Treaty Body Reform following the UN Secretary-General's proposals
NGO NON-PAPER [1]
24 June 2003

Introduction
In his report last year entitled Strengthening of the United Nations: an agenda for further change,[2] the UN Secretary-General emphasized that the burden of reporting obligations under the human rights treaty bodies were straining the resources of Member States and the Secretariat, and that non-reporting had become a very serious concern. He proposed that "the committees craft a more coordinated approach… and standardize their varied reporting requirements" and that "each State should be allowed to produce a single report summarizing its adherence to the full range of international human rights treaties to which it is a party."[3]

In February 2003, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) issued a background note on treaty body reform,[4] which served as a basis for the brainstorming meeting held in Malbun (Liechtenstein) on 4-7 May.[5] We would like to express our appreciation to the Government of Liechtenstein for organizing the meeting and to the OHCHR for its preparatory work.

The current process of reform has focused on matters of form and procedure as well as on "capacity building". We believe that, to truly enhance the system, reform should also address underlying problems such as: the difficulties faced by the OHCHR in processing reports and ensuring appropriate follow-up, because of inadequate resources; the methodology used in the consideration of reports by treaty bodies; the lack of political will that determines non-reporting by certain States parties; and the insufficient independence and/or expertise of some treaty body members.

Moreover, it should be recalled that the treaty body procedures cannot be reduced to the process of presenting reports to the UN. This process is often the occasion for wide debate at national level on the themes addressed and norms contained in the treaties, sometimes providing an opportunity to clarify their scope and content. It also clearly gives governments a framework to assess action taken in implementing their treaty obligations and to identify areas in which further action should be taken.

A single report
A single report to all treaty bodies summarising a State's implementation of all of the treaties to which it is a party would not have the level of detail or specificity required to fulfil its reporting obligations. Such a system would not be feasible in terms of the different periodicity of reporting required by the various treaties and would contravene legal obligations in this regard. Moreover, it would fail to address a number of current problems, such as delays and unwillingness to report for political reasons on the part of certain States.

It has been suggested that single reports might be suitable for small or micro-States. Due to their complexity, however, single reports would not significantly reduce the "burden" if States were to meet their reporting obligations fully. In addition, determining which States are appropriate for this special dispensation would surely be a source of some difficulty. Therefore, authorisation to submit a single report should be given only in limited circumstances and on a case-by-case basis by the Chairpersons at their Annual Meeting. The Chairpersons would then also provide reporting guidelines for this single report.

Focused reports
Focused reports, properly conceived, can serve a very useful function in giving States and treaty bodies the opportunity to concentrate on the matters of greatest concern. However, relevant principles and operating procedures need to be carefully examined. In our view:

• Treaty bodies could request focused reports from States parties after they have submitted both their initial report and at least one periodical report. This would provide an incentive for States parties to comply with their reporting obligations.
• Treaty bodies should be able to require States to revert to comprehensive reports, for instance after major political or constitutional changes or a deteriorating human rights situation in the country.
• It would be desirable for States to submit a comprehensive report every other cycle so that particular articles were not left unaddressed for long periods.
• Only the treaty bodies themselves should be authorized to request a focused report.
• The periodicity for focused reports should be shorter than for comprehensive reports; otherwise, the lapse of time to be covered in comprehensive reviews could be excessively long. The subject(s) of focus should not be set too far ahead of time, to ensure that the report remains relevant.
• In addition, to increase transparency and provide no opportunity for tactical delay, the examination of country reports should be scheduled automatically. This would also avoid having scarce committee resources expended on preparing a list of issues, should a State not present its report.
• Finally, we believe that the idea of a focused report should be tested and assessed before being approved, used by one treaty body (e.g. HRC) with an established record and a high level of State reporting.

Expanded core documents
Expanded and systematic use of core documents could alleviate some pressures within the system. However, the scope of core reports would need to be carefully defined to ensure that they did not become consolidated reports under another name. It should be pointed out that core reports have a legal status: indeed, the reporting guidelines of various treaty bodies refer to them; and the Annual Meeting of Chairpersons has made official decisions based on them.

