OHCHR HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES DIVISION

Newsletter No. 24 / July - September 2014

L ast June, the Chairpersons of the ten human rights treaty bodies held their annual meeting, the first one

after the adoption of the landmark General Assembly resolution 68/268 on the strengthening of the treaty body system. In her video-message, the then High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, congratulated the Chairpersons for placing the treaty bodies on the map as a system during the intergovernmental process on treaty body strengthening. She welcomed the natural alliance between treaty bodies and her Office which, together, had accomplished what many had deemed impossible — the first successful strengthening of the human rights treaty bodies in 40 years, for the benefit of right-holders — and considered treaty body strengthening a key achievement of her tenure. The High Commissioner emphasized that the treaty bodies and OHCHR were different and independent actors. The General Assembly had made

this clear in its resolution 68/268 by conferring certain responsibilities on the treaty bodies and others on the OHCHR. She highlighted that the treaty bodies and the Office had aligned interests but distinct roles to play and that each would be judged separately in the Secretary-General’s biennial report to the Assembly. The High Commissioner therefore encouraged the Chairpersons to continue their leadership role.

The year 2015 is approaching fast and will bring change to our collective work. In less than three months, the treaty body system will enter a new era. In this new context, we will continue to do our outmost to provide the ten human rights expert committees and their stakeholders with the highest possible standard of professional support as we strongly believe we can all make a difference in improving human rights worldwide. This is part of our commitment as the UN's Human Rights Office.

Message from the Director

The treaty body system enters a new era

2

OHCHR - HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES DIVISION Newsletter No. 24 / July - September 2014

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EDITORIAL Message from the Director 1

HIGHLIGHT Chairpersons act on General Assembly encouragement to harmonize treaty body working methods

3

Informal consultation of Treaty Body Chairpersons with States 4

RECENT

DEVELOPMENTS

General discussion by the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women on the right to education

4

Calls on Human Rights Council to convene a special session on Iraq's human rights situation

5

Migrant domestic workers: How to protect the “least protected” 5

Children’s rights in a digital age 6

Celebrating 25th anniversary of the Convention on the Rights of the Child via Google Hangouts

6

Call for universal ratification of the Convention against Torture 7

You, in this room, are making a real difference to children’s live 7

Committee on Enforced Disappearances’ Urgent Action Procedure 8 INTERVIEW

Interview with Maurice Kamto, member of the UN international Law Commission

10

CAPACITY-

BUILDING

Treaty Body training to help the Government of Mali fulfil its reporting obligations

12

Gender and statistics: Pacific region civil servants learn importance of gender perspective in statistics for reporting to treaty bodies

12

Myanmar considers ratifying ICESCR, CAT and OPAC 13

SPT Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture visits Nicaragua 13

INTERVIEW Interview de Maurice Kamto, membre de la Commission du droit international de l’ONU

14

NEW

PUBLICATIONS

OHCHR publications 16

OTHERS Latest signatures, ratifications and accessions 17

Latest State Party reports received 19

Info on OHCHR Human Rights Treaties Division 21

Tools and links 22

3

OHCHR - HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES DIVISION

H armonizing the working methods of the Committees was top of the agenda for the 26

th annual meeting

of the Chairpersons of the 10 international human rights treaty bodies that took place in June 2014 in Geneva, just weeks after the General Assembly’s landmark resolution on treaty body strengthening.

The meeting, presided by Malcolm Evans, Chairperson of Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture, with Emmanuel Decaux, the Chairperson of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances, as Vice-Chairperson, specifically considered (1) the simplified reporting procedure; (2) the conduct of constructive dialogue; and (3) the format for concluding observations.

The meeting included, as usual, consultations with States, representatives of civil society and the International Coordinating Committee of national human rights institutions. The Chairpersons also discussed reprisals against individuals and groups cooperating with the treaty bodies.

The Chairpersons welcomed the encouragement given by the General Assembly to the treaty bodies in paragraph 38 of resolution 68/268 to enhance the Chairpersons’ role on procedural matters. This includes formulating conclusions on issues related to working methods, generalizing good practices and methodologies among all treaty bodies, ensuring coherence across the treaty bodies and standardizing working methods. They reiterated the decision taken at previous Chairpersons' meetings that the Chairpersons should adopt measures on working methods and procedural matters that are common across the treaty body system and have been discussed by each committee. Such measures should be implemented by all treaty bodies unless a committee subsequently dissociates itself from them.

On the simplified reporting procedure, the Chairpersons echoed the encouragement contained in article 1 of GA resolution 68/268 that treaty bodies which examine periodic reports should consider making such a procedure available after 1 January 2015. They also endorsed the view that treaty bodies might consider making a simplified process available for initial reports. Each treaty body ought to consider revising its existing reporting guidelines with a view to ensuring that States Parties are able to submit reports that conform to these guidelines and to the new word limits detailed in paragraph 16 of the treaty body strengthening resolution.

The Chairpersons also recommended the alignment of existing practices for the constructive dialogue and the format of concluding observations. They endorsed a standard guidance note on the constructive dialogue between the State party and a treaty body as well as a standard framework for concluding observations, noting the need for each treaty body to be able to exercise flexibility in the application of these models to meet specific needs.

On reprisals against individuals and groups cooperating with the treaty bodies, the Chairpersons invited all treaty bodies which have not yet done so to establish a Rapporteur on reprisals to take the necessary steps to prevent, protect against, investigate and pursue accountability of acts of intimidation or reprisals. They also decided to develop and adopt a joint treaty body policy against reprisals at their 27

th meeting in June

2015 and to include reprisals as a standing item on the agenda of the annual Chairpersons’ meeting. At their 25

th annual meeting, the Chairpersons had already

decided to include late and non-reporting by States parties as a standing item on the annual agenda.

At next year's annual meeting, the Chairpersons will consider, in addition to any follow-up to this year’s meeting:

A common policy by the treaty body system on intimidation and reprisals;

The possible alignment of the consultation process for the elaboration of general comments;

Late and non-reporting by States parties;

The Post-2015 Development Agenda;

Capacity-building and technical cooperation in light of GA resolution 68/268.

In closing, the Chairpersons recommended that the annual Chairpersons’ meeting rotate between Geneva, New York and the regions.

For the full report of the 26th meeting of Chairpersons,

please click here.

More information about the Chairpersons' activities is available on the following webpage http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/AnnualMeeting/Pages/MeetingChairpersons.aspx

Chairpersons act on General Assembly encouragement to harmonize treaty body working methods

OHCHR - HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES DIVISION Newsletter No. 24 / July - September 2014

Soledad Cisternas Reyes (CRPD), Nigel Rodley (HRCttee), Nicole Ameline (CEDAW), Zdzislaw Kedzia (CESCR), Kirsten Sandberg (CRC), Emmanuel Decaux (CED), Malcolm Evans (SPT), Francisco Carrion Mena (CMW), Felice Gaer (Vice-Chair of CAT), Jose Francisco Calitzay (CERD) (not on the picture), at the 26th Meeting of Chairpersons, Geneva, June 2014 © OHCHR/Danielle Kirby

4

OHCHR - HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES DIVISION

D uring their annual meeting, per usual practice, the Chairpersons of the 10 treaty bodies held informal

consultations with States.

