1. Item 18 of the agenda of the fifty-seventh session of the Commission on Human Rights, entitled "Effective functioning of human rights mechanisms", encompasses the treaty bodies. At its 67th meeting, on 19 April 2001, the Commission discussed this item. The present informal summary has been prepared as a background note for the meeting of chairpersons of the human rights treaty bodies.

2. Most speakers continued to press for better functioning of the treaty bodies and better coordination with other human rights mechanisms. The representative of Poland offered several concrete suggestions addressed to treaty bodies and States parties. The representative of Pakistan made reference to the Bayefsky report, on the functioning of the treaty system, which had just been submitted to OHCHR and circulated to all States and expert members of the treaty bodies. The representative of Pakistan said that while his delegation welcomed the report, it did not consider valid a number of suppositions; stressing the voluntary nature of adhesion to the treaties by States, he emphasized the importance of respecting the sovereignty of States. A number of State delegations alluded to the responsibility of States parties to uphold the treaty system, including by withdrawing their reservations to treaties (Poland, South Africa), by electing representative members to the treaty bodies (Pakistan, South Africa) and by meeting their reporting obligations (Poland, Russian Federation).

3. While some State delegations advised the treaty bodies to adhere to their mandates (Pakistan, China, Russian Federation), others considered that the treaty bodies should take more, not less, initiative in addressing the difficulties facing the treaty system (Italy; New Zealand on behalf of Chile, Norway, Australia, Canada). The representative of Liechtenstein believed that enhanced complementarity and information-sharing, cross-committee working groups, joint general comments and greater transparency within treaty bodies were not only good ideas but were indispensable in the light of scarce resources. Other ideas for the treaty bodies included greater use of chambers or panels (New Zealand on behalf of Chile, Norway, Australia, Canada).

4. Some NGOs spoke on the treaty bodies. Notably, the International Movement Against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism (IMADIR) called on CERD to develop an official procedure to enable NGOs to contribute to its work.

Poland

5. The representative of Poland called attention to the serious problems facing the treaty system, both in respect of State reporting and the communications procedures. The system worked only because many States were negligent in their obligations. Poland commended the efforts of treaty bodies to experiment with their methods of work with a view to rationalizing them where possible. In that regard, the Polish delegation commended the new flexible procedure adopted by the Human Rights Committee, whereby it might request from States parties information on several specific issues, and based on the response received, set a new date for the submission of the next report due. At the same time, the Polish delegation believed that the treaty bodies needed to be encouraged to improve their methods of work and States should accept their common responsibility to ensure that the treaty system worked.

6. Concerning individual communications, there had been an improvement, but it was not sufficient. It was a matter of concern that 70 per cent of the States parties that had accepted a complaints mechanism had never been the subject of a complaint. In only 20 per cent of cases in which a violation had been disclosed had the State been willing to provide a remedy. The modest caseload before the Human Rights Committee had resulted in a backlog. While the establishment of a petitions team in OHCHR was welcomed, the Polish delegation was concerned that the team had to be financed by extra budgetary sources. States should consider the possibility of amending the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to allow the Human Rights Committee discretion over its own jurisprudence to allow it to select the most serious cases, certain types of cases being mandatory, such as those of persons sentenced to capital punishment, where the consequences of delay might be irreparable. In a large number of cases, States parties refused to implement the views of the Human Rights Committee. More should be done to help the Committee's Special Rapporteur on follow-up to individual communications and to make the Special Rapporteur's work more transparent.

7. The representative of Poland made the following suggestions:

The role of the chairpersons' meeting should be expanded. One idea might be for treaty bodies to authorize the chairpersons to discuss which State party reports should be reviewed by which treaty bodies - one report per year from each country would be ideal. The meeting of chairpersons could play a coordinating role.

Meetings of States parties could play a greater role than their sole traditional one of electing members of treaty bodies. They could draw attention to States parties with overdue reports, in extreme cases even suspending the right of those States parties to vote on membership, and could endorse the practice of some treaty bodies of considering the situation in States that had not submitted reports.

Treaty bodies should be given more discretion on the periodicity and content of reports, which might involve amendments to treaties.

South Africa

8. The representative of South Africa said that his country's association with the treaty system was recent, but his delegation believed the treaty system to be at the core of the international human rights system. On 10 December 1998, South Africa had ratified nearly all the main human rights treaties and work was under way to ratify the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The treaty system needed to render better service to States, and States could help by withdrawing the numerous reservations to the treaties and contributing generously to the efforts of OHCHR to improve the services it provided to the treaty bodies. The delegation of South African was very disappointed that States did not seem willing to support the development of new standards (including an optional protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and standards on involuntary disappearances).

