Treaty body chairs meeting, item 4(d)

The chairpersons of the UN human rights treaty bodies continue to meet this week in Costa Rica. Here are my comments to item 4(d) of their agenda.

 Item 4(d) Reporting compliance by states

·      More transparent statistics. It is hoped that the treaty bodies can produce more transparent statistics on state reporting compliance. See the suggested measurements I listed as examples to my comments earlier, under agenda item 4(a), posted yesterday. 

·      Index to prior concluding observations in the next state report. To be able to better track whether state parties respond completely to the prior concluding observations of the Committee, the state party in its next periodic report should be asked to provide an index or listing in the table of contents, indicating where the response to each recommendation can be found in the report. 

·       LOIPR. When a state party has opted for the LOIPR process, it should be made clear that they are still responsible for responding to each of the prior concluding observations of the Committee. Or if some of the recommendations have become obsolete or duplicates, this should be clearly identified by the Committee when it is issuing its list of issues to the state party. 

·      Follow up. The follow up process could also be reported more transparently – how many state parties respond on time, how adequate are the responses, what if any comments were received by NGOs to the state party’s responses. Presently most of the treaty bodies report this data either annually in their annual reports, or per session, but no summary statistics are given – a 40 page spreadsheet containing such data is not easy to analyze. Also, please make it more clear to NGOs as to when they can respond to the follow up actions of a state party, including subsequent follow up requests made to the state party after the first submission.  The NGO submissions should be posted on the Committee website, or a summary of it included in the follow up report (which is the current practice of the Human Rights Committee).

·      Press releases. Treaty bodies should consider issuing press releases or reports to the press on a country by country basis, of the follow up process and the status with respect to that particular state party.

·      Data on list of issues. would also be helpful if there were reporting data provided on responses to the list of issues by states, and the follow up requested at the end of the session if some questions were not answered during the session due to lack of time.

·      End to end reporting. In other words, reporting compliance should be measured from end to end at each step of the reporting cycle, not just on the periodic or initial report itself

·      Common core reports. Common core reports should also be monitored for latest updates and page limits.

·      Government websites. States should be encouraged to establish official government websites on their human rights treaty obligations, updated with latest information, linked to each Committee website, & cross-linked from the Committee website back to the official government website

·      NGO wish list of harmonized best practices. While the General Assembly has indicated its list of practices that it would like to see harmonized in each of the treaty bodies, nothing is mentioned about practices that would improve NGO accessibility and involvement in the treaty body system. Here is an NGO wish list of such items, focusing on best practices of particular treaty bodies where available:

Desired practice or procedure	Comment
1. Reprisals	Each committee should have a focal point and a clear procedure for responding to reprisals.
2. Follow up process for concluding observations	The follow up process for concluding observations should be made more transparent to civil society. ·       Does each Committee accept submissions from NGOs in the follow up process? ·       When should an NGO submit a report on a particular state party’s followup, if the NGO wants its report to be considered by the Committee at the same time as the state report? ·       If the state party fails to respond on time but NGO submissions are timely submitted, the Committee should consider publicly posting such NGO reports on its website and in its reports on follow up. ·       Follow up statistics should be reported each session, and should be kept timely (some Committees are letting 2 or 3 sessions pass after the 12-month due date, before beginning to list the state  party in its follow up reporting).  ·       Also the follow up reporting by the Committee should include a list of state parties who have not yet responded (and are overdue); it should not just focus on those responses that have been received.
3. LOIPR	NGOs should be given adequate notice of state parties scheduled for an LOIPR report so that the NGO can provide timely feedback into the various steps in the process.
4. Review of non-reporting states	Each treaty body should have a procedure for reviewing non-reporting states and should invite NGOs to submit reports for such reviews.
5. Table of pending cases	CESCR’s practice of posting a table of pending individual communications is very helpful.  Other treaty bodies are encouraged to follow this practice.
6. NGO briefings	Scheduling NGO briefings as close as possible to the actual state party review facilitates travel and rooming expense of the NGOs, especially ones that have come long distances. Private briefings should also be available for those who request it.
7. Videoconferencing	The availability of videoconferencing for NGOs who are long distances from Geneva and without practical means of travel, should be encouraged. Currently a few treaty bodies are experimenting with videoconferencing in a few cases. We would encourage all of the treaty bodies to have such a procedure and to clearly notify on its website how it can be invoked.
8. Webcasting	Full,  end-to-end UN quality webcasting should be provided of all public treaty body sessions, and of the public sessions of this Committee of Treaty Body Chairs.  The webcasting should be indexed and archived, readily accessible to civil society.
9. Subscribe to updates in particular webpage content	A website user should be able to subscribe to updates of specific Committee webpages so that he or she can be notified anytime new content is uploaded to the site.
10. Availability of documentation	Documentation from each treaty body session often lags 1-3 months or more after the session. This makes it very difficult for NGOs to follow up on and make use of such materials in their advocacy efforts. Better on-time availability should be sought and measured.  From my reviews CEDAW seems to be the best at providing documentation quickly in the present system, including soon after a session has concluded.
11. NGO submissions to individual complaint process	Amicus-type submissions in individual complaints. Third party input into pending individual complaints before the Committee is currently being considered in at least one Committee (CESCR), which would be a welcome addition to the procedures permitting NGO input. No Committee has yet adopted procedures of this nature, but it is hoped that this process is coming soon.
12. Implementation.	Each Committee should have a standing agenda item on implementation, considered at least in part in public session, and should regularly invite NGO comment on how to improve implementation. Also, each Committee should list on its website any documents it regularly refers to in its concluding observations that are of the nature of “implementation guidance” documents. More on this topic will be discussed under my item 6(d) comments, to be posted tomorrow.

