Government websites on treaty obligations

One area that is lagging behind in the human rights treaty field is good, informative government websites that list a state's human rights treaty obligations.  Most states don't have any website dedicated to their human rights obligations. Those that do have some form of web presence, tend to address only partial information and/or fail to keep that information up to date.

Technology is quickly changing our lives. Access to the Internet and electronic information is improving greatly across all domains. Even the least developed countries are experiencing growth of electronic access.  According to the International Telecommunications Union only 8% of the developing world had Internet access in 2005, but by 2013 that figure had quadrupled to 31%.

	2005	2010	2013a
World population	6.5 billion	6.9 billion	7.1 billion
Not using the Internet	84%	70%	61%
Using the Internet	16%	30%	39%
Users in the developing world	8%	21%	31%
Users in the developed world	51%	67%	77%
a Estimate. Source: International Telecommunications Union

At a minimum I submit that governments should establish a permanent website dedicated to their human rights treaty obligations, containing the following information: 

• the human rights treaties to which it is a party
• a link to each of the treaty body websites for which it is a party
• the latest reports submitted to each treaty body
• the latest common core report submitted to the treaty body system
• the latest concluding observations of each treaty body
• the schedule of next appearances before each treaty body
• upcoming deadlines for submitting next reports or follow up information
• progress toward implementation and consultation opportunities for civil society
• information about the live and archived treaty body webcasts of appearances of the government
• the site should also be disability accessible in its design
• the content of the site should be regularly updated; the site should indicate when the content was last revised and the government's policy on how frequently it intends to update the site in order to keep the information current 

Now is the time for states to take advantage of the advances in technology, and to disseminate information about their human rights treaty obligations to a greater number of their stakeholders.  All international human rights treaties obligate states to disseminate information about the treaty and the state's human rights obligations to a wide audience of stakeholders. In addition to the traditional means of dissemination, these electronic means should also be taken up and utilised. 

Taiwan's human rights treaty report on women (CEDAW)

Taiwan is not officially a UN member and can therefore not be a part of the UN human rights treaty system. However, it has chosen to create a parallel human rights system, adopting each of the major human rights treaties into domestic law and establishing a process of regular review, analysis, recommendation and improvement.

In this regard it has recently completed the 2nd cycle of reporting under the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).  The news was recently reported in the Taiwan Today News.  The next steps will include a formal review hearing in June of this year, followed by recommendations of the reviewing panel, and implementation of the recommendations.

More information on the report is also addressed in the official government press release announcing the publication of the report, although regrettably a copy of the report itself does not appear to be available yet.  It would be helpful if a government website were established to report and monitor Taiwan's treaty implementation efforts in this regard.

New complaint mechanisms -- rights of the child

Costa Rica became the 10th ratifying country this week under the Optional Protocol for a communications procedure under the Convention on the Rights of the Child.  This means the procedures described in the Optional Protocol will come into force three months later, on April 14, 2014.

It also means that there are now 19 mechanisms in total available in the UN human rights treaty system. See my earlier post on the other mechanisms.

The Optional Protocol creates both an individual complaint mechanism and an inquiry procedure. However, the inquiry procedure may be "opted out" of if the country declares that intention at the time of its ratification. So far no country has opted out of this procedure.

The protocol also establishes an inter-state complaint mechanism, where one country can bring a complaint against another country claiming that it has breached the treaty by violating human rights.  But like other such mechanisms in most of the other human rights treaties, it is unlikely that this particular mechanism will ever be used.

Individual complaint mechanism 

For the most part the individual complaint mechanism created by the Optional Protocol will be handled in a similar manner to the other complaint mechanisms already established under the other treaties. The one unusual aspect of this particular procedure, however, is the requirement in article 2 that the Committee give due regard for the rights and views of the child, in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.  The Committee is authorised to dismiss claims if they feel that the child who is the subject of the complaint is being manipulated or disregarded.

Procedures for handling claims and inquiries were issued by the Committee last year, in anticipation of the protocol eventually coming in to force. I did not see anything in the procedures explaining exactly how this "rights and views of the child" element should be covered in the complaint. It is not clear whether this is something that should be expressly referenced in the complaint itself, or whether it is something the Committee will be investigating on its own and requesting information where it has some concern.

Also, might it be possible for a child to file a submission on his or her own behalf, without the assistance of a parent, guardian or representative?  Yes, apparently this is possible, since nothing in the Protocol or Rules of Procedure appears to prohibit it.