Pakistan

9. The representative of Pakistan spoke of the need to streamline the activities of the treaty body system and, especially, of the burdens that they placed on developing countries. His delegation welcomed the Bayefsky study on the treaty system, which was currently being examined by the relevant departments in Pakistan. The delegation of Pakistan believed that the report should be sent to all members of the Commission well before next year's session, to enable a substantial discussion to take place. The representative of Pakistan underscored one critical comment contained in the report: that treaty standards were adhered to voluntarily by States, but that involved the right to lodge reservations.

10. Pakistan did not accept all the reasons put forward in the Bayefsky report for the low effectiveness of the treaty bodies. The data requested by some treaty bodies was practically impossible to collect. Pakistan contested the assertion that a direct correlation existed between Human Development Indicator rank and overdue reports - the delay in the submission by Pakistan of its report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child was due to the extensive consultative process undertaken for the report, as well as the extensive information requested by the Committee. The United Nations system must assist developing countries to meet their reporting obligations, the purpose of which was the promotion and protection of human rights and not the passing of unwarranted judgements. The effectiveness of reporting and the unnecessary burden on States parties could be addressed in the following ways:

(i) Coordination between treaty bodies and other human rights mechanisms should be strengthened to avoid duplication;

(ii) Specific difficulties faced by developing countries in preparing exhaustive reports should be taken into account by treaty bodies;

(iii) Technical assistance should be made available for countries that needed financial and other assistance to prepare reports;

(iv) Treaty bodies should take into account the level of economic development and the religious and cultural background of States parties;

(v) Equitable geographical distribution of members was necessary to ensure sufficient understanding of all continents and all economic, judicial and social systems;

(vi) The methodology for the preparation of reports should be improved and common guidelines should be established;

(vii) The implementation of international legal instruments should focus on cooperation, not on passing harsh judgements on Governments.

11. The Bayefsky study needed more serious intergovernmental review, taking into account the diversity of States parties, before implementation by OHCHR.

China

12. The representative of China announced the recent ratification by China of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. China had signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the two optional protocols to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and had taken active part in the drafting of new international instruments. China was making efforts to comply with its reporting requirements, including with regard to reports due on Hong Kong and Macau. In performing their work, the treaty bodies should take into account national realities and adhere to their mandates. The representative of China suggested that:

(i) The repetitive requirements of various treaty bodies be avoided so as to reduce the reporting burden on States parties;

(ii) A study should be conducted on the possibility of submitting a consolidated report on all treaties;

(iii) A code of conduct for members of treaty bodies be elaborated;

(iv) The dialogue between the treaty bodies and the special procedures should be enhanced.

Italy

13. The representative of Italy expressed the view that the freedom of treaty bodies to undertake initiatives should not be curtailed. Italy believed that all States should cooperate with the treaty bodies and the human rights mechanisms. This was essential to their ability to fulfil their respective roles. Critical comments by human rights bodies should not be taken by States as criticism but as a challenge to improve the situation. The Italian delegation did not believe that amendment of treaty texts was required, but rather better functioning of the treaty bodies, a minimization of duplication of work, and better working methods. With regard to the latter, the improvement of their working methods should be entrusted to the treaty bodies themselves. The Italian delegation agreed on the need for improved funding and human resources, but felt uncertain about the appropriateness of such resources being provided by voluntary contributions. Coordination between mechanisms of the Commission and the treaty bodies must be improved, not only to reduce duplication of work but to remove a source of irritation for States: being asked by different mechanisms for the same information within a short period of time. In that regard, the Italian delegation welcomed the annual joint meetings between the chairpersons and the mechanisms of the Commission on Human Rights.

Russian Federation

14. The representative of the Russian Federation pointed out that the mandates of some mechanisms overlapped, leading to rivalry among them. There was a need to establish ways to remove duplication and clear ways of assessing compliance, and to increase the effectiveness of the treaty bodies, especially with regard to the reporting process. The current monitoring system functioned only because many States parties did not report or reported late. One cause of that situation was the periodicity of reports - CERD reports were due every two years. States hardly had time to digest the conclusions on one report before the next report was due. The time between the submission of a report to the secretariat and its examination was substantial, so that reports were often out of date by the time they were taken up. Concluding observations should reflect the actual situation of States and contain legally specific wording to facilitate follow-up. Thus, there was a need for improvement on the part of both States and the treaty bodies.

New Zealand (on behalf of Australia, Canada, Chile and Norway)

15. The representative of New Zealand, speaking on behalf also of Australia, Canada, Chile and Norway, stressed that the work of the treaty bodies was at the heart of United Nations work in the area of human rights and that they deserved full support. New Zealand had taken a strong interest in their problems, particularly the backlog in consideration of reports and communication, overdue or non-reporting by States parties, and lack of resources to service the treaty bodies. The delegation of New Zealand believed in a gradual and consensual arrival at solutions to strengthen, not undermine, the treaty bodies. It offered some practical suggestions:

(v) Streamlining reporting requirements and reducing duplication. The efforts of treaty bodies to exercise flexibility on periodicity and in requesting shorter and more focused reports were welcomed; guidelines on preparing concise reports could be valuable.

