Download pdf: Working Methods

Geneva, 23-24 June 2005
REPORT ON THE WORKING METHODS OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS
TREATY BODIES RELATING TO THE STATE PARTY REPORTING
PROCESS
Note by the secretariat
The third Inter-Committee Meeting requested the Office of the United Nations
High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), in collaboration with the Division for the
Advancement of Women (DAW), to produce a comparative report on the working methods of all
committees, to be updated on a regular basis. The sixteenth meeting of the chairpersons of the
human rights treaty bodies endorsed this recommendation and also recommended that modalities
for participation of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the work of the treaty bodies be
considered at the seventeenth meeting, and requested the secretariat to prepare a background
report on the practices of the treaty bodies in this regard. The chairpersons also decided to
include an item on the agenda of their seventeenth meeting on the approach to be taken by treaty
bodies when States parties submit a last-minute request for postponement of the consideration of
their reports, as well as when delegations do not attend to present reports as scheduled (report of
the sixteenth meeting of human rights treaty bodies, A/59/254 and annex). The present report is
submitted in accordance with those requests.
The report is complemented by the report on implementation of the recommendations of
the third Inter-Committee Meeting and sixteenth meeting of chairpersons of human rights treaty
bodies (HRI/MC/2005/2), which also contains proposals on the standardization of terminology
used by treaty bodies relating to the technical elements of their work.
GE.05-42235 (E) 140605
HRI/MC/2005/4
page 2
CONTENTS
Paragraphs Page
I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................ 1 - 2 3
II. OVERVIEW OF THE COMMITTEES ....................................... 3 - 16 3
III. CONSIDERATION OF STATE PARTY REPORTS ................. 17 - 104 7
A. Reporting guidelines ........................................................... 18 - 29 7
B. Submission of State reports ................................................ 30 - 35 9
C. Pre-session preparation: the drafting of lists
of issues and questions ........................................................ 36 - 49 11
D. Constructive dialogue with States parties ........................... 50 - 66 14
E. Concluding observations/comments ................................... 67 - 71 18
F. Follow-up to concluding observations ................................ 72 - 76 20
G. Strategies to encourage reporting by States parties ............ 77 - 80 21
H. Early warning and urgent action procedures ...................... 81 - 83 22
I. Participation of United Nations agencies, funds
and programmes .................................................................. 84 - 91 23
J. Interaction with special procedures of the
Commission on Human Rights ........................................... 92 - 93 25
K. Participation of national human rights institutions
(NHRIs) .............................................................................. 94 - 95 25
L. Participation of non-governmental organizations ............... 96 - 104 26
IV. OTHER ACTIVITIES RELATED TO THE REPORTING
PROCESS ..................................................................................... 105 - 114 28
A. General comments/recommendations ................................. 105 - 109 28
B. Days of general discussion and thematic
debates/discussions ............................................................. 110 - 111 29
C. Country visits by treaty body members .............................. 112 30
D. Committee statements ......................................................... 113 - 114 30
V. OTHER MATTERS ..................................................................... 115 - 119 31
A. Meetings with States parties ............................................... 115 31
B. Sources of additional information concerning
the treaty bodies .................................................................. 116 - 119 31
Annex. Guidelines on country visits endorsed by the United Nations
High Commissioner for Human Rights ............................................................. 32
HRI/MC/2005/4

page 3
I. INTRODUCTION
1. The present report provides an overview of the current working methods of the seven
human rights treaty bodies: the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination
(CERD); the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR); the Human Rights
Committee (HRC); the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women
(CEDAW); the Committee against Torture (CAT); the Committee on the Rights of the Child
(CRC) and the Committee on the Protection of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their
Families (CMW). The report is confined to the working methods of those bodies with respect to
the reporting process. In this context, it should be noted that CMW has not yet begun to consider
reports, although at its second session, held from 25 to 29 April 2005, it outlined the procedures,
modelled on the practices of the other treaty bodies, that it expects to adopt for the consideration
of reports.
2. The report, which will be updated in order to reflect the evolving practices of treaty
bodies, is presented against the background of the Secretary-General’s report “Strengthening of
the United Nations: an agenda for further change” (A/57/387 and Corr.1), in which he proposed
inter alia, that the treaty bodies “should craft a more coordinated approach to their activities and
standardize their varied reporting requirements”. In his last report, “In Larger Freedom: towards
development, security and human rights for all” (A/59/2005), he also called for the finalization
and implementation of harmonized guidelines on reporting to all treaty bodies so that these
bodies can function as a unified system.
II. OVERVIEW OF THE COMMITTEES
3. Six of the seven core United Nations human rights treaties provide for the establishment
of a committee of independent experts to monitor implementation of the treaty provisions by
States parties. CERD, the first treaty body to be established, monitors implementation of the
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; HRC
monitors implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; CEDAW
monitors implementation of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
against Women; CAT monitors implementation of the Convention against Torture and Other
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; CRC monitors implementation of the
Convention on the Rights of the Child; and CMW, which held its first session in March 2004,
monitors implementation of the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All
Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families.
4. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) does not
explicitly provide for the creation of a treaty body, but gives the Economic and Social Council
(ECOSOC) a general mandate to monitor implementation of the Covenant by States parties and
United Nations specialized agencies through consideration of regular reports. In 1985, a
sessional working group established by ECOSOC to assist it in the consideration of States
parties’ reports (ECOSOC decision 1978/10 of 3 May 1978), was reconstituted on the model of
the treaty bodies and renamed the “Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights”
(CESCR) (ECOSOC resolution 1985/17). The Committee, which first met in 1987, is regarded
as a treaty body.
