经济、社会和文化权利委员会

2013年4月29日

上午


选举新的主席团，兹齐斯瓦夫·凯吉亚任主席

经济、社会和文化权利委员会今日上午在日内瓦威尔逊宫召开第五十届会议，听取了人权事务高级专员办事处人权条约司司长易卜拉欣·萨拉马的发言，并和他进行了一场互动讨论。委员会选举了由兹齐斯瓦夫·凯吉亚任主席的新主席团，并通过了议程和工作方案。

萨拉马先生提到，《经济、社会及文化权利国际公约》任择议定书将于下周生效，进而可以在国际层面上审议有关侵犯权利的信函，这增加了委员会的工作量，但能使系统更加高效。今后一年对确定2015年后议程和国际人口与发展会议的审议至关重要，两者都包含了重要的人权因素。增强条约机构程序的政府间进程于2013年五月结束，关于此进程的磋商也已有若干委员会的成员参与。另外已经收到了关于新日程和行为守则的建议。关于积压报告扫尾的开支估算也已出炉。预算削减不会影响到委员会，但其工作应得到合理安排。一项满意度调查显示，83.7%的委员会成员对秘书处的支持工作表示满意或非常满意。

在和萨拉马先生的互动对话中，委员会成员询问了有关新日程建议、联大会议结束时通过的关于委员会工作的决议以及纽约与此次议题有关的周边情况。他们还询问：没有额外预算分配时如何进行扩展的工作模式，增强条约程序是否朝着减少支出和精简结构的方向（而非相反）进展等。

今日上午，玛利亚·弗吉尼亚·布拉斯·戈麦斯、米克尔·曼西西杜尔和莉迪亚·拉芬斯伯格作为委员会新成员进行了庄严宣誓。委员会选定新的主席团，兹齐斯瓦夫·凯吉亚当选委员会主席。钱德拉谢卡尔·达斯古普塔、雷纳托·泽比尼·里贝罗·雷奥和阿祖兹·克尔顿当选副主席，玛利亚·弗吉尼亚·布拉斯·戈麦斯当选报告员。

凯吉亚先生感谢委员会成员选举他为主席并给予他信任。他对新成员表示欢迎，并向前任主席所做的工作致谢。他表示如果没有那些付出，委员会继续开展工作将十分困难。他说，标准已经很高，他将努力达到委员会的期待。眼前的任务是，抓住机遇，用最优方式应对挑战。由于得到了联合国大家庭和民间社会源源不断的密切合作与支持，委员会得以有效开展促进人权的工作。

在4月29日至5月17日为期三周的会议中，委员会将审议日本、伊朗、牙买加、阿塞拜疆、多哥、卢旺达和丹麦关于其如何遵守《经济、社会及文化权利国际公约》规定的报告。

委员会的下一次公共会议将在今日下午3点进行，届时将与各伙伴会谈，包括非政府组织和国家人权机构等，讨论委员会将在此次届会上审议的报告。

Opening Statement

IBRAHIM SALAMA, Director of the Human Rights Treaties Division of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, said the Optional Protocol had received its tenth ratification and was to enter into force next week.  This was a big step for human rights as the Optional Protocol allowed victims to seek justice for violations of their rights at the international level through submissions of communications or requests for inquiries before the Committee.  The entry into force of the Protocol was to allow for the development of jurisprudence to clarify the scope of application of these rights, and offer guidance to States parties and national courts.  This would effectively double the workload of the Committee.  It was hoped that the process would achieve a more effective treaty body system and eliminate backlogs of reports.  However, additional funding had not been granted, and this put a significant strain on the Secretariat.

This year was critical on the global agenda, with the development of the post-2015 agenda, and the call by civil society groups that this be underpinned by human rights principles, and supported by a strong accountability framework.  The International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) Beyond 2014 Review was also a critical moment as the unfinished agenda of the ICPD programme of action was mostly related to human rights and accountability deficits.

Recent developments of relevance included the co-facilitators of the Intergovernmental Process on the strengthening of the treaty body process expressing their intention to conclude the process by May 2013, as well as their holding of consultations in Geneva and New York attended by members of human rights committees.  Issues discussed in these meetings included documentation and conference services, reporting procedures, webcasting and video conferencing and the nomination and election process.  It was generally accepted that additional regular budget resources would need to be invested.

Also of note was that the Russian Federation had submitted a draft Code of Conduct and Egypt had submitted a “Nimble Calendar” as an alternative to the Comprehensive Reporting Calendar.   The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights had received many questions about a report on treaty body strengthening submitted to the General Assembly in June 2012, and it was noted that discussions were entering a phase where concrete choices were being deliberated, particularly those that would affect the overall cost.

The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights had also provided a cost estimate on eliminating the backlog of reports and individual communications.  A detailed review of the cost of the treaty body system had been provided.  Chairpersons of the treaty bodies met in New York 20 to 24 May, allowing them to engage in the process. 

System-wide cuts of $100 million were expected for 2014-2015, of which $4.5 million was expected from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights’ regular budget.  Although 70 per cent of these cuts were to come from staff the Committee was not affected.  Working methods needed to be rationalized in light of this.

Related to a survey on satisfaction on the levels of support provided by the Secretariat, Mr. Salama said 45 out of 172 experts completed the information asked, and 83.7 per cent rated support as satisfactory or very satisfactory.

Interactive Dialogue

In an interactive dialogue with Mr. Salama, a Committee member asked for details of the “nimble calendar” mentioned, and what resolutions had been adopted at the end of the General Assembly session on the topic of the Committee’s work?  What was the atmosphere in New York like in relation to this topic?  Another wondered how extended working patterns would be possible without additional budget allocations?  It was also asked whether the treaty strengthening process was moving towards cutting costs and streamlining, rather than strengthening, was this the case?

In response to these questions Mr. Salama said he was aware of the risk to the treaty body system in strengthening actions, but said that streamlining was not only financially but also politically useful.  It was clear in New York that the process was not about cost-cutting, and it could not be cost-neutral.  A number of States had spoken about the need to ensure the process strengthened and not weakened the system.

The nimble calendar was an approach based on costing the backlogs allocating an amount for all treaties once every biennium.  Its benefit lay more in the fact that it brought to the fore that some sustainability was required in a solution.  More periodicity was a probable outcome and there would also be no surprises as budget would be allocated by period.  A seven-year calendar was also suggested. 

The Chairpersons meeting was moved to New York to allow more interaction on the process.  The most recent session of the General Assembly had simply called for a sustainable solution to the treaty body considerations.   Financially, Member States were not in a position to request funding, hence the call for reinvestment of resources, and politically, issues were being put on the table in full transparency and the independence of the experts was enshrined in treaty law - allowing no outcome which negated this.

Funding for additional daily subsistence allowance for extra work had been agreed, though within the existing resources of the Office of the High Commission for Human Rights.  It was thought possible to find this funding, and in addition, Conference Services had a mandate, and a pool of funding, to provide assistance to the Committee.

__________

For use of the information media; not an official record