(vi) Efforts by treaty bodies to professionalize their work, for example, through: the use of chambers, panels or pre-sessional working groups to expedite consideration of reports and communications; the practice of some treaty bodies of reviewing situations in States parties with a persistent and unreasonable absence of reports being made more consistent; considering harmonized rules of procedure.

(vii) Improved resources. The High Commissioner had done well to call attention to the question of resources. It was important that sufficient regular budget resources be devoted to the treaty bodies, including for administrative support. The steps taken to date in that area were welcome. New Zealand called on States to support the High Commissioner in that effort.

(viii) Improved technical assistance to help States understand their obligations under the treaties, especially their reporting obligations, and help to them comply.

(ix) Greater cooperation among the treaty bodies themselves, as well as with other mechanisms. The meeting of chairpersons could be one way to make such increased cooperation possible.

16. New Zealand had been in consultation with other States to explore ways of strengthening the effectiveness of the treaty bodies. It would not be in favour of the binding geographical quota for members that Cuba proposed in its draft resolution, as there were other equally important considerations, such as gender balance, representation of the principal legal systems, and the expertise and moral standing of members. The election of members was the prerogative of States parties.

Ukraine

17. The representative of the Ukraine expressed support for the High Commissioner's efforts to achieve universal ratification by 2003, but drew attention to the need for international standards to be observed at the national level. Ukraine had submitted reports to the treaty bodies and generally complied with its obligations, but was never certain when its reports would be considered. The system was clearly under strain. The Ukrainian delegation welcomed the High Commissioner's efforts to improve the long-term effectiveness of the treaty system, as well as the improved coordination between treaty bodies and special procedures.

Slovenia

18. The representative of Slovenia remarked that the treaty bodies should function in an appropriate atmosphere of constructive dialogue. Slovenia would submit within a short period of time the initial reports due to the treaty bodies and then proceed to submit its periodic reports.

Liechtenstein

19. The delegation of Liechtenstein supported the goal of universal ratification of the human rights treaties by 2003. With the large number of ratifications in recent years, it was hopeful that this would be achieved. A number of new instruments and a communications procedure under CEDAW, would add to the increasing strain on the treaty bodies and States parties, as was evident in the large backlog in the consideration of reports submitted and the large number of overdue reports. The situation was urgent. Various reports had led to many recommendations to improve the system, which should be looked into carefully. Presenting States with the possibility of submitting one core document was one step in the right direction. The Internet should lead to increased cross-referencing. In addition, the possibility of considering a country situation without a State report was useful, but that would have to be undertaken in observance of the principle of equal treatment of all States. The delegation of Liechtenstein believed that greater coordination and cooperation was needed for the treaty system to make a positive impact on the situation of human rights. Enhanced complementarity and information-sharing, cross-committee working groups, joint general comments, greater transparency within treaty bodies were not only a good idea but were indispensable in the light of scarce resources. The delegation of Liechtenstein also felt that technical and advisory services were needed to enable all States to meet their obligations.

Sri Lanka

20. The representative of Sri Lanka reaffirmed the importance of universal ratification of the human rights treaties. Sri Lanka encouraged all States not yet parties to those treaties to take the necessary steps to ratify them. That was a sine qua non for the universality of human rights.

International Movement Against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism; Minority Rights Group

21. In a joint statement, the International Movement Against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism, and Minority Rights Group welcomed the Plan of Action 2000-2004 for the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the Convention against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment including its emphasis on the value of information from NGOs. In its resolution 2000/75, the Commission recognizes the value of NGO input and encourages exchanges between treaty bodies and NGOs. While many individual members of CERD had welcomed information from NGOs, the speakers regretted that CERD lagged behind other treaty bodies in cooperation with NGOs. They welcomed the CERD initiative to hold a first-ever thematic discussion on the Roma, which had resulted in recommendations for institutionalizing thematic discussions, with a view to consulting NGOs in the formulation of general comments or recommendations. In the light of such positive collaboration, CERD was called upon to establish an official procedure to enable NGOs to deliver information relating to State party reports, including first-hand accounts, and to invite their participation in formal and informal exchanges. IMADIR and MRG have produced an NGO manual called ICERD: A Guide for NGOs, which gives step-by-step guidance for NGOs that wish to contribute effectively to the work of CERD. The manual has been well received and is being translated into official and minority languages. NGOs also recognize the contribution of Save the Children in producing a complementary guide on how to report on ethnic discrimination against children. NGOs look forward to further constructive engagement with the treaty bodies.