On 31 August 2010, a high-level meeting of the General Assembly launched the Global Plan of Action to Combat Trafficking in Persons. The plan was adopted by the Assembly in a consensus resolution (64/293) on 30 June 2010, following broad consultations with Member States that were led by facilitators from Portugal and Cape Verde. Key elements of the plan include the creation of a voluntary fund to protect and assist victims, its emphasis on prosecuting perpetrators, and its promotion of stronger, more cooperative partnerships between States, civil society and the private sector. Although all States welcomed the plan of action, some alluded to the 'difficult' debates that had arisen in the negotiations. These centred around concerns, mostly from Western States, that the plan's voluntary nature would undermine enforcement of existing legally-binding instruments, which they regarded as the 'cornerstone' of anti-trafficking efforts.

Belgium (on behalf of the EU), Colombia, Japan and US stressed that the legally-binding instruments, particularly the Palermo Protocol to  Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, must remain the cornerstone in the fight against human trafficking. However, the majority of States did not see the (non-binding) action plan as duplicative of, or in competition with the existing legal framework. Rather they welcomed it as the much-needed 'breakthrough' that could muster the kind of cooperation and genuine partnership amongst States, civil society, business and others, that has been sorely lacking. In their view, the lack of an inclusive, coordinated, comprehensive approach to this 'heinous' crime had allowed traffickers and organised crime syndicates to out-pace and out-manoeuvre all efforts to date. However, Cuba's suggestion that the action plan was indeed the real 'cornerstone' in the fight against trafficking, showed that some States at least, have lost confidence in the legal framework and are intent on promoting alternative approaches.

Highlights of the high-level launch

The launch of the Global Action Plan commenced with statements from the President of the General Assembly, Dr Ali Treki, and the Secretary-General, Mr Ban Ki-moon. Presentations by three experts* in the fight against human trafficking followed. Given the enormous scale of the problem, and the gravity of the violations against women and children, they emphasised the need for States to deploy a range of tools to fight human trafficking. In their view, the goal of universal ratification of existing anti-trafficking international instruments should go 'hand in hand' with implementation of the global plan of action. However, they also advised that States must step up their efforts to enact domestic laws and policies that will give effect to the global plan of action.   

A total of 15 States** took part in the subsequent interactive dialogue. Some States reiterated the Secretary-General's comment that human trafficking was indeed a form of modern-day slavery, and that ten years on from the adoption of the Palermo Protocol, the world needed to recommit to fighting the 'scourge' in a more consistent and coordinated manner. The action plan was universally supported, with most speakers welcoming the following features:

• emphasises a human-rights based approach to preventing trafficking, which requires a victim-centred response
• establishes UN Voluntary Trust Fund for trafficking victims which will protect vulnerable people and support physical and psychological recovery
• recognises the 'central role' of the UN Convention against Transnational Organised Crime, and the Palermo Protocol, and calls on all States to 'consider' ratifying them
• requires the Secretary-General to mainstream the fight against trafficking into the UN's development and security policies and programmes, and to report to the GA on the implementation of the plan of action
• requires the UN to report every two years (starting 2012) on trafficking patterns and flows, best practices and lessons learnt
• links prevention of trafficking to the need to address the root causes, including poverty, unemployment, violence against women, humanitarian emergencies etc
• encourages more effective cooperation and coordination at the national, bilateral, subregional, regional and international levels, with particular emphasis on boosting technical assistance to States that request it
• encourages cooperative partnerships amongst States, civil society, the media, the private sector, and community leaders
• includes a mechanism to 'appraise' implementation of the plan of action in 2013 (para.6 of 64/293)

Looking forward

A more immediate test will arise at the  Conference of the Parties to the UN Convention against Transnational Organised Crime, which will take place in Vienna in October. One of the key issues under discussion at that meeting is whether the Parties will establish a review mechanism for the Convention. Given that there is now a review mechanism for the global plan of action, there is concern that there will be resistance to establishing a parallel process under the Convention.

* Dr Chutikul (Thailand), a member of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, and Chairperson of Thailand's National Subcommittee on Combating Trafficking in Children and Women; Ms Maria Grazia Giammarinaro (Italy), OSCE Special Representative for Combating Trafficking in Human Beings; and Dr Aleya Hammad (Egypt), Co-founder and Board Member of Suzanne Mubarak Women's International Peace Movement.

** Ghana (on behalf of the African Group), Belgium (on behalf of the EU), Portugal, Cape Verde, Belarus, Japan, Thailand, Russian Federation, US, Cuba, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Nicaragua, Colombia, Brazil, Philippines.

A number of important resolutions will be negotiated and adopted at the Human Rights Council's 15th session, which will take place from 13 September to 1 October. These include renewing the special procedures mandates on the rights of indigenous peoples, counter-terrorism, arbitrary detention, the right to health, the right to housing, contemporary forms of slavery, and the human rights situations in Cambodia and Somalia. The mandate on the Sudan will also need to be renewed but there has been no announcement yet by the African Group, the main sponsor, of any intention to do so.

The organisational meeting for the 15th session took place on Monday 30 August and the programme of work for the session was endorsed. The High Commissioner will present an update on the first day of the session, which is expected to focus, among other things, on the review of the Council.

Eleven of the Council's special procedures will present their annual reports. Belgium (on behalf of the European Union) argued that the traditional clustering of interactive dialogues with special procedures should be limited to where there is a clear connection between the issues to be discussed. This request is unlikely to be taken up at this stage but may be an issue that will be discussed further during the review of the Council.

The session will also see the annual discussion of integration of a gender perspective into the Council's work. This year it will focus on evaluating to what extent the Council and its mechanisms have actually integrated a gender perspective into their work. A panel on the elimination of discrimination against women will also be held and will discuss the High Commissioner for Human Rights' study (A/HRC/15/40) on the same topic. Some States are seeking to set up a mechanism to monitor and report on discrimination against women, but the idea has so far received some opposition from other States. Mexico and Colombia announced that they would seek to take the issue forward at this session.

Among the country-specific special procedures that will report are the Independent Experts on Burundi and on the Sudan. The Independent Expert on Burundi has not appeared before the Council since September 2008 when it was decided that he would only report after the establishment of a national human rights institution. The Independent Expert, who in the meantime has been replaced, will exceptionally present an oral update on his findings and activities since 2008. Another interesting debate will be the 'stand-alone' discussion on Somalia and the status of technical cooperation programmes in the country. The debate, which will take the form of a panel, is expected to see participation of representatives of the African Union, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Somalia, the Transitional Federal Government, and civil society in Somalia. The debate is expected to have major impact on whether the mandate of the Independent Expert on Somalia will be renewed.

The Council will also receive an update from the fact-finding mission on progress to investigate the Gaza flotilla incident, in which Israel attacked a humanitarian boat convoy (A/HRC/15/21). The President of the Council has appointed Judge K. Hudson-Phillips, former judge of the International Criminal Court, Sir Desmond de Silva, Queen's Counsel and former Chief Prosecutor of the Sierra Leone War Crimes Tribunal, and Ms Shanthi Dairiam former member of the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women to undertake the fact-finding mission.