HRI/MC/2005/4
page 4
Membership
5. Each committee is composed of independent experts, ranging in number from 10
to 23 members (see table 1), who are nominated by States parties and elected by them for fixed,
renewable terms of four years. Elections for half of the membership take place every two years.
The treaties impose no limit on the number of times a member’s term may be renewed, and some
members have served for a considerable unbroken period.
Table 1
Composition of the treaty bodies
CERD 18 members
HRC 18 members
CESCR 18 members
CEDAW 23 members
CAT 10 members
CRC 10 members 18 members*
CMW 10 members 14 members 41 States parties+
* Amendment to article 43 (2) of the Convention, approved by General Assembly
resolution 50/155 of 21 December 1995, which entered into force on 18 November 2002 upon
acceptance by two thirds of States parties.
+ The membership of the CMW will increase on the entry into force of the Convention
for its 41st State party.
Mandates
6. Each treaty body is mandated to consider the reports which States parties are obliged to
submit periodically on steps they have taken to implement the provisions of the relevant treaty.
Five of the treaty bodies (CERD, HRC, CAT, CEDAW and CMW) are entitled to consider
individual communications where States parties have accepted this procedure, and two may
conduct inquiries into alleged violations of their treaty’s terms (CAT, CEDAW), again where
this procedure has been accepted by the State party. As reporting is concerned, there are
variations in the wording in the treaties in relation to the content of States parties’ reports, but the
content required is similar, and all committees have adopted guidelines on the form and content
of reports to assist States parties with the preparation of their reports. It is to be noted that the
International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members
of Their Families contains a specific provision which entitles the CMW to adopt additional
reporting guidelines (art. 73, para. 3).
7. The treaties do not set out in detail how the various treaty bodies are to treat the reports
that they receive, but each (except ICESCR) establishes the same basic framework for
“consideration”, “study” or “examination” of reports by its committee and the adoption of
such “general comments” (HRC and CAT), “suggestions and general recommendations”
(CERD, CEDAW and CRC) or “comments” (CMW) as the relevant committee may consider
appropriate. The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
HRI/MC/2005/4
page 5
Discrimination, the Convention against Torture, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and
the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and
Members of Their Families contain express provision for its committee to request additional
information from States parties. All treaties allow States parties to respond to a treaty body’s
comments, recommendations or suggestions with their own observations.
8. Under ECOSOC resolution 1985/17, CESCR “shall make suggestions and
recommendations of a general nature on the basis of its consideration of those reports and
of the reports submitted by the specialized agencies, in order to assist the Council to fulfil,
in particular, its responsibilities under articles 21 and 22 of the Covenant”.
9. Three treaties state a wider purpose for which its committee is created: CEDAW is
established “for the purpose of considering the progress made in the implementation of the […]
Convention” (art. 17); the CRC has a general purpose “of examining the progress made by States
parties in achieving the realization of the obligations undertaken” in the Convention (art. 43);
and CMW the purpose of “reviewing the application of the […] Convention” (art. 72).
States parties
10. Although universal ratification has yet to be achieved, progress in this regard has been
steady. Table 2 sets out the number of States that have ratified or acceded to the treaties, and
their compliance with the corresponding reporting obligations under those instruments. This
table indicates that more than two thirds of States parties have submitted at least one report to a
treaty body, but only a minority are in full compliance with all of their reporting obligations.
Table 2
States parties’ compliance with reporting obligations
No. of States
parties
No. of initial
reports
submitted
No. of States
parties with no
overdue reports
Total reports
received
ICERD 170 (88%) 152 (89%) 48 (28%) 205
ICCPR 154 (80%) 129 (84%) 26 (17%) 235
ICESCR 151 (77%) 110 (75%) 65 (43%) 212
CEDAW 180 (93%)* 144 (79%) 59 (33%) 543
CAT 139 (72%) 97 (70%) 37 (27%) 215
CRC 192 (99%) 180 (94%) 102 (53%) 292
CRC-OPAC 97 (50%) 11 (11%) 54 (56%) 11
CRC-OPSC 95 (49%) 8 (8%) 50 (53%) 8
ICRMW 29 (15%) 0 (0%) 4 (14%) 0
Note: Percentages indicate level of compliance (actual total against total required for
full compliance).
* Does not include Niue or the Cook Islands, which are full States parties to the
Convention on the Rights of the Child, but have stated that they wish to be covered by
New Zealand’s ratification of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination against Women.
HRI/MC/2005/4
page 6
Rules of procedure
11. All treaties, and in the case of CESCR, ECOSOC resolution 1985/17, empower
committees to formulate their own rules of procedure. ICCPR and CAT provide that specific
rules relating to the quorum and adoption of decisions by majority vote should be included in the
rules of procedure of each of their committees. All committees have adopted rules of procedure,
compiled in the document HRI/GEN/3, which is revised regularly.
12. Each committee’s rules of procedure are divided into two sections. The first section sets
out the basic procedural rules governing decision-making within the committee. In most cases,
these are based on the ECOSOC standard rules of procedure and contain detailed provisions for
the resolution of deadlock within political bodies, which are rarely used by the treaty bodies.
