Summary Report TB-NET & Amnesty International Event on Treaty Body Elections

SummaryReport

“TB-NET Event on Treaty Body Elections”

9:00 am-12:30 pm, Thursday 15 November 2018

CentreInternational de Conférence de Genève (CICG)

Introduction

The event was organized by TB-Net and Amnesty International.TB-Net is an informal group of international NGOs and networks working instrategic partnerships with the UN Treaty Bodies. Currently, TB-Net comprises: theCentre for Civil and Political Rights (CCPR Centre); Child Rights Connect; theGlobal Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (GI-ESCR); theInternational Disability Alliance (IDA); the International Movement Against AllForms of Discrimination and Racism (IMADR); the International Women's Rights ActionWatch Asia Pacific (IWRAW-AP); and the World Organisation Against Torture(OMCT).

The event was co-sponsored by the Permanent Mission of theUnited Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Permanent Missionof Switzerland, as well as the International Rehabilitation Council for TortureVictims (IRCT).

This event was conducted as a roundtable working meetingunder the Chatham house rule[1]to discuss amongst States and other key stakeholders including the UN Office ofthe High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and NGOs, the currentnominations and elections processes for Treaty Body membership, and proposalsfor improvements which aim to enhance the quality, independence and diversityof Treaty Body membership.

A Background document and a “Draft Roadmap for Quality,Independence and Diversity of Treaty Body Membership” were provided in advanceto stimulate the discussion. The Background document can be found here.The Draft Roadmap can be found here.

This Summary Report provides a summary of the discussions atthe meeting, the key proposals for moving forward.

Summary of Discussions

In the introductory remarks, States and civil societyrepresentatives emphasised the importance of a strong, independent andeffective treaty body system and the important role of States in ensuring this,through the nomination and election of quality, independent and diverse treatybody members. The discussion focused on the two elements of the electionsprocess: nomination of candidates; and election of members.

Nominationof candidates for treaty body membership

While the majority of participating States had notestablished a formal open and participatory nomination process, a number ofStates had undertaken informal processes which included consultation withnational civil society, national human rights institution, academia as well asoutgoing Treaty Body members. A couple of States said they were beginning theprocess of establishing a formal and transparent nomination process andtherefore found the discussion very timely.

Several State representatives gave examples of promisingpractices for an open and merit-based nomination process at the national level.In those States, the government issued a public call for applications for the relevanttreaty body nomination. The public call set out the general and Treaty-specificrequirements and was advertised on Government websites and other platforms,including leading newspapers, as well as disseminated to relevant civil societyorganisations and universities (notably those in the international lawcommunity). A selection panel was established to shortlist and interviewcandidates. The panel was composed of representatives from the Ministry ofForeign Affairs, another relevant Ministry, and a representative who isindependent of government, such as a representative from civil society in thefield of the concerned human rights instrument or from the National HumanRights Institution. It was stressed that such a process can bring significantpositive impacts at relatively low cost.

Various challenges in the nomination process were sharedamong the participants. A number of States noted that the informality of theircurrent process meant that personal relationships were the most common way ofexperts being identified and nominated. Those with a more formal andtransparent nomination process noted that it assisted in surfacing strongcandidates who did not have such personal relationships and in avoiding aperception of cronyism. Generally States considered that, whether or not theyhave a formal process in place, consultations with stakeholders, includingcivil society, was an important step in identifying candidates for nomination.

The knowledge gap between the capital and Geneva about theUN Treaty Body system and qualifications required for experts, can pose achallenge in nominating the most qualified experts. Some States recommend astronger emphasis in the nomination process on UN language skills andexperience in working at the international/ regional level. The lack ofawareness about the treaty bodies, and the inconsistency of criteria fornominating a candidate was raised as a problem. Some States thought clearerguidelines or criteria (a ‘checklist’) would assist them to formalise theirnomination process. The importance of having a dedicated person to co-ordinatethe process was also highlighted and States discussed the relative benefits ofthe process being hosted by different government Ministries.

Whilst most States said that diversity of membership wasimportant, few had specific selection criteria to ensure diverse nominations. Systematicgender inequality in society was pointed to as a root cause for the fewernumber of women nominated compared to men. Some noted that the time demands oftreaty body membership also deterred many experts with family and caringresponsibilities. A number of States emphasised that in order to address genderimbalance, States should actively encourage women to apply for nomination.

In many States, the selection and nomination of a candidateis a time-consuming process which requires planning approximately 1-2 years inadvance. It was recommended that States begin planning 2 years in advance toproperly undertake nomination procedures and be ready for elections at theinternational level. In this regard, the development of lists of upcomingvacancies in the Treaty Bodies by the OHCHR was welcomed as a useful resource.[2]The OHCHR has enhanced its publication of relevant information, includingproviding the overview of the current Treaty Body membership in terms of genderand geographical representation. It could further enhance timely informationflow towards States Parties, including information on gaps in the differentexpertise of members and also the visibility of this information. Civil societywas also encouraged to provide further information on these aspects.

Electionof treaty body members

States pointed out that at elections, candidates nominatedthrough the open and merit-based process received positive feedback from otherStates parties and were easier to promote as they have already been vettedthrough the open process. Experiences suggest that the candidates nominated viathis process have a greater chance of being elected. Those experts have madenotable contributions in both substantial and organisational elements of theirTreaty Bodies including the improvement of working methods and the developmentof general comments.