Further, the Committee of independent experts to assess investigations by Israel and the Palestinians into the 2008/2009 Gaza conflict will present its first report to the Council (A/HRC/15/50). The Secretary-General's report (A/HRC/15/51) on progress in implementing the recommendations of the Goldstone report will also be discussed. This comes shortly after his similar report to the General Assembly in which he recommended that the Council and its Committee of independent experts should assess such progress.

The session will also focus on the human rights of indigenous peoples with both the Special Rapporteur and the Expert Mechanism on indigenous peoples presenting their reports.

The United States announced that it is 'exploring the possibility' of a new resolution on freedom of assembly and association and stated its commitment to it being a broadly supported cross-regional initiative. Other resolutions to be negotiated include: the right to water with a focus on the role of the private sector; human rights of migrants; right to education with a focus on asylum seekers, migrants and refugees; guidelines on extreme poverty, leprosy; and protection of witnesses.

Many States again regretted that reports for the session are not yet available. The Council will discuss this further as it considers the report of the Secretary-General on how to improve conference and secretariat services for the Council (A/HRC/15/17).

The Council will also adopt the UPR outcomes on 16 States reviewed in May 2010.

Information for NGOs on how to participate in the session is available from OHCHR.

Ban Ki-moon meets with Mr Richard Goldstone

On 18 August 2010, the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, released his second report to follow-up on the implementation of the ‘Goldstone report’ into the 2008-09 Gaza conflict. After granting the Israeli Government and the ‘Palestinian side’ a further five months to conduct ‘independent' and ‘credible’ investigations into the violations of international humanitarian and human rights law that were alleged, the Secretary-General forwarded the General Assembly almost 250 pages of material. However, despite this extension of time, the Secretary-General again avoided any analysis or evaluation of the evidence from the two parties, and simply annexed it to his two page introduction.

What is significant in the Secretary-General’s second report, is his message to the General Assembly that it should look to the Human Rights Council to answer the tough questions about how to follow-up on the Goldstone report. The Secretary-General explained that the appropriate body to assess the ‘independence, effectiveness and genuineness’ of the investigations by both parties, and to judge whether they conform with international standards, was the ‘committee of independent experts’ the Council established at its March session with this precise mandate (resolution 13/9). The clear sub-text was that the Secretary-General would not be commenting on these matters, despite two requests from the General Assembly to ‘report’ on progress on the investigations and to advise on whether ‘further action’ by the UN, including the Security Council, might be necessary.

It remains to be seen whether members of the General Assembly will be so keen to delegate responsibility for answering these contentious political questions to the Human Rights Council. Should the General Assembly wish to remain at the forefront of these matters, the option remains for members to call for a debate on the Secretary-General’s report, and/or to initiate a new resolution on the matter. However, only a small window of time remains to consider what if any action should occur in the General Assembly, as a series of key follow-up reports on the Goldstone report will be under consideration at the Council’s 15th session, commencing 13 September 2010. These include:

1. First report from the Human Rights Council's committee of independent experts;
2. Secretary-General’s second comprehensive report on the progress made in the implementation of the recommendations of the Goldstone report (as per Council resolution S-12/1B); and
3. High Commissioner’s report on the implementation of Council resolution 13/9.

ISHR will publish news stories on the key developments during the Council’s 15^th session, and afterwards will publish an analytical overview of the session in our Human Rights Monitor Quarterly.

Further background information from ISHR on the General Assembly's first (64/10) and second  (64/254) resolutions in response to the Goldstone report is available from our General Assembly news archive.

The Human Rights Council’s new President, Ambassador Sihasak Phuangketkeow, has proposed some modalities for the review of the Council’s work and functioning. The President will convene informal consultations on 30 August and 6 September in Geneva to reach agreement on how to structure the review process. The modalities suggest principles, timelines, and a structure for discussion. The working group that will undertake the review will hold its first session in Geneva from 25 to 29 October. The President has invited stakeholders to submit their proposals in advance of this meeting.

This edition of ISHR’s Human Rights Monitor Quarterly provides an overview of the processes in Geneva and New York, the key issues, and how NGOs can get involved to influence the outcomes.

To read the article on the review of the Council, click here. To read the current edition of the Human Rights Monitor Quarterly, please click here.

On 20 and 21 July 2010, during its 99th session in Geneva, the Human Rights Committee (the Committee) continued its first reading of Draft General Comment No. 34 (the Draft Comment) on Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (the Covenant). Article 19 safeguards the right to freedom of opinion and expression. Previous ISHR reports on the Draft General Comment can be found here, here, and here.

The Draft Comment was authored and presented to the Committee by Mr Michael O'Flaherty. At this session, Committee members discussed paragraphs 23 up to 36. The debate covered the use of case law as a source of law when restricting freedom of expression, defining customary law, and the notion of national security, amongst others. The dissemination of the draft outside of Geneva was also raised.

The first day saw a lively debate, with many Committee members taking the floor. An initial issue raised by various members was the broader distribution of the draft. Currently, it is only made available to persons attending the session in Geneva. The Chairperson, Mr Yuji Iwasawa, indicated that the Committee’s Bureau had decided not to disseminate it further due to the potential for confusion between different draft versions. Once the first reading is completed the Draft Comment will be widely distributed for comments. This is expected by the end of October 2010, during the 100^th session of the Committee.

The Draft Comment recalls that restrictions to freedom of expression must be provided by law. It states that this may include case law. However,  some legal systems only recognise statutory law as  a source of law. Mr O’Flaherty stated that there are ‘a bewildering array of legal practices’, however, case law can play an important role in the Committee’s work. Some Committee members come from legal systems that do not use or recognise case law as a source of law. This led to an intense debate over the use of the term in the Draft Comment. It was ultimately agreed that case law would be qualified with the words ‘where appropriate’ in order to ensure the relevance of the document to all legal systems.

Some concern was expressed about the use of the term ‘traditional law’. The Draft Comments states that it is not compatible with the Covenant for restrictions to freedom of expression to be enshrined in ‘customary, traditional or religious law’. Committee members were concerned about the unclear nature of the concept of traditional law. However as Mr O’Flaherty highlighted, some reference to customary and traditional law was needed because there are restrictions on freedom of expression that come from non-standard sources of law, or ‘law that does not derive from constitutional sources’. Mr O’Flaherty further indicated that as stated in General Comment 32, customary law was said to include ‘traditional and religious law’. Therefore, a compromise was reached by amending the paragraph, removing the words ‘traditional or religious’ leaving only ‘customary law’.

On the issue of expressions that may pose a threat to national security, Ms Majodina stated that States parties should show a direct connection between the expression and the negative impact on national security for such a restriction to be legal. She wanted to prevent States from using the preservation of national security as an excuse to suppress an individual’s right to freedom of expression. Until recently the Committee looked only at whether the law was reasonable. However, in a positive step, the Committee will now look at the nexus between the application of the law and what the individual has actually said when determining whether the restriction of freedom of expression is in line with the Covenant.