CEDAW and CMW have adopted a shorter set of procedural rules adapted in each case to the
requirements of a body that functions on the basis of consensus. The second section elaborates
certain procedures related to substantive work of the committee, including consideration of State
party reports and, where appropriate, consideration of individual communications and conduct of
inquiries.
13. Not all of the working methods of the treaty bodies are set out in their rules of procedure.
Working methods included in the rules of procedure of some committees are compiled in
working methods reports (normally included in the annual report) by other committees.
Committees with competence to consider individual complaints or conduct inquiries have also
set out procedures related to these activities in their rules of procedure.
Officers
14. All treaties contain provisions for the election of officers by the members of its
committee for a term of two years. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
and the Convention against Torture specify that officers may be re-elected, and other
committees provide for re-election in their rules of procedure. Rule 17 of the rules of
procedure of CEDAW provides that officers may be re-elected, provided that the principle
of rotation is upheld.
Official and working languages
15. The official languages of the United Nations are Arabic, Chinese, English, French,
Russian and Spanish. All treaty bodies, except CERD and CAT, have adopted these languages
as their official languages. Arabic is included de facto as an official language of CERD, and
Arabic and Chinese are not included as the official languages of CAT.
16. Five of the committees have adopted working languages: the working languages of
CAT, CERD, CESCR are Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish; and those of HRC and
CRC English, French and Spanish. The pre-sessional working group of CEDAW uses English,
French and/or Spanish as needed.
HRI/MC/2005/4
page 7
III. CONSIDERATION OF STATE PARTY REPORTS
17. The treaties do not indicate how treaty bodies should approach the task of considering
States parties’ reports. However, all treaty bodies have adopted broadly the same approach,
the main features of which are the “constructive dialogue” in which all committees engage with
a delegation from the State party whose report they are considering, and the adoption of
“concluding observations/comments”, acknowledging progress made and indicating to the State
party where further action is required. There is however considerable variation in the practice of
each treaty body with respect to report consideration.
A. Reporting guidelines
18. All committees have issued guidelines on reporting to provide guidance to States parties
on the preparation of their reports. These are compiled in document HRI/GEN/2, which is
revised regularly. The guidelines are designed to ensure that reports are presented in a uniform
manner so that treaty bodies and States parties can obtain a complete picture of the situation of
each State party with respect to the implementation of the relevant treaty. Some committees
recommend that States take an article-by-article approach, whereas others require reporting on
clusters of related articles. Some committees elaborate detailed questions to be answered with
respect to each article, whereas others allow the State party to decide what information is
relevant under each article. A number of committees have separate guidelines for initial and
periodic reports.
19. The HRC guidelines call for comprehensive initial reports, prepared on an
article-by-article basis. Although they do not set out specific information required under
each article, States parties are required to take into account the Committee’s general comments
which cover specific articles. States parties are not required to report on every article of the
Covenant in their periodic reports, but only on those provisions identified by the Committee in
its concluding observations on the previous report and those articles in respect of which there
have been significant developments since the submission of the previous report (A/56/40,
paras. 50-54).
20. The reporting guidelines of CESCR contain detailed and specific requests for information
relating to each substantive article of the Covenant, effectively constituting a questionnaire for
States parties to use to structure their reports. No distinction is drawn between initial and
periodic reports.
21. The reporting guidelines of CERD detail the information that should be provided under
each of the substantive articles of the Convention. The guidelines emphasize the importance the
Committee attaches to information related to the de facto implementation of the Convention.
The Committee requests that States parties ensure that reports strictly correspond with the
provisions of the Convention and the reporting guidelines, and are as succinct and concise as
possible (see A/58/18, annex IV).
22. CEDAW reporting guidelines provide general guidance for States parties in preparing
their initial and periodic reports under the Convention. They call for reports to be as concise as
possible, and impose page limits: initial reports should be no more than 100 pages long and
HRI/MC/2005/4
page 8
periodic reports should not exceed 70 pages. Additional essential information may be included
in annexes, but will not be translated (A/57/38, annex X). Both initial and periodic reports
should address each substantive article of the Convention specifically, but periodic reports
should focus on the period between the consideration of the previous report and the current
report, using the concluding comments on the previous report as the starting point and
highlighting new developments. The guidelines also request a broad range of relevant
information, including the situation of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and
women’s associations and their participation in the implementation of the Convention and
the preparation of the report, measures to implement outcomes of United Nations conferences,
summits and reviews, and follow-up to procedures related to the State party under the
Optional Protocol.
23. CAT has adopted separate reporting guidelines for initial and periodic reports, and
revised guidelines for initial reports were adopted in May 2005. Initial reports are to be
structured in two parts, the first providing general background information and the second
addressing each substantive article of the Convention in turn. Periodic reports should be
presented in three parts, the first dealing with new measures and developments on the substantive
articles since the previous report, the second covering any additional information requested by
the Committee, and the third describing compliance with the Committee’s concluding
observations and recommendations on the previous report. The Committee emphasizes the
importance of information related to the de facto implementation of the Convention.
24. CRC has adopted four sets of reporting guidelines regarding the form and content of
initial reports and of periodic reports under the Convention and of initial reports under each
of the optional protocols to the Convention. The CRC guidelines on periodic reports amount
to 47 pages, compared to 6 pages for initial reports, and periodic reports submitted by States
parties are frequently much longer than initial reports. The Committee is currently considering
more concise revised guidelines on periodic reporting and has requested all States parties to
the Convention to submit periodic reports that are concise, analytical and focusing on key
implementation issues, the length of which not exceeding 120 regular-size pages
(Decision, 5/2002: CRC/C/148).
