Human rights treaty committees meeting Nov 30 to Dec 2

I'll be attending the next session of the UN ICM -- the United Nations human rights inter committee meeting, scheduled for November 30 to December 2, 2009 in Geneva. This is the meeting of the various human rights treaty committees, to coordinate and support each other's work. NGOs are invited to attend and offer comments. I'll be attending on behalf of my NGO, The Advocates for Human Rights. The treaty bodies are becoming more and more successful in tackling their workloads and coordinating their procedures, but much improvement is still needed to make the system truly effective in the protection and promotion of human rights.

Stay tuned for a discussion of this session's ICM agenda, and daily updates while I'm at the session. I'll be blogging regularly for the next several days in my coverage of this event.

The US human rights treaty ratification record

The US has been visible in an unfortunate way in the human rights treaty system by its failure to ratify most of the core human rights treaties. Presently it is a party only to:

• the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ratified in 1992)


• the Convention against Torture (ratified in 1994)


• the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racism (ratified in 1994)

The US has also ratified in 2002 the 2 optional protocols to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, but not the main Convention itself. The 2 protocols are on the prohibition of child soldiers and the prevention of the sale, prostitution, pornography or trafficking of children.

Now comes the Obama Administration which has apparently signalled a willingness to put forward two additional ratifications to the US Senate -- the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the newest treaty, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Both committees noted this development in their general remarks at this Inter-Committee meeting and urged the US government to initiate ratification efforts as soon as possible. It would appear from the remarks made by both Chairpersons that each Committee has been in communication with the Obama Administration on this topic.

It would be nice to see the US join the human rights treaty system in this manner, by adding two more ratificaitons, but why stop there? The other human rights treaties to which the US is not yet a party include:

• the International Covenant on Economic, Social & Cultural Rights (entered into force in 1976, now ratified by 160 countries)


• the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (entered into force in 1981, now ratified by 186 countries)


• the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of all Migrant Workers and Members of their Families (entered into force in 2003, now ratified by 41 countries)


• the International Convention for the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance (this treaty has not yet entered into force; it requires 20 ratifications and only has 10 so far)

Penny Parker

The Liberian National Human Rights Commission

National human rights commissions, or "NHRIs", are becoming increasingly important to the human rights procedures. This year the Inter Committee meeting of human rights treaty bodies dedicated a portion of its agenda to discussing this phenomenon.

Mr. Gianni Magazzeni, the UN Coordinator for its National Institutions Unit, presented a statement and fielded questions. Several other NHRI spokespersons also participated. According to Mr. Magazzeni, 82 of the 112 country situations reviewed by the UN treaty body system in 2008 had local NHRIs. About 50%, 39 NHRIs, participated in some portion of their country's review process, and this trend is growing.

The primary problem with NHRIs is that they can either be "puppets", unduly influenced by the government regime in which they are established, or they can be true champions of human rights, and it is sometimes difficult to tell which is which. It all depends on the independence, impartiality and expertise of the members of the NHRI, including the independence of their funding. To try to identify which NHRIs are which, there is an accreditation process organized by the International Coordinating Committee of NHRIs. There are also a set of guidelines, known as the Paris Principles, which help to identify the key attributes of an NHRI which is truly independent and impartial.

I made a presentation during this general discussion of NHRIs and pointed to the new, emerging developments in Liberia where it has been decided that an NHRI will be established, but it is not clear yet what level of independence and funding sources will be available. Liberia will be appearing before the Committee on Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) this summer. I encouraged the Committee members present to raise this topic with the government delegation from Liberia when they appear before CEDAW, including the assurances the government is implementing to protect and preserve the independence and sustainability of the NHRI.

The specific date that the Liberia report will be considered in CEDAW has not yet been established, but the Committee session will run from July 20th to August 7th in New York.

Penny Parker

States react

It's always a little tense when the treaty body members have a session with the states parties. The states elect the treaty body members, ask them to be impartial and independent, and then bristle when those same treaty body members offer criticisms and recommendations for how the state could improve its human rights conditions. The session on Tuesday was no exception.