However, using core documents to address articles that are covered by formal reporting obligations should be subject to strengthened review. If the core report is expanded to encompass congruent or common parts of the reporting obligations of States parties, updating these reports should be made mandatory under a fixed periodicity. The various Committees should also review and analyse the content of such a document during their dialogue with States parties.

Thematic or modular reporting
The concept of thematic or modular reporting (as presented in the background paper) would be difficult to implement in the present circumstances, given that the treaty bodies:

• would find it difficult in practice to choose one overarching theme for any particular country;
• would lose the opportunity of treating a wide range of other subjects within their mandates;
• already use well-developed thematic approaches through the general comments made by each Committee, which could be extended from one treaty body to another.

Thematic reports could be envisaged within a single treaty body along the lines of a focused report, or in addition to the regular comprehensive reports, but only at the request of the treaty body itself.

Harmonization of procedures
The Malbun meeting placed emphasis on the need for flexibility across the system. Nevertheless, harmonization of reporting guidelines should be encouraged while keeping in mind the specific requirements of each of the treaty bodies. Harmonization should also focus on developing follow-up procedures, urgent procedures and non-reporting procedures, to be used by all treaty bodies.

In harmonising their working methods, it is important for the treaty bodies to select the most effective and innovative approaches utilized by individual Committees, rather than seeking to standardise only common denominators. For example, the treaty bodies should consider adopting the process for review of non-reporting States (see below) adopted by certain Committees, rather than simply decline to deal with the problem.

Responding to the problem of non-reporting by certain States
None of the proposals adequately addresses the problem of non-reporting. This will not be solved only by changes in reporting procedure, but will also require some sanctions for non-compliance. There should be a reinforced "non-reporting procedure" for all treaty bodies:

• In the first instance, all treaty bodies should adopt a procedure automatically scheduling, in forthcoming public sessions, a certain number of States with the longest record of overdue reports.
• As a medium-term goal, treaty bodies should seek to examine all State reports automatically, according to a calendar fixed in advance, replacing the current practice of States being scheduled for examination only after the presentation of their report. Such reform would require adaptation in the work of the treaty bodies, which would need to function in chambers. As a preliminary step towards that reform, the Secretariat should draw up a feasibility study, with an estimation of the increase in the workload for each treaty and considerations on how to respond to this additional workload.
• In cases involving persistent delays, further procedures should be explored - such as asking the Secretary-General (as depositor of treaties) to write to States that are behind in their reporting obligations, and sending a communication to all States parties to consider the suspension of the Member State's voting rights.

Additional recommendations
Further to the discussion initiated by the Secretary-General's proposals and in response to significant problems within the treaty body reporting process, the following three priorities should be pursued:

1. Strengthen technical cooperation
When a technical cooperation programme is developed and training takes place on how to fulfil reporting obligations under a treaty, the country concerned should automatically be examined in one of the next sessions of that treaty body. Technical cooperation should be developed to cover the process of reporting (e.g. how to gather information from various administrative bodies, which consultations should be held with civil society, how to obtain information within federal structures, etc.).

2. Strengthen follow-up
All treaty bodies should "institutionalise" a follow-up procedure, following the initiative taken by the Human Rights Committee and the Committee Against Torture. The OHCHR should mandate its field officers to monitor the follow-up of all treaty body recommendations, in consultation with governmental authorities, independent human rights NGOs, national institutions and international agencies.

3. Links to other monitoring processes
Links should be encouraged to other reporting processes undertaken by States parties, in particular national action plans in fulfilment of the Millennium Development Goals, poverty reduction strategies developed with the international financial institutions, submissions to human rights special procedure mechanisms and reports to the Counter-Terrorism Committee of the UN Security Council.

Notes
[1] Supported by: Amnesty International, Association for the Prevention of Torture (APT), Bahá'í International Community, Fédération Internationale des Ligues des Droits de l'Homme (FIDH), Human Rights Watch (HRW), International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), International Movement against all Forms of Discrimination and Racism (IMADR), International Service for Human Rights, International Women's Rights Action Watch Asia Pacific, NGO Group on the CRC, World Organization against Torture (OMCT)
[2] A/57/387 (9 September 2002)
[3] Ibid., para 54
[4] HRI/ICM/2003/3
[5] See the report on the Malbun meeting, HRI/ICM/2003/4

Back to top

This page was last updated on August 10, 2003

“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