| Third
Inter-Committee Meeting
of the Human Rights Treaty Bodies
Geneva, Switzerland, 21-22 June 2003
Submission by International Women’s Rights Action Watch (Asia
Pacific)
22 June 2004
I speak on behalf of the International Women’s Rights Action
Watch (IWRAW Asia Pacific), an international organisation based
in Malaysia and working towards the progressive interpretation and
realisation of the human rights of women through the lens of the
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against
Women (CEDAW) and other international human rights treaties. We
have significant presence in 12 countries in South and Southeast
Asia with work being carried out in East Asia, the Pacific and Central
Asia.
We hope to address
issues of concern for both the Third Inter-Committee Meeting and
the 16th Annual Meeting of Treaty Bodies Chairpersons in order to
provide our views on ways to strengthen the effectiveness of the
treaty bodies in the implementation of State obligation under the
human rights conventions.
We have noted
the Guidelines on an Expanded Core Document and Treaty-Specific
Targeted Reports and Harmonised Guidelines on Reporting under the
International Human Rights Treaties. Although a common core document
has the potential to be useful in terms of reaffirming that human
rights are interdependent and indivisible and that measures aimed
at promoting and protecting human rights in one treaty enhances
the protection and promotion of human rights in other conventions,
we wish, however, to express a number of initial concerns regarding
the Guidelines. For this reason, we urge that further consideration
must be given to the Guidelines proposed.
In efforts toward
coordination, harmonisation and collaboration as well as in easing
the burden of State reporting for States Parties, we urge that the
approach be guided by building on the gains of individual treaty
bodies in providing better protection of human rights. There must
be a conscious effort to ensure that the most advance jurisprudence
and recommendations where the mandate overlaps is adopted by all
the treaty bodies and not the least common denominator.
This is particularly
important in relation to the proposed common core document and the
list of “congruent rights”.
- In claiming
congruency of rights, what is the basis of this congruency? For
example, what qualitative standard of equality and non-discrimination
are we using for the common core document? Do we measure congruence
in terms of similarity of texts or similarity of interpretation?
How does the “congruent right” of equality and non-discrimination
impact on the work of the treaty bodies created for the purpose
of ensuring equality and non-discrimination, e.g. CEDAW and CERD?
Are we creating double standards of equality—one contained
in the common core document and the other, in a treaty-specific
document? How do we address this “congruence” when
there may not be consistency in the text and interpretation of
rights in the different treaty conventions?
- How will
“congruent rights” be reflected when different treaties
were ratified by the State party? For example, if one State Party
only ratified CEDAW and CRC, will there be a difference on the
“congruent” right of equality and non-discrimination
from one who has ratified all seven treaties? Will there be a
spectrum of rights which add up or subtract obligations based
on the configuration of treaties ratified? In this regard, we
urge that the most advance jurisprudence and interpretation possible
under all the treaties ratified be applied and to ensure that
the practical realisation of this is possible. Extra care must
be given to the fact that the common core document does not establish
as an effect hierarchy of rights. It must also be ensured that
appropriate attention is given to women, children, migrant workers,
among others, as conventions have been ratified for them.
- How is monitoring
of “congruent rights” done? Who monitors the common
core document, i.e. that it embodies all the obligations under
the treaties ratified? Are treaty-bodies ready to ensure that
they provide monitoring oversight even if the State party is not
reporting to them? Does this not add extra burden to the treaty
bodies? What legal implications may limit the interventions of
treaty bodies? There may be a tendency of piece- meal updating
of these rights brought about by the need of the State to report
to a specific treaty body at any one time. More inclusive and
participatory ways to monitor the common core document must be
devised even if the State party is not imminently reporting.
We have worked
collaboratively with national NGOs on monitoring States’ compliance
with the obligations under CEDAW and on facilitating the domestic
implementation of treaty standards. It is from this perspective
that we are particularly concerned that the concerns we have raised
will be reflected as confusion rather than clarity at the national
level, especially on the issue of “congruent rights”.
For example:
- In our experience
in Asia, we see lack of coherent understanding of the core content
of the women’s right to equality. Different government ministries
who implement women’s human rights have applied different
standards and models of equality to the detriment of women. Advocacy
by NGOs have been targeted at ensuring that a substantive model
of equality as advanced by CEDAW becomes the basis of government
actions, programmes and policies.
- A common
core document and the different treaty-specific reports (e.g.
the ICCPR report as different from the CEDAW report) that provide
different standards of equality creates confusion and impacts
directly on the work carried out by these NGOs. It may lead to
a confusion arising from the fact that a common core document
embodies a “congruent” standard of equality as opposed
to the different treaty-specific standards in the different treaty-specific
reports. As the basis of congruence is unclear, i.e. if it is
based on common denominators or the best possible standard, this
thereby may be used to justify the application by some States
of different models of equality which are below CEDAW standards
based on claims of “congruence” or the common denominator.
Where there is no coherence on the application of human rights
standards at the national level and where there is difficulty
in understanding the core content of rights, can the common core
document assist and add-value to better implementation and reporting?
- We have seen
that it has been very important to provide greater participation,
in the drafting of the State party report, to national government
ministries that implement the convention concerned. In some instances,
where women ministries have took a leading role in drafting the
CEDAW report, there is improvement in the quality of the report.
In the drafting of the section on “congruent rights”
and in the proposal to have a permanent institutional mechanism
for this, given the political context of the State, what role
will now be given to these women’s ministries? How much
will their suggestion weigh knowing full well that in many instances
their voices have been marginalised? What spaces are we closing
for them and for others? This impacts heavily in the follow up
work that needs to be done for the treaty bodies’ recommendations.
