UN General Assembly must act to strengthen treaty body system

NewYork, 7 August 2013.

As the current General Assemblysession draws to a close, the outcome of an inter-governmental process to “strengthen” the treaty bodies remains unclear as negotiations enter a third reading.This is despite the grave challenges facing the treatybody system, which in the words of the High Commissioner for Human Rights hasreached its limits both in terms of coherence and sustainable functioning withincurrently available resources.

At best, the General Assemblyprocess to enhance the treaty bodies looks poised to adopt a resolution thatcontains few helpful changes for the system. At worst it could seriouslyundermine the effective functioning of the treaty bodies by attacking experts’ independence and calling for measures that would only serve todecrease efficiency, all the while ignoring important proposals that haveemerged from the last four years of consultations.

In April 2012, NGOs identifiedseven issues to be addressed by States through the inter-governmental process[1]:(1) universal ratification of the core international human rightstreaties and their optional protocols; (2) compliance with reportingobligations; (3) implementation of recommendations and views; (4)strengthening the annual meetings of States Parties; (5) enhancing the membershipof the treaty bodies; (6) providing adequate resources to the treatybody system; and (7) preventing and addressing reprisals. Most of theseissues are at the core of what needs to be improved if the treaty body systemis to function well in the years ahead, especially as more States becomeparties to the treaties and their optional protocols and more rights-holdersengage with these expert bodies.

As the General Assembly’s discussions enter a determining phase, we offer the following assessment of and recommendations on the key issues that must be addressed to ensurea successful outcome.

- It is highly disappointing that States havefailed to devote any attention to developing strategies to achieve universalratification of, and removal of limiting reservations to, the core human rightstreaties and their optional protocols—commitments made exactly 20 years agoat the World Conference on Human Rights that many States have yet to fulfil. Statesshould commit to ratifying all core human rights treaties without delay.

- While many States have emphasised the need fortechnical assistance, too little focus has been placed on the lack of politicalwill of some States to implement their substantive treaty obligations and therecommendations and views of the treaty bodies. States should commit to domore domestically to improve implementation, for example, conducting openconsultations with civil society to build strong constituencies andestablishing high level focal points or other mechanisms within governmenttasked with coordinating implementation.

- We regret that some States have sought throughthe process to reinterpret their obligation to comply with reportingrequirements under the treaties by promoting longer reporting cycles. TheGeneral Assembly should not change the periodicity of reporting as these arelegal provisions contained in the treaties and are outside of the General Assembly’s competence to change

- Rather than seize the opportunity to strengthenthe meetings of States parties to enhance and support implementation,including through sharing best practices, there is little indication thatStates will seek to add value to these meetings, and some indication thatcertain States are attempting to use them as a forum in which to attack theindependence of treaty body members. States should use these meetings todevelop specific ideas and practices for improving implementation. 


- The quality of treaty body membership is key totheir effectiveness, yet States have not been ambitious in supporting the HighCommissioner’s proposal for an open and public space through which candidatescould be assessed. Rather it appeard States will be left to merely consideradopting national policies or processes for the nomination of expert ascandidates. States should support theHigh Commissioner’s proposal for an open and public space as a minimal steptowards bringing greater rigour to the process of electing candidates who areboth independent and expert in the respective treaty areas.

- Despite the widespread acknowledgement of thechronic under-resourcing of the treaty system it is unclear at this stagewhether States will approve increases required for the treaty body system tofunction effectively. Regretfully many States are blocking initiatives to saveresources which in turn could go towards bolstering the treaty bodies, such aspage limits, limits on translation and interpretation, and the replacement ofsummary records with webcasts. The proposal for most of the committees to meetin dual chambers is also an essential component of the overall package. This isa cost-effective means for the treaty bodies to increase the number of reports theycan review without compromising the time devoted to each and ensuring thatunpaid treaty body experts can maintain their professional lives.

- Much has been made in this process of the needfor accurate costing of potential savings and new expenditures. However, thisshould not be used as a delay tactic. While we understand the role of accuratebudgetary figures in decision making, it would appear that States havesufficient information to proceed with the policy making aspect of their workat this stage and demonstrate the political commitment necessary to infuse thetreaty body system with the resources needed for its effective and sustainablefunctioning. States should take decisions to ensure adequate resources forthe treaty bodies.

- Finally, the expected result on reprisals fallsfar short of what States might have committed to in order to adequately addressthis crucial issue. States should go beyond abstract condemnation and shouldtake concrete steps themselves, and support the treaty bodies in developingeffective strategies to prevent and improve the response to intimidation andreprisals. 


We also regret the intentions of some States,made clear from the start of the Intergovernmental process, to attack theindependence of the treaty body members through initiatives such as the Code ofConduct and accountability mechanism. We strongly reject such initiatives notonly on their face but also on the polarizing effect they continue to have onthe discussions. From the start these attacks have been a distraction from thereal problems at hand and the search for real solutions. 
Finally, we wish tonote our disappointment that the process has not turned out to be open,inclusive and transparent, as promised in the resolution creating it. Far frombeing meaningful and effective, opportunities for NGO participation have beencharacterized throughout this process by unpredictability, poor planning, lackof communication, disregard for our expertise, views and potentialcontributions, and above all a fundamental lack of commitment and initiative toinclude NGO stakeholders outside of New York and Geneva. It is also a discreditto this process that it has not involved sustained, regular participation ofexpert members of the treaty bodies. We fear this could have negativerepercussions on the ownership of the outcome of this process going forward.As the discussions in the General Assembly are reaching a critical juncture,we urge States to refocus their attention and efforts on the core goals of thisprocess. We urge all States to revisit and consider how the proposed outcomemight better strengthen and enhance the treaty body system and increase thecapacity of rights holders to enjoy their human rights.

[1] http://bit.ly/1cbECAm