Treaty body chairs meeting, item 5(a)

 The other agenda item scheduled today in the treaty body chairs meeting that I wish to comment on is item 5(a). 

Item 5 Human Rights panel [on cooperation with the Inter American system and reprisals]

·      Post seminar materials. I hope the materials exchanged at the panel discussion are posted on the treaty body website after the seminar is over.

·      Emphasis on implementation. There is no pre-announced topic agenda but it is hoped that implementation will be discussed in detail, as a key priority for both institutions.

·      Common jurisprudence database? Perhaps the UN treaty body system and the Inter American system could consider moving to a common jurisprudence database

·      Reference to other treaties. Perhaps each system could also consider the application of or reference to other treaties that could be mentioned or used for illustrative purposes where there is no monitoring body – e.g., Genocide, small arms, corruption, etc.

·      Make more effective use of general remedy statements in individual case decisions. There is a practice of many treaty bodies when issuing decisions on individual cases, of including a paragraph addressing the problem as a whole. In this general relief statement the state party is encouraged to establish a new framework or pass new laws that would prevent the violation from recurring. Is there any way of cataloguing/sharing this type of information more widely among treaty bodies, and for the benefit of civil society, media and other stakeholders?  It should be recognized that the intended beneficiaries of this type of relief statement go well beyond the individual claimant whose case has just been decided. How can each treaty system do a more effective job of disseminating information about this particular type of implementation of human rights standards?

·      Workloads, backlogs. What are some long term ways to strengthen a system to address increasing workloads and avoid a backlog?

·      Best practices shared. What are some shared experiences of the two systems – best practices, working methods, civil society access?

·      Cybersecurity. What are the threats, trends, and best practices that each system is encountering. Do any human rights institutions have a CTO (chief technology officer) type of expert on cybersecurity issues? It would seem that this is something that should be emphasized going forward in all human rights institutions.

·      Social media. Should there be an effort to use common or related hash tags and other social media connections in order to promote the visibility and information about these two respective systems?

Treaty body chairs meeting, item 4(c)

Here are my thoughts on item 4(c) of the treaty body chairs agenda. 

Item 4(c) Consultation process for the preparation of general comments

Best practice. It is strongly recommended that each of the Committees follow the practice now used by the Human Rights Committee to have a general discussion on each new general comment, before the first draft is produced.  NGOs and other stakeholders should be invited to this general discussion. Dates, details of the meeting and reports submitted should be posted well in advance of the meeting.

New technologies/new drafting approaches. Please keep new technologies and your potential audience in mind. General comments can be accessed electronically now by many more stakeholders than before. They can be translated into local languages by many freely available software translation programs.  Keeping this in mind while drafting general comments can make them more readable, more accessible, and more useable by intended stakeholders. Beginning with an executive summary, bullet points, or other highly readable introduction can also be quite effective in this regard.

Migrant workers. The Convention on migrant workers is in danger of being left behind. It has the smallest number of ratifications and the only Convention with no individual complaint mechanism which has come into force.  Different aspects of migrant workers rights are covered in every human rights instrument.  It is strongly recommended that all of the treaty bodies search for ways to establish joint general comments or other joint statements which help to spread the influence of the ICMWMF in all areas of commonality shared with the other treaty instruments. In this way the CMW can perhaps gain important visibility and involvement in the treaty body system. This may help to leverage the CMW’s expertise to a wider audience.

Treaty body chairs meeting, item 4(b)

As mentioned earlier, the human rights treaty body chairpersons are meeting this week in Costa Rica. Here are some thoughts I had on item 4(b) of their agenda. 

Item 4(b) Update on the guidelines on the independence and impartiality of members of the human rights treaty bodies

·      Addis Ababa. Which treaty bodies have adopted the Addis Ababa guidelines? It is not clear from information available as to whether all have now adopted the guidelines.  I would recommend the OHCHR add something on the treaty bodies website clearly identifying this.

·      Implementation/monitoring procedures. I note that Resolution 68/268 has asked the treaty body system to report on how it is monitoring and implementing the Addis Ababa guidelines.  I would suggest that the procedure be clear for NGOs on how to file suggestions or concerns regarding the guidelines and that anonymous submissions be permitted. An annual report indicating whether any such comments had been submitted in the past year, what actions were taken, and what if any general discussion has occurred regarding updating or supplementing the guidelines is also recommended.

·      Nomination/election process. Part of the emphasis on independence and impartiality should be put on the state party nomination and election process for new elections.  The treaty bodies should make suggestions from year to year, on how to improve these processes, and the report on implementation could then include a summary as to what if any actions were taken by the state parties in response to these suggestions.

