time for meetings with States parties. Virginia Bras Gomes, Committee Member and Focal Point for Working Methods, said that the Committee was preparing to test the list of issues prior to reporting with three States parties, and provide an assessment of it by the end of 2017. Heisoo Shin, Committee Member and Chair of the Working Group on Communications, informed that since 2013, the Committee had registered 13 communications, two of which had been deemed inadmissible and one had been described as a violation. Mikel Mancisidor, Vice-Chairperson of the Committee, reminded that the Committee was currently working on five General Comments, two of which were nearing completion: one on sexual and reproductive health, and another on just and favourable conditions of work.

Several States voiced their concerns regarding the process of the drafting and adoption of the San Jose Guidelines and their legal status. A number of States expressed caution regarding the simplified reporting procedure and wanted to hear more details, while a few States praised that practice and claimed that it had indeed facilitated their workload. Most States agreed that the implementation of the list of issues prior to reporting should be approached carefully and an assessment should be made after the pilot phase had been completed. Several speakers noted that the time dedicated for replies by delegations during interactive dialogues was insufficient. Other issues raised by speakers included the use of the six official languages in the work of the Committee and the practice of processing individual communications under the Optional Protocol.

The next public meeting of the Committee will take place on Friday, 4 March (at a time to be confirmed), during which the Committee will adopt its concluding observations and recommendations on Namibia, Canada and Kenya before closing its fifty-seventh session.

Statements and Discussion

WALEED SADI, Chairperson of the Committee, said that General Assembly resolution 68/268 encouraged treaty bodies to adopt simplified reporting procedures, hold constructive dialogues and adopt short and concrete concluding observations. The resolution also condemned reprisals against all individuals and groups who defend human rights. The meeting of the Chairpersons of treaty bodies in Costa Rica had adopted Guidelines on reprisals against human rights defenders. There was also a recommendation on word limits on documentation and reports, as well as on additional meeting time for treaty bodies. Mr. Sadi explained how the Committee organized its interactive dialogue with States parties, saying that the current allocated time frame for the consideration of their reports – six hours for most reports – was not sufficient.

VIRGINIA BRAS GOMES, Committee Member and Focal Point for Working Methods, stated that the Committee had started to prepare, on a pilot basis, lists of issues prior to reporting. Those States parties would need to be in at least their fourth reporting round and their reports would be due in 2017 or later. Three States parties had already accepted to take part in the new approach. The assessment of the pilot phase would be provided at the end of 2017. For all other States, the existing practice continued to apply. The Committee was looking forward to seeing further results of the training programme on reporting. As many as 29 States parties were overdue with their initial reports, some of them more than 10 years.

Russian Federation said that it had faced a lot of problems with the Committee against Torture once it had switched to the new procedure of lists of issues prior to reporting. The Committee on the Rights of the Child had shared a proposed structure on the lists of issues, which was welcomed as it gave space to Member States to participate in the process. Would the Committee give States an insight into the structure of the lists of issues and would there be a limit on the number of questions? The Committee against Torture had posed questions on 12 pages and Russia had been asked to respond on 20 pages.

Egypt was happy to see that this was one of the most stable forums of engagement between treaty bodies and Member States. Egypt appreciated the caution with which the Committee was approaching the simplified reporting; Egypt would apply a “wait and see” approach until there was more information on how the new procedure was going. Was there a clear timeline on how the backlog would be addressed? How had the San Jose Guidelines been reached, Egypt asked?

China had not yet accepted simplified procedures for any treaty bodies, but believed that the matter needed to be more balanced. It would need to show a full picture on how States were implementing the Convention. China believed that the adoption of the San Jose Guidelines had been beyond the mandate of the treaty bodies, and it had not involved States parties.

Venezuela endorsed concerns expressed by Egypt and China regarding the San Jose Guidelines. Without a mandate, a series of guidelines had been drawn up without consultation with States parties, which were now expected to comply with them. What would be the next step regarding that declaration? There was a concern that very little time was given to States in interactive dialogues to respond to the concerns raised by the Committee. The Venezuelan delegation had experienced somewhat hostile language during the consideration of its last report.

Portugal said that seeing the fullest and strictest application of reporting by States was of paramount importance. States should be given as much margin and opportunity to report as per their obligations. How did the Committee expect to undergo the pilot process of new reporting practices?

Iran stated that economic, social and cultural rights suffered from the lack of recognition as compared to other rights. The San Jose Guidelines had not been negotiated in an intergovernmental process. Procedures of the lists of issues by the Committee on the Rights of the Child, for example, had not been transparent, which the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights should not repeat.

New Zealand found simplified reporting procedures to be useful. An update was sought from the Committee on the draft General Comment on sexual and reproductive rights.

Mr. Sadi stated that the San Jose Guidelines had been endorsed by the Chairpersons of the treaty bodies for each and every treaty body to act on its own. The Chairpersons understood the limitation of their authority. Some treaty bodies had adopted the Guidelines, while the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights would first discuss them at length before making a decision in that regard. Mr. Sadi agreed that two meetings were not enough for report consideration, but the decision on that was in the hands of Member States.