The other important requirements to make sure you have submitted a valid claim include:

1. The names of the victims must be submitted; the complaint must not be anonymous (although the Committee will honour requests to keep the complaint anonymous after it has been submitted)
2. It must allege facts of violation that took place after the Optional Protocol went into effect in the country that is the subject of your complaint
3. It must be in writing
4. There must not be a parallel investigation taking place in another international body, or which has been completed on the same facts (some limited exceptions may apply)
5. Available domestic remedies must have been exhausted before submitting a complaint to the Committee (some exceptions apply)
6. You must file your complaint within 12 months of the date when domestic remedies were exhausted (some exceptions apply)
7. If you are bringing a complaint on behalf of a group of victims, the consent of those victims must first be obtained (some exceptions apply)

You may also bring a complaint on the basis of the rights described in the Convention on the Rights of the Child itself, or under either of the two other Optional Protocols -- one on children in armed conflict and the other on the sale/pornography of children.

The Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights also provides a useful introduction to the individual complaint process for the human rights treaties, including a model complaint form.

Inquiry procedure 

The new inquiry procedure is described in articles 13 and 14 of the Optional Protocol.  The Committee is authorised to launch an inquiry against any country about which it has received reliable information, indicating grave or systematic violations by a state party.  Like the inquiry procedures available under some of the other human rights treaties, the question of who can submit information to launch such an inquiry procedure is left open ended. This means a victim, or group of victims, or NGO could submit a request. Or the Committee can take up the matter on its own initiative.  Rule 31 of the Committee's new Rules of Procedure indicate that it is the Secretary General or the Committee itself which will bring the information to the attention of the Committee.  This would mean that a victim or NGO interested in making a submission should probably direct it to the Secretary General's office or to the Committee's attention, or to both.

There is less formality around the requirements to submit such a request.  There is no specific or recommended format. It would be important to describe the facts, and make clear why the information is reliable, and how it demonstrates grave or systematic violations.  There is no requirement for exhaustion of remedies or against bringing requests relating to actions also pending in other courts or bodies.  In a case where there are other pending actions, however, it would be advisable to bring this to the attention of the Committee and to explain why an inquiry procedure would be important to establish, regardless of the outcome of those other proceedings.

The inquiry procedure remains confidential while it is pending, with the primary contact being between the Committee and the state party. However, the Committee is authorised to request additional information from various parties while the investigation is proceeding, including from NGOs, and individuals, including children (Rule 35).  A country visit by one or more Committee members may also be scheduled.

Conclusion

It will take some time for these new procedures to become actively utilised but it is good to see new mechanisms become available for victims of human rights violations, especially in this case for the rights of children.

Vatican/Holy See questioned at the UN about child abuse

Watching the senior Vatican officials representing the Holy See today (Thursday, Jan 16th) before the experts of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child was a gripping experience.  The Committee had well-prepared questions, they followed up on questions not answered, and many times were able to correct factual errors made by the delegation when conflicting with credible historical dossiers and reports.  The delegation however also gave forthright answers in some cases, and expressed the type of regret that is needed. However, lots of lofty statements; very few firm commitments to action.

I would also like to tip my hat to the NGO support given to this event, in particular from the Center for Constitutional Rights and the victim survivors group, SNAP.  Both brought compelling victim testimony to the attention of the Committee, strong factual responses to each submission filed by the Holy See, and good coverage during and after the event.  Twitter followers used the hashtag #HolySeeConfess.  A good post-event wrap-up was live streamed by these two NGOs, including a Q&A session with  questions emailed or streamed in from all over the world.

You can also view a webcast recording of the Committee hearing at treatybodywebcast.org. It usually takes 3 or 4 days before the archived recordings are posted.

By all reports the media coverage was strong, one of the best covered events in the history of the Committee's hearings.  I noted prominent stories at both CNN and BBC. A quick Google news search revealed at least 482 stories worldwide in English.  There was also evidence of prominent coverage in Spanish-language media, reported by the representatives of SNAP in the livestream event noted above.

What happens next? First, we wait for the Committee's concluding observations and recommendations which will probably be issued around February 5th. Then we turn to the UN Committee Against Torture, which will also be reviewing the human rights record of the Holy See, in its session that begins in late April.  Like the Committee on the Rights of the Child, this Committee's hearing will also be webcast live at treatybodywebcast.org.

Holy See to appear before Committee on the Rights of the Child

The Holy See appears tomorrow (Thursday, January 16th) before the Committee on the Rights of the Child, to defend its record of human rights protection toward children. High on the agenda will be what more the Vatican can and should do to protect against child abuse by priests in the Catholic Church worldwide.

The Holy See ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1990. It is 14 years overdue in filing this Second Periodic Report which has now been scheduled for a hearing on Thursday at the UN offices in Geneva.  The hearing will be webcast, available live and by archived recording.