·      Non-reporting states that nominate their candidates for elections. In some cases there are state parties who have nominated and successfully elected experts from their country even though they have never submitted a report to that treaty body or are chronically late in submitting their reports.  In one Committee studied this year 6 of the 18 countries that have experts elected on the Committee are late in submitting their next report, with one country being over 15 years late.  Statistics like these, if not already being reported, should be systematically collected and reported to the state party elections process so that state parties (and ECOSOC in the case of CESC) can hopefully make more informed decisions when electing new members.

Suggestions to the Treaty Body Chairs, agenda item 4(a)

The human rights treaty body chairs are meeting this week in Costa Rica. Here are some ideas, starting with their agenda item 4(a). 

 Item 4(a) General discussion and progress report under resolution 68/268

·      Effective metrics. The treaty body system can be more effectively managed as a system, and the General Assembly and other stakeholders can better appreciate and understand the nature of the system, if more detailed year-to-year statistics & indicators are maintained.  Sometimes metrics like these can also actually incentivize better compliance of those who are being measured.  Some careful thought should be given as to which metrics should be measured, and this list of metrics should probably be reevaluated and added to from year to year.

·      Examples. We urge you to collect statistics that will permit a year by year comparison of how the treaty body system is improving (or worsening) over time, especially with respect to state implementation and compliance. For example,

o   Ratifications. The number of ratifications as of each year end

o   Reservations.  The numbers of reservations made and withdrawn during the year

o   Non reporting. The numbers of non-reporting states expressed as a percentage of all reports and how much overdue they are (average delay period, and classifications like over 10 years late, numbers of initial reports overdue, etc.)

o   Reports and communications. Number of state reports and individual communications reviewed/completed each year, including the total number of countries represented by those totals

o   Government websites. The number of state parties which have now established an official government website to post information on their human rights treaty obligations, and have communicated that website information to the treaty body system (and that government link has now been added to a searchable database on the OHCHR treaty body website)

o   SNCRM. The numbers of state parties that have now announced & established a Standing National Reporting, Implementation & Coordination mechanism for their human rights obligations

o   Backlogs. Pending backlogs of state reports and individual communications each year for each treaty body

o   BW/FW views of the backlogs. The backlog should be measured both looking forwards and backwards (how far out in the calendar are reports being scheduled that are received today? How long have the reports been pending that were reviewed this session?). This will help identify whether the backlogs are getting better or worse.

o   NGO/NHRI. H ow many NGO and NHRI submissions were received for each state report? Which countries seem to be lightly covered or not covered at all by local NGO/NHRI submissions?

o   Follow up/COs. How timely have state responses been to the follow up items in the concluding observations? What percentage of states have not responded at all? Of those who responded, how many were late and/or provided inadequate responses?

o   Follow up/Views. How timely have state responses been to the recommendations made in individual communications? What percentage are not responsive or inadequate in response? 

o   General steps required/Views. Where an individual decision calls on a state party to take general steps to prevent further violations of the same nature from occurring to others, what steps has the government taken in this regard and what is the percentage of compliance to these types of requirements?

o   Response to prior COs. How many state party periodic reports responded to all of the prior recommendations of the Committee? What percentage was partial or no response to prior recommendations?

o   LOIPR. Of those who opted for the LOIPR procedure, how many submitted a report within the prescribed time period? How many LOIPR reports were received in the year? What percentage of the total numbers of reports does this represent?

o   Page and word limits. What was the average page length and word count of each state party report? How many were over the limit?

o   CO metrics. Measure the word length, numbers of recommendations, and other possible indicators of the concluding observations of each Committee for the year

o   Session weeks. Total number of treaty body weeks held during the year

o   Experts/counties represented. Total numbers of experts and countries represented on the treaty bodies each year

o   Harmonization efforts. A list of the harmonization efforts being addressed and an indication in a table format or other format, of which ones have now been adopted by which treaty bodies

o   Common core reports. The updating (or lack thereof) of the common core reports for all state parties

o   Collaborative activities. The number of coordinated efforts by two or more treaty bodies, or by a treaty body and another UN mechanism, to issue a joint press release, joint statement, joint general comment or other similar reference document

·      Agenda item on implementation. We would also like to see the Treaty Body Chairs establish a standing agenda item on implementation, with the idea being to discuss the status of implementation and ways to improve implementation under such agenda item. NGOs should be invited to speak and submit proposals. Each treaty body should also be encouraged to establish such a standing item on their agendas, with similar NGO impact.

·      Jurisprudence databases. The current jurisprudence databases are not being systematically updated.  Views (decisions) should be added to each of the current databases, in addition to follow up actions/reports, inquiry reports, and early warning/urgent action (EWUA) communications of CERD.  Search functions should be improved so that one can find a case by searching topic, keyword, phrase, treaty article number, country, claimant’s name, date of decision, and follow up actions taken by the state party.

·      Table of pending cases. The table of pending cases that is maintained by CESCR should be considered by each of the treaty bodies who now have an individual complaint mechanism.