Of the 57 state delegations that attended, 34 have a report being reviewed by one or more of the 9 human rights treaty bodies during 2009. In addition, 38 of the 57 countries have experts elected to one or more treaty bodies from their own country. In fact only 10 of the state delegations who attended the Tuesday session had neither -- no report coming up before a committee in 2009 and no expert on any committee.

Some states were quick to complement the treaty bodies and underscore the importance of the treaty body system to the promotion and protection of human rights. But many states were critical of particular practices. Some of the criticisms included the following:

• It was felt by some that the treaty bodies tend to drift outside of their mandate and comment on political issues, or on human rights conditions not relevant to the particular treaty under which they serve
• Several states commented on the burden of preparing state reports, the conflicting requirements and practices from the different treaty bodies, and the difficulties to prepare for a presentation to a treaty body when each treaty body was very different in its procedures and expectations. There has been an effort in recent years by the treaty bodies to harmonize their practices so that the look and feel of each treaty body experience is more consistent. But several states and treaty body members acknowledged that this harmonization effort needs to continue.
• Several states were particularly critical of the treaty bodies willingness to hear testimony and consider documentation from NGOs, particularly when this information was contrary to the state's own testimony and documentation. This is a common criticism heard each year and of course is more prevalent among states who have serious human rights problems.
• Several states were also critical of the practice by some treaty bodies to review state conditions in countries who have failed to file a report. This "in absentia" review was viewed as unfair and unsuitable. This issue is another that comes up each year. The problem faced by the treaty bodies is that they are tasked with reviewing state compliance to the treaty, but some states have never filed a report from which such a review can be made. Other states have failed to file reports for many years. On average, reports are due every 4 or 5 years, but some states haven't filed a report with the treaty body for over 30 years. Some treaty bodies have now adopted a practice of reminding states by letter if they haven't filed for over 10 years, and then stepping up the pressure with further reminders, personal visits, and other efforts to escalate the communications, to try to incentivize the state to file its report. Finally, if all efforts to get the country to respond have failed, the committee then schedules the country for review in the absence of a report. It is this final step that several state delegations were critical of in the Tuesday session.
• There was also a spirited debate and clash of viewpoints between the delegation of Egypt and the Committee Against Torture (CAT), regarding the recent review of the compliance report of Israel before CAT. The representative from the Egyptian delegation was especially critical of the committee's final conclusions and observations, feeling that the committee had taken too many statements of the Israeli delegation at face value and had failed to challenge them. Both the Egyptian delegation and members of the CAT were quoting from the final CAT report to make their points.
• Some of the other comments and suggestions from states were better time management of sessions, better advance notice of issues and topics to be discussed in the state review session, better transparency of information that the committee is relying upon, and more efforts to remove backlogs and speed up proceedings.

All in all, it is remarkable to realize that the system works at all. States have essentially given up a little bit of their sovereignty by ratifying human rights treaties which authorize the committee established under the treaty to poke around into their domestic affairs and criticize their practices. Yet after nearly 40 years of human rights treaties in operation, we are approaching universal ratification of the human rights treaties by all of the countries in the world. All countries in the world have ratified at least 1 of the 9 human rights treaties. Some treaties, such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women, are nearing 100% ratification.

Here are the ratification records of each of the major treaties:

• International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination -- 173 states (89%)
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights -- 163 states (84%)
• International Covenant on Economic, Social & Cultural Rights -- 160 states (82%)
• Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women -- 186 states (95%)
• Convention Against Torture -- 146 states (75%)
• Convention on the Rights of the Child -- 193 states (99%)
• International Convention on the Rights of Migrant Workers and Their Families -- 41 states (21%)
• Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities -- 58 states (30%)
• Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture (which establishes the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture) -- 47 states (32%)

Penny Parker

Day 2: Listening to the states

The 2nd day of the Inter Committee meeting was devoted to a dialogue with states parties. By my unofficial count 57 countries appeared and many of them presented comments during the day. I'll cover some of the things that were said in a later post. But first I thought I would post the list of countries who were present:

