YEMEN

 

 

Follow‑up ‑ State Reporting

            Action by Treaty Bodies, Including Reports on Missions

 

CCPR  A/58/40 vol. I (2003)

 

CHAPTER VII.  FOLLOW-UP TO CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS

 

Overview of the application of the follow-up procedure

 

1.  At its seventy-first session, in March 2001, the Committee began its routine practice of identifying, at the conclusion of each set of concluding observations, a limited number of priority concerns that had arisen in the course of the dialogue with the State party.  The Committee has identified such priority concerns in all but one of the reports of States parties examined since the seventy-first session.  Accordingly, it requested that State party to provide, within one year, the information sought.  At the same time, the Committee provisionally fixed the date for the submission of the next periodic report.

 

2.  As the Committee=s mechanism for monitoring follow-up to concluding observations was only set up in July 2002, this chapter describes the results of this procedure from its initiation at the seventy-first session in March 2001 to the close of the seventy-eighth session in August 2003.  These are described session by session, but in future reports this overview will limit itself to an annual assessment of the procedure.

 

State party

Date information due

Date reply received

Further action

 

... Seventy-fifth session (July 2002) ...
Yemen				25 July 2003	-

CCPR  A/59/40 vol. I (2004)

 

CHAPTER VII.  FOLLOW-UP TO CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS

 

...

260.   For all reports of States parties examined by the Committee under article 40 of the Covenant over the last year, the Committee has identified, according to its developing practice, a limited number of priority concerns, with respect to which it seeks the State party=s response, within a period of a year, on the measures taken to give effect to its recommendations.  The Committee welcomes the extent and depth of cooperation under this procedure by States parties, as may be observed from the following comprehensive table.  Of the 27 States parties (detailed below) that have been before the Committee under the follow-up procedure over the last year, only one (Republic of Moldova) has failed to provide information at the latest after dispatch of a reminder.  The Committee reiterates that it views this procedure as a constructive mechanism by which the dialogue initiated with the examination of a report can be continued, and which serves to simplify the process of the next periodic report on the part of the State party.

 

261.   The table below details the experience of the Committee over the last year.  Accordingly, it contains no reference to those States parties with respect to which the Committee, upon assessment of the follow-up responses provided to it, decided to take no further action prior to the period covered by this report.

 

State party				Date information due	Date reply received	Further action
... Seventy-fifth session (July 2002) ...
Yemen				25 July 2003	Fourth periodic report received 21 July 2004	After two reminders failed to elicit a response, the Special Rapporteur held consultations with the State party during the Committee=s eighty-first session.

 

 

CCPR, CCPR/C/SR.2392 (2006)

 

HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE

Eighty-seventh session

SUMMARY RECORD OF THE 2392nd MEETING

Held at the Palais Wilson, Geneva,

on Wednesday, 26 July 2006, at 11 a.m.

 

...

 

FOLLOW-UP TO CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS ON STATE REPORTS AND TO VIEWS UNDER THE OPTIONAL PROTOCOL (agenda item 7)

 

...

 

Report of the Special Rapporteur for follow-up on concluding observations (CCPR/C/87/CRP.1/Add.7)

 

...

 

[Mr. RIVAS POSADA, speaking as Special Rapporteur for follow-up on concluding observations]

 

 

55.  The deadlines set at the Committee=s eighty-fourth session in July 2005 for the submission of additional information had just passed or fell that week.  Tajikistan=s response had been received and was currently being translated.  Reminders would be sent to Slovenia, the Syrian Arabic Republic, Thailand and Yemen.

 

...

 

CCPR, A/61/40 vol. I (2006)

 

CHAPTER VII.      FOLLOW‑UP TO CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS

 

234.  In chapter VII of its annual report for 2003 (A/58/40, vol. I), the Committee described the framework that it has set out for providing for more effective follow‑up, subsequent to the adoption of the concluding observations in respect of States parties= reports submitted under article 40 of the Covenant.  In chapter VII of its last annual report (A/60/40, vol. I), an updated account of the Committee=s experience in this regard over the last year was provided.  The current chapter again updates the Committee=s experience to 1 August 2006.

 

235.  Over the period covered by the present annual report, Mr. Rafael Rivas Posada continued to act as the Committee=s Special Rapporteur for follow‑up to concluding observations.  At the Committee=s eighty‑fifth, eighty‑sixth and eighty‑seventh sessions, he presented progress reports to the Committee on intersessional developments and made recommendations which prompted the Committee to take appropriate decisions on a State‑by‑State basis.