Malcolm Evans, Chairperson of the annual meeting, opened the meeting and welcomed the opportunity for a renewed partnership with States. He expressed support for the implementation by all actors of General Assembly resolution 68/268 on treaty body strengthening. He welcomed in particular the additional meeting time to reduce the backlog in the consideration of State party reports and individual communications.

The other Chairpersons of treaty bodies presented the perspectives of their respective committees with regards to the resolution, underscoring that it respects the independence and impartiality of treaty bodies and their members, and pointed to the specificities of individual treaties. Overall, they expressed their readiness to harmonize the committees’ working methods, on the basis of good practices, and to make their procedures more efficient, taking into account the distinct nature of each treaty and treaty body. Specifically, the Chairpersons saw the resolution as an instrument to enhance the protection of human rights and to simplify the work of States parties

when drafting the reports, including through the newly approved capacity-building programme. Increased visibility, strengthened implementation of the treaties and enhanced capacity of national protection systems were identified as joint objectives.

States present at the meeting considered the adoption of resolution 68/268 by the General Assembly a milestone since it reinvigorated the treaty body system and placed it on the map. Expeditious implementation of its provisions was considered essential to achieve strengthened protection on the ground. States also called for a reduction of the backlog, the harmonization of working methods, in particular the generalization of the simplified reporting procedure, the increased use of technology such as videoconferencing and webcasting, and enhanced technical assistance to States parties.

While several States stressed the distinct responsibilities of treaty bodies, States parties and OHCHR in the implementation of the resolution on treaty body strengthening, they considered the implementation of the resolution a matter of priority. Some delegations inquired about ways in which the role of the Chairpersons of treaty

bodies could be strengthened.

States call for expeditious implementation by treaty bodies of GA resolution on treaty body strengthening

Informal consultation of Treaty Body Chairpersons with States

OHCHR - HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES DIVISION Newsletter No. 24 / July - September 2014

I n recent decades, huge strides have

been made in boosting girls' attendance at school and enabling them to match the educational achieve-ment of boys. Howev-er, disparities persist, particularly in the more disadvantaged regions of the world. UNICEF estimates that in 2011 girls made up more than half of the 57 million children of

primary school age out of school.

On 7 July 2014, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) held a half-day discussion on the right of girls and women to education. The discussion, organized by OHCHR with the support from UNICEF and UNESCO, was the first step toward drafting a General Recommendation aimed at supporting efforts by governments to bridge the remaining gaps that prevent girls from going to school and achieving the same career outcomes as boys.

UN Human Rights Chief (at the time), Navi Pillay, speaking at a gathering on girls’ right to education, welcomed improvements made in providing in access to education, but highlighted the shocking inequalities in a number of States and regions.

“Women are still under-employed, underpaid and otherwise undermined – in fields ranging from their personal autonomy to participation in politics, their unequal domestic burdens and the far greater violence that they endure,” Navi. Pillay said.

The continuing disparity between sexes shows how existing education systems have not addressed the strategic needs of girls and women. This issue will be a major focus of CEDAW's General Recommendation on the right to education, which is being drafted in accordance with article 10 of the CEDAW Convention.

The expert speakers at the discussion considered the legal frameworks for girls' and women's right to education and relevant jurisprudence; the gaps between legal and policy measures; and strategies to enhance access to employment and political participation through adequate education.

The CEDAW Committee intends to adopt its General Recommendation on the right to education by December 2016.

Women attending the classes at Abu

Shouk Internally Displaced Persons (IDP)

Camp's Women Center, in North Darfur,

Sudan © UN Photo/Albert Gonzalez

Farran

General discussion by the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women on the right to education

"Education unlocks the door to all other rights"

5

OHCHR - HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES DIVISION

T he Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), using information and

testimonies from multiple sources, activated its early warning and urgent action procedures at its 85

th session

by adopting a decision in the context of the periodic review of Iraq.

Specifically, the Committee requested the Human Rights Council to convene a special session on the human rights situation in Iraq to consider establishing a commission of inquiry to examine the causes of the conflict, the origins and actions of the “Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant and associated groups” (ISIL), and the forces and problems involved. The commission of inquiry would present its findings and recommendations to the Council, including ways to prosecute and punish those responsible for crimes against humanity. The Committee also urged the UN Secretary-General to request the Security Council to approve and deploy a UN peace force as a temporary emergency measure, in order to create a safe zone in the plain of Niniveh.

Shortly after the CERD's decision, the Human Rights Council, on 1 September 2014, convened a special session on the human rights situation in Iraq and adopted a resolution which condemned, in the strongest possible terms, the systematic violations and

abuses of human rights and violations of international humanitarian law resulting from the terrorist acts committed by ISIL. The Council urged all relevant parties to take action to protect civilians, in particular women and children, and to ensure respect for their rights. The Council also requested the High Commissioner for Human Rights to build the capacity of the Government of Iraq to protect and promote human rights and to dispatch a mission to Iraq to investigate alleged violations and abuses of international human rights law committed by ISIL, to establish the facts and circumstances of such abuses and violations, with a view to avoiding impunity and ensuring full accountability and to report back to the Council at its 28

th session on the implementation of the resolution.

CERD created early warning measures and urgent action procedures in 1993. Early warning measures seek to prevent problems from escalating into conflict and may include confidence-building steps to strengthen and reinforce racial tolerance, particularly to stop the resumption of conflict where it has previously occurred. Urgent action procedures allow the Committee to respond to situations which require immediate attention in order to prevent or limit serious violations of the Convention.

Calls on Human Rights Council to convene a special session on Iraq's human rights situation

Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination uses early warning and urgent action procedure for Iraq

OHCHR - HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES DIVISION Newsletter No. 24 / July - September 2014

Migrant domestic workers: How to protect the “least protected”

“M igrant domestic workers are among the most unprotected in the labour force due to the

isolated nature of their work and their dependence on their employers,” Pablo Ceriani from the Committee on Migrant Workers told a panel discussion on Decent Work for Migrant Domestic Workers held on 4 September in Geneva. The event organized by OHCHR and the International Labour Organization (ILO) brought together national and international experts.

Domestic migrant workers were often excluded from national labour protection laws and overlooked by public services, said Ceriani, who called on all States to ratify the Convention on Migrant Workers and their Families (CMW) to enhance the protection of migrant workers worldwide.

Michelle Leighton, Chief of Labour Migration Branch of ILO, said changing public perceptions and attitudes towards migrant domestic workers was essential if their labour rights were to be improved. She also said the ILO 189 Domestic Workers Convention was a relevant

instrument for assessing the minimum standards of protection for such workers, and was complementary to the broader CMW framework.

Trade union and civil society representatives shared good practices that have helped to protect the rights of migrant domestic workers around the world. One example was the adoption of a Code of Conduct for Recruitment Agencies for Domestic Workers in Lebanon, initiated by ILO and OHCHR’s field presence in Beirut.

More initiatives are planned by OHCHR and ILO to raise awareness about the need to better protect labour rights of migrant domestic workers. One that is expected to galvanize international attention and support is the Global Action Programme on Domestic Workers and their Families which will involve representatives from trade unions and workers, employers, civil society, academics and other stakeholders.