25. The CRC guidelines on initial and periodic reports request relevant legislative, judicial,
administrative and other information, including statistical data, as well as information about
“factors and difficulties encountered”, “progress achieved”, “implementation priorities”
and “specific goals” for the future. To facilitate a more structured discussion during the
consideration of the report by the Committee, the guidelines group the articles according to
content into eight clusters: (a) general measures of implementation; (b) definition of the child;
(c) general principles; (d) civil rights and freedoms; (e) family environment and alternative care;
(f) basic health and welfare; (g) education, leisure and cultural activities; and (h) special
protection measures, including (i) children in situations of emergency; (ii) children in conflict
with the law; (iii) children in situations of exploitation, including physical and psychological
recovery and social reintegration; and (iv) children belonging to a minority or an indigenous
group. The guidelines on reports under the Optional Protocols to the Convention are brief; the
guidelines on Optional Protocol to the Convention on the involvement of children in armed
HRI/MC/2005/4
page 9
conflicts call for information on an article-by-article basis, whereas those on the
Optional Protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography require
information to be clustered under wider headings.
26. The CMW guidelines, adopted during the Committee’s second session in April 2005,
request that States parties provide general information relating to the framework for
implementation of the Convention, followed by information on the implementation of each
substantive article, which may be arranged according to a series of clusters, respecting the
distinction in the Convention between all migrant workers and documented migrant workers.
27. There is wide variation in the size and quality of reports submitted by States parties.
Both the HRC and CERD allow States parties to complement the information in their reports
with additional information. The HRC imposes a specified deadline, whereas CERD accepts
additional information at any time, even if it cannot be translated in time for the relevant session.
The practice adopted by most treaty bodies of submitting lists of issues and questions to a
State party once the report has been submitted also provides an additional opportunity for
States parties to supplement the information contained in the report.
28. Since 1991, States that are parties to one or more of the international human rights
treaties have been able to submit a “core document” containing basic, largely unchanging
information about the State party concerned. The objective of the core document, intended
to be a common “initial part of the State party report” (HRI/CORE/1), is to facilitate the
implementation by States parties of their reporting obligations by reducing repetition and
overlap in the information submitted to several treaty bodies.
29. Following a request from the Secretary-General in his report “Agenda for further
change”, the treaty bodies are currently considering a draft set of harmonized guidelines on
reporting for all seven of the human rights treaties in an effort to streamline the treaty reporting
process and to encourage the treaty bodies to function as a more unified system. The draft
guidelines include proposals for an expanded version of the core document, which would
incorporate a broader range of general information relevant to all or several of the treaty bodies.
This document would be submitted in tandem with more targeted treaty-specific reports.
B. Submission of State reports
30. Each of the human rights treaties establishes a framework for regular reporting by
States parties on implementation of their obligations under those treaties. In most cases, the
treaty explicitly sets out a timetable for the submission of initial and periodic reports, commonly
referred to as the reporting “periodicity”, based on the date of entry into force of the treaty for
the specific State party. In the case of the two Covenants, the periodicity for submission of
reports is not fixed in the provisions. The HRC is given discretion to decide when periodic
reports should be submitted, and so is the Economic and Social Council to establish its own
reporting programme; ECOSOC resolution 1988/4 consequently sets the periodicity for
submission of periodic reports to CESCR. Table 3 outlines the periodicity for the submission of
reports.
HRI/MC/2005/4
page 10
Table 3
Reporting periodicities under the treaties
Initial reports within Periodic reports every
ICERD 1 year 2 years
ICCPR 1 year 4 years†
ICESCR* 2 years 5 years
CEDAW 1 year 4 years
CAT 1 year 4 years
CRC 2 years 5 years
CRC-OPAC 2 years integrated in next CRC report, every five years;
every five years for States not party to the CRC
CRC-OPSC 2 years integrated in next CRC report, every five years;
every five years for States not party to the CRC
ICRMW 1 year 5 years
* Article 17 of the Covenant gives ECOSOC discretion to establish its own reporting
programme.
† Average periodicity. Committee may vary the date the next report is due in accordance
with its follow-up procedure.
Flexible application of reporting periodicities
31. Late submission of reports by States parties, as well as the time lag between the
submission and the consideration of a report can result in a State party’s next periodic report
falling due in the same year that the Committee considers the State’s preceding report. The
discretion given to HRC and CESCR to determine when periodic reports should be submitted
has allowed these committees greater flexibility in this context, but other treaty bodies have also
developed modalities to address this issue.
32. CESCR requires that, after submission of a State party’s initial report, subsequent
periodic reports should be submitted at five-year intervals (rule 58 of the rules of procedure).
Since 2000, CESCR has, as a general rule, applied the five-year rule, but has reduced this
period in light of the timeliness of submission of reports, the quality of information provided,
the quality of the constructive dialogue between the Committee and the State party, the
adequacy of the State party’s response to the Committee’s concluding observations, and its
implementation of the Covenant (E/C.12/2001/17, para. 1024). The due date of the next periodic
report is indicated in the concluding observations. Since 2002, HRC has delegated the task of
determining when a State should present its next periodic report to its Bureau. In general,
subsequent reports are due four years after the submission of the previous report, but the Bureau
may call for a report earlier or later, depending on the State party’s level of compliance with the
Covenant’s provisions, including their reporting record (rules 66 and 70A of the rules of
procedure). Neither CESCR nor HRC allow an accumulation of overdue reports: for any
State party, only one report is due at any one time, regardless of how long that report has been
overdue.