 

236.  For all reports of States parties examined by the Committee under article 40 of the Covenant over the last year, the Committee has identified, according to its developing practice, a limited number of priority concerns, with respect to which it seeks the State party=s response, within a period of a year, on the measures taken to give effect to its recommendations.  The Committee welcomes the extent and depth of cooperation under this procedure by States parties, as may be observed from the following comprehensive table.  Over the reporting period, since 1 August 2005, 14 States parties (Albania, Belgium, Benin, Colombia, El Salvador, Kenya, Mauritius, Philippines, Poland, Serbia and Montenegro, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Togo and Uganda) have submitted information to the Committee under the follow‑up procedure.  Since the follow‑up procedure was instituted in March 2001, only 11 States parties (Equatorial Guinea, Greece, Iceland, Israel, Mali, Moldova, Namibia, Suriname, the Gambia, Uzbekistan and Venezuela) have failed to supply follow‑up information that has fallen due.  The Committee reiterates that it views this procedure as a constructive mechanism by which the dialogue initiated with the examination of a report can be continued, and which serves to simplify the process of the next periodic report on the part of the State party.

 

237.  The table below details the experience of the Committee over the last year.  Accordingly, it contains no reference to those States parties with respect to which the Committee, upon assessment of the follow‑up responses provided to it, decided to take no further action prior to the period covered by this report.

 

 

CCPR, A/62/40 vol. I (2007)

 

CHAPTER VII.   FOLLOW-UP ON CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS

 

220.     In chapter VII of its annual report for 2003 (A/58/40, vol. I), the Committee described the framework that it has set out for providing for more effective follow‑up, subsequent to the adoption of the concluding observations in respect of States parties= reports submitted under article 40 of the Covenant. In chapter VII of its last annual report (A/61/40, vol. I), an updated account of the Committee=s experience in this regard over the last year was provided. The current chapter again updates the Committee=s experience to 1 August 2007.

 

221.     Over the period covered by the present annual report, Mr. Rafael Rivas-Posada continued to act as the Committee=s Special Rapporteur for follow‑up to concluding observations. At the Committee=s eighty‑fifth, eighty‑sixth and eighty‑seventh sessions, he presented progress reports to the Committee on intersessional developments and made recommendations which prompted the Committee to take appropriate decisions State by State. In view of Mr. Rivas-Posada=s election to the Chair of the Committee, Sir Nigel Rodley was appointed the new Special Rapporteur for follow-up on concluding observations at the Committee=s ninetieth session.

 

222.     For all reports of States parties examined by the Committee under article 40 of the Covenant over the last year, the Committee has identified, according to its developing practice, a limited number of priority concerns, with respect to which it seeks the State party=s response, within a period of a year, on the measures taken to give effect to its recommendations. The Committee welcomes the extent and depth of cooperation under this procedure by States parties, as may be observed from the following comprehensive table. ¹ Over the reporting period, since 1 August 2006, 12 States parties (Albania, Canada, Greece, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Slovenia, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand, Uganda, Uzbekistan and Venezuela) have submitted information to the Committee under the follow‑up procedure. Since the follow‑up procedure was instituted in March 2001, only 12 States parties (Brazil, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Mali, Moldova, Namibia, Surinam, Paraguay, the Gambia, Surinam and Yemen) and UNMIK have failed to supply follow‑up information that has fallen due. The Committee reiterates that it views this procedure as a constructive mechanism by which the dialogue initiated with the examination of a report can be continued, and which serves to simplify the process of the next periodic report on the part of the State party.

 

223.     The table below takes account of some of the Working Group=s recommendations and details the experience of the Committee over the last year. Accordingly, it contains no reference to those States parties with respect to which the Committee, upon assessment of the follow‑up responses provided to it, decided before 1 August 2006 to take no further action prior to the period covered by this report.

 

...

Eighty-fourth session (July 2006)

...

State party: Yemen

Report considered: Fourth periodic (on time) submitted on 4 August 2004.