6

OHCHR - HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES DIVISION

OHCHR - HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES DIVISION Newsletter No. 24 / July - September 2014

Children's rights in the digital age

Over 170 people participate in the Committee on the Rights of the Child's Discussion Day on Digital media and children’s rights

O n 12 September 2014, the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) held a Day of General

Discussion (DGD) on digital media and children’s rights in Geneva to gain a deeper understanding of children’s use of digital media and make more specific recommendations to States parties to the Convention. Over 170 participants from governments, NGOs, academia, national human rights institutions, and UN agencies attended the discussion day. Children were invited to share their opinions and experiences via Twitter and Facebook during the event.

Kirsten Sandberg, Chairperson of the CRC, said it was precisely because information and communication technologies (ICT) and social media were an increasing part of children's lives that the Committee had chosen this issue for discussion and reflection. “Digital media

provide children with vast opportunities to learn, participate, play, work and socialise,” she told participants. “At the same time we must acknowledge that online interaction may expose children to new forms of harm that have to be tackled. The balance between empowerment and protection has to be found,” she said.

Key issues identified during the discussion include access to ICT for different groups of children, digital literacy, safety concerns, cooperation between various actors, including the private sector, and data collection. The Committee plans to issue a report with concrete recommendations that will guide States parties to improve children's equal and safe access to digital media and ICT.

Celebrating 25th

anniversary of the Convention on the Rights of the Child via Google+ Hangouts

O HCHR held four Google+ Hangout sessions to mark the 25th anniversary

of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Children from 14 different countries (Australia, Belgium, Dominican Republic, Gambia, Japan, Lebanon, Nepal, Peru, Philippines, Tanzania, Tunisia, Turkey, Uruguay and Yemen) participated in the dialogue, discussing children's rights in their countries with members of the Committee on the Rights of the Child.

During the sessions, viewers were prompted to take part in the conversation via Twitter, Google+ and Facebook, by sending in their questions and comments.

The Hangout sessions can be replayed by clicking on the following links:

Session 1 (in English): http://sm.ohchr.org/CRC25session1

Session 2 (in Arabic): http://sm.ohchr.org/CRC25session2

Session 3 (in English): http://sm.ohchr.org/CRC25session3

Session 4 (in Spanish): http://sm.ohchr.org/CRC25session4

The four sessions combined registered 1,004 views. The first session attracted most viewers (442 views) and the fourth session had the highest average views duration (10 minutes). Most viewers (15%) were watching from Switzerland.

7

OHCHR - HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES DIVISION

OHCHR - HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES DIVISION Newsletter No. 24 / July - September 2014

T o date, the Convention against Torture has been ratified by 156 States. In March 2014, the

Governments of Chile, Denmark, Ghana, Indonesia and Morocco marked the Convention's 30

th anniversary by

launching a global initiative for the universal ratification and implementation of the Convention against Torture (CAT): the Convention against Torture Initiative 2014-2024 (CTI). The CTI aims to help States overcome obstacles to ratifying and implementing the Convention through technical support and State-to-State cooperation. The Association for the Prevention of Torture (APT) was designated to support the initiative.

The first CTI Annual Forum was held in September 2014 in Switzerland and brought together high-level

representatives of 18 governments from different regions, who discussed ways of overcoming barriers to ratification.

“We must reinvigorate our collective efforts to combat torture and ill-treatment and achieving universal ratification of the Convention is an important step in doing so,” said Flavia Pansieri, Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, in her keynote speech to the Forum, which saw the participation of Claudio Grossman, Chair of the Committee against Torture, Malcolm Evans, Chair of the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and Juan Mendez, Special Rapporteur on Torture.

A provisional global survey of States' compliance with CAT obligations, undertaken by the APT and the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims (IRCT), was presented at the Forum to facilitate discussions. The study provides an overview of the implementation of CAT by States parties. It analyses national reports to the Committee against Torture and the concluding observations of the Committee based on 13 indicators covering a range of obligations deriving from the Convention.

In closing, participants confirmed the value of the CTI and discussed strategies to move it forward. Following the Forum, the five core group member countries of the Initiative briefed the Human Rights Council at its 27

th

session. CTI plans to organize a high-level meeting in New York during the 69

th session of the UN General

Assembly.

Call for universal ratification of the Convention against Torture

First annual forum of the Convention against Torture Initiative 2014-2024

Government representatives and UN experts at the CTI Forum © APT

“You, in this room, are making a real difference to children’s lives.”

Child Helpline International reviews 10 years of the Committee on the Rights of the Child recommendations on Children’s Right to be Heard

C oncluding observations are not just words on

paper, they make a real difference to people's lives. That was the message brought to Geneva by international NGO, Child

Helpline International (CHI), which reviewed 10 years of CRC recommendations by the Committee on the Rights of the Child. The CHI report, launched on 8 September 2014 in Palais Wilson, analyses the impact of the CRC's recommendations on the establishment and strengthening of national child helplines in 129 countries.

The report describes the correlation between references to a child helpline in the Concluding Observations and the creation or improvement of helpline services for children, while acknowledging that other factors, such as political and financial and technical resources, also play

a role. According to the report, if a child helpline was mentioned in the CRC's Concluding Observations, it took on average 2.5 years for services to be installed or scaled up. Without a reference in the Concluding Observations, it took on average 3.4 years. Child helplines are crucial access points for national child protection services, such as intervention and rescue, so this difference can have profound long-term effects on the lives of children and young people.

CHI Executive Director Nenita La Rose presented the report to CRC members, congratulating them on the effect their work was having on the ground. “You, in this room, are making a real change in children’s lives out there,” she said.

CHI has submitted 181 NGO reports to the CRC since 2004, advocating for nation-wide helplines services for children.

8

OHCHR - HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES DIVISION Newsletter No. 24 / July - September 2014

Committee on Enforced Disappearances’ Urgent Action Procedure

CED member Rainer Huhle, on why the procedure is an innovative and key tool for helping victims and their families

W hat is the urgent action procedure of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances (CED)

and how important is it?

The urgent action Procedure is one of the most innovative elements included by article 30 of the Convention on Enforced Disappearances, the most recent human rights treaty. Its aim, put simply, is to help to locate a disappeared person; hence it has a humanitarian purpose. It can be initiated by the family of the disappeared person or their legal representatives, their counsel or any person authorized by them, as well as by any other person having a legitimate interest. There are no precedents of such procedure in other treaty bodies.

The only conditions for admission are that the disap-pearance occurred after the Convention came into force in the State party, that sufficient information is provided for the Committee to act upon, and that the case has been presented to a competent body of the State Party, where such a possibility exists. This does not mean that domestic remedies must have been exhausted, but simply that the authorities must have been informed of the referred disappearance.

What is the timeframe for the procedure?

As its name suggests, urgency is key. The Committee therefore acts as quickly as possible. Usually, it sends a letter to the State party concerned within 24 hours after having received the request. The Committee asks the State party to take immediate action to locate the disappeared person.

The State party’s reply is shared with the authors of the urgent action request, so that they can comment and give their view on the situation. The authors’ comments allow the Committee to further analyse the situation and to make recommendations to the State on the development of the case, and on the situation of the persons involved.

To date, States parties have been very cooperative. But when a State does not reply, the Committee can request a meeting with the Permanent Representative of the State in Geneva. And if a State party does not cooperate with the procedure, this is mentionned in the Committee’s report to the General Assembly.

How many cases have been submitted to CED under the urgent action procedure?

So far, the Committee has received 29 requests for urgent action, 17 of which have been registered and activated. In all these cases, the Committee is in permanent contact with the State party concerned. The others were not admissible as they related to enforced disappearances that occurred in States that are not parties to the Convention.