The Committee’s deliberations were detailed and specific throughout, which continues to reflect its desire to create a document that will stand the test of time, and provide an authoritative and instructive tool for State parties to better understand and fulfil their obligations under the Covenant. The aspiration of the Committee is to finish the first reading in the next session, after which the Draft Comment will be more widely distributed for feedback prior to the commencement of the second reading.

For further information on the Human Rights Committee, please visit their website.

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) held its 77^th session in Geneva from 2 to 27 August. CERD normally holds two sessions per year consisting of three weeks each, however on this occasion, in an attempt to catch up on its backlog, for the second consecutive session an additional week has been scheduled.

CERD consists of 18 independent experts that monitor the implementation of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) by its State parties. All State parties are obliged to submit regular reports to CERD on steps taken to implement the Convention. At this session it will review Australia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, France, Iran, Morocco, Romania, Slovenia, and Uzbekistan. As part of its regular agenda, the Committee will also examine individual and inter-state complaints, and will assess situations in which early warning or urgent measures may be called for.

A general meeting with NGOs is scheduled for the 3 August to discuss how to strengthen the interaction between NGOs and the Committee. The meeting will focus on the role of NGOs in the reporting process, and the modalities of participation of NGOs in the Committee’s session. It will also discuss how the work of the Committee could be more relevant to the work of NGOs at local level.

The provisional agenda and programme of work are available for download. For other languages please see the OHCHR website.

For more information on CERD, click here.

For more information on the 77th session, click here.

For former ISHR publications on CERD please click here.

The 11th Inter-Committee Meeting of UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies (ICM) was held at Palais Wilson, Geneva, from 28 to 30 June 2010. In her opening statement, the Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, Ms Kyung-wha Kang, drew attention to the way in which rapid growth of the treaty body system and related structural challenges were beginning to 'overwhelm' the whole system, and the associated need to rationalise the 'unwieldy' reporting process.

The key area of discussion was the new optional reporting procedure, known as the 'list of issues prior to reporting', adopted by the Committee against Torture (CAT), and the Human Rights Committee (HRC). The benefits of the new procedure were largely acknowledged by the Committee members to be the facilitation of more focused reports and therefore of more targeted concluding observations.

Ms Keller (HRC) drew attention to the need to ensure that the procedure is flexible enough that new issues not included in the list of issues can be raised during the review of the State party. Ms Gaer (CAT) cautioned the ICM against over-reliance on CAT's experience, given that it has not yet to review the first State under the new reporting procedure, and Mr Grossman (CAT) noted the additional burden in terms of resources and workload that the list of issues prior to reporting places on the treaty bodies. Ms Lee (CRC, and chair of the ICM) proposed that CAT report back to the ICM in January 2011 to be followed by further discussion at the ICM in June 2011.

The difficulties experienced by treaty bodies in having their documents translated on time, or indeed at all, was also a key point of discussion during the meeting. It was acknowledged that the situation has been deteriorating in recent years and many Committee members underscored the obstruction that the lack of translation into UN working languages had caused them. In relation to measures to overcome the translation pressures, there were extensive discussions about applying length limits to State parties' reports. There was much deliberation about the appropriateness of restricting page limits and the inflexibility this could create in situations of crisis, where the State may need to provide additional information. There was also discussion about the desirability of having a system where excessively lengthy State reports were returned to be shortened, and the implications this would have in terms of delaying the reporting process even further. The Chair concluded that as a working principle all treaty bodies should value brevity as far as this is consistent with quality and the proper fulfilment of their mandates.

On the morning of 29 June, the ICM held an interactive dialogue with States which revealed widespread support for the CAT optional reporting procedure. Finland stated that it had submitted its report to CAT under the new procedure and the initial experience had been positive, facilitating national dialogue and enabling more focused work. However Pakistan expressed concern that it is premature to evaluate the effectiveness of the new optional reporting system and Switzerland requested a more substantive reflection on the list of issues. Other points of interest during the dialogue included support for joint general comments from the treaty bodies (Brazil, Egypt, Finland, Switzerland) coupled with caution against potential confusion for States not signed up to all Conventions (USA); encouragement for the treaty bodies to get more involved with the UPR (Chile) in particular when compiling the list of issues (Japan) or by consulting UPR recommendations when drawing up concluding observations (Austria, Canada) countered by reservations from South Africa that closer association between the Human Rights Council and the treaty bodies would compromise the non-politicisation of the treaty bodies, and from Pakistan that it was premature to link the two processes.

Ms Rosslyn Noonan, Chair of the International Coordinating Committee of NHRIs (ICC), briefed the ICM about proposals from national human rights institutions. She spoke in support of reduced length of documentation, circulation of lists of issues prior to reporting, increased cross-referencing of recommendations from the different treaty bodies, and greater uniformity of working methods across treaty bodies, as the variations that currently exist are a significant impediment to NHRI interaction with the mechanisms.

Other points of discussion included the need for documents to be translated to meet the needs of disabled persons such as braille for the blind (Mr Al Tarawneh of CRPD), the desirability of moving away from the negative terminology of 'shadow reports' in preference for 'civil society' or 'parallel reports' (Mr Grossman, Mr Tarawneh), the desirability of holding future ICM meetings outside Geneva and New York in developing countries (Mr El-Borai from CMW and endorsed by the Chair of the ICC), the legitimacy and feasibility of cross-referencing recommendations and jurisprudence across treaty bodies (Ms Gaer, Mr Romero of CESCR and Mr Grossman), and concern that the General Assembly appears to be selective in its endorsement of General Comments by the Treaty Bodies (Mr Iwasawa of the HRC, Mr Grossman and Mr Romero).

On Monday 21 June the Human Rights Council (the Council) held an organisational session for its 5th cycle. The session saw the election of a new President and four Vice-Presidents that will constitute the Bureau. Iran, on behalf of the Asian Group, nominated Ambassador Sihasak Phuangketkeow of Thailand for the presidency of the Council. He was elected by acclamation. In an encouraging and promising introductory statement, the new President explained that he would be guided by three principles during his term: building a common agenda for the Council; enhancing the Council's credibility; and 'reaching out, hearing out and respecting the views of all'. He reminded the Council of the need to build on its past success while not shying away from tackling difficult issues. He also encouraged the Council to make more creative use of the tools at its disposal to respond to human rights issues. Finally, he stated his commitment to forging real and meaningful partnerships with all stakeholders.

The election of other officers to the Bureau followed. The four Vice Presidents are from Angola (African Group), Slovakia (Eastern European Group), Cuba (Latin American and Caribbean Group) and Norway (Western Europe and Others Group). Norway was also assigned as the Rapporteur. Many States took the floor to thank the outgoing President and Bureau for their efforts over the previous cycle, and to congratulate Mr Phuangketkeow and the new Vice Presidents on their election. States also welcomed the new members of the Council that had been elected in May. Amnesty International noted that there had been no real election this year since the number of candidates was the same as the number of seats to be filled. Amnesty also expressed regret that Qatar and Uganda had not made pledges before standing for election, thus breaking with well-established practice. It encouraged them to make such pledges when they next address the Council.