HRI/MC/2005/4
page 11
33. Despite the fixed periodicities set in their treaties, other committees have taken a flexible
approach to the submission of reports. CERD allows States parties to submit “combined reports”
(the combination of several reporting obligations in a single document), and since 1984 has
automatically accepted the submission of an unlimited number of reports in one document.
In 1988, CERD decided that States parties should submit a comprehensive report every
four years and a brief updating report in the two-year interim. Since 2001, in cases where the
period between the date of examination of the last periodic report and the scheduled date for the
submission of the next periodic report is less than two years, CERD can suggest in its concluding
observations that the State party submit the latter report jointly with its subsequent periodic
report (A/56/18, para. 477), thereby allowing the State to return to conformity with the reporting
schedule set by the Convention.
34. There is an average time lag of two years between the submission of a report and its
consideration by CRC, and the Committee allows for the submission of combined reports. Thus,
a second (or third) periodic report may be submitted combined with the third (or fourth) periodic
report at the time when the latter report is due, when the former is due within the year following
the dialogue with the Committee or when it is already due at the time of the dialogue and the
third (or fourth) report is due two years or more after the dialogue with the Committee. States
are not entitled to submit combined reports automatically: the Committee must invite the
State party to submit such a report in its concluding observations. The Committee has
described the procedure as exceptional and does not apply it beyond fourth periodic reports
(CRC/C/144).
35. CEDAW adopted a similar procedure on an exceptional basis and as a temporary
measure, and has invited States parties with overdue reports to combine all outstanding reports
in a single document (Decision 23/II). CAT has accepted combined reports, but exceptionally,
and has not adopted a formal position in this context.
C. Pre-session preparation: the drafting of lists of issues and questions
36. All committees prepare lists of issues and questions for State parties whose reports
are due to be considered, but the practice on how these lists are produced and their role in
enhancing the work of the committees vary. Lists of issues provide an opportunity for
States parties to supplement the information contained in their report and also provides a guide
to States parties on the line of questioning they are likely to face when their report is formally
considered.
37. CESCR, HRC, CEDAW and CRC adopt lists of issues with respect to both initial and
periodic reports, while currently, CAT adopts them only with respect to periodic reports. CERD
leaves the decision of whether a list of issues and questions will be formulated with respect to a
State party’s report to the discretion of the designated country rapporteur. All committees
appoint one or more of their members to act as country rapporteur for a specific country whose
report is under consideration, and the rapporteur frequently takes the lead in drafting the list of
issues (see section D below).
HRI/MC/2005/4
page 12
Pre-sessional working group/country taskforce
38. Lists of issues are drafted prior to the session at which the report will be considered,
either in a pre-sessional working group convened immediately after the previous session,
immediately before the session at which the report will be considered, or during the plenary
session.
39. CEDAW, CESCR and CRC convene a one-week pre-sessional working group to
prepare lists of issues or questions with respect to the reports of States parties that are due
to be considered by the Committee. CEDAW and CRC convene the working group
immediately after the session, prior to the session at which the reports will be considered.
The CESCR pre-sessional working group prepares lists of issues and questions up to
two sessions or 18 months prior to the consideration of reports.
40. The pre-sessional working groups usually consist of four to five members of the
respective committee, and in the case of CEDAW, include the country rapporteurs wherever
possible. The CRC working group consists of all members of the Committee, and from
September 2005 onward, will work in two groups to prepare the reports that will be considered
by the Committee, which will be meeting in two parallel chambers in accordance with
General Assembly resolution 59/261. Pre-sessional working groups meet in private, although
the CESCR one meets with NGOs in public meetings.
41. Although both HRC and CAT convene pre-sessional working groups, these deal with
individual communications and have no role in the preparation of lists of issues and questions
relating to reports. HRC assigns the preparation of its lists of issues to country report task forces,
composed of the relevant country rapporteur and between four and six other members of the
Committee nominated by the Chairperson on the basis of a balanced geographical distribution
and other relevant factors. The task forces meet during the session prior to which the report is
examined. The country rapporteur, who has overall responsibility for the list of issues, presents
a draft to the task force for discussion. Once the members have made their observations, the
list of issues is adopted by the task force as a whole, and principal responsibility for certain
questions included in the list of issues is allocated, based in part on the areas of particular
expertise of the member concerned. The list of issues is then transmitted to the State party
(A/56/40, paras. 50 to 54).
42. For CAT, the lists of issues and questions are prepared by the two country rapporteurs
and submitted to Committee members for written comments during the session prior to that at
which the report will be considered and are not formally adopted by the Committee. CMW
has indicated that it will formally adopt lists of issues for each State party report, drawn up by
two country rapporteurs, when it begins to consider reports. Although CERD discussed this
possibility during its sixty-third session in 2003, it currently does not convene a pre-sessional
working group; lists of issues are elaborated by the country rapporteur, at his or her discretion,
and transmitted to the State party in advance of its dialogue with the Committee. Lists of issues
were drawn up for all States parties whose reports were considered at its sixty-sixth session held
from 21 February to 11 March 2005.
HRI/MC/2005/4
page 13
The form of the lists of issues
43. Lists of issues produced by CERD and CAT are generally formulated on an
article-by-article basis, drawing on the information contained in the State party’s report.
