OMCT Intervention to the 15th Annual Meeting of Special Rapporteurs

OMCT follows with great interest the work undertaken by the Special Procedures mandate holders within the framework of their annual meetings and welcomes the opportunity to share its comments and experiences.

The relationship between NGOs and the Special Procedures is a symbiotic one: the Special Procedures mechanism is reinforced when mandate holders receive support and reliable and well-targeted information from NGOs, and these same NGOs benefit from the exposure that the Special Procedures system can give to specific issues in the forum of the UN and beyond. The challenge in reinforcing this mutually-beneficial arrangement lies to a large extent in the issue of follow-up.

In light of this, OMCT would like to raise the following issues:

1/ Communications

OMCT welcomes the increase in joint communications issued by the Special Procedures as highlighted in various mandate holders’ annual reports. In terms of follow-up, OMCT understands that the response depends upon the government involved: while some respond and investigate, others give pro forma responses or no answer, and still others respond by listing the alleged crimes of the detainee. OMCT would like to know if joint communications have increased the response rate of States or, indeed, changed the nature of the responses received?

2/ Country visits

OMCT understands that joint country missions by mandate holders are more complicated to organise and coordinate, but it firmly believes that they have the advantage of being able to address a complete issue and not just aspects thereof. OMCT welcomes the next joint mission by the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture and the Special Rapporteur on violence against women to Moldova in July 2008 and would like to know if further joint missions are planned in the coming months.

From the same perspective, OMCT would like to know if joint missions with regional Special Procedures mechanisms are also planned in addition to that to Togo by the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders and the Special Rapporteur of the African Commission on Human and People’s Rigths on human rights defenders in Africa.

In last year’s report on the Special Procedures mechanism [1], it was mentioned that, in an effort to increase the impact of the work of Special Procedures and improve follow-up to country visits recommendations, several mandates have developed a follow-up procedure which includes sending questionnaires to the Government representatives and civil society actors met during the visit. OMCT would like to know if this procedure is being adopted by other Special Procedure mandates and whether an assessment of this procedure is already available. Could this tool become “formalised” element of the Special Procedures?

OMCT believes OHCHR field offices can also take a leading role in monitoring the implementation of recommendations made by Special Procedures, in particular in the absence of relevant feedback from the States. Has there been any such collaborative initiative to date, and is there any assessment available?

3/ UPR

OMCT welcomes the discussion initiated by the Special Procedures on the UPR and would like to share the following:

The OHCHR compilation reports include the number of interventions sent to States and the response rate. However, there is no mention of the nature of these responses. In her last report, Ms. Hina Jilani makes a detailed analysis of the nature of responses that she received (para 41 and following). OMCT believes it would be worthwhile asking OHCHR to integrate this aspect in the next UPR country compilations.

On another level, OMCT would like to suggest that Special Procedures consider the possibility of taking into account relevant commitments made by States in the UPR process, provided it falls within their mandate, for example, extending invitations.

4/ Code of conduct

In light of the Human Rights Council reforms and the adoption of the code of conduct, OMCT would like to know if a first assessment of the constraints linked to the adoption of the code of conduct could be shared. Are there any restrictions in the definition of an urgent appeal and the way it is transmitted? Could you share examples of countries with which diffusion of communications through the Foreign Affairs Ministries has been maintained and, on the contrary, countries that have requested that communications be sent only through their diplomatic missions in Geneva?

Finally, the NGO participants from 14 countries from around the world currently taking part in the OMCT Seminar “Addressing the economic, social and cultural root causes of violence through the UN Special Procedures System” here in Geneva encourage the mandate holders to focus attention, individually and collectively, on dealing with the root causes of violence in all their activities, including follow-up. They also wish to thank both those mandate holders who have met or will meet with them and the Secretariat for having facilitated these important exchanges.

Thank you.

[1] Report entitled Enlarging the network of civil society actors working with special procedures and strengthening the collaboration between special procedures mandate holders, OHCHR special procedures branch and civil society actors.