The draft annual programme of work for the 5th cycle was also adopted, on the understanding the document would continue to evolve. States were requested to contact the Secretariat with any inquires and suggestions in this regard.

The draw for the order of review of States for the 10th, 11th and 12th sessions of the UPR Working Group, and the selection of the troikas for the 9th, 10th and 11th sessions of the UPR, was also made. The final lists will be made available from the Council website shortly. It seems that a growing number of States are exercising their right to substitute one of the troika members drawn by lot. Mongolia, Panama, the USA, Lebanon, Myanmar, Sao Tome and Principe, Niger, and Latvia all used this opportunity. A large number of States requested that one of the troika members be from their regional group (Malawi, Mongolia, Panama, Marshall Islands, Libya, Lebanon, Mauritania, Nauru, Rwanda, Nepal, Saint Lucia, Oman, Myanmar, Georgia, Sao Tome and Principe, Namibia, Niger, Mozambique, Paraguay, Somalia, Solomon Islands, Sierra Leone, Singapore, St Vincent and Grenadines, and the Sudan).

ISHR voiced concerns over the way in which the appointment of special procedures mandate holders at the end of the Council's 14th session had been handled. The process was marked by regional factionalism, open politicisation, and a troubling lack of respect for the authority of the Chair. ISHR welcomed the Council's increased attention to intimidation and reprisals faced by those who have cooperated with the UN, its mechanisms, and representatives, and expressed the hope that the Council will do more to demand accountability for reprisals, including by asking States to inform the Council of efforts to investigate allegations, prosecute perpetrators, and ensure reparations for victims.

During its 98th session in New York in March 2010, the Committee continued its first reading of a draft general comment on Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (the Covenant), dealing with freedom of opinion and express ion. Developed by Mr. Michael O’Flaherty, the new text will replace existing and comparatively brief general comment No. 10 on the same issue, which dates from 1983.

In a welcome move, the Committee held three public meetings (17, 19 and 25 March) to advance its work on the 54-paragraph revised draft text. This increase in the number of meetings reflected the Committee’s desire to finalise the draft as soon as possible, as well as its openness to public scrutiny of its deliberations. Less welcome was the Committee’s ongoing practice of holding public meetings to discuss detailed and technical documents that are not publicly available.

Over the course of the session, the Committee maintained a slow but steady pace, picking up at paragraph 9 and concluding with paragraph 21. The broad topics covered by these paragraphs were the scope of the rights of freedom of expression and opinion; freedom of expression in the media; access to information; freedom of expression and political rights; and limitations on freedom of expression. In all but two instances (where the Committee resorted to bracketing text), consensus was reached and the amended text adopted. However there were a number of points of contention that will also have to be revisited at future meetings, as outlined below. 

Of particular note is the  inclusion of a section on 'access to information', which is broadly framed as a 'general right' that  obliges States parties to enact 'freedom of information procedures.' These procedures would include freedom of information legislation, that should be rapid, affordable and open to appeal. Further, States parties should bear the burden of demonstrating that any request for information would be incompatible with the Covenant. Mr. O'Flaherty referred to this as 'a truly innovative development' in the Committee's views on this matter.

To assist the Committee in the task of drafting the general comment, the Open Society Justice Initiative organised a lunch time panel of experts to address its members and engage in an interactive dialogue. The contribution of the Dean of Yale Law School, Robert Post, provided a critique of the development of national laws to prevent hate speech and blasphemy. He encouraged States to focus on eliminating other forms of inequality and discrimination that impede the human rights of vulnerable groups and minorities, rather than prioritizing laws against hate speech.  Other speakers suggested States should commit to ‘full disclosure’ of information as a matter of course (as opposed to disclosure upon request) when legislating to guarantee access to public information, and welcomed a recommendation in the draft text that States parties decriminalize defamation laws, a development that would benefit human rights defenders.

The detailed and technical nature of the Committee’s deliberations reflected its desire on the one hand, to craft a document that will stand the test of time, and on the other, will provide an authoritative and instructive tool for State parties to better understand and fulfill their obligations under the Covenant. The Committee was also very conscious of the need to err on the side of brevity and avoid producing an overly academic document that would be impenetrable to non-lawyers. As a result, considerable time was spent discussing which cases from the Committee’s own case law should be cited, and what practical examples should be included to illustrate the scope of the various rights covered by article 19. To streamline the text, it was agreed that all case law and references to other general comments would be relegated to footnotes. Further, in the sections of the text where the scope of rights is outlined, it was agreed that lists of examples should be non-exhaustive to reflect the fact that the Committee’s case law is evolving.

For example, in relation to the scope of the right of freedom of expression, Mr. Fathalla triggered a debate which resulted in the example of the ‘choice of clothing or the wearing or carrying of a religious or other symbol’ being deleted from the list of examples in (new) paragraph 12. The Committee agreed that although these examples were non-verbal forms of expression, their own case law indicated that it would ‘depend on the particular circumstances’ as to whether or not they would be protected under the Covenant. It was agreed that such vague language would more likely confuse States parties, rather than clarify their obligations, hence the decision to delete them.

One matter that the Committee was not able to resolve this session concerned the proposed sub-heading of ‘limitations on freedom of expression’, which introduces the longest section of the general comment. Ms Wedgewood among others, was concerned that the word ‘limitations’ sent an inappropriate message to States. She suggested the language of article 19(1) – which refers to ‘restrictions’ that are ‘provided by law’ and ‘necessary’ – would remind States of their obligation to narrowly interpret when and how these rights can be curtailed. Mr. Rodley proposed an alternate heading of ‘scope of freedom of expression’ (and amending the earlier heading that would otherwise be identical) to avoid negative terminology altogether, but to his dismay, Mr. Fathalla and Ms. Wedgewood subsequently advocated referring to ‘permissible limitations’. This will be one of the points of contention that the Committee returns to at its next session in Geneva in July.

Another matter that will remain under consideration is a new paragraph (not publicly available) that was drafted by Mr. Amor. During the Committee’s consideration of ‘freedom of opinion’ and ‘access to information’, several members were concerned by the requirement in some States that a person’s identity card reveal their religion, as well as State practice of compiling secret files on individuals’ political, trade union or religious affiliations. However, the text that Mr. Amor presented was broadly drafted and touched on when and how States and the private sector may use electronic data relating to an individuals’ political, religious or other opinion or belief.

This became the topic of a lengthy discussion as the session drew to a close. Mr. Lallah questioned whether the Committee had sufficient case law to support the proposed breadth of the limitations on the public and private sectors. To address concerns from Ms. Wedgewood about the legitimate collection of personal information by the private sector, Mr. Thelin suggested the text specify that such data could only be used with the consent of the person concerned. Members also debated whether the text really related to article 19(1) of the Covenant and the concept of ‘non-interference’ in religion, with Mr. Fathallah arguing disclosure of one’s religion on an ID card was not ‘interference’, and Mr. Rodley arguing that the right to not express one’s religion fell squarely within the scope of article 19(1). A further interpretation from Mr. O’Flaherty was that the issues under discussion were more relevant to article 17 and the right to privacy, in which case, the text did not belong in this general comment at all.