Information requested:   Para. 11: Eradication of female genital mutilation and passage of a law banning the practice; detailed information on the subject, including (a) statistics on the number of women and girls concerned; (b) proceedings, if any, brought against perpetrators of female genital mutilation; and (c) effectiveness of programmes and awareness-raising campaigns implemented (arts. 3, 6 and 7).   Para. 13: Principle of proportionality vis-à-vis terrorist threats; information on the findings and recommendations of the parliamentary committee established to monitor the situation of persons detained in connection with terrorism (arts. 6, 7, 9 and 14).   Para. 14: Full, impartial investigation into the incident of 21 March (use of force by security forces against demonstrators) (art. 6).   Para. 16: Measures to end corporal punishment, amendment of the related legislation (art. 7).

Date information due: 20 July 2006

Date information received: NONE RECEIVED

Action taken:   20 September 2006 A reminder was sent to the State party.   21 December 2006 A further reminder was sent.   29 June 2007 A fresh reminder was sent to the State party and the Special Rapporteur requested a meeting with a representative of the State party.

Recommended action: Consultations should be scheduled for the ninety-first session.

Next report due: 1 July 2009   ...

 

Note

 

1/  The table format was altered at the ninetieth session.

 

CCPR, CCPR/C/SR.2533 (2008)

 

Human Rights Committee

Ninety‑second session

 

Summary record of the 2533rd meeting

Held at Headquarters, New York,

on Wednesday, 2 April 2008, at 11 a.m.

 

...

Follow‑up to concluding observations on State reports and to Views under the Optional Protocol

 

Progress report of the Special Rapporteur for follow‑up on concluding observations

 

1.         Sir Nigel Rodley (Special Rapporteur for follow‑up on concluding observations), introducing an updated English version of his earlier report (CCPR/C/92/R.1) tracking the changes made in the light of developments since its publication, said that he had consulted with representatives of the Central African Republic, Mali, Namibia, Sri Lanka and Suriname and would soon be meeting with representatives of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Regrettably, it had not been possible to meet with representatives of the Gambia and Namibia, which had not been forthcoming in making the necessary arrangements.

 

2.         The Special Rapporteur's role was to urge States to provide prompt feedback on the points raised by the Committee in its concluding observations. Such efforts were counter‑productive, however, if requests for information were made year after year and a subsequent periodic report of the State party was due or overdue. In those cases, the State party should be encouraged to submit a report rather than respond to concerns paragraph by paragraph. Nevertheless, failing the submission of a report, a response to the individual paragraphs would be better than nothing.

 

3.         He hoped that the updated version of his report could be reformatted to make it more reader‑friendly. Concerning overdue responses to concluding observations, he recommended, with respect to Moldova and Uzbekistan, that no further action should be taken in view of the States parties' submission of periodic reports.

...

29.       [Sir Nigel Rodley]  With regard to Yemen, Brazil and Paraguay, the recommended action should not be, as indicated in his report, to review the status of submission of follow‑up replies, but to send reminders to those States parties, with a view to receiving follow‑up replies by the ninety‑third session.

...

33.       The recommendations contained in the progress report of the Special Rapporteur for follow‑up on concluding observations, as amended, were approved.

 

The meeting was suspended at 12.30 p.m. and resumed at 12.35 p.m.

...

 

CCPR, CCPR/C/SR.2564/Add.1 (2008)

 

HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE

Ninety‑third session

SUMMARY RECORD OF THE SECOND PART (PUBLIC)* OF THE 2564th MEETING

Held at the Palais Wilson, Geneva,

on Wednesday, 23 July 2008 at 11.25 a.m.

 

...

 

FOLLOW‑UP TO CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS ON STATE REPORTS AND TO VIEWS UNDER THE OPTIONAL PROTOCOL

 

...

 

Report of the Special Rapporteur for follow‑up on concluding observations (CCPR/C/93/R.1)

 

1.         Sir Nigel RODLEY, Special Rapporteur for follow‑up on concluding observations, introduced his report contained in document CCPR/C/93/R.1.

...

 

4.         ...If the Committee received no information from Namibia or Yemen before its next session, consultations between the Special Rapporteur and the State party should be scheduled for the ninety‑fifth session...

...

39.       The draft report of the Special Rapporteur for follow‑up on concluding observations was adopted.

 

...

