|
From 27 to 30 June 2011 the 12th annual Inter-Committee Meeting (ICM) was in session, chaired by Mr Ronald Clive McCallum (CRPD). The meeting was comprised of 17 committee members representing nine treaty bodies, including the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture (SPT). There were also several NGOs present, including Amnesty International, Advocates for Human Rights, the Centre for Civil and Political Rights, and IWRAW-Asia Pacific.
Under the agenda item 'enhancing the effectiveness of the treaty bodies: a coordinated approach to the work of the treaty bodies', participants discussed the structure of the constructive dialogue, the structure and length of concluding observations, and interaction with stakeholders, in particular NGOs and national human rights institutions (NHRIs). There was also discussion of the harmonisation of working methods.
During the discussions there were several points at which participants came together clearly in agreement, directed in large part by Mr McCallum’s emphasis on establishing effective and tangible recommendations. Unfortunately, however, this was more the exception than the rule; dialogue was often vague and circuitous with committee members focused more on articulating the modalities of their particular treaty body than on devising ways to harmonise and codify procedures for the treaty body collective.
During the discussion on interaction with NGOs and NHRIs there was agreement that the effective operation of the treaty body system depends on NGOs having effective access and being able to engage at all stages of the review process. This includes both NGO participation in drafting a parallel report on States, as well as modalities on NGO participation during review sessions. Currently, the chairperson explained, there is no unified approach to how treaty bodies interact with NGOs in either of these areas. Nevertheless, Mr Michael O’Flaherty, member of the Human Rights Committee, voiced concern over creating formal guidelines for participation during review sessions, arguing that such modalities can also be used to limit NGO engagement with the treaty bodies. Based on his experience in the Human Rights Committee he favoured more flexibility, arguing that the best role for NGOs can shift given the reviewed State and the particular context. Instead of formalised modalities he argued that best practice for NGO engagement should be collected and made available. Mr Malcolm Evans (SPT) also spoke out against too much codification stating that, “[asking] too much [of NGOs] or something too specific with too much structure can actually make things less efficient if they have trouble providing this”.
When it came to developing their points of agreement, participants decided not to include a paragraph calling on the Committees to emulate the practice of CAT in meeting with NGOs the afternoon before each State review. Mr Ariranga Pillay (CERD) felt that meeting on the first day, as is the practice in CERD, was enough, while others, including Ms Yanghee Lee (CRC), were uncomfortable agreeing to something contrary to their own Committee's current practice. This was a general hindrance in the meeting, with many participants unwilling to include anything in the points of agreement that ran contrary to their own current practice, fearing censure from their fellow members for doing so without consulting them first. Other points of agreement reached included a general statement formally acknowledging the importance of NGOs in ‘all stages of the review process’ and after some debate, a request for the Annual Meeting of Chairpersons to make a formal statement on the issue of NGO engagement. It was agreed to also request a similar statement on NHRIs. Most of the discussion on NHRIs centred on the fact that it was difficult to get them to engage with the Committees. Mr O'Flaherty also objected to limiting calls for greater engagement to A-status NHRIs accredited under the Paris Principles, stating that in some cases it could be useful to engage with NHRIs that are not accredited under the Paris Principles, or do not have A-status.
An area that featured greater consensus was the protection of human rights defenders. Mr O’Flaherty stressed that he and other experts have heard troubling reports from NGOs that human rights defenders continue to be targeted for their work with treaty bodies. He proposed that the ICM adopt a point of agreement that emphasised protecting human rights defenders, as well as the legal obligation States have to ensure their safety. During its adoption several Committee members objected that the language was not strong enough, and proposed changing it so that both reprisals and threats of reprisals are on equal footing. These changes were incorporated into the final text.
The Committee also spent time deliberating over the possibility of harmonising certain procedural aspects of the review process, including the duration of time allowed for State’s opening presentation, the number of three-hour sessions that should be assigned per State, and the length of recommendations issued by treaty bodies. The discussion was convoluted with several committee members focusing on their own treaty body as opposed to considering how to create uniform guidelines. Regarding the duration of time to review States, Mr O’Flaherty emphasised the importance of keeping review sessions longer than three hours. Not only does additional time give experts the appropriate space to evaluate States in detail, but Mr O’Flaherty warned that it will also significantly reduce the effectiveness of the UPR, as this process relies heavily on information coming from the treaty bodies.
Regarding recommendations, Mr McCallum voiced concerns that treaty bodies overly burden States with the recommendations they make and suggested either cutting them down or streamlining them into a more succinct format. This was met with general approval; however there was some disagreement over whether recommendations should be categorised into short-term and long-term recommendations. Mr Eric Riedel (CESCR) suggested that if Committees consider a two-tier recommendation scheme they include no more than four short-term recommendations, generally expected to be addressed by the State within one year's time. Others, including Mr McCallum, suggested that there should be no distinguishing characteristics between recommendations at all. In the end it was agreed that Committees should be encouraged to produce focused recommendations by, for example, including three issues per paragraph, and drafting each issue in a maximum of three sentences.
Regarding regional meetings, Mr Ion Diaconu (CERD) expressed his interest in moving meetings closer to certain Pacific island nations that may not have the financial means to send large delegations to Geneva or New York. Mr Jean Zermatten (CRC) agreed in principle, but also warned that moving review sessions can be costly and that as States are not reviewed by region, it could be challenging to find a mutually acceptable location for each session. Ultimately the Committee adopted a point of agreement to explore working with the OHCHR on potential regional meetings. This was held to be particularly feasible for those Committees that already hold meetings outside Geneva, such as the Human Rights Committee and CEDAW. |
