No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Reporting Under the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: The First Five Years of the Human Rights Committee
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 February 2017
Abstract
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Notes and Comments
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of International Law 1982
References
1 There have been few studies of the practice of the Human Rights Committee. See Nowak, , Die Durchsetzung des Internalen Paktes über bürgerliche und politische Rechte, 7 Europäische Grundrechte Zeitschrift 532 (1980)Google Scholar; Novak, , The Effectiveness of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights—Stocktaking After the First Eleven Sessions of the UN–Human Rights Committee, 1 Human Rights L.J. 136 (1980)Google Scholar; Opsahl, , The Protection of Human Rights in the Council of Europe and the United Nations, 26 European Y.B. 92 (1980)Google Scholar; Graefrath, , Trends Emerging in the Practice of the Human Rights Committee, Gdr Comm. for Human Rights Bull. No. 1/80, 1980, at 3 Google Scholar; Ramcharan, , Implementing the International Covenants on Human Rights, in Human Rights: Thirty Years After the Universal Declaration 159 (Ramcharan, B. ed. 1979)Google Scholar; Bossuyt, , Le Règlement Intérieur du Comité des droits de I’homme, 14 Rev. Belge Droit Int’l 104 (1978–1979);Google Scholar Schwelb, , The International Measures of Implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and of the Optional Protocol, 12 Tex. Int’l L. Rev. 141 (1977)Google Scholar.
2 As of July 31, 1981, of the 66 states parties to the Covenant, only 25 had accepted the Optional Protocol and only 14 had made the declaration envisaged under Article 41, paragraph 1. Report of the Human Rights Committee, 36 UN GAOR, Supp. (No. 40), UN Doc. A/35/40, at 1 (1981). A list of the states parties to the Covenant and to the Optional Protocol, with an indication of those which have made the declaration under Article 41, paragraph 1, is contained in Annex I of that report (hereinafter the annual reports will be cited by date only, e.g., 1981 Report).
3 The first four criteria are adaptations of those set forth by A. H. Robertson, as elements necessary to make a reporting system effective, in The Implementation System: International Measures, in International Covenants on Human Rights: the Civil and Political Covenant 332 (L. Henkin ed. 1981).
4 Covenant. Art. 28; Provisional Rules of Procedure, rule 16.
5 UN Docs. CCPR/C/SR.67, 69, and 70 (1978).
6 UN Docs. CCPR/C/SR.92, 94, and 96 (1978).
7 UN Docs. CCPR/C/SR.108, 109, and 112 (1978).
8 Covenant, Art. 40, para. 1.
9 Covenant, Art. 40, para. 4.
10 1977 Report at 35.
11 1981 Report, Ann. I.
12 For the full examination of the Chilean report, see UN Docs. CCPR/C/SR.127–130 (1979). A summary of the discussion can be found in the 1979 Report at 17–27.
13 Kenya: UN Docs. CCPR/C/1/Add.47 (1979) and CCPR/C/SR.271–292 (1981)– Tanzania: UN Docs. CCPR/C/1/Add.48 (1979) and CCPR/C/SR.281, 282, and 288 (1981); Mali: UN Docs. CCPR/C/1/Add.49 (1979) and CCPR/C/SR.283, 284, and 289 (1981).
14 See 1981 Report, Ann. III.
15 In the practice of CERD, this was a procedural innovation. See Buergenthal, , Implementing the UN Racial Convention, 12 Tex. Int’l L. J. 187, 199–201 (1977)Google Scholar.
16 These figures are based on the author’s examination of the Committee’s annual reports to the General Assembly.
17 This procedure was used for the first time during the fifth session (Oct.–Nov. 1978) in the examination of the supplementary report of Ecuador. See UN Doc. CCPR/C/SR.118 (1978).
18 See, e.g., the summary records of the “second round” appearances before the Committee of representatives of Denmark, UN Doc. CCPR/C/SR.251 (1980); Hungary, UN Docs. CCPR/C/SR.225 and 228 (1980); Finland, UN Docs. CCPR/C/SR. 170–172 (1979).