Article 30 of the Convention allows the Committee to request the State party to take all the necessary measures, including interim measures, to locate and protect the person concerned. How does it work and what kind of interim measures can the Committee request from the State party? The Committee can request the State party to provide the protective and interim measures that are necessary to locate and protect the person. This means that measures are requested so that the disappeared person is located, but also that she or he is not subjected to torture or mistreatment for example.

Protective and interim measures can also be requested to protect the complainant, witnesses, the family of the disappeared person or their counsel, or any person participating in the investigation. Often, the family of disappeared persons receive threats and pressure that discourage them from going on with their research and action. The interim and protection measures are requested by the Committee to protect them from such acts, to enable the persons to continue with their action to find out what has happened to the disappeared

Rainer Huhle, CED Member © OHCHR/Danielle Kirby

9

OHCHR - HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES DIVISION Newsletter No. 24 / July - September 2014

person. The protection depends on what the State party will propose. But the Committee is here to ensure that these measures are indeed adopted, and it maintains permanent contact with the State party to check on what has been put in place to protect those in need, such as police protection, or relocation, etc. Such measures can also concern a place, an object, a grave, or any other element which could be necessary to locate the disappeared person. For example, there could be a threat that a grave or a place of detention shall be affected, where the disappeared person could be located. Interim measures could be requested by the Committee to protect such places.

Since March this year, the Committee has adopted a new format for the submission of urgent action requests. Could you tell us about this?

The main purpose of the new format is to facilitate the submission of urgent action requests. It clarifies the conditions of admissibility of urgent action requests and lists the information the Committee needs to register and activate the urgent action procedure.

The new format was designed taking into account comments, questions and the experience of those engaged in the procedure - whether States parties, victims or authors of urgent action requests. The format may need further modification in the future to evolve with changing needs and circumstances.

I would like to add that the format is not compulsory: a simple written communication can be sufficient to submit an urgent action request, as long as it has all the necessary information. The format is only a guidance tool. We must not forget that the aim of the procedure is to locate the disappeared person, and that the information provided as to her or his characteristics and as to the circumstances of the disappearance is important for the investigation and, we all hope, to locate her or him.

I want to highlight that the Committee manages the procedure in a very transparent manner. The information and answers provided to the Committee are shared with all parties, always in a way that makes it possible to keep the identity of the author strictly confidential, unless the author prefers otherwise.

Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to express the Committee’s appreciation for civil society organizations around the world for their support and collaboration, for providing information to us, and assisting the victims. The information they provide on the procedure and on how to use it is fundamental for the procedure to work. I also want to acknowledge the vital role of OHCHR staff both in the field and at headquarters for the work of the Committee.

10

OHCHR - HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES DIVISION

OHCHR - HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES DIVISION Newsletter No. 24 / July - September 2014

A t its 64th session in August 2014, the UN

International Law Commission (ILC) adopted the draft articles on ‘the expulsion of aliens’ for the purpose of codification and the progressive development of international law. The ILC has worked on the topic for nine years under the rapporteurship of Maurice Kamto. The ILC decided to recommend to the General Assembly to: a) take note of the draft articles on the expulsion of aliens in a resolution and to encourage their widest possible dissemination; b) to consider, at a later stage, the elaboration of a Convention on the basis of the draft articles. The draft articles on the expulsion of aliens address the human rights of a person subject to expulsion during the entire process. During the drafting process, the ILC paid tribute to the work of the Treaty bodies. Indeed, the positions of the Human Rights Committee, the Committee against Torture and the Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination are widely reflected, enhancing treaty bodies’ interpretative authority and visibility.

To date, the UN International Law Commission has worked on codification and the progressive development of international law. Now, the Commission decided to approach the procedural and substantial aspects of human rights protection of foreigners being expelled. How did this project come about, what prompted the Commission to include it in its agenda, and why did you agree to serve as a Special Rapporteur on this matter?

Back in 1949, Sir Hersch Lauterpacht already mentioned the expulsion of foreigners and stateless persons in his Study of International Law, expressing the view that arbitration practice had sufficiently clarified the law in this area.

Only in 1998, at its 50th

session, did the International Law Commission consider “The law related to the expulsion of foreigners” as a possible item on its agenda, thereby following a suggestion by its Planning Committee.

At its 52nd

session (2000), the Commission included the subject “Law related to the expulsion of foreigners” in its long-term work program. The General Assembly, in resolution 55/152 (12 December 2000), took note of this inclusion.

On 6 August 2004, at its 56th session, the Commission

decided to include the topic “Expulsion of foreigners” in its ongoing work program and appointed me as Special Rapporteur, a decision approved by the General Assembly in resolution 59/41(2 December 2004).

I accepted the honor of this appointment without hesitation. The expulsion of foreigners is not only a very topical matter, but a major subject of international law on the crossroads of traditional inter-State relations and the more recent imperative of human rights protection.

As Special Rapporteur on this subject which is present in jurisprudence as well as in doctrine at least since the late XIX

th century, I look forward to contributing to the

development of international law.

What are the main provisions of the draft articles, and how do they relate to the protection of human rights?

The 31 draft articles strike a delicate balance between the rights of the State and the rights of the foreigner facing expulsion. They balance the preservation of State sovereignty with the human rights protection of the foreigner concerned, whether he or she is legally or

Interview with Professor Maurice Kamto, Member of the UN International Law Commission

“The expulsion of foreigners is not only a very topical issue, but also a major topic of international law, at the crossroads of inter-state relations

and human rights protection”

© OHCHR/Danielle Kirby

11

OHCHR - HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES DIVISION

OHCHR - HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES DIVISION Newsletter No. 24 / July - September 2014

illegally on the evicting State’s territory.

While the right to expel persons from the State is confirmed, it is subjected to certain conditions of substance and form, as well as to limitations arising from the protection of the rights of foreigners facing expulsion.

Taking into account the sensitivity of the subject, what are the main challenges you encountered in your work, in legal terms and at a procedural level, and in particular in your engagement with State representatives in the 6

th Commission of the

General Assembly?

In general, unlike some other issues that the Commission has addressed, there was no scarcity of State practice, with the exception maybe of two or three provisions for which there was little practice.

In fact, there is abundant State practice on the matter. For example, a large part of the case law used to legislate State liability for internationally wrongful acts related to cases of expulsion of foreigners for which there is abundant jurisprudence and a resolution of the International Law Institute since the late XIXth century.

The difficulty was mostly to analyze this vast quantity of material and an abundant doctrine, and to extract a coherent practice and trends from it.

Most striking was the reluctance of some States in the 6

th Commission of the General Assembly to the

legislation and progressive development of international law on this matter. However, this reluctance evaporated once States saw the totality of the draft articles adopted by the Commission in its first reading.

In any case, we further refined the draft articles to take into account States’ observations and suggestions on the text adopted at its first reading. While it is hard to satisfy each State individually, we tried hard to address their concerns within the limitations of what is technically possible under existing international law ̶ all of this because we believe that the Commission is there to serve States.

Human rights treaty bodies, in particular the Human Rights Committee and the Committee against Torture, have produced ample material on the subject, both through statements and general comments, which you cited in the draft articles. What do you believe will be the impact of this material? Do you see it as a recognition of the work of the human rights treaty bodies and their authority when it comes to the interpretation and implementation of the treaties they monitor?