 

CCPR, A/63/40 vol. I (2008)

 

CHAPTER VII.  FOLLOW‑UP TO CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS

 

194.     In chapter VII of its annual report for 2003, ²⁰ the Committee described the framework that it has set out for providing for more effective follow up, subsequent to the adoption of the concluding observations in respect of States parties' reports submitted under article 40 of the Covenant. In chapter VII of its last annual report (A/62/40, vol. I), an updated account of the Committee's experience in this regard over the last year was provided. The current chapter again updates the Committee's experience to 1 August 2008.

 

195.     Over the period covered by the present annual report, Sir Nigel Rodley acted as the Committee's Special Rapporteur for follow‑up on concluding observations. At the Committee's ninety‑first, ninety‑second and ninety third sessions, he presented progress reports to the Committee on inter‑sessional developments and made recommendations which prompted the Committee to take appropriate decisions State by State.

 

196.     For all reports of States parties examined by the Committee under article 40 of the Covenant over the last year, the Committee has identified, according to its developing practice, a limited number of priority concerns, with respect to which it seeks the State party's response, within a period of a year, on the measures taken to give effect to its recommendations. The Committee welcomes the extent and depth of cooperation under this procedure by States parties, as may be observed from the following comprehensive table. ²¹  Over the reporting period, since 1 August 2007, 11 States parties (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (China), Mali, Paraguay, Republic of Korea, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Togo, United States of America and Ukraine), as well as the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), have submitted information to the Committee under the follow up procedure. Since the follow up procedure was instituted in March 2001, 10 States parties (Barbados, Central African Republic, Chile, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Honduras, Madagascar, Namibia and Yemen) have failed to supply follow up information that has fallen due. The Committee reiterates that it views this procedure as a constructive mechanism by which the dialogue initiated with the examination of a report can be continued, and which serves to simplify the process of the next periodic report on the part of the State party.

 

197.     The table below takes account of some of the Working Group's recommendations and details the experience of the Committee over the last year. Accordingly, it contains no reference to those States parties with respect to which the Committee, upon assessment of the follow up responses provided to it, decided before 1 August 2007 to take no further action prior to the period covered by this report.

 

198.     The Committee emphasizes that certain States parties have failed to cooperate with it in the performance of its functions under Part IV of the Covenant, thereby violating their obligations (Gambia, Equatorial Guinea).

 

_____________________

 

20/   Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty‑eighth Session, Supplement No. 40 (A/58/40), vol. I.

 

21/   The table format was altered at the ninetieth session.

 

...

Eighty-fourth session (July 2005)

State party: Yemen

Report considered: Fourth periodic (on time), submitted on 4 August 2004.

Information requested:   Para. 11: Eradication of female genital mutilation and adoption of legislation prohibiting   the practice; detailed information on (a) the number of women and girls concerned; (b) proceedings, if any, brought against perpetrators of female genital mutilation; and (c) the effectiveness of programmes and awareness-raising campaigns implemented in order to combat female genital mutilation (arts. 3, 6 and 7).   Para. 13: Ensure the proportionality of responses to terrorist threats and activities; information on the findings and recommendations of the parliamentary committee established to monitor the situation of persons detained in connection with terrorism (arts. 6, 7, 9 and 14).   Para. 14: Full and impartial investigation into the killing of four persons participating in a demonstration on 21 March 2003 (art. 6).   Para. 16: Measures to end corporal punishment, such as flogging or amputation of limb; amendment of relevant legislation (art. 7).

Date information due: 20 July 2006

Date information received: NONE RECEIVED

Action taken:   Between September 2006 and September 2007, four reminders were sent. In his reminders of 29 June and 28 September 2007, the Special Rapporteur also requested a meeting with a representative of the State party.   31 October 2007 During the ninety-first session, the Special Rapporteur met with a representative of the State party, who assured him that the Government will reply to the Committee=s follow-up questions, without committing himself to a specific date for the submission of such replies.   13 June 2008 A further reminder was sent by way of follow-up to the consultations which took place between the Special Rapporteur and the State party during the ninety-first session.

Recommended action: If no information is received, consultations should be scheduled for the ninety-fourth session.

Next report due: 1 July 2009

...

 

CCPR, A/64/40, vol. I (2009)

 

VII.     FOLLOW UP TO CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS

 

237.     In chapter VII of its annual report for 2003, ²⁰ the Committee described the framework that it has set out for providing for more effective follow up, subsequent to the adoption of the concluding observations in respect of States parties' reports submitted under article 40 of the Covenant. In chapter VII of its last annual report (A/63/40, vol. I), an updated account of the Committee's experience in this regard over the last year was provided. The current chapter again updates the Committee's experience to 1 August 2009.