Collecting information on candidates was identified as oneof the main challenges for States when making voting decisions. One problem isthe timeframe between the deadline for nominations and the day of elections (“Meetingof States parties”) is short. In this regard, and very importantly, it wassuggested that OHCHR could consider moving the administrative deadline fornominations to ensure that States have adequate time to properly collectinformation, assess candidates and take informed decisions when voting. Inaddition, due to the limited information available in the biographical dataform provided by the OHCHR, States often rely on other sources in order toassess candidates’ profiles. The application forms for special proceduremandate holders are good models for enriching information on candidates for theTreaty Body membership.

OHCHR is considering how to better stream-line theapplication process and information available. It is studying the replicabilityof the successful aspects of the on-line standardised application system usedfor the Special Procedures mandate holders.

State delegates also gather information from their embassiesin the nominating State, from civil society and from meetings with the candidatesthemselves. Face to face interaction, or at least through video-conference,between candidates and States representatives in Geneva and New York was consideredessential. As a promising but not systematic practice, some States supporttheir candidate and organise meetings with other States representatives forthem to get to know the candidate and address questions to him or her.

On independence, some participants explained the challengesof assessing a candidate’s independence and said that it was not sufficient torely on information provided by the candidate or the nominating State, giventheir conflict of interest. Often national NGOs are best placed to provideinformation about independence from the State. Participants suggested thatcandidates should be asked to provide more information on elements that attestto their independence and that more information from civil society on thispoint, would also be helpful.

There was discussion about the idea of holding public events(or hearings) with all candidates for a particular election, similar to what isdone for the Human Rights Council. Whilst hearings might provide anotheropportunity for States to find out more about candidates, concerns were raised aboutthe logistical and resource implications, given the number of candidates and electionsacross the treaty body system. Some felt that public hearings might furtherpoliticise the elections process and deter some people from nominating.

Civil society can also play a crucial role in elections ofTreaty Body members. Civil society can provide information to States,particularly Permanent Missions in Geneva, about the candidates both formallyand informally. National civil society organisations are best placed to commenton the qualification and independence of their national candidates.International NGOs can work as a channel of information between national civilsociety and Permanent Missions and provide useful information about sittingmembers. Participants emphasised that the early timing of such information iscrucial if it is to impact States’ voting decisions.

Participants noted that campaigning for candidates (andpotential vote trading) begins as soon as the candidature is declared. However,it was realised that States have information about new nominations well beforecivil society receive this information, making it difficult for civil societyto provide timely information about nominated candidates. More thought needs tobe given to ensuring that all relevant stakeholders have access to thisinformation as early as possible. States said they found useful both formal andinformal exchanges about candidates.

The role of Permanent Missions in Geneva in liaising with colleaguesin New York and the capital for nominations and elections was identified as anothercrucial element. Because of the substantial knowledge and experience earned by Geneva-basedofficials, more efforts can be invested in Geneva ahead of elections to raiseawareness about candidates.

There was a frank discussion about the practice of ‘votetrading’. It was acknowledged that almost all States engage in vote trading inrespect of treaty body elections and this often occurs far in advance of theelection and in relation to unrelated political bodies. However, many States emphasisedthat they will not trade ‘blindly’ and will still apply some basic criteria(such as a requirement of independence) to vote trades. Further, for manyelections, not all of States available votes are traded. Many States said thatthe country and region of the candidate is the most important criteria. Thediscussion also reflected on the difficulties of addressing diversity problemsin a treaty body (eg: gender imbalance), when most votes are traded.

Moving forward

Participants generally agreed that a more formal andtransparent process for nomination of treaty body candidates was desirable.However, it was stressed that different models will be appropriate in differentStates and that a “step by step approach” is necessary to systematically moveforward in improving practices both at the national and international levels. Participantssaid the ‘Roadmap’ document was useful for this process and could be developedfurther following this meeting and in consultation with States. It would alsobe helpful for States who have in place a formal nomination process, to makeavailable a short document describing the process and its objectives andbenefits.

A key element on which all stakeholders committed and hasalready started to strengthen their efforts is the earlier timelieravailability of all the relevant information. The OHCHR has started topublish a calendar for elections 3 years in advance, including detail on the genderbalance and geographical composition of each Treaty Body. The OHCHR will also considermoving the deadlines for nomination and election processes to an earlier date,to allow greater opportunity to share information about candidates and treatybody gaps or needs. The further improvement of the OHCHR biographical data formfor candidates could also prove helpful. Civil society could continue thepractice of providing questionnaires to candidates and publish them online earlier,based on new calendars.

Improved nomination procedures will ensure strong poolsof quality, independent and diverse candidates nominated by States. Thispremise fulfilled, the practice of ‘vote trading’ between States prior toelections, while not ideal, does not endanger the final outcome of the electionprocesses: a quality, independent and diverse membership of the UN treatybodies. Nevertheless, further developing practices, even if informal or non-systematic,to enable States representatives in Geneva to meet candidates face to face andto interact to assess them prior to voting remains in the pipeline.

Whilst more significant proposals like public hearings andan independent candidature assessment body remain on the table, there was lessenthusiasm for such proposals and a greater preparedness to first focus onstrengthening national nomination processes and information flows to informvoting decisions.

10December 2018

[1] A rule or principle according to whichinformation disclosed during a meeting may be reported by those present, butthe source of that information may not be explicitly or implicitly identified.

[2] OHCHR,Elections of Treaty Body Members, https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/Pages/ElectionsofTreatyBodiesMembers.aspx