Other matters that were discussed at length and resolved included:

• How to express the point that article 19(2) embraces all speech, but does not endorse all speech. The text now clarifies that this article ‘embraces even views that may be regarded as deeply offensive, albeit such expression may be limited in accordance with the provisions of article 19 (3) and article 20’ (para.11).

• Whether ‘a free and uncensored press or other media’ is essential in ‘a democratic society’. It was agreed that this is essential ‘in any society’ and is ‘a cornerstone of a democratic society’ (para.14). This debate echoed the Committee’s discussion in relation to paragraph 2 of the draft text.

• How to frame State responsibility to ensure a free media, given that the general comment can only address States parties (not media outlets themselves) and should not encourage States parties to unduly interfere or intrude in the operation of the media. New language was added to para.14 to the effect that ‘States parties must take particular care to encourage an independent and diverse media, including to encourage access to the media for minority groups’ (para.14).

Prompted by the inclusive and thorough manner in which the Committee worked, the Chair, Mr. Iwasawa, expressed the hope that the first reading would be completed by the close of the next session. However, the very complex and controversial issues contained in the latter part of the draft, including ‘restrictions related to counter-terrorism measures’, and ‘defamation’ and ‘blasphemy laws’, mean this might be an overly ambitious goal. Another factor that may slow progress is a change in membership of the Committee in January 2011, as the terms of nine members expire at the end of this year.  Although it is unlikely that all nine seats would change hands (there is no restriction of the number of terms members of this Committee can serve), any new member would have the prerogative to suggest changes to the text during the second or subsequent readings.

ISHR will also publish an analytical overview of the four State party reports that were reviewed by the Committee during the 98th session: Argentina, Mexico, New Zealand, Uzbekistan. This article will include an update on the Committee’s methods of work and other decisions taken during the 98th session. In addition, brief summaries of the four countries under review will be posted on our treaty body webpage.

Other information:
ISHR report on first reading of the HRC's draft general comment no. 34 on freedom of expression, 23 and 27 October 2009

In December 2008, Mr Edwin Legarda Vazquez, husband of prominent Colombian human rights defender, Ms Aída Quilcué, was killed. The murder followed Ms Quilcué’s participation in the review of Colombia under the universal periodic review process of the UN Human Rights Council (the Council) in Geneva. This is one of the cases highlighted in the Secretary-General’s most recent report on reprisals against defenders who cooperate with UN mechanisms. The Secretary-General’s report contains a compilation and analysis of alleged reprisals against persons cooperating with UN human rights mechanisms, including recommendations on how to address the issues of intimidation and reprisals.

Oscar Kamau Kingara, a Kenyan human rights defender, was killed in March 2009. Mr Kingara had provided information to the UN Special Rapporteur on extra judicial executions, Mr Philip Alston, during his recent official visit to the country. This case was discussed at the 11th session of the Council.

Both of these cases illustrate the serious risks faced by human rights defenders all over the world when sharing information with human rights bodies and mechanisms, including those of the UN. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights is currently collecting information for the Secretary-General’s next report on alleged reprisals against persons cooperating with UN human rights mechanisms, as requested by the Council at the 12th session. If you have information about human rights defenders that have suffered retaliation for cooperating with a UN human rights mechanism, you can submit it by 22 February 2010 to reprisals@ohchr.org. OHCHR requests that you indicate if the reported cases have already been mentioned in a UN document or referred to by a UN human rights mechanism. If the alleged reprisals have not yet been referred to in any UN documents, please also indicate if the victim or her/his family agree to be mentioned in this report or has/have been informed accordingly. Attention should be given to the necessity to preserve the security of the persons concerned.

The Committee on the Rights of People with Disabilities (CRPD) will hold its 4^th session in Geneva from 4 to 8 October 2010.

The following country is due to be examined:

• Tunisia

Please click here for an overview of the Committee and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, published in ISHR's Human Rights Monitor Quarterly.

The 44^th session of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights took place in Geneva from 3 to 21 May 2010.

The following countries have been examined:

• Algeria
• Colombia
• Mauritius
• Kazaksthan
• Afghanistan

The Committee against Torture held its 44^th session from 26 April to 14 May 2010 in Geneva.

The following countries have been examined:

• Austria
• Cameroon
• France
• Jordan
• Liechtenstein
• Switzerland
• Syrian Arab Republic
• Yemen

Click here for ISHR's analysis of the session, and here for general information on the Committee.

The Committee on Migrant Workers held his 12^th session from 26 to 30 April 2010 in Geneva.

The following country has been examined:

• Algeria

Click here for general information on the Committee.

The Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) will hold its 55^th session in Geneva from 13 September to 1 October 2010.

The following countries are due to be examined:

• Angola
• Burundi
• Guatemala
• Montenegro
• Nicaragua
• Spain
• Sri Lanka
• Sudan

Under the optional protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography (OPSC):

• Bosnia and Herzegovina
• Montenegro
• Nicaragua
• Sierra Leone

Under the optional protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict (OPAC):

• Bosnia and Herzegovina
• Montenegro
• Nicaragua
• Sierra Leone
• Sri Lanka
• Sudan

Please note that ISHR discontinued monitoring the CRC after its 43rd session. For ISHR reports on sessions up to the 43rd session click here. The NGO Group for the Convention on the Rights of the Child reports comprehensively on this Committee. Click here for general information on the Committee.

The next session of CEDAW (47^th) will take place from 4 to 22 October 2010 in Geneva.

The following countries are due to be examined:

• Bahamas
• Burkina Faso
• Chad
• Czech Republic
• India
• Malta
• Tunisia
• Uganda

In order to get a clearer understanding of ISHR's new reporting rules, please see our Treaty Body Monitor page.

Click here for ISHR reports on CEDAW, and here for general information on the Committee.

The 3rd session of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee met from 3 to 7 August 2009. ISHR has produced analytical overview of all previous sessions here.

For an analytical overview of what happened in 2009 at the Security Council in terms of human rights, please check the chapter dedicated to this body in ISHR's annual publication: Human Rights Monitor 2009 - Security Council.

View the Security Council's provisional' programme of work for this month. For more information of the Security Council's work this month, see Security Council Report's monthly forecast.

On 8 September 2008, the Human Rights Council decided on the order of review for the 4th, 5th, and 6th sessions and the troikas for the review of countries during the 3rd, 4th, and 5th sessions. For more information, see the Daily Update in the Publications section.

The first and second sessions of the UPR were concluded in April and June 2008 respectively. Please click here for our reports analysing the main trends and developments. Download a summary of the selection of troikas for the first two UPR sessions.

General information

• What is the UPR?
• What are the principles and objectives of the UPR?
• What is the periodicity and order of the review?
• What is the basis of the review?
• What happens during the review?

What is the UPR?