The interaction between the expert members of the Committee and the delegation from the Holy See should be interesting to watch.  The government takes the position that it is a sovereign subject of international law, independent of any territorial authority or jurisdiction.  It is separate and distinct from the territory of the Vatican City State.  They claim that "colloquial references to the Holy See as the 'Vatican' are incorrect and misleading." (Holy See reply to List of Issues, CRC/C/VAT/Q/Add.1, 6 December 2013, p.4, paragraph 7).

In an NGO response from the Center for Constitutional Rights and the organisation SNAP, they argue:

"We note that the Holy See's response goes to great length to confine its obligations and liabilities under the Convention to the territory of Vatican City State, where it acknowledges citizenship and/or residence of 31 children. The Holy See seeks to redirect responsibility for widespread and systemic violations of the Convention and OPSC [Optional Protocol on the sale/pornography of children] occurring in other sovereign territories that were committed, abetted, facilitated or covered up by Catholic officials acting under its authority to other States.

In doing so the Holy See overlooks a critical feature of international law and the extraterritorial obligations of states to respect, protect and fulfil human rights. ...

This representation by the Holy See is particularly disingenuous in light of the all-too-numerous accounts of efforts by bishops, archbishops, cardinals and other Church officials around the world to cover up these crimes and subvert the course of justice in other States, further compounding the harm to victims. Not only have Church officials not cooperated fully in investigations and prosecutions, they have been found to have worked in many cases to ensure that the legal process in other States could not work as intended, i.e., to protect rights, ..."  (Supplemental Submission to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child in Advance of its Review of the Holy See During its 65th Session, December 2013) http://bit.ly/1j7RVEE

The discussion between the Committee and the delegation from the Holy See should be significant. After tomorrow's session the Committee will take the matter into closed session for further discussion.  They will issue concluding observations and recommendations at the end of the session, January 31st (update: probably released to the public February 5th).  The delegation will then be asked to implement and respond to the recommendations.

Making use of quick follow up procedures

Typically when a UN human rights treaty body reviews a state party’s report, they issue concluding observations and recommendations to be followed up by the country in question at the time of the next periodic report – usually 5 or more years later.  In recent years some of the treaty bodies have adopted the practice of identifying 2 or 3 recommendations to be followed up more quickly – in 12 or 24 months.  This practice provides NGOs a unique opportunity that is often going underutilized at the moment.

Example: racial discrimination and the Dominican Republic

For example, here are three recommendations for the Dominican Republic that the CERD Committee specified in February 2013 for follow up in 12 months (CERD/C/DOM/CO/13-14):

•  Paragraph 11 – adopt a specific law on racial discrimination that corrects article 39 of the Constitution and articles 336 and 337 of the Criminal Code; to make sure that there is an express prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of race, colour or national origin
• Paragraph 19 – remove administrative obstacles to issuing identity documents to Dominicans of Haitian origin
• Paragraph 21 – ensure that deportation laws do not discriminate, including ending the mass deportation of Haitians in violation of due process guarantees

Answers are due from the government on these three items by February 2014.  When the government submits a response, it will be posted at the Committee’s website for the February 2013 session (82^nd session), under the section on the Dominican Republic, subheading “Follow up State party’s report”.  http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/SessionDetails1.aspx?SessionID=776&Lang=en 

Committee procedure

If the government fails to respond, the matter will be taken up next by the rapporteur appointed by the Committee to follow up such matters. He or she will contact the government in question, attempt to obtain an explanation for the missed deadline and a submission of the requested material, and then will report back on his or her results to the full Committee at a later session.  States are encouraged to consult with local NGOs when planning and implementing recommendations. Each of the treaty bodies will also accept submissions from NGOs providing information about the government’s implementation or failure to implement each recommendation.  If the government has failed to respond by the time of the 12 month deadline, the NGO submission may be the only information the follow up rapporteur has on the subject.

Which Committees have adopted this procedure?

Five of the nine treaty bodies that regularly review country reports have now adopted this “quick follow up” practice.