CEDAW adopts an article-by-article approach for lists of issues for initial reports (except in the
case of articles 1 and 2; 7 and 8; and 15 and 16, which are considered together), whereas lists of
issues for periodic reports are arranged in clusters. HRC formulates its lists of issues on a
thematic basis, arranged by sequence of the substantive provisions of the Covenant, and grouped
in clusters. Committees may include a number of standard questions, so that CAT, for example,
routinely asks States parties about their counter-terrorism measures and about their intention to
ratify the Optional Protocol.
44. CESCR has a self-imposed formal limit of 40 questions for initial reports
and 25 questions for periodic reports (E/C.12/2001/17, paras. 1035-36). However,
additional necessary questions may be asked, depending on the quality of the report. The
Committee limits requests for written information to statistical data, information requested in
the guidelines but missing in the report, points of clarification regarding the report, and
information on key legal, structural, policy and institutional issues (for the initial report) or new
developments (with regard to periodic reports). The CEDAW list of issues focuses on data and
information that require updating since the report was submitted or supplementary information,
as well as a number of standard questions relating to issues such as the implementation of the
Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action and ratification of the Optional Protocol to the
Convention. For periodic reports, particular attention is paid to the State party’s follow-up to
previous concluding observations/comments, and questions are clustered according to priority
issues rather than addressing specific articles. CEDAW limits itself to a total of 30 clear and
direct questions (CEDAW/C/2004/II/4).
45. The CRC lists of issues usually call for: (i) additional data, requested according to the
capacity of the State party to provide such data; (ii) general measures of implementation;
(iii) updated information since the report was submitted; and (iv) availability of the Convention
in local languages. A final section highlights main issues to be raised during the dialogue, in
order to assist the State party to constitute a delegation including experts in the appropriate
fields.
46. Lists of issues for HRC, CESCR, CEDAW and CAT are official documents of general
distribution. They are translated into the working languages of the relevant committee, and are
publicly available on the United Nations Official Documents System (ODS). CRC lists of issues
are translated into the Committee’s working languages, but are as yet, not United Nations
documents, although they are available on the OHCHR web site. Those adopted by CERD are
informal documents, submitted by the country rapporteur to the State party, and are translated
into the relevant language for the State party concerned, but are not publicly available.
Replies to lists of issues
47. CEDAW, CESCR and CRC require the State party to respond to the lists of issues and
questions in writing. CEDAW requires replies to be short, precise and to the point, and under
HRI/MC/2005/4
page 14
a limit of 25 to 30 pages, although additional pages of statistical data may be included
(A/59/38, paras. 418 to 440). CEDAW formally requests a response within six weeks in order to
allow time for translation before the session, and forwards unedited versions of the lists to the
State party immediately after their adoption to maximize the time available for response. Given
the short period of time between the pre-sessional working group and the subsequent session of
CRC, States parties normally have only six weeks in which to submit their written responses to
the Committee. The inter-sessional delay for HRC is similar, but States parties are not required
to submit written responses in time for translation. States parties have at least six months in
which to prepare their responses to the lists of issues of CESCR.
48. Written responses submitted to CEDAW are published as official documents in the
six United Nations languages and, together with the list of issues, are posted on the DAW
web site. Those of CESCR and CRC are processed and translated into the working languages
of the relevant committee as “fair copy”; they are not available on the ODS, although CRC does
post the replies it receives on its web page. Any written responses submitted to HRC are not
translated or processed. Some States parties, especially when they are familiar with the
procedures of the other treaty bodies, may submit written replies to lists of issues to CERD and
CAT in advance of or during the session at which their report will be considered, but this is not
formally required by these committees.
The role of the list of issues in the constructive dialogue
49. The primary role of the list of issues in CEDAW, CESCR, and CRC is to elicit additional
or updating information. The list also provides the State party delegation with advance notice of
the issues with which the committee is likely to be concerned. HRC structures its constructive
dialogue around the list of issues, and while the Committee requests that States parties provide
full written responses to the questions for reference purposes, the members of the country task
force pose additional questions based on the list of issues, and these may be followed up by other
Committee members. In CAT, the delegation after its opening statement immediately proceeds
to providing answers orally to the list of issues. This is the case even where the answers are
provided in writing since, as in the case of the HRC, the responses are not official documents.
As the elaboration of lists of issues is at the discretion of the rapporteur in the case of CERD, it
appears that their primary role at this stage is to elicit information.
D. Constructive dialogue with States parties
50. Although not envisaged in the treaties, all human rights treaty bodies have adopted the
practice introduced by CERD in 1972 of considering States parties’ reports in the presence of
representatives from the reporting State party. This approach may be contrasted with the
paper-based procedures adopted by the International Labour Organization (ILO) Committee of
Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations in considering reports by
States parties to the more than 150 ILO conventions that impose reporting obligations.
Number of reports examined per session
51. HRC and CRC convene three three-week sessions per year. CEDAW, CERD and
CESCR convene two three-week sessions annually, whereas CAT has two annual sessions,
one of two weeks and one of three weeks. CMW currently meets twice a year for a
HRI/MC/2005/4
page 15
one-week session. The committees examine between 4 and 11 reports per session: HRC and
CESCR examine an average of 5 reports per session, CAT an average of 6, CEDAW 8, CRC 9
and CERD between 8 and 11 reports. Committees devote additional session time to
consideration of countries in the absence of a report, and other matters such as the drafting of
general comments. Some committees must also allocate a substantial part of their meeting time
to the consideration of individual communications.