When the Gefneral Assembly established the Human Rights Council (the Council) in June 2005, it mandated it to ‘undertake a universal periodic review…of the fulfilment by each State of its human rights obligations and commitments.’ The Council defined the principles and modalities of this Universal Periodic Review (UPR) mechanism in its institution-building package (Resolution 5/1), and selected the order of review for the first cycle in September 2007. The first session of the UPR Working Group took placed in April 2008 and 32 States have been reviewed so far.

For more information about these reviews, please see the Publications section.

What are the principles and objectives of the UPR?

The UPR is an intergovernmental mechanism with an emphasis on cooperation and dialogue among States. Council Resolution 5/1 stresses that the examination should be ‘conducted in an objective, transparent, non-selective, constructive, non-confrontational and non-politicized manner.’

The essential objective of the UPR is the improvement of human rights ‘on the ground.’ The UPR facilitates this through identifying achievements and challenges in the fulfilment of each State’s human rights obligations and commitments. It also provides an opportunity to assess the State’s needs for capacity building and technical assistance.

What is the periodicity and order of the review?

The periodicity of the review for the first cycle is four years, with 48 States reviewed over three sessions per year. The order of the review and the countries to be reviewed in 2008-2011 was decided in September 2007. The drawing of lots was a complex process taking into account the States’ membership of the Council, its regional group, and whether it has volunteered to be reviewed.

The members of the troika, three member States that act as rapporteurs, for the first two sessions were selected in December 2007. The selection process consists of a set of drawings of lots, one to select the combination of regional groups and three to select the individual members of the troika from each regional group. Before the drawing of lots, the State under review may request that one of the rapporteurs be from its regional group. Moreover, a State may request the substitution of a rapporteur on one occasion. On the other hand, a rapporteur may request to be excused from participation in a specific review process, in which case another rapporteur will be drawn from the same regional group. For more information please see the Alert on the 7th session of the Human Rights Council.

What is the basis of the review?

According to Council Resolution 5/1, the basis of the review is:

1. The United Nations Charter (UN)
2. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
3. Human rights instruments to which a State is party
4. Voluntary pledges and commitments made by States
5. Applicable international humanitarian law

In more concrete terms, the review is based on three documents:

1. National report
   This is a 20-page document prepared by the State under review. In Council Resolution 5/1, ‘States are encouraged to prepare the information through a broad consultation process at the national level with all relevant stakeholders.’
2. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) compilation of UN information
   This is a 10-page compilation prepared by OHCHR of reports of treaty bodies, special procedures, including observations and comments by the State concerned, and other relevant official UN documents. Some UN bodies submit reports to OHCHR on the State under review. The information provided in these is included in the compilation, and the original report is made available on the website.
3. OHCHR summary of stakeholders’ information
   This is a 10-page summary by OHCHR of ‘credible and reliable information’ submitted by other relevant stakeholders. The original reports are available alongside the summary on the website.

> top

What happens during the review?

Interactive dialogue

Each UPR session lasts three hours, and takes the form of an interactive dialogue between the Working Group and the State under review. The State under review has approximately one hour for its presentation, replies to questions, and closing remarks. The delegation of the State under review usually consists of representatives of various ministries and is generally led by high-level delegates at the ministerial level.

The session begins with introductory remarks by the Head of the delegation of the State under review, which lasts about half an hour. The State dedicates most of this statement to highlighting developments in particular areas and replying to questions, which were submitted prior to the session. Other States can submit questions in writing to the State under review, via the troika, prior to the session to facilitate the dialogue.

The main segment of the review is the interactive dialogue, which takes the form of questions and comments by member and observer States, and replies by the State under review. States are allowed to pose questions and/or make recommendations on any human rights issue in the State under review, whether general or specific. The practice so far has been that the State under review responds to the questions put to it in clusters of seven to ten. The Head of the delegation may personally answer all the questions or may delegate them to different members of the delegation. Given the time constraint, the delegation may opt to subsequently reply to some points in writing. Following the question and answer session, the State under review is given an opportunity to make a short closing statement.

Adoption of the report

After the review, the troika prepares the report on the session with the help of OHCHR. These reports are composed of two parts. The first is a factual summary of the discussions that took place during the interactive dialogue. The second part lists the recommendations made to the State under review, with specific mention of the State(s) that made the particular recommendation. Whether a recommendation enjoys the support of the State under review or not is also noted.

The draft report is put before the Working Group two days after the review. Both the State under review and a representative of the troika make very short statements, giving their impressions of the UPR session and the report. After adoption by the Working Group, the report is transmitted to the Human Rights Council for its consideration at an upcoming session.

Further reading

For a commentary on the establishment of the UPR, see:

• ISHR's Human Rights Monitor 2007
• Meghna Abraham, Building the New Human Rights Council, Outcome and analysis of the institution-building year, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, Occasional papers, No. 33/ August 2007.
• Rachel Brett, Neither Mountain nor Molehill, UN Human Rights Council: One Year On, Quaker United Nations Office (Geneva, August 2007)
• For more information on the review of each country under the UPR, see the ISHR UPR Monitor, which reports on each country reviewed and provides analytical overviews of UPR sessions. These reports are available in the Publications section
• For more information, including on how to submit information, see the OHCHR webpage on the UPR
• UPR-Info is a website dedicated to the UPR with information on the UPR process, the reports from States, NGOs, and OHCHR as well as the outcome and recommendations. UPR-Info has recently developed tables that show which issues were raised by which State and on which State under review.

What are the treaty bodies?

The treaty bodies are international committees of independent experts who monitor State parties’ implementation of each of the seven core human rights treaties and their optional protocols. The implementation of each of the international treaties is monitored by its own committee. At present, there are eight treaty bodies/committees monitoring the implementation of the seven core international human rights conventions. They are:

For further information on each of the bodies, please click on the respective links on the left.

Consideration of reports by treaty bodies

When States become party to one of the international human rights treaties, they are obliged to submit an initial, followed by periodic reports to the treaty body in question. The main purpose of the periodic reports is to examine the extent of the compliance of States with their obligations under the treaties, and how these obligations have been translated into the domestic legal provisions of the particular State. Ideally, the preparation of the report should also serve as a means by which countries can assess and debate particular human rights issues in their own countries, and identify problems and areas that may require further attention. One of the primary ways through which treaty bodies monitor implementation of their respective treaty by State parties is through the consideration of these State party reports.

Further reading

ISHR monitors and reports on the Committees' examination of State reports. Please see the Treaty Body Monitor in the Publications section to access the reports.

For a comprehensive guide to the treaty bodies, see ISHR Simple Guide to the Treaty Bodies.

OHCHR has also produced a Handbook for NGOs that contains an instructive chapter on how to engage with the treaty bodies.

For more information, see also OHCHR.

General Assembly Resolution 60/251, establishing the Human Rights Council, provided that it should ‘maintain a system of … expert advice’, as had been provided by the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights to the Commission. The use of the term ‘system of expert advice’ and the absence of any reference to the continuation of the former Sub-Commission meant that the Council was not required, under the terms of the resolution, to retain the Sub-Commission. Accordingly, the Sub-Commission was abolished and held its last session in August 2006, and was replaced by the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee.