• Algeria
• Angola
• Argentina
• Australia
• Austria
• Azerbaijan
• Bahrain
• Belgium
• Bolivia
• Bosnia and Herzegovina
• Brazil
• Chile
• China
• Colombia
• Congo
• Czech Republic
• Denmark
• Egypt
• El Salvador
• Finland
• France
• Germany
• Greece
• Guatemala
• Hungary
• Indonesia
• Ireland
• Israel
• Italy
• Japan
• Kazakhstan
• Mexico
• Montenegro
• Morocco
• Nepal
• New Zealand
• Norway
• Pakistan
• Palestine
• Paraguay
• Peru
• Philippines
• Qatar
• Republic of Korea
• Romania
• Russian Federation
• Singapore
• Slovakia
• Slovenia
• South Africa
• Spain
• Switzerland
• Thailand
• Turkey
• United Kingdom
• United States
• Venezuela

Penny Parker

What is that on the ceiling?

The meetings held on Tuesday were in one of the newly refurbished meeting rooms in the Palais des Nations (room XX). The room is in a large oval shape, with a circular ceiling containing a modern, multicolored icicle like sculpture over the entire area. Very intriguing, almost mesmerizing.

Photos are included but don't really do it justice.

Penny Parker

Iran as a case example

One of the topics the Inter Committee meeting was able to cover on Monday was the subject of cross referencing other treaty bodies' reports when examining a country situation. NGOs were given an opportunity to speak on this topic and I made some comments during this segment of the program.

I used the case example of the recent events in Iran for my remarks. Even though the political protests and police repression would most naturally fall into the category of civil and political rights, and thus fall within the mandate of the Human Rights Committee (who monitors the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights), many of the other Committees also have complementary mandates that could also be invoked to examine the situation in Iran.

Some of the questions that the other treaty bodies could be asking include -- What is happening to the economic, social and cultural rights of the protesters and their families? What are the conditions of detention of those who are being detained? Are their families able to visit them? Are there reprisals against the protesters in their employment -- are they losing their jobs because of their activities? Are there children or families affected by the unrest? Are there women being arrested? How are the women being treated?

Most of these other Committees could also be examining this situation from the unique perspective of their own treaty's mandate. It is important to tackle an emerging human rights problem in this multi-disciplinary way. Each treaty body should cross reference the other treaty body's work when examining a situation, but then also contribute its own unique perspective on the problem from the reference point of its particular mandate.

I also pointed out that failing to cross reference other committees' work makes it seem as though you don't realize that other committees are also looking into the same country situation and may have issued a report on the circumstances. This omission often leaves a committee open to criticism by the state government concerned who will claim the committees are duplicating effort and should not be commenting at all on their situation since it has been taken up by another committee.

Sure enough, right on cue, several state governments complained on Tuesday during the meeting with state parties, that Committees were doing overlapping and duplicative work, failing to stay within their own treaty mandate in commenting on particular country situations.

The Iran case is a tragic one, and one that is recently in our news headlines. But unfortunately it is also a very hypothetical case study for the treaty bodies since Iran has only ratified 4 of the 9 core human rights treaties and has only recently submitted a compliance report (in July 2008) to one of the 4 treaty bodies to which reports are due, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. Unless a country is willing to submit its regular periodic reports to the treaty bodies, it is very difficult for the treaty bodies to review their conditions. Some of the treaty bodies have emergency powers that would enable them to investigate new, emerging problems, but these powers are rarely invoked. Some treaty bodies also will schedule a review of a non-reporting state, in the hopes to nudge it into submitting a report. But in the case of Iran, none of these procedures have yet been invoked by any of the current treaty bodies.

Compliance reports are due every 2 to 5 years under each of the human rights treaties. But Iran hasn't filed any reports in the other 3 treaties to which it is a member for many years.

• It ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1975 but hasn't filed a report since at least 1994 (the UN treaty body database is not clear on when or if an earlier report might have been filed).
• Iran ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in 1975, but hasn't filed a report since at least 1993.
• It ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1994 and last filed a report in 2003.