 

238.     Over the period covered by the present annual report, Sir Nigel Rodley acted as the Committee's Special Rapporteur for follow‑up on concluding observations. At the Committee's ninety‑fourth, ninety‑fifth and ninety‑sixth sessions, he presented progress reports to the Committee on inter‑sessional developments and made recommendations which prompted the Committee to take appropriate decisions State by State.

 

239.     For all reports of States parties examined by the Committee under article 40 of the Covenant over the last year, the Committee has identified, according to its developing practice, a limited number of priority concerns, with respect to which it seeks the State party's response, within a period of a year, on the measures taken to give effect to its recommendations. The Committee welcomes the extent and depth of cooperation under this procedure by States parties, as may be observed from the following comprehensive table. ²¹ Over the reporting period, since 1 August 2008, 16 States parties (Austria, Barbados, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Chile, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, France, Georgia, Honduras, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (China), Ireland, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Madagascar, Tunisia, Ukraine and United States of America), as well as the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), have submitted information to the Committee under the follow up procedure. Since the follow up procedure was instituted in March 2001, 11 States parties (Botswana, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Namibia, Panama, Sudan, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Yemen and Zambia) have failed to supply follow up information that has fallen due. The Committee reiterates that it views this procedure as a constructive mechanism by which the dialogue initiated with the examination of a report can be continued, and which serves to simplify the process of the next periodic report on the part of the State party. ²²

 

240.     The table below takes account of some of the Working Group's recommendations and details the experience of the Committee over the last year. Accordingly, it contains no reference to those States parties with respect to which the Committee, upon assessment of the follow up responses provided to it, decided before 1 August 2008 to take no further action prior to the period covered by this report.

 

241.     The Committee emphasizes that certain States parties have failed to cooperate with it in the performance of its functions under Part IV of the Covenant, thereby violating their obligations (Gambia, Equatorial Guinea).

...

Eighty-fourth session (July 2005)

State party: Yemen

Report considered: Fourth periodic (on time), submitted on 4 August 2004.

Information requested:   Para. 11: Eradication of female genital mutilation and adoption of legislation prohibiting the practice; detailed information on (a) the number of women and girls concerned; (b) proceedings, if any, brought against perpetrators of female genital mutilation; and (c) the effectiveness of programmes and awareness-raising campaigns implemented in order to combat female genital mutilation (arts. 3, 6 and 7).   Para. 13: Ensure the proportionality of responses to terrorist threats and activities; information on the findings and recommendations of the parliamentary committee established to monitor the situation of persons detained in connection with terrorism (arts. 6, 7, 9 and 14).   Para. 14: Full and impartial investigation into the killing of four persons participating in a demonstration on 21 March 2003 (art. 6).   Para. 16: Measures to end corporal punishment, such as flogging or amputation of limb; amendment of relevant legislation (art. 7).

Date information due: 20 July 2006

Date information received: NONE RECEIVED

Action taken:   Between September 2006 and September 2007, four reminders were sent. In his reminders of 29 June and 28 September 2007, the Special Rapporteur also requested a meeting with a representative of the State party.   31 October 2007 During the ninety-first session, the Special Rapporteur met with a representative of the State party, who assured him that the Government will reply to the Committee=s follow-up questions, without committing himself to a specific date for the submission of such replies.   13 June 2008 A further reminder was sent by way of follow-up to the consultations which took place between the Special Rapporteur and the State party during the ninety-first session.   22 September 2008 The Special Rapporteur requested a meeting with a representative of the State party.   24 October 2008 During the ninety-fourth session, the Special Rapporteur met with a representative of the State party, who indicated that the State party will inform the Special Rapporteur about the time-scale envisaged for the submission of the replies to the Committee=s follow-up questions.   6 May 2009 A reminder was sent to the State party.

Recommended action: A note verbale has been sent by the State party to request an extension for submitting its next periodic report. As no information has been received, the follow-up procedure with respect to the fourth periodic report is considered to be terminated.

Next report due: 1 July 2009

...

____________________________

 

20/   Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty‑eighth Session, Supplement No. 40 (A/58/40), vol. I.

 

21/   The table format was altered at the ninetieth session.