52. The selection of reports to be considered at future sessions is based on chronological
order of receipt, with priority being given to initial reports and reports submitted by States
parties that have not reported for some time. Some committees seek to achieve a geographical
balance in reports to be considered, and may give priority to consideration of certain reports at
their discretion.
Duration and timing of meetings for the examination of reports
53. Each committee holds two meetings of three hours a day during the session. CRC,
CERD and CEDAW devote two meetings (and CAT one meeting and a half) to the public
examination of each State party report and, with the exception of CEDAW, they ensure that
those meetings take place on two different days, allowing members of the delegation time
overnight to address issues raised in the questioning. CEDAW considers each report over
one day. CESCR considers reports over three meetings, and HRC considers initial reports over
three meetings and periodic reports in two meetings.
Table 4
Number of reports examined each year by the treaty bodies
No. of sessions
per year
No. of weeks
per session
No. of reports
per session
No. of reports
considered annually*
CERD 2 3 8-11 16-22
HRC 3 3 5 10
CESCR 2 3 5 10
CEDAW 2 3 8 16
CAT 2 2/3§ 6 12
CRC 3 3 9 27†
CMW‡ 2 1 - -
* Most committees also review a number of country situations in the absence of a State
party report.
† In 2006, CRC will meet in two chambers, allowing it to take up 48 reports.
§ CAT has requested the General Assembly to extend its November session to
three weeks from 2006.
‡ CMW currently convenes two annual sessions of one week each. For 2006, it has
requested two sessions of one and two weeks’ duration.
HRI/MC/2005/4
page 16
Briefings of the State party prior to the session
54. OHCHR and DAW provide collective briefings to representatives of States parties whose
reports are due to be considered by one of the treaty bodies, generally four weeks in advance of
the relevant session. These briefings provide an opportunity for States parties to familiarize
themselves with the procedures of the specific committee with regard to the consideration of
reports, especially in view of the differences of approach taken by each committee. The
secretariat also has ongoing contact with delegations both in Geneva and New York and in the
country concerned on matters relating to sessions.
Participation of members in the consideration of reports of States parties of which
they are nationals
55. All committees require that members refrain from participating in any aspect of the
consideration of the reports of the States parties of which they are nationals in order to maintain
the highest standards of impartiality, both in substance and appearance. HRC formally specifies
this in its rules of procedure (rule 71, para. 4).
Conduct of the constructive dialogue with States parties
56. The constructive dialogue in all of the committees follows the same broad structure:
(i) The State party is invited to send a delegation to attend the meetings at which the
committee will consider the State party’s report;
(ii) The head of the delegation is invited to introduce the report in an opening statement
and, in some committees, replies to the lists of issues are presented;
(iii) Members of the committee, usually led by the country rapporteur(s) or country task
force members, raise questions to members of the delegation on specific aspects of
the report of particular concern.
57. All treaty bodies have adopted the notion of “constructive dialogue” to describe the
process, thus emphasizing the non-judgemental nature of the process of consideration of the
report, which is aimed at assisting the State party in advancing implementation of the relevant
treaty.
58. After a formal welcome by the chairperson, the head of the delegation is invited to make
an opening statement introducing the State party’s report and summarizing important
developments. In the case of CEDAW, this statement should not exceed 30 minutes and the
delegation is urged to provide precise, short and direct responses to questions asked in the
interests of time management (A/59/38, Part II, paras. 418 to 440). After introductory
comments, committee members may make comments, observations and ask questions or seek
clarification with regard to the report. CEDAW imposes strict time limits on members, who may
not make more than two interventions of up to three minutes each per State party (A/59/38, II,
para. 419). Similarly, CESCR urges members not to raise issues outside the scope of the
Covenant, repeat questions already posed or answered, add unduly to an already long list on a
HRI/MC/2005/4
page 17
particular issue, or speak for more than five minutes in any one intervention (E/C.12/2004/9,
para. 30). CESCR and CRC, as well as CEDAW (for periodic reports only), consider each
report by clusters of articles, inviting the delegation to reply immediately to questions that do not
require further reflection or research between each cluster. The remaining committees pose all
their questions together, which are formulated article by article.
The role of the country rapporteur
59. Most committees appoint one member (two in the case of CAT and CRC) to act as
country rapporteurs with respect to the report under consideration. Where possible, CEDAW
appoints a rapporteur from the same geographical region as the State party whose report is being
considered. Except in the case of CEDAW and HRC, the identity of the country rapporteur is
public. CMW has indicated that it will appoint two country rapporteurs for each State party
report.
60. Country rapporteurs undertake a thorough study of the report and assume the task of
drafting lists of issues and questions (in CERD, it is the rapporteur’s decision whether or not to
send a list of questions). In some committees, they take the lead in posing questions to the State
party’s delegation during the constructive dialogue and summing up after the discussion.
Rapporteurs have primary responsibility for drafting the committee’s concluding observations on
the State party’s report. In CERD, CAT and CRC, the country rapporteurs are the first members
to pose questions to the delegation, and in the case of CERD, also the last to address the
delegation. In CESCR, however, the country rapporteur does not open the questions and is not
expected to sum up the discussion.