The other 5 treaty instruments that Iran has not ratified and which are considered the remaining core human rights treaties, are:

• The Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), which entered into force in 1979
• The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), which entered into force in 1984
• The Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (OPCAT), which entered into force in 2006
• The International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families (CMW), which entered into force in 1990
• The Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which entered into force May 2008

Iran does not have any treaty body appearances scheduled for 2009. Its report to CERD will be heard in public session in 2010. Iran is also usually very active in human rights meetings at the UN, but it was not present at the states parties consultation on Tuesday with the Inter Committee meeting.

Penny Parker

New human rights research website

There's a new human rights information website available, which indexes the concluding observations and recommendations of the treaty bodies, the Universal Human Rights Index site. The site has been developed by the Institute of Public law of the University of Bern, Switzerland, in collaboration with LexUM, the justice system technologies laboratory of the University of Montreal, Canada.

The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights is responsible for updating and further developing the index.

The index is a compilation of approximately 1000 UN documents relating to conclusions and recommendations of the treaty bodies, the special procedures mechanisms of the Human Rights Council, and replies from the governments who were the subject of each conclusion or recommendation. Each observation and recommendation is classified by country, subject, treaty body and affected person or group.

Penny Parker

Day 1: getting organized

It's the first day of the 9th session of the Inter-Committee Meeting of human rights treaty bodies. A new chairperson is elected, Ms. Naela Gabr from CEDAW (the Committee on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women). Two vice chairs are also chosen, Ms. Yanghee Lee from the Committee on the Rights of the Child and Mr. Mohammed Al Tarawneh from the newest treaty body, the Committee on Rights of Disabled Persons.

Opening speeches are presented by Mr. Ibrahim Salama, head of the UN High Commissioners Office Treaties Branch, the outgoing chairperson Ms. Fatimata-Binta Victoire Dah, and later in the day, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Ms. Navanethem Pillay. Emphasis was put on the continuing need for the treaty bodies to harmonize their practices and improve their effectiveness.

The meeting is being held in the Palais Wilson in Geneva. The Inter-Committee is composed of 27 treaty body members, 3 representatives from each of the 9 current treaty bodies. In addition there are about 25 other persons in the room, including Secretariat staff, NGO representatives and representatives from other UN agencies (UNESCO and the office of Refugees, UNHCR).

The Committee will have a packed program of work this session. They meet for 3 days (followed by the chairpersons' meeting Thursday and Friday). All of tomorrow's program has been dedicated to a meeting with representatives from states parties. Then they will finish up on Wednesday and adopt their report. NGOs are able to speak throughout the agenda items but this time, since most of today's work was dedicated either to the administrative matters of electing officers and adopting the agenda and program of work, or listening to opening speeches, or preparing for the states party meeting all of tomorrow, there was very little time for NGOs to be able to speak. NGOs are also not able to make presentations during the all day meeting with states parties tomorrow.

Penny Parker

Agenda of the UN human rights treaty body meetings this week

The UN human rights treaty bodies will convene for their next inter committee meeting from June 29 to July 1. The chairpersons of the nine treaty bodies will then meet for two additional days, July 2 and 3. In addition to the usual administrative/procedural matters, the draft agenda includes the following suggested topics:

• enhancing the effectiveness of the treaty bodies
• harmonization of working methods
• standardization of terminology
• follow up measures
• participation of national human rights institutions, States parties, and NGOs
• the role of the country rapporteur/task force
• the role of the inter-committee group in the treaty body system
• cross referencing to the work of other treaty bodies
• interrelationship to the universal periodic review procedure of the Human Rights Council
• informal consultation with States parties
• meeting with the International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions for human rights
• meeting with experts and working group chairs of the special procedures mechanisms of the Human Rights Council

I will be attending the sessions as a representative of The Advocates for Human Rights, a private non-governmental organization with special consultative status from ECOSOC (the UN Economic and Social Council). I'll be posting daily updates here at the Project Eleanor Human Rights blog throughout the sessions.

Penny Parker

Upcoming UN human rights meetings, June 29 to July 3

I'll be attending the UN human rights treaty body committee meetings in Geneva this upcoming week. Be sure to check back if you are interested in this subject, as I'll be blogging daily while I am there.

Penny Parker