 

22/   As the next periodic report has become due with respect to the following States parties, the Committee has terminated the follow‑up procedure despite deficient information or the absence of a follow‑up report: Mali, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Namibia, Paraguay, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

 

 

 

CCPR, CCPR/C/SR.2738/Add.1 (2010)

 

Human Rights Committee

Ninety-ninth session

 

Summary record of the second part (public) of the 2738th meeting

Held at Palais Wilson, Geneva,

on Wednesday 28 July 2010, at 11:25 am

 

...

 

Follow-up to concluding observations on State reports and to Views under the Optional Protocol

 

Report of the Special Rapporteur for Follow-up on Concluding Observations (CCPR/C/99/2/CRP.1)

 

...

 

3.  Introducing his report (CCPR/C/99/2/CRP.1), he drew attention to the footnote on the first page. In the cases of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mali, Namibia, Paraguay, Sri Lanka, Suriname and Yemen, the follow-up procedure had been suspended despite the fact that those States parties had not provided sufficient information. That decision had been taken because there remained one year or less before the States were due to submit their next reports. The current dilemma facing the Committee was that those States= reports were now overdue. He asked whether colleagues agreed that, under those circumstances, the follow-up procedure should remain suspended.

 

4.  The Chairperson said that, if there was no objection, he took it that the Committee agreed with that conclusion.

 

5.  It was so decided.

 

...

 

CCPR, A/65/40 vol. I (2010)

 

...

 

Chapter VII: Follow-up to Concluding Observations

 

203.  In chapter VII of its annual report for 2003,¹⁶ the Committee described the framework that it has set out for providing for more effective follow‑up, subsequent to the adoption of the concluding observations in respect of States parties= reports submitted under article 40 of the Covenant. In chapter VII of its last annual report,¹⁷ an updated account of the Committee=s experience in this regard over the last year was provided. The current chapter again updates the Committee=s experience to 1 August 2010.

 

204.  Over the period covered by the present annual report, Mr. Abdelfattah Amor acted as the Committee=s Special Rapporteur for follow-up on concluding observations. At the Committee=s ninety-seventh, ninety-eighth and ninety-ninth sessions, he presented progress reports to the Committee on intersessional developments and made recommendations which prompted the Committee to take appropriate decisions State by State.

 

205.  For all reports of States parties examined by the Committee under article 40 of the Covenant over the last year, the Committee has identified, according to its developing practice, a limited number of priority concerns, with respect to which it seeks the State party=s response, within a period of a year, on the measures taken to give effect to its recommendations. The Committee welcomes the extent and depth of cooperation under this procedure by States parties, as may be observed from the following comprehensive table.¹⁸ Over the reporting period, since 1 August 2009, 17 States parties (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Chile, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Georgia, Japan, Monaco, Spain, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Sudan, Sweden, Tunisia, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Zambia), as well as the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK), have submitted information to the Committee under the follow‑up procedure. Since the follow‑up procedure was instituted in March 2001, 12 States parties (Australia, Botswana, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gambia, Namibia, Nicaragua, Panama, Rwanda, San Marino and Yemen) have failed to supply follow‑up information that has fallen due. The Committee reiterates that it views this procedure as a constructive mechanism by which the dialogue initiated with the examination of a report can be continued, and which serves to simplify the preparation of the next periodic report by the State party.¹⁹

 

206.  The table below takes account of some of the Working Group=s recommendations and details the experience of the Committee over the last year. Accordingly, the report does not cover those States parties with respect to which the Committee has completed its follow-up activities, including all States parties which were considered from the seventy-first session (March 2001) to the eighty-fifth session (October 2005).

 

207.  The Committee emphasizes that certain States parties have failed to cooperate with it in the performance of its functions under Part IV of the Covenant, thereby violating their obligations (Equatorial Guinea, Gambia).

 

__________

 

¹⁶  Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-eighth Session, Supplement No. 40, vol. I (A/58/40 (vol. I)).

 

¹⁷  Ibid., Sixty-Fourth Session, Supplement No. 40, vol. I (A/64/40 (vol. I)).

 

¹⁸  The table format was altered at the ninetieth session.

 

¹⁹  As the next periodic report has become due with respect to the following States parties, the Committee has terminated the follow-up procedure despite deficient information or the absence of a follow-up report: Austria, Brazil, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Hong Kong (China), Mali, Namibia, Paraguay, Republic of Korea, Sri Lanka, Suriname and Yemen.