CERD	12 month follow up
Human Rights Committee	12 month follow up
CAT	12 month follow up
CEDAW	24 month follow up
CED	12 month follow up, first cases this April
CRC	no quick follow up procedure yet adopted
CRPD	no quick follow up procedure yet adopted
CMW	no quick follow up procedure yet adopted
CESC	no quick follow up procedure yet adopted
SPT	does not apply; different sequence of reports applies

Countries "in the dock" during 2014 under this procedure

For example, here are the 34 countries that have a deadline during 2014 under this quick follow up procedure:

Country Treaty body Follow up deadline Albania CCPR Jul-14 Algeria CERD Feb-14 Angola CCPR Mar-14 Bolivia CAT May-14 Bolivia CCPR Oct-14 Chile CEDAW Oct-14 China Hong Kong CCPR Mar-14 China Macau CCPR Mar-14 Comoros CEDAW Oct-14 Czech Republic CCPR Jul-14 Djibouti CCPR Oct-14 Dominican Republic CERD Feb-14 Equatorial Guinea CEDAW Oct-14 Estonia CAT May-14 Finland CCPR Jul-14 France CED Apr-14 Guatemala CAT May-14 Indonesia CCPR Jul-14 Japan CAT May-14 Kenya CAT May-14 Kyrgyzstan CERD Feb-14 Mauritania CAT May-14 Mauritania CCPR Oct-14 Mauritius CERD Feb-14 Mozambique CCPR Oct-14 Netherlands CAT May-14 Netherlands Antilles CAT May-14 Netherlands Aruba CAT May-14 New Zealand CERD Feb-14 Paraguay CCPR Mar-14 Peru CCPR Mar-14 Russia CERD Feb-14 Slovakia CERD Feb-14 Tajikistan CCPR Jul-14 Togo CEDAW Oct-14 Turkmenistan CEDAW Oct-14 Ukraine CCPR Jul-14 United Kingdom CAT May-14 Uruguay CCPR Oct-14 Uruguay CED Apr-14
How can NGOs utilize this procedure?
This procedure offers NGOs a unique opportunity to influence change in their country.  The 12 or 24 month deadline and the concrete, specific nature of most of these quick follow up recommendations, can make lobbying and advocacy more focussed and more effective. The fixed deadline provides a useful backstop to get action. By their nature, these recommendations are easier to implement in a shorter time period. It also gives an NGO a good reason for introducing themselves to key government officials to urge implementation efforts.  The quick turnaround time expected, gives the whole exercise a more practical, achievable character than is often present with more general or long term recommendations. Here is one suggested approach for how an NGO might pursue one or more of these quick follow up recommendations: Review text; preliminary analysis 1.   Review the full text of the quick follow up recommendations and note the deadline. Make a preliminary assessment of what steps the government should take to implement each recommendation.  Research some good practice implementation models if appropriate. Model legislation or a model plan of action might be obtained or prepared, depending on the nature of the specific recommendation.  In the example above regarding the Dominican Republic, an assessment might include finding someone to draft a simple bill that incorporates the express language on racial discrimination that is referred to in the treaty, researching the steps necessary to adopt a constitutional amendment, monitoring whether Dominicans of Haitian origin are finally getting identity documents, and monitoring whether the mass deportation of Haitians has stopped. Be prepared to document and report on your monitoring efforts as the 12 month deadline approaches. Identify appropriate government contact points 2.   Assess which government agency or officials are your best contact points. For example, you can check the Committee website for the session when the country report was reviewed. There is usually a document entitled “List of Delegation” which identifies the government officials who attended the hearing when the country report was presented.  Check for any local officials who were present and who usually reside in the home country.  Alternatively, contact the Ministry of Justice, or Human Rights Department, or other local ministry or agency known to be responsible for human rights matters.  If legislation is required, the relevant Parliamentary Committee head might also be contacted. Initial contact with the government 3.   Make initial contact with the government as soon as possible, indicating an interest in providing input on the implementation of these recommendations, requesting a chance to meet with the appropriate persons who will be responsible for implementation, and requesting a copy of any information submitted to the treaty body. Prepare for, attend meeting; or repeat requests if no response 4.   If the government official offers to meet with you, prepare for the meeting. If there is no contact, be sure to renew your request a few more times so that you can summarize your efforts to the treaty body before the 12 month deadline. Prepare submission to treaty body (12 or 24 month deadline) 5.   Prepare your submission to the treaty body, evaluating the government’s efforts to implement the subject recommendations and whether they were willing to consult with your NGO and provide copies of submissions.  Make sure to file the submission by the 12 or 24 month deadline that has been set for the government. Consider a press release 6.   Decide whether to issue a public press release that tells the story of the 12 month follow up process and the government’s failure to implement the treaty body’s recommendations. Now turn to the other recommendations in the treaty body’s conclusions 7.   Depending upon whether or not these efforts have been successful, perhaps go on to the other recommendations in the treaty body’s concluding observations. Responses for these recommendations are due by the time of the next periodic report, in about five years. Perhaps you can initiate an implementation dialogue with the government on these remaining recommendations in a similar manner as the “quick follow up” recommendations. Document your steps 8.   Be sure to document your steps along the way, especially if the government is failing to respond to your requests. This will help the treaty body’s follow up rapporteur to make more concrete suggestions when discussing these matters with your government.