Ms. Bras Gomes said that the lists prior to reporting were part of the resolution 68/268. The Committee would like to use these lists to have a more focused discussion than under a regular procedure, which would be more beneficial for States. The Committee was trying to keep the number of questions under 30 and to organize them in a way to put emphasis on the issues which arose between the two considerations. States parties would be encouraged to provide good practices from their experiences in implementing the Covenant. There would be an inclusive assessment period at the end of 2017 after the first three pilot States had reported under the new system. The Committee was aware that States complained of the very little time they had to reply to the Committee’s questions and different options were being considered in that regard.

Russian Federation raised the issue of working languages of the Committee. To what extent was the Russian language used in the work of the Committee and other treaty bodies following the adoption of resolution 68/268? States parties and treaty bodies seemed to have a different understanding on what strengthening the role of meetings of Chairpersons of treaty bodies meant. The San Jose Guidelines imposed additional obligations on States, while resolution 68/268 stressed that questions of substance could be discussed only with Member States. More information was sought on the drafting and adoption process of the San Jose Guidelines, which seemed to have been thoroughly undemocratic. How did the Committee plan to discuss the Guidelines?

Mr. Sadi said that the issue of working languages had been decided on in the General Assembly resolution, for which the Russian Federation had voted. When the General Assembly condemned reprisals against human rights defenders, what should the treaty bodies do? The Committee had not yet adopted the Guidelines, he reiterated.

Uruguay asked about the impact of the Optional Protocol on the Committee’s work. Uruguay had thus far had positive experience with the simplified reporting procedures, which had helped streamline the reporting process. Uruguay was surprised by the tone of the discussion on the San Jose Guidelines. Uruguay welcomed the Guidelines, which were not binding but procedural in nature, and which could be an important instrument in combatting reprisals. Had the Committee appointed a focal point, as suggested by the Guidelines?

Spain said that the simplified procedure was a very positive development. When the assessment was made on the simplified procedure, civil society would naturally be consulted. The Committee was encouraged to implement the Guidelines and work with States on combatting reprisals.

MOHAMED ABDEL-MONEIM, Committee Member, said that the fulfilment of the rights in the Covenant by the State party should correspond to the maximum available resources. The fulfilment of the rights could be progressive and regularly reported on by States parties, no matter what the structure and the shape of reports.

HEISOO SHIN, Committee Member and Chair of the Working Group on Communications, said that since 2013, the Committee had registered 13 communications, two of which had been deemed inadmissible and one had been described as a violation. The Committee was going to discuss communications during the current session. Information on the complaints procedure, statistical surveys and jurisprudence database were all available on the Committee’s website. The Optional Protocol was a way for individuals to claim their economic, social and cultural rights in those States which had ratified it.

Ghana said that its initial report was overdue, and it was availing itself of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights’ capacity building programme. As a matter of principle, Ghana had adopted the simplified procedure, which made its reporting easier. Ghana was looking into ratifying the Optional Protocol and considered economic, social and cultural rights justiciable.

Ecuador said it was one of the 21 signatories of the Optional Protocol. What were the mechanisms used to guarantee that communications were received by the complainant’s State? A procedure ought to be in place to ensure timely receipt of communications.

Ms. Shin responded that as soon as the Secretariat received a complaint, it was circulated to the Working Group to decide whether to register it or not. Then a decision was made on its admissibility; if it was not admissible, the State party was not informed.

Russian Federation asked about the authority of the Petitions Unit at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to accept or reject complaints. Did the Working Group receive only those complaints passed on to it by the Petitions Unit, or were all complaints automatically passed on?

Ms. Shin replied that the Committee had full trust in the work of the Petitions Unit. If any complaint was received, all five members of the Working Group would be informed of it electronically, after which they would decide whether to register it or not. During the session, the Working Group would meet face to face to decide on further steps.

OHCHR Secretariat explained that all received communications were shared with the members of the Working Group of the Committee.

MIKEL MANCISIDOR, Vice-Chairperson of the Committee, reminded that the Committee was currently working on five General Comments, with different priorities. The Committee had been working on two of them for some time and they could soon be adopted. One of them was on sexual and reproductive health, in connection with Article XII of the Covenant. Another one related to Article VII of the Covenant on just and favourable conditions of work, which was also well advanced. Once those two General Comments had been adopted, the Committee would move ahead with other three General Comments on human rights, environment and development; State obligations in connection with the activities of the private sector; and science, technology and human rights. Work on General Comments took a lot of the Committee’s time.

OLIVIER DE SCHUTTER, Committee Member, explained that statements were briefer than General Comments, and were very topical in nature. Those were guidelines given to States at relevant times, and sometimes had the form of letters sent by the Committee to States parties. Recently, a number of States had adopted austerity measures, and the Committee offered its advice in situations when the Covenant did not provide answers.

Tunisia said that the Covenant asked States to dedicate maximum resources possible to the attainment of economic, social and cultural rights. Why didn’t the Committee ask States not to take certain actions which would prevent other States from providing those rights to their nationals?

Mr. De Schutter replied that the Committee had referred to extraterritorial obligations of States when it came to the right to food, water, etc. If free trade agreements prevented certain States from applying their obligations under the Covenant, that would be brought up by the Committee. The Maastricht Guidelines, adopted by a number of intergovernmental organizations, emphasized the importance of extraterritorial obligations of States.

Mr. Sadi stated that informal meetings with States should be organized more often.


For use of the information media; not an official record

ESC16/006E