It seemed natural for me to refer to the treaty bodies’ jurisprudence and I did not consider how this would impact the draft articles, since that question did not arise within the Commission. Treaty bodies are established by States Parties with a mandate to interpret the respective treaties. It seems to me that the interpretation of treaty provisions by treaty bodies can be considered an authentic interpretation, because in a

way States parties express themselves through the treaty bodies.

Therefore, it makes sense to pay careful attention to what treaty bodies are saying on this subject. Incidentally, I believe that our references to this jurisprudence may contribute to strengthening the authority of treaty body “jurisprudence”. Conversely, the inclusion of these references may facilitate the acceptance of our work by State parties.

Ultimately, I also see in our effort a way for the Commission to contribute to the overall strengthening of the UN’s international human rights law system.

Which provisions are legislative in nature and which concern the progressive development of international law?

Under its mandate, the Commission’s mission is to codify and to progressively develop international law. Sometimes, the customary nature of certain rules is so established that there can be no doubt in saying that they fall in the category of codification. But the distinction between codification and progressive development is not always so clear-cut. Therefore, the Commission only rarely indicates which provisions qualify as codification and which ones qualify as progressive development of international law as both aspects fall within its mandate. We have strived to identify the rules which in our view would constitute the applicable law to foreigners’ expulsion under international law today.

What will happen after the final adoption of the draft articles by the Commission and their referral to the General Assembly? Should we expect a new convention?

By adopting the draft articles and their commentary on the expulsion of foreigners at its second reading, the Commission has fulfilled its mission. The Commission can be proud of its outstanding contribution to one of the important aspects of contemporary international law, especially as it concretely affects people’s lives in a world where international migration is becoming a massive phenomenon that is likely to last. From there, it is up to States to play their role in the General Assembly. The ultimate decision is theirs only.

The original interview in French can be read on page 14.

Maurice Kamto is a professor of international

law from Cameroon. He is the former Chair and

member of the UN International Law

Commission. He is also a member of the Institut

de droit international. Maurice Kamto has been

designated as Counsel for States in international

litigation, in particular before the International

Court of Justice. He has published widely on

international law.

12

OHCHR - HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES DIVISION

OHCHR - HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES DIVISION Newsletter No. 24 / July - September 2014

Treaty Body training to assist the Government of Mali fulfil its reporting obligations

M ali has ratified all nine core international human rights treaties and two optional protocols with a

reporting procedure. As at 15 September 2014, Mali had 10 overdue reports to the treaty bodies, including 6 initial reports and 4 periodic reports

Improving Mali’s preparation and submission of reports to the Treaty Bodies was therefore the focus of a workshop in Bamako in August jointly run by the Human Rights Division of MINUSMA (HRD-MINUSMA) and the Human Rights Treaties Division of OHCHR.

The training, organised at the request of the Government of Mali, was attended by members of the country’s Inter-ministerial Committee for treaty body re-porting (Comité interministériel d’appui à l’élaboration des rapports initiaux et périodiques de mise en œuvre des conventions ratifiées par le Mali (CIMERAP)). Civil

society representatives also participated and there were observers from local donors and the UN Country Team.

“This workshop is a proof of the determination of the Malian government to fulfil its international obligations,” said Malick Coulibaly, the Minister of Justice, at the opening of the workshop.

CESCR member Virginia Bras Gomes facilitated the workshop from 4 to 6 August together with OHCHR staff to help CIMERAP to prepare and submit long overdue reports. The event was a useful forum for civil servants and other participants to discuss the challenges in relation to treaty body reporting. Tools and methodologies were presented to strengthen the inter-ministerial committee and to prepare reports.

At the end of the workshop, participants adopted an action plan with recommendations for the Government. They called on the Government to prioritize treaty body reporting as a means to improve the human rights situation in Mali and requested additional resources for the Inter-Ministerial Committee. It was also recom-mended that a National Human Rights Commission be established in conformity with the Paris Principles. MINUSMA was asked to continue to support the action plan and monitor its implementation.

Link to Youtube video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2mG2z9OtSA

Gender and statistics: Pacific region civil servants learn importance of gender perspective in statistics for reporting to treaty bodies

H ow to integrate a gender perspective into statistical analysis and human rights reporting was the focus

of a regional workshop in Fiji in August organized by the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) in cooperation with the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat (PIFS), the Asia Development Bank (ADB) and the United Nations Statistics Division (UNSD).

Some 70 officials took part, the majority from National Statistics Offices (NSO) and Ministries in charge of treaty body reporting and promoting gender equality in the region. Participants learned how to integrate a gender perspective into national statistical systems. The importance of collecting gender-specific data to foster the development of policies and programs to advance gender equality and facilitate reporting by States in the region to the UN human rights treaty bodies was also stressed.

Participants said the main challenges they faced were the lack of coordination and communication between Ministries and national statistics offices, and limited

access to data (particularly on-line). They called for their national statistics systems to be strengthened. Participants also stressed the need to improve public officials' knowledge of the UN treaty body system. Given the high turnover of officials in charge of treaty body reporting, it had proved challenging to build institutional knowledge and experience. Participants urged governments to set up national reporting and coordination mechanisms to ensure that accumulated expertise was preserved and continuity was ensured.

You can learn more about these topics in the following publications:

UN Gender Statistics Manual: Integrating a Gender Perspective into Statistics

13

OHCHR - HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES DIVISION Newsletter No. 24 / July - September 2014

Myanmar considers ratifying ICESCR, CAT and OPAC

T o date, Myanmar has ratified three

out of nine core international human rights treaties: the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), the

Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and its Optional Protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography (OPSC).

In July 2014, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Myanmar, in collaboration with OHCHR’s Regional Office for South-East Asia, organized a workshop in the capital, Nay Pyi Taw, to explore the ratification of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) and the Optional Protocol to the CRC on the involvement of children in armed conflict (OPAC).

The workshop was opened by the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and brought together representatives of all relevant ministries, the Attorney General’s Office and the Presidential legal and political advisers as well as parliamentarians and the Myanmar National Human Rights Commission (MNHRC). Representatives of UN agencies and NGOs, including Amnesty International and Child Soldiers International also attended the

workshop. Virginia Dandan, a former Chair of the

Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) participated as a resource person and guided the discussions throughout the workshop.

Participants looked at concrete steps necessary prior to ratifying the treaties, such as the review of domestic legislation, policies and programmes. They also considered the implementation of the treaties and monitoring of progress, as well as reporting obligations

and complaints procedures. During the discussion, participants acknowledged that the workshop was instrumental to advance technical cooperation between the Government and OHCHR. They stressed the need for further technical assistance to get the treaties ratified and implemented.

T he Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture

(SPT) urged the Government of Nicaragua to take steps to improve conditions of detention in the country at the end of its first regular visit to the country in May 2014.

“The situation of persons deprived of their liberty in Nicaragua is extremely worrying,” said Enrique Font, who headed the four strong SPT delegation. “We trust that our findings

and recommendations will be used by the Government of Nicaragua to eliminate any form of ill-treatment in places of deprivation of liberty and to improve conditions of detention.”

During their visit, the SPT members visited places of deprivation of liberty, including police stations, prisons, juvenile detention facilities and migrant detention centres. They also interviewed prison and police staff as well as persons deprived of their liberty and their families, in a private and confidential manner.