In its Resolution 5/1, the Council established the Advisory Committee as its 'think-tank', destined to provide expertise to the Council 'in the manner and form requested by the Council, focusing mainly on studies and research-based advice.' Therefore, the powers of the Advisory Committee are limited compared to those of the Sub-Commission. As one observer has put it, the new system of expert advice provides 'expertise without initiative' (see Meghna Abraham, Building the New Human Rights Council, Outcome and analysis of the institution-building year, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, Occasional papers, No. 33/ August 2007).

The Advisory Committee meets for 'up to two sessions for a maximum of 10 working days per year.'

Members of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee

The Council elected the first set of members for the Advisory Committee at its 7th session in March 2008 (see ISHR Daily Update of 26 March 2008). Given that the number of candidates for the African States, the Asian States, and the Latin American and Caribbean States corresponded to the number of seats allocated for each of these groups (‘clean slates’), the 13 experts from these groups were elected by acclamation. The election of candidates of the two other groups, the Eastern European group, and the Western European and Other Group, was done by secret ballot. The members for of the Advisory Committee are as follows:

Note: Members of the Advisory Committee denoted with (*) were elected for one-year terms, those with (**) for two-year terms and those with (***) for full terms of three years.

African Group

Ms Halima Embarek Warzazi (Morocco) *
Ms Mona Zulficar (Egypt) **
Mr Bernards Andrews Nyamwaya Mudho (Kenya) **
Mr Dheerujlall Seetulsingh (Mauritius) ***
Mr Baba Kura Kaigama (Nigeria) ***

Asian Group

Mr Shiqiu Chen (China) *
Mr Shigeki Sakamoto (Japan) **
Ms Chung Chinsung (Republic of Korea) **
Mr Ansar Ahmed Burney (Pakistan) ***
Ms Purificacion V. Quisumbing (the Philippines) ***

Eastern European States

Mr Vladimir Kartashkin, with 42 votes (Russian Federation) **
Mr Latif Hüseynov, with 30 votes (Azerbaijan) ***

Latin American and Caribbean States

Mr Miguel Alfonso Martínez (Cuba) *
Mr José Antonio Bengoa Cabello (Chile) **
Mr Héctor Felipe Fix Fierro (Mexico) ***

Western European and Other States

Mr Jean Ziegler, with 40 votes (Switzerland) *
Mr Wolfgang Stefan Heinz, with 24 votes (Germany) **
Mr Emmanuel Decaux, with 24 voters (France) ***

Further reading

• Official Advisory Committee website
• On the stakes involved in the institution-building process and the transition from the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights to the Advisory Committee, see Meghna Abraham, A New Chapter for Human Rights, ISHR and the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung (Geneva, 2006).

For the outcome of the institution-building process in relation to the Advisory Committee, see any of the following publications:

• ISHR Human Rights Monitor 2006 and Human Rights Monitor 2007. In our Publications section , you will also find reports on the institution-building working group which elaborated the basis for the new Advisory Committee
• Meghna Abraham, Building the New Human Rights Council, Outcome and analysis of the institution-building year, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, Occasional papers, No. 33/ August 2007
• Rachel Brett, Neither Mountain nor Molehill, UN Human Rights Council: One Year On, Quaker United Nations Office (Geneva, August 2007)

The General Assembly is the main deliberative organ of the United Nations (UN). It is composed of representatives of all member States and has a general mandate to discuss and make recommendations on any matters within the scope of the UN Charter. Under Article 13 of the Charter, the General Assembly is specifically mandated to ‘initiate studies and make recommendations for the purpose of …assisting in the realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion’.

The plenary regular session of the General Assembly runs from the beginning of  September to the end of December, but it can reconvene at any time during the year. Each year the General Assembly addresses over 150 agenda items, which are considered either in the plenary or in one of its six committees.

The Third Committee (Social, Cultural, and Humanitarian) addresses most agenda items relevant to human rights defenders, including women's rights, children’s rights, the rights of indigenous peoples, the elimination of racism and human rights questions. Numerous special procedures also report to the Third Committee on a number of these issues and engage in an interactive dialogue with States. The Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) is also relevant to human rights defenders, since it evaluates and approves the budgetary requirements arising out of the work of the other five committees. After completing their work, the Third and the Fifth Committee, as well as the other three main committees, submit draft resolutions to the General Assembly for final adoption.

Further reading

• The United Nations' General Assembly’s web page provides links to basic information on the General Assembly including its sessions, committees, press releases, resolutions and records of meetings
• General Assembly resolutions are available in full-text format online at: http://unbisnet.un.org/, and at: http://www.un.org/documents/resga.htm
• Records of voting are available at: http://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/resguide/gavote.htm

The Security Council is the most powerful organ of the United Nations (UN). According to the UN Charter, it has the 'primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security'.

Its main functions are:

• To investigate situations that threaten international peace and security and make recommendations towards the pacific settlement of disputes (Chapter VI of the UN Charter)
• To make recommendations with regard to threats to the peace, breaches of the peace and acts of aggression (Chapter VII of the UN Charter)

It can take a number of actions to enforce its mandate, including carrying out military operations, imposing economic sanctions, ordering arms embargoes and inspections, and deploying human rights and election monitors. 

The Security Council functions continuously throughout the year and is composed of 15 members. Five are permanent members (China, France, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the United States of America and the Russian Federation) and ten are non-permanent members. The presidency of the Security Council rotates on a monthly basis following the English alphabetical order of the names of member States.

Human rights and the Security Council

Serious and persistent human rights violations can often be the source of and accompany situations that threaten international peace and security. Under Article 39 of the Charter, the Council may also "determine" that a situation characterized by grave human rights violations constitutes a "threat to the peace", which can lead to taking enforcement measures to restore the peace. The Council’s concern with human rights stems largely from these contexts, although it has been slow to effectively integrate human rights concerns into its work.

Further  reading

• The UN Security Council's webpage provides basic information on the Security Council including its rules of procedures, programme of work and subsidiary bodies as well as links to resolutions, presidential statements, press releases and records of Security Council meetings.
• The non-governmental organisation Security Council Report provides comprehensive monthly reports and updates on the Security Council's current and future work.
• The non-governmental organisation Global Policy Forum provides extensive background information on the Security Council, its agenda, its working methods, the issues it has taken up and NGO engagement.

The Committee against Torture (CAT), established in 1987, monitors the implementation of the International Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. CAT is composed of ten independent experts who meet twice a year for three weeks at a time.

Further reading

Click here to access ISHR reports on individual State examinations by CAT.

Click here to access OHCHR website on CAT.

The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), established in 1982, monitors the implementation of the International Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women and is mandated to receive complaints under its Optional Protocol. CEDAW has 23 members, who meet for three weeks twice a year. As of 2008, CEDAW will meet three times a year in Geneva, and twice a year in New York. Three sessions will be held in parallel chambers until 2010 in order to deal with the backlog of work of the committee.

Further reading

Click here to access ISHR reports on individual State examinations by CEDAW.

