Treaty body strengthening

mai 2019

General Assembly resolution 68/268 requests the Secretary-General to submit to theGeneral Assembly, a third “comprehensivereport on the status of the human rights treaty body system and the progressachieved by the human rights treaty bodies in realizing greater efficiency andeffectiveness in their work” in 2019. This report will be the third and lastahead of the review, due in April 2020, of “the effectiveness of the measurestaken in order to ensure their sustainability, and, if appropriate, to decideon further action to strengthen and enhance the effective functioning of thehuman rights treaty body system” (the 2020 review).

In responding to the call for contributions, this submission, on behalfof Amnesty International, the Centre for Civil and Political Rights (CCPRCentre), Child Rights Connect, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ),the International Disability Alliance (IDA), the International Movement AgainstAll Forms of Discrimination and Racism (IMADR), the InternationalRehabilitation Council for Torture Victims (IRCT), the International Servicefor Human Rights (ISHR), the Global Initiative forEconomic, Social and Cultural Rights (GIESCR) and the World OrganisationAgainst Torture (OMCT), focuses on:

- the objectives and principles for the 2020 review;

- visibility and accessibility; membership;

- working methods and inter-committee coordination; and

- the growth of the treaty body system and adequatefunding.

It should not be seen as an exhaustive account of thechallenges of the treaty body system.

OBJECTIVESAND PRINCIPLES FOR THE 2020 REVIEW

In advance of the preparation the second biennialreport 29 non-governmental organizations published a letter, Joint open letter regarding the 2018 biennialreport by the UN Secretary-General on the state of the treaty body system, drawing attention to a series of objectives, principles andrecommendations that we consider essential in any efforts to strengthen thehuman rights treaty bodies (hereafter ‘treaty bodies’, see also NGOs call for an inclusive review process ontreaty body strengthening). We reiterate our position that increased promotionand protection of human rights through increased compliance by States withtheir human rights obligations at the national level must be the guiding starof the review process.

Furthermore, the 2020 review ought to build on theGeneral Assembly’s practice regarding non-State stakeholders’ participation instandard-setting processes. All meetings should be open to NGOs and otherinterested stakeholders, and all stakeholders must be allowed to contributedirectly and in a timely manner, including remotely through the use of relevanttechnology.

We welcome and support the Secretary-General’srecommendation in his second biennial report that “it is imperative to enhance the 2020 discussions in an open, transparentand inclusive manner.” [UN Doc. A/73/309, para. 89.] We call on theSecretary-General to:

- affirm that the objective of any review of the treatybody system must be increased promotionand protection of human rights at the national level through increasedcompliance by States with their human rights obligations.

- reiterate the recommendation for an open, transparentand participatory review process that achieves an outcome that promotes astrong, independent and effective treaty body system which, in turn, pays dueregard to the needs and perspectives of rights-holders and victims as well asStates.

VISIBILITYAND ACCESSIBILITY

The treaty bodies perform a crucial function inmonitoring implementation of human rights obligations. Yet, their work islittle known outside of specialist circles.

The General Assembly and UN Member States have providedadditional funding for the webcasting of treaty body meetings. We welcome thedecision to provide webcasting on a permanent basis as of January 2020[A/RES/73/162], and consider it to be a key tool in ensuring greatervisibility, better outreach and improved accessibility of the treaty bodysystem as a whole. We call on the Secretary-General to:

- call on States to give greater visibility to the workof treaty bodies, including by promoting their findings at the national level.

- welcome the decision of the General Assembly toprovide webcast in all official languages as of 2020 and to encourage theinclusion of national languages when a State party has made arrangements forinterpretation and international sign language.

- request additional resources in order to ensureimproved videoconference facilities including for persons with disabilities andsuitable user-friendly databases to submit individual communications and toaccess concluding observations and decisions of the treaty bodies.

- develop sustainable solutions to improve accessibilityto all the treaty bodies for persons with disabilities so as to enable them toattend States’ reviews by all the treaty bodies including by providing thenecessary accessibility tools. Currently such accessibility is limited to theCommittee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

MEMBERSHIP

Resolution 68/268 encouraged States to continueefforts to nominate, independent, diverse and expert candidates to the treatybodies. The second biennial report reminded States of the lack of progress insetting up national selection mechanisms to strengthen the treaty bodymembership [UN Doc. A/73/309, para. 87]. We call on the Secretary-General to:

n remind States of their important role in promoting a treatybody membership set out in resolution 68/268 based on expertise, independenceand diversity, as per resolution 68/268, by promoting open, transparent andmerit-based nomination processes at the national level and by voting only forcandidates that fulfil the criteria set out in the respective treaties andresolution.

WORKINGMETHODS AND INTER-COMMITTEE COORDINATION

Several challenges facing the treaty body system havebeen identified over the years including but not limited to continuing lowreporting compliance. The individual communications present a looming crisisfor the treaty body system if not tackled in a timely manner. Webelieve that differences in workingmethods (where not required due to the specificity of the treaty) such as inrelation to the structure of the interactive dialogue,consultations with NGOs and NHRIs, follow-up procedures and consultationprocesses for general comments/recommendations make the treaty bodies difficultfor NGOsand rights holders to navigate. With a view to ensure and enhance the engagement ofrights holders with the treaty bodies, those differences should be closelyexamined.

The treaty bodies’ legal prerogative to establishtheir own rules of procedure and working methods is essential to theirfunctions, including their independence. We stronglyconsider that the treaty bodies themselves are best placed to tackle some ofthe challenges in this regard.

In order for the treaty bodies to be able tocoordinate their work and ensure procedural and jurisprudential coherence aforum for such discussions needs to be created. The Chairpersons meeting is animportant forum, yet its full potential cannot be reached when the treatybodies themselves rarely have time to discuss working methods and even less sowith other treaty bodies.

The lack of cross committee coordination presents achallenge to the system’s procedural and substantive coherence. The desire toidentify more effective ways of working should not be guided by a desire onlyto remove duplications, but also to discuss mutual reinforcement of States’human rights obligations, building on the interdependence and indivisibility ofrights. We call on the Secretary-General to:

- remind all stakeholders of the independence andimpartiality of the treaty bodies, including their legal competence toestablish their own rules of procedure and working methods.

- request adequate resources for the treaty bodies topilot and test alignment of working methods and evaluation of such initiatives.

- request adequate resources for the treaty bodies andthe Secretariat to discuss good practices and methodologies at the Committeelevel and among all the treaty bodies and to set up inter-committee discussionson a regular basis, including through videoconferencing services, to discussissues relating to procedural and substantial coherence of the treaty bodysystem.

GROWTHOF THE TREATY BODY SYSTEM AND ADEQUATE FUNDING

The growth of the treaty body system and the increasein ratifications is often raised as big challenge for the system. It shouldhowever be seen as a positive development and a sign of States’ commitment topromotion and protection of human rights at the national level.

None of the above measures can be taken unless UNMember States also fund the increasing activities of the treaty bodiessufficiently. The creation of the formula was a welcomed step by the GeneralAssembly and resolution 68/268 is unique in providing a formula to assessresource allocation for the treaty bodies but it contains gaps in resourceallocation that the General Assembly should seek to fill.

The 2020 review needs to ensure that the formulaadequately addresses all functions of the treaty bodies, such as visits by theSubcommittee on the Prevention of Torture, individual and inter-Statecommunications, urgent actions, inquiries, general comments/recommendations,simplified reporting procedure, follow-up procedures, efforts to prevent andcombat intimidation and reprisals and discussions on working methods. We callon the Secretary-General to:

- request that the General Assembly fully funds allfunctions of the treaty bodies.