The SPT conducted its visits together with representatives of Nicaragua’s national human rights institution, Procuraduría para la Defensa de los Derechos Humanos

(PDDH), which is the designated national preventive mechanism for the prevention of torture.

"The Procuraduria para la Defensa de los Derechos Humanos should play an active role in the prevention of torture and ill-treatment of persons deprived of their liberty through periodic visits to places where people are detained, followed by recommendations to the authorities that must be monitored,” said Mr Font. “It is also important that the PDDH monitors that no reprisals are taken against persons deprived of their liberty after their interviews with us.”

At the end of the visit the delegation members met President Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua. They briefed the President and stressed how important it was for the Nicaraguan authorities to make the SPT’s report of its visit public.

In accordance with the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (OPCAT), the SPT will send a confidential final report to the Government of Nicaragua. The State party can request the publication of the report, which promotes transparency and will allow the State party to request financial resources to fulfil the recommendations made by the SPT, by accessing the Special Fund created for this purpose.

Nicaragua ratified the OPCAT in 2009 and designated the Procuraduría para la Defensa de los Derechos Humanos (PDDH) as a national preventive mechanism (NPM) in January 2012.

SPT delegation with Ombudsperson, Omar Cabezas during NPM capacity-building sessions (from the left: Hans Petersen, Enrique Font, Judith Salgado and Emilio Gines) © OHCHR

Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture visits Nicaragua

14

OHCHR - HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES DIVISION

L ors de sa 64ème

session, en août 2014, la Commission du droit international de l’ONU (CDI) a

adopté le projet d’articles sur « l'expulsion des étrangers » aux fins de la codification et le développement progressif du droit international. La CDI a travaillé sur le sujet pendant neuf ans sous l’égide de son rapporteur Maurice Kamto. La CDI a décidé de recommander à l'Assemblée générale: a) de prendre note du projet d'articles sur l'expulsion des étrangers dans une résolution et d’encourager la diffusion la plus large possible; b) d'examiner, à un stade ultérieur, l’élaboration d'une convention sur la base du projet d'articles. Les projets d'articles sur l’expulsion des étrangers portent sur les droits fondamentaux d’une personne faisant l'objet d’une expulsion durant tout le processus. Au cours du processus de rédaction, la CDI a rendu hommage au travail des organes de traités. En effet, les positions du Comité des droits de l’homme, du Comité contre la torture et du Comité pour l’élimination de la discrimination raciale sont largement reflétées, renforçant l’autorité interprétative et la visibilité des organes de traités.

La Commission du droit international de l’ONU a jusque-là travaillé sur la codification et le développement progressif du droit international général. Là, avec le sujet sur l’expulsion des étrangers, la Commission a décidé de toucher à la protection des droits de l’homme en substance et en procédure de la personne expulsée. Pouvez-vous nous parler de la genèse de ce projet, ce qui a décidé la Commission à l’inscrire à son agenda et pourquoiavez-vous accepté d’en être le Rapporteur spécial ?

C’est en 1949 déjà que Sir Hersch Lauterpacht mentionna dans son Etude du droit international en vue de sa codification le droit relatif à l’expulsion des étrangers et des apatrides, estimant que la pratique arbitrale avait suffisamment éclairci le droit en la matière pour qu’une telle tentative soit possible.

Il a fallu attendre 1998 pour qu’à sa 50e session, la

Commission du droit international prenne note du rapport du Groupe de planification identifiant, entre autres, le sujet « Droit relatif à l’expulsion des étrangers » comme pouvant figurer au programme de travail à long terme de la Commission.

À sa 52e session, en 2000, la Commission a inscrit le

sujet intitulé « Le droit relatif à l’expulsion des étrangers » à son programme de travail à long terme. L’Assemblée générale a pris note de cette inscription

dans sa résolution 55/152 du 12 décembre 2000. À sa 56

e session, la Commission a décidé, le 6 août 2004,

d’inscrire le sujet « Expulsion des étrangers » à son programme de travail en cours, et m’a nommé Rapporteur spécial pour ce sujet. L’Assemblée générale a approuvé cette décision de la Commission dans sa résolution 59/41 du 2 décembre 2004.

J’ai ressenti cette désignation comme un grand honneur, ce d’autant plus que je fus proposé à cette fonction en mon absence. Je l’ai donc acceptée sans hésitation. L’expulsion des étrangers est non seulement une question très actuelle, mais encore un des grands sujets du droit international classique, mêlant les questions des rapports interétatiques et la problématique plus contemporaine de la protection des droits de la personne humaine. Il m’a semblé qu’en exerçant les fonctions de Rapporteur spécial sur ce sujet qui est présent dans la jurisprudence et doctrine au moins depuis la fin du XIX

e

siècle, il y avait là une belle occasion d’apporter une contribution significative au développement du droit international.

Quelles sont les dispositions principales de ce projet d'articles ? Quelle incidence dans la protection des droits de l'homme ?

Le projet d’articles qui compte 31 articles au total repose sur un équilibre patiemment construit entre les droits de l’État et ceux de l’étranger objet d’expulsion, entre la nécessaire préservation de la souveraineté de l’État expulsant et l’impératif de la protection des droits de la personne humaine de l’étranger concerné, qu’il se trouve légalement ou illégalement sur le territoire de l’État expulsant.

C’est ainsi qu’alors que le droit d’expulser de l’État est expressément affirmé, il est tout aussi clairement indiqué que l’exercice de ce droit est soumis à certaines conditions de fond et de procédure ainsi qu’à des limites qu’imposent la protection des droits des étrangers objet d’expulsion.

Le sujet étant sensible, quelles sont les principales difficultés que vous avez rencontrées lors de votre travail de rédaction, d’abord sur le plan juridique et sur le plan processuel, en particulier de la part des États à la 6

e Commission ?

Contrairement à certains sujets que la Commission a eu à traiter, de manière générale on n’a pas été confronté à la rareté de la pratique des États, à l’exception près de deux ou trois dispositions pour lesquelles cette pratique n’était pas abondante. Dans certains cas même c’était plutôt l’abondance. Je rappelle qu’une bonne partie de

Interview de Maurice Kamto, Membre de la Commission du droit international de l’ONU

« L’expulsion des étrangers est non seulement une question très actuelle, mais encore un des grands sujets du droit international, à l’intersection des

questions interétatiques et des droits de l’homme. »

OHCHR - HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES DIVISION Newsletter No. 24 / July - September 2014

15

OHCHR - HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES DIVISION

OHCHR - HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES DIVISION Newsletter No. 24 / July - September 2014

la jurisprudence qui a servi à la codification du droit de la responsabilité de l’État pour fait internationalement illicite était relative à des affaires d’expulsion des étrangers pour lesquelles il existe une abondante jurisprudence arbitrale et une résolution de l’Institut de droit international depuis la fin du XIX

e siècle. La

difficulté consistait plus souvent à analyser cette masse importante de matériau à laquelle il faut ajouter une doctrine foisonnante pour en extraire une pratique concordante ou des tendances affirmées.