Click here to access OHCHR page on CEDAW.

The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) monitors the implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). CESCR is composed of 18 experts, who meet twice a year for three weeks at a time. Unlike the case of the other treaty bodies, ICESCR did not provide for the creation of a committee to oversee its implementation. Instead, the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), the principal organ of the UN dealing with economic and social issues, was given the general mandate to monitor the implementation of the Covenant by State parties through the examination of periodic reports. ECOSOC established a sessional working group in 1985 to assist in the examination of State reports, which subsequently became the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in 1987. Other than this main difference, and the fact that the members of CESCR are elected through ECOSOC, there are no major differences between CESCR and the other treaty bodies in terms of their role or function. Nevertheless, there have been some attempts at the Human Rights Council to ‘rectify’ the legal status of CESCR in order to make it more like the other existing treaty bodies.

Further reading

Click here to access ISHR reports on individual State examinations by CESCR.

Click here to access OHCHR website on CESCR.

The Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (CMW) monitors the implementation of the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families. CMW is the most recently created treaty body and held its first plenary session in March 2004. It presently holds two sessions per year and is composed of ten independent experts.

Further reading

Click here to access ISHR reports on individual State examinations by CMW.

Click here to access OHCHR webpage on CMW.

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) was the first treaty body to be established and is the committee overseeing the implementation of the International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD). Provision for the creation of a committee to monitor implementation of the Convention was made under ICERD, due to the conviction of the Third Committee of the United Nations (UN) General Assembly that the treaty would not be effective unless sufficient emphasis was placed on implementation. This set the precedent for the formation of all the other treaty bodies. CERD consists of 18 experts who meet twice a year for three weeks at a time.

Further reading

Click here to access previous ISHR reports on individual State examinations by CERD.

Click here to access OHCHR website on CERD.

The Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) monitors the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child as well as two optional protocols to the Convention, on the involvement of children in armed conflict and on sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography. The Convention was adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly Resolution 44/25 on 20 November 1989. The optional protocols were adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly Resolution 54/263 on 25 May 2000. For more information, see OHCHR.

Further reading

Click here to access reports by the NGO Group for the CRC on individual State examinations by the CRC.

Click here to access OHCHR website on the CRC.

The Human Rights Committee (CCPR) monitors the implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and is mandated to receive complaints under the First Optional Protocol to the ICCPR. The HRC was created in 1976 and consists of 18 members who meet three times a year for three weeks at a time. The Committee holds its sessions twice in Geneva and once in New York every year.

Further reading

Click here to access ISHR reports on individual State examinations the CCPR.

Click here to access OHCHR website on the CCPR.

The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities monitors the implementation of the Convention by the State parties. For further information please visit the dedicated OHCHR page.

Further reading

For NGO information related to the work of the CRPD see the webpage of the International Disability Alliance here, as well as its Diability Rights Bulletin 'for experts advocating for the rights of persons with disabilities, in particular within the Geneva-based global human rights machinery.'

The Human Rights Council (the Council) was established on 19 June 2006 to replace the Commission on Human Rights (the Commission) by General Assembly Resolution 60/251. The establishment of the Council was accompanied by high rhetoric that promised, or at least looked to, a new era in the United Nation's (UN) human rights work. There was much talk of new beginnings, new starts, new chances. The truth, however, was that no one believed it was going to be easy to effect real change. The Council was conceived in the context of the destruction of its predecessor  and politically charged debates in the General Assembly between those States wanting a Council with no real teeth and those that argued for a body that was more effective than the Commission.

The Council is the main body of the United Nations dealing with human rights, and is mandated, among other things, to:

Resolution 60/251 also mandated the Council to review the mechanisms and mandates it has inherited from the former Commission. This process of review, the so-called 'institution-building' has come to a an end with the adoption of Human Right Council Resolution 5/1 (also called 'the institution-building package') on 18 June 2008. For more information on the Council's mechanisms, please use the menu on the left.

After a year and a half, an initial assessment can be made: the Council is neither as good as it needs to be nor as bad as it could be. Indeed it is proving to be significantly better than many defenders and activists had feared, though it still has a long way to go before it can be said to be an effective protector and promoter of human rights.

Further reading

• ISHR's Human Rights Monitor reviews the international human rights system, including the Council, on an annual basis. It is available in English, and is disponible en français
• During sessions of the Council, ISHR publishes a Daily Update, summarising the most important developments of the day. After each session, we also produce an analytical overview of the main debates and decisions. Please see the Publications section
• Official Human Rights Council website (OHCHR)
• Other analytical texts on the Council's first two years include:
  • Meghna Abraham, Building the New Human Rights Council, Outcome and analysis of the institution-building year, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, Occasional papers, No. 33/ August 2007
  • Rachel Brett, Neither Mountain nor Molehill, UN Human Rights Council: One Year On, Quaker United Nations Office (Geneva, August 2007)

The Annual Meeting of Chairpersons of the human rights treaties allows for the chairpersons of the nine treaty bodies (Human Rights Committee, Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Committee on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women, Committee against Torture, Committee on the Rights of the Child, Committee on Migrant Workers, Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture)to meet in order to discuss the coordination of their activities and the enhancement of the work of the treaty bodies as a whole, including the streamlining of reporting procedures and guidelines, harmonisation of working methods, strengthening of communications, follow-up to World Conferences,financial and other matters. Since 1999 the chairpersons have also convened during the Annual Meeting a meeting with the special procedures mandate holders. The discussions have focused on technical questions, such as increasing the exchange of information between treaty bodies and special procedures. Substantive issues such as counter terrorism and human rights have also been addressed.

The same issues of harmonisation of working methods and streamlining of reporting procedures and guidelines are discussed during the Inter-Committee Meeting (ICM) of human rights treaty bodies, which meets twice a year (in June/July prior to the meeting of Chairpersons and in December). Consisting of the chairpersons plus two additional members from each of the Committees, the Inter-Committee Meeting also discusses thematic issues of general concern. Previously, the ICM held a formal session with NGOs as part of its programme and since December 2008 has allowed for NGOs to participate in discussion on all issues. The ICM is also expected to make recommendations to improve the working methods of the treaty bodies.

Bi-annual meetings

Prior to 2008, the Annual Meeting of Chairpersons of the Human Rights Treaty Bodies allowed for the Chairpersons of all the treaty bodies to meet in order to discuss coordination of their activities and the enhancement of the work of the treaty bodies as a whole, including the streamlining of reporting procedures and guidelines, harmonisation of working methods, strengthening of communications, financial and other matters. Informal consultations with State parties and civil society were also held in the past.

At the 6th Inter-Committee Meeting held in Geneva from 18 to 20 June 2007, it was decided that the Chairpersons and the Inter-Committee meetings would be combined and convene twice a year, as many Committee members were of the view that it was a ‘useful forum for discussing matters of mutual concern’, requiring more frequent attention and follow-up.

Further reading

ISHR reports on the Inter-Committee and Chairpersons meetings are available under the Treaty Body Monitor.

For more information, see also OHCHR.

> top