19 See UN Docs. CCPR/C/SR.56, 73, 82, 99, and 105 (1978), and 180 and 181 (1979) for the most important discussions.
20 See rule 62, paragraph 2, of the Provisional Rules of Procedure.
21 1980 Report at 94–95.
22 With regard to the desirability of the specialized agencies submitting comments on the reports submitted to the Committee by states parties to the Covenant, it was agreed that the decision of the Committee as recorded in paragraph 605 of the Committee’s Report to the General Assembly at its thirty–third session (A/33/40) still remained valid, it being understood that the Committee could revert to the matter at a later stage and, in light of the experience it had gained, seek ways of further strengthening its cooperation with the specialized agencies.
Id. at 95. In its earlier decision of July 27, 1978, referred to above:
The Committee agreed to the transmittal by the Secretary–General to the specialized agencies concerned of the relevant parts of the reports of states parties, contained in its published documents, which might fall within their field of competence. The Committee also agreed that the specialized agencies should not be invited to submit any comments on those parts of the reports since the Covenant contained no provision to that effect.
1978 Report at 105.
23 UN Doc. CCPR/C/SR.222 (1980).
24 UN Doc. CCPR/C/SR.226 (1980).
25 See UN Docs. CCPR/C/SR.48, 49, 50, 55, 73 (1978).
26 See UN Docs. CCPR/C/SR.231 and 232 (1980).
27 For the full text of the Paper Concerning Further Work on State Reports, see 1981 Report, Ann. VI.
28 Ibid. The agreed statement is preceded by the phrase, “Without prejudice to the further consideration of the Committee’s duties under Article 40, paragraph 4.”
29 1981 Report, Ann. IV.
30 Id., Ann. V.
31 Id., Ann. VII.
32 Under Article 39(2)(b) of the Covenant, decisions of the Committee are to be made by a majority vote of the members present. However, when the Committee adopted its Provisional Rules of Procedure, there was considerable discussion as to whether decisions would be taken by majority vote or consensus. See UN Docs. CCPR/C/SR.3, 4, 6, 7, and 14 (1977). The compromise is reflected in rule 51, which provides that the decisions of the Committee shall be made by a majority of the members present—but with a footnoted qualification: “The members of the Committee generally expressed the view that its method of work normally should allow for attempts to reach decisions by consensus before voting. . . .” 1977 Report, Ann. II. The Committee has conducted its business by consensus through the 13th session.
33 UN Doc. CCPR/C/SR.306 (1981).
34 Ibid.
35 UN Docs. CCPR/C/SR.304 and 309 (1981).
36 UN Doc. CCPR/C/SR.296 (1981).
37 UN Doc. CCPR/C/SR.299 (1981).
38 The vehicle for future agreement is the concluding sentence of the decision: “This is without prejudice to the power of the Committee, under article 40, paragraph 1(b), of the Covenant, to request a subsequent report whenever it deems appropriate.” 1981 Report, Ann. IV.
39 UN Doc. CCPR/C/SR.309 (1981.
40 See Buergenthal, supra note 15, at 201.
41 Such change is not to be confused with changes in national law made by states parties prior to ratification.
42 1980 Report at 39; UN Docs. CCPR/C/SR.205, 206, 207, 208, and 211 (1980).
43 1978 Report at 13; UN Docs. CCPR/C/SR.52 and 53 (1978); 1980 Report at 19; UN Docs. CCPR/C/SR.188 and 189 (1979).
44 UN Doc. CCPR/C/SR.189 (1979).
45 UN Doc. CCPR/C/SR.263 (1981).
46 UN Docs. CCPR/C/SR.213 and 214 (1980).
47 UN Doc. CCPR/C/SR.295 (1981).
48 See UN Docs. CCPR/C/SR.30 (1978); and 170–172 (1979).
49 The Committee was informed of this development in Norway’s supplementary report, which has been submitted but not yet examined. See UN Doc. CCPR/C/1/Add.52 (1979).
50 See UN Docs. CCPR/C/SR.223, 224, and 227 (1980); 1980 Report at 63.