Le plus étonnant a été les réticences de certains États au sein de la VI

e Commission de l’Assemblée générale

à l’égard de la codification et du développement progressif du droit international en cette matière. Mais je crois que ces réticences se sont considérablement estompées depuis que les États ont eu entre les mains la totalité du projet d’articles adoptés par la CDI en première lecture. En tout état de cause, nous avons encore poli le projet d’articles en seconde lecture en tenant compte pratiquement de toutes les observations et suggestions faites par les États sur le texte adopté en première lecture. Il est difficile de donner entièrement satisfaction à chaque État pris individuellement, mais nous avons vraiment fait notre mieux pour faire droit à leurs préoccupations dans les limites de ce qui est techniquement possible au regard du droit international en vigueur; car nous estimons que la CDI est au service des États et qu’elle ne travaille par pour elle-même.

Les organes des traités des droits de l’homme ont produit une riche jurisprudence sur le sujet tant au travers des constations du Comité des droits de l’homme que du Comité contre la torture, que les Observations générales ("General Comments"). Vous y avez fait référence de manière abondante dans votre projet d'articles. Quel en sera l'impact de part et d'autre ? Est-ce une plus grande reconnaissance du travail mené par les organes des traités et à l’autorité de ces organes quant à l'interprétation et à l’application des conventions dont ils assurent le contrôle ?

Il m’a paru naturel de faire référence à la « jurisprudence » des organes des traités sans d’ailleurs chercher à savoir si cela aura un impact dans un sens ou dans un autre. La question ne s’est posée à aucun moment au sein de la Commission. Les organes des traités sont institués par les États parties aux traités concernés et sont dotés de compétences interprétatives. L’interprétation qu’ils peuvent faire à cet égard me semble assez proche de ce que l’on appelle une interprétation authentique, car d’une certaine manière à travers ces organes ce sont les États parties aux traités qui se prononcent. Il me paraît dès lors assez logique d’être attentif à ce qu’ils disent à ce sujet. Au demeurant, je crois que notre référence à cette « jurisprudence » pourra contribuer à renforcer l’autorité de celle-ci et, à l’inverse pourra contribuer à faciliter l’acceptation du résultat de nos travaux par les États parties. J’y vois aussi, en définitive, une manière pour la CDI d’apporter une contribution au système global onusien de renforcement du droit international des droits de l’homme.

Quelles sont les dispositions qui relèvent de la codification et celle qui relèvent du développement progressif ?

Aux termes de son Statut, la CDI a pour mission le développement progressif et la codification du droit international. Il arrive que la nature coutumière de certaines règles soit à ce point établie que l’on ne court aucun risque de se tromper en disant qu’elles relèvent de la codification. Mais il n’en est pas toujours ainsi, et la distinction entre le développement progressif et la codification n’est pas toujours aussi nette dans tous les cas. C’est pourquoi il est très rare que la Commission indique quelles dispositions relèvent de tel ou tel autre aspect, les deux aspects entrant dans son mandat. Nous nous sommes efforcés de dégager les règles qui, à notre avis, constitueraient le droit applicable à l’expulsion des étrangers en droit international aujourd’hui.

Quelle sera la suite donnée à ce projet d'articles après son adoption finale par la Commission et son renvoi à l'Assemblée générale ? Pourrions-nous nous attendre à une Convention ?

En adoptant en seconde lecture le projet d’articles sur l’expulsion des étrangers et son commentaire, la Commission s’est acquittée de sa mission sur ce sujet. Elle peut légitimement être fière d’avoir, ce faisant, apporté une contribution remarquable à un des aspects importants du droit international contemporain, d’autant plus important qu’il touche concrètement à la vie des gens dans un monde où les migrations internationales deviennent un phénomène massif et durable. Il revient désormais aux États de jouer leur rôle à eux, au sein de l’Assemblée générale. La décision ultime leur appartient souverainement.

Maurice Kamto est professeur de droit

international du Cameroun. Il est l’ancien

président et membre de la Commission du droit

international de l’ONU. Il est également membre

de l’Institut de droit international. Maurice

Kamto a été désigné comme avocat pour les

États dans le contentieux international, en

particulier devant la Cour internationale de

Justice. Il a publié de nombreux articles sur le

droit international.

16

OHCHR - HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES DIVISION

OHCHR - HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES DIVISION Newsletter No. 24 / July - September 2014

PUBLICATIONS

The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: Training Guide - Professional Training Series No. 19 (HR/P/PT/19, 153 pp). Following the entry into force of the Convention and its Optional Protocol, OHCHR has developed this Training Guide to help national stakeholders to implement these two instruments. The Training Guide provides basic information on a rights-based approach to disability, on the fundamental elements of the Convention and its Optional Protocol, and on the processes underlying their ratification, implementation

and monitoring. The Training Guide is available in English only. Translations in the other UN official la

Practical guides for civil society

How to follow up on UN Human Rights Recommendations in Arabic, English, French,

Russian and Spanish http://www.ohchr.org/EN/AboutUs/Pages/CivilSociety.aspx

United Nations Human Rights Council in Arabic, English, French, Russian and Spanish. http://www.ohchr.org/EN/AboutUs/Pages/CivilSociety.aspx

Selected Decisions of the Committee against Torture (HR/CAT/PUB/1)

is now available in Spanish, as well as in English.

Individual Complaint Procedures under the United Nations Human Rights Treaties (Fact Sheet 7 Rev.2) is now available in the 6 official UN languages.

17

LATEST TREATY SIGNATURES, RATIFICATIONS AND ACCESSIONS

July - September 2014

OP-ICESCR Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and

Cultural Rights

Ratification by Costa Rica (23 September 2014)

OP-CEDAW Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women

Ratification by Tajikistan (22 July 2014)

CAT Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment

or Punishment

Accession by Eritrea (25 September 2014)

OP-CAT Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment

Accession by Mozambique (01 July 2014)

OPSC-CRC Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of

children, child prostitution and child pornography

Signature by Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (09 September 2014)

Ratification by Haiti (09 September 2014)

OPAC-CRC Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict

Ratification by Guinea Bissau (24 September 2014)

OPIC-CRC Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights to the Child on a

communications procedure

Ratification by Andorra (25 September 2014)

Signature and Ratification by Ireland (24 September 2014)

Accession by Monaco (24 September 2014)

CMW International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers

and Members of their Families

Signature by Madagascar (24 September 2014)

CRPD Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Ratification by Congo (02 September 2014)

Ratification by Grenada (27 August 2014)

Ratification by Guyana (10 September 2014)

Ratification by Guinea Bissau (24 September 2014)

Signature by Samoa (24 September 2014)

OP-CRPD Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

Ratification by Congo (02 September 2014)

Accession by Denmark (not in Greenland) (23 September 2014)

Ratification by Gabon (01/07/2014)

CED International Convention for the Protection of all Persons from Enforced

Disappearance

Ratification by Togo (21 July 2014)

Signature by Angola (24 September 2014)

Newsletter No 18 / Oct. - Nov. - Dec. 2012 OHCHR - HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES DIVISION

OHCHR - HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES DIVISION Newsletter No. 24 / July - September 2014

18

Newsletter No 18 / Oct. - Nov. - Dec. 2012 OHCHR - HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES DIVISION

To find out which countries have ratified the international human rights treaties: http://indicators.ohchr.org/ For information on the status of ratification and signature by States of UN human rights treaties, as well as reservations and declarations: http://treaties.un.org/Pages/Treaties.aspx?id=4&subid=A&lang=en

An overview of the ratification status is also available at:

http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/TreatyBodyExternal/Treaty.aspx

Status of ratification of international human rights instruments

(As of 30 September 2014)

OHCHR - HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES DIVISION Newsletter No. 24 / July - September 2014