61. In HRC the members of the country task force are allocated specific questions from the
list of issues to address to the delegation during the constructive dialogue. In an effort to ensure
an efficient and focused dialogue, CEDAW, at its thirty-first session and on an experimental
basis, appointed a “country task force” from amongst its 23 members to take the lead in posing
questions to each delegation.
The delegation’s responses to members’ questions during the session
62. All committees provide an opportunity for members to pose questions additional to those
included in the list of issues. In CEDAW, CESCR and CRC members pose questions by clusters
of articles, and the delegation is invited to respond to each cluster immediately, before moving to
the next group of questions. In CRC, a brief pause is allowed between each cluster of questions,
in which the members of the delegation can confer. The delegation may defer answering
immediately any question which it wishes to refer to its capital for information.
63. In HRC, following its statement, the delegation responds to the first part of the list of
issues, and then members ask questions. The remainder of the list of questions is dealt with in
the same fashion. In CERD, following the delegation’s statement, the remainder of the first
meeting is devoted entirely to members’ questions. The delegation is not expected to respond to
any questions immediately, and usually provides all its responses the next day. In CAT, initial
HRI/MC/2005/4
page 18
reports are introduced by the delegation and immediately thereafter the Committee poses
questions. In the case of periodic reports, a short statement by the delegation is followed by its
replies to the list of issues and questions, after which the Committee poses further questions.
Where both initial and periodic reports are concerned, the delegation returns the following
afternoon to reply to the Committee’s questions.
Postponement of the consideration of reports and consideration of reports in the absence
of a delegation
64. Although this has become the practice, the treaties do not oblige States parties to send a
delegation to present their reports, and all treaty bodies have provision to consider reports in the
absence of a delegation from the State party concerned, in order to address requests for
last-minute postponement which have been refused by the committee and cases where the State
party has failed to respond to the request to attend, or simply does not appear on that day.
65. States parties whose reports have been scheduled to be considered by a committee at a
session sometimes request that consideration be postponed to a later session. In the period
2004-2005, treaty bodies responded positively to requests for last-minute postponement as a
result of a natural disaster (hurricane) affecting the reporting State; problems in issuing travel
documentation to delegation members; and major national political crises.
66. CESCR adheres to the formal rule that once a State party has agreed to the scheduling of
its report for consideration, the Committee will proceed with the examination of that report at the
time scheduled, even in the absence of a representative (rule 62, paragraph 3, of the rules of
procedure). Both HRC (rule 68) and CAT (rule 66, para. 2) may, at their own discretion, either
notify the State party of the alternative date on which it intends to consider the report, or
consider the report as originally scheduled in the absence of a delegation. In the latter case,
provisional concluding observations on the report will be submitted to the State party and the
date when the report will be further considered or on which a new periodic report should be
submitted will be identified. CEDAW agrees to reschedule consideration of the report to another
session (rule 51, para. 5), but if at such a subsequent session the State party, after due
notification, fails to have a representative present, the Committee may proceed with the
examination of the report in the absence of the representative of the State party. In practice,
however, CEDAW does not consider a report in the absence of a delegation (A/59/38, annex X).
Neither CRC nor CERD have formal rules on this matter, but both may consider a report in the
absence of representatives of the State party when, after being notified, it does not provide
compelling reasons for deferral of the consideration of its report.
E. Concluding observations/comments
67. All treaty bodies have adopted the practice established by CESCR in 1990 of formulating
what are variously called “concluding observations”, “conclusions and recommendations” and
“concluding comments” following the consideration of the reports of States parties. In general,
these take the following structure: introduction; positive aspects; principal subjects of concern;
and suggestions and recommendations. Concluding observations may also include factors and
difficulties impeding the implementation of the treaty, a request for their wide dissemination in
HRI/MC/2005/4
page 19
the State party concerned, and a paragraph may be included requesting that additional
information be provided to the respective committee by a specified deadline (usually one year),
or on specific points of the concluding observations (see section F below). The concluding
observations of HRC and CESCR and those committees that have adopted a flexible approach to
periodicity of reporting may also indicate the provisional date when the State party’s next
periodic report is due. Some committees group all positive points, all points of concern and
finally the recommendations together; others identify concerns followed by a corresponding
recommendation. The concluding comments of CEDAW are prefaced by a factual summary of
the State party’s introductory statement to the Committee, prepared by the secretariat.
68. Concluding observations of the treaty bodies are normally four to five pages long; those
of CRC, however, average 16 pages. In all committees, the country rapporteur coordinates the
drafting process, collecting comments and suggestions from other members before the draft is
discussed and adopted in formal session. The draft concluding observations of all committees
except CRC which works on its drafts in English are translated during the session into the
working languages of the committee, if time allows, in order to facilitate the drafting process.
Release of the concluding observations/comments
69. Advance unedited versions of the concluding observations are normally given to the State
party concerned before they are made available to others. HRC releases the text of its
concluding observations during the session, as soon as they have been adopted, finalized and
transmitted to the State party, while the concluding observations of CESCR, once formally
adopted, are usually not made public until 6 p.m. on the final day of the session, when they are
sent to the States parties concerned. Similarly, CAT and CERD make their concluding
observations public at the end of the session. CRC concluding observations are made public on
the last day of a committee session during the adoption of the session report, of which they form
part. CEDAW sends its concluding comments to the State party the week after the session and
makes them public within a few days thereafter.
70. Concluding observations/comments are included in the respective committee’s sessional
or annual reports, in accordance with specific provisions of most of the treaties, and all
committees publish their concluding observations as separate official documents in all official