Although there
is a need to move towards fluidity of State Party reporting, utmost
importance must be given on the implications of the guidelines on
national level implementation and advocacy, i.e. to what extent
can the Guidelines assist in better domestic implementation?
We urge the
treaty bodies to give more thought in terms of impact of these guidelines
at the national level. We call on you to consult not only the missions
but also the ministries who prepare reports as well as implement
the recommendations of the Committee, and NGOs, at both national
and international level.
2. We reiterate
the importance of technical assistance and capacity building in
the reporting process. In our statement in last year’s Inter-Committee
Meeting (ICM), we have stated that technical services must be provided
with a full knowledge of the political situation in a country and
the reasons, both technical and political, as to why a State party
is not reporting. In Asia, we have seen that often times States
parties are unclear as to the purpose of reporting and its role
in treaty implementation. Furthermore, there is seldom any conscious
effort on the part of the State Party to adopt measures to give
effect to the obligations under the treaty. For example, since efforts
have not been made at the start to collect appropriate disaggregated
data or even comparative data, report writing becomes a tedious
and shallow exercise. In instances where consultants are hired to
write the report, certain ministries refuse to take ownership on
the substance of the report or the commitments of action outlines
therein.
States Parties
must be made to understand that the report can serve a very substantive
purpose as it provides a framework and guidance for fulfilling State
obligation if it comes from the perspective of an aware State. This
can only happen if there is continuous consciousness of the implementation
of the treaty.
Technical assistance
services must therefore be cognizant of the fact that failure to
report may not be due so much as not knowing how to write the report
but more because of not having clarity on the content of the rights
concerned, what reporting is all about, and not having continuously
gathered the kind of data required to write a report. It can also
be political, i.e. ensuring equality for women can be politically
hazardous for the regime in power. Technical assistance must therefore
go beyond report writing and must enable States Parties to have
a broader understanding of the purpose of reporting and its role
in treaty implementation. They should realise that the report can
be used to plan the implementation of the treaty, to record progress,
and to move towards further implementation. The reporting process
requires the setting of standards based on human rights norms, identification
of baseline status, setting of benchmarks and related indicators
to measure progress. Technical assistance must also take into consideration
the structural problems and political impediments and help find
solutions to enable implementation of the treaty.
Furthermore,
technical assistance on the follow up of concluding comments and
how to measure its progress must be provided to enable States to
move forward. A more holistic plan to follow up activities may be
pursued, e.g. action plans drafted may consider all the treaties
ratified to save on resources expended for monitoring and implementation.
Lastly, we wish
to emphasised that it is of utmost priority to ensure that the provision
of technical assistance to States Parties as well as to NGOs who
are involved in monitoring the conventions is an indispensable complement
to the proposed Guidelines on the expanded core document and treaty-specific
reports.
3. In strengthening
the effectiveness of treaty bodies, the role of NGOs as a supporting
process outside of the treaty bodies and the OHCHR must be continuously
recognised. Any guidelines on NGO participation should allow the
widest possible incorporation of NGO expertise, information and
resources into the treaty implementation process.
NGOs continuously
provide alternative information to the treaty bodies. In particular,
NGOs have as early as the pre-sessions submit alternative information
to the CEDAW Committee to assist in the crafting of the list of
issues and questions. We urge that this practice be systematised.
We also welcome the move of treaty bodies to review States Parties
in the absence of a report, especially CEDAW committee, and request
that the list of States Parties be published in advance so that
NGOs may be able to provide alternative information and shadow reports.
We reiterate
that NGOs play an important role in following up recommendations
of the treaty bodies. In our statement in last year’s ICM,
we have illustrated how NGOs in Nepal and Sri Lanka have used the
concluding comments of CEDAW to hold their governments accountable.
We welcome the
recommendation of the Second ICM that capacity-building efforts
undertaken by NGOs, in particular those relating to follow-up of
the recommendation of the treaty bodies, should be expanded and
adequately funded. We hope for the continuous expansion and follow
up of this recommendation.
NGOs also assist
in enriching discussions on the progressive interpretation of international
human rights standards. We urge that there be an increased flow
of information from DAW and OHCHR to the NGOs on workshops, conferences
and trainings on treaty implementation. We also urge that NGOs,
both international and national, be invited to participate and/or
observe these activities, especially on consultations on the Guidelines
on the expanded core document and treaty-specific reports.
4. Strengthening
the treaty body system is not only about enhancing the effectiveness
of each treaty body but also of ensuring the cohesiveness and strengthening
of the human rights treaty body system as a whole. We again urge
treaty bodies to collectively provide joint input and efforts on
development of human rights mechanisms. We wish to call the attention
of the treaty bodies that the mandate of the working group to discuss
options for the establishment of an Optional Protocol to the ICESCR
has been extended for two years. We encourage treaty bodies to play
a crucial role as experts in this working group.
Prepared by
Rea Chiongson, IWRAW Asia Pacific
Click here
for the “Draft Guidelines on an Expanded Core Document and
Targeted Reports and Harmonized Guidelines for Reporting under the
International Human Rights Treaties: Report by the Secretariat”
(HRI/MC/2004/3)
Click
here* for the Report of the Chairpersons
of the human rights treaty bodies on their sixteenth meeting, held
at Geneva from 23 to 25 June 2004. The report of the third Inter-Committee
Meeting of Human Rights Treaty Bodies is annexed to this report.
*microsoft format document
Back
to top
This
page was last updated on August 30, 2004
“IWRAW
Asia Pacific is an independent, non-profit, NGO in Special consultative
status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations.”
©IWRAW Asia Pacific
Contact Us | Site
Map |