156

73

168

115

81

43

188

105

177162

16

47

194

168157

14

151

85

0

50

100

150

200

250

TreatyOptional Protocol

19

OHCHR - HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES DIVISION Newsletter No 19 / Jan. - Feb. - March 2013

Ghana

CCPR Initial report CCPR/C/GHA/1 (10/09/2014)

CMW Initial report CMW/C/GHA/1 (31/08/2014)

Malawi CEDAW 7th periodic report CEDAW/C/MWI/7 (04/07/2014)

Rwanda

CCPR 4th periodic report CCPR/C/RWA/4 (11/07/2014)

CERD 18th-20th periodic report CERD/C/RWA/18-20 (11/07/2014)

Seychelles CRPD Initial report CRPD/C/SYC/1 (19/09/2014)

AFRICA

Japan CEDAW 7th–8th periodic report CEDAW/C/JPN/7-8 (05/09/2014)

Nepal CRPD Initial report CRPD/C/NPL/1 (29/08/2014)

KINDLY NOTE THAT ANY DOCUMENT AND/OR CORRESPONDENCE FOR OHCHR

SHOULD BE SENT TO REGISTRY@OHCHR.ORG

LATEST STATE PARTY REPORTS RECEIVED

JULY - SEPTEMBER 2014

ASIA AND THE PACIFIC

OHCHR - HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES DIVISION Newsletter No. 24 / July - September 2014

Jordan CAT 3rd periodic report CAT/C/JOR/3 (03/07/2014)

Tunisia CED Initial report CED/C/TUN/1 (25/09/2014)

United Arab Emirates CEDAW 2nd-3rd periodic report CEDAW/C/ARE/2-3

(11/07/2014)

NORTH AFRICA

AND MIDDLE EAST

20

KINDLY NOTE THAT ANY DOCUMENT AND/OR CORRESPONDENCE FOR OHCHR

SHOULD BE SENT TO REGISTRY@OHCHR.ORG

LATEST STATE PARTY REPORTS RECEIVED

JULY - SEPTEMBER 2014

OHCHR - HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES DIVISION Newsletter No 19 / Jan. - Feb. - March 2013

OHCHR - HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES DIVISION Newsletter No. 24 / July - September 2014

Austria CAT 6th periodic report CAT/C/AUT/6 (17/07/2014)

Bulgaria CRPD Initial report CRPD/C/BGR/1 (23/07/2014)

Denmark CAT 6th-7th periodic report CAT/C/DNK/6-7 (29/09/2014)

Georgia CERD 6th-8th periodic report CERD/C/GEO/6-8 (03/07/2014)

Iceland CEDAW 7th–8th periodic report CEDAW/C/ISE/7-8 (31/07/2014)

Liechtenstein CAT 4th periodic report CAT/C/LIE/4 (30/09/2014)

Poland

Common Core Document

HRI/CORE/POL/2014 (19/09/2014)

Portugal

Common Core Document

HRI/CORE/PRT/2014 (27/08/2014)

Russian Federation

CRPD Initial report CRPD/C/RUS/1 (09/09/2014)

CEDAW 8th periodic report CEDAW/C/RUS/8 (04/08/2014)

CRPD Initial report CRPD/C/SVN/1 (05/08/2014) Slovenia

CCPR 3rd periodic report CCPR/C/SVN/3 (17/07/2014)

Spain CERD 21st-23rd periodic report CERD/C/ESP/21-23 (05/08/2014)

Turkey CAT 5th periodic report CAT/C/TUR/5 (29/09/2014)

EUROPE, NORTH AMERICA

AND CENTRAL ASIA

LATIN AMERICA

AND THE CARIBBEAN

Antigua and Barbuda CRC 2nd-4th periodic report CRC/C/ATG/2-4

(10/07/2014)

Cuba CRPD Initial report CRPD/C/CUB/1 (19/09/2014)

Suriname Common Core Document

HRI/CORE/SUR/2014 (05/09/2014)

21

Treaty body Committee Secretary

Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD)

cerd@ohchr.org Ms. Gabriella Habtom

ghabtom@ohchr.org

Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR)

cescr@ohchr.org Ms. Maja Andrijasevic-Boko

mandrijasevic-boko@ohchr.org

Human Rights Committee (HRCttee)

ccpr@ohchr.org Ms. Kate Fox

kfox@ohchr.org

Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)

cedaw@ohchr.org Mr. Jakob Schneider

jschneider@ohchr.org

Committee against Torture (CAT)

cat@ohchr.org

Mr. Patrice Gillibert

pgillibert@ohchr.org

Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture (SPT) opcat@ohchr.org

Mr. Joao Nataf

jnataf@ohchr.org

Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC)

crc@ohchr.org

Ms. Allegra Franchetti

afranchetti@ohchr.org

Committee on Migrant Workers (CMW)

cmw@ohchr.org

Mr. Bradford Smith

bsmith@ohchr.org

Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)

crpd@ohchr.org Mr. Jorge Araya

jaraya@ohchr.org

Committee on Enforced Disappearances (CED)

ced@ohchr.org

Ms. Maria Giovanna Bianchi mgbianchi@ohchr.org

Annual meeting of the Treaty Bodies Chairpersons mc.icm@ohchr.org

Ms. Birgit Van Hout bvanhout@ohchr.org

Treaty body based communications and urgent actions petitions@ohchr.org

- Raise awareness with country-based constituencies about upcoming State party reviews by treaty bodies

- Encourage partners to provide information to relevant treaty bodies

- Facilitate and encourage the implementation of treaty body recommendations

HELP THE TREATY BODY SYSTEM ENGAGE WITH THE HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES DIVISION !

OHCHR - HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES DIVISION Newsletter No 18 / Oct. - Nov. - Dec. 2012

OHCHR - HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES DIVISION Newsletter No. 24 / July - September 2014

22

THIS NEWSLETTER

… Is issued on a quarterly basis to provide information about the

work of the treaty bodies

… Is available on the treaty bodies’ webpage on the OHCHR website:

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/Pages/Newsletter.aspx

… We welcome your views ! Contact us at: HRTD-newsletter@ohchr.org

TOOLS AND LINKS

… Webpage on treaty body strengthening:

http://www2.ohchr.org/English/bodies/HRTD/index.htm

… Treaty Body Documentation Database (TBDB): a document management

system that centralizes all documents issued by and submitted to the treaty

bodies http://tbinternet.ohchr.org

… Universal Human Rights Index (UHRI): a user-friendly search engine to

access all recommendations from treaty bodies, special procedures and the

Universal Periodic Review (UPR): http://uhri.ohchr.org/

… Civil Society Section mailing-list: subscribe to email updates about

human rights treaty bodies and other UN human rights activities:

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/AboutUs/Pages/CivilSociety.aspx

OHCHR ON SOCIAL MEDIA

OHCHR - HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES DIVISION Newsletter No 18 / Oct. - Nov. - Dec. 2012

CONTACT HRTD-newsletter@ohchr.org

OHCHR - HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES DIVISION Newsletter No. 24 / July - September 2014

Facebook facebook.com/unitednationshumanrights

Twitter twitter.com/unrightswire

YouTube youtube.com/UNOHCHR

Google+ gplus.to/unitednationshumanrights

Storify storify.com/UNrightswire

Flickr flickr.com/photos/unhumanrights

Tumblr united-nations-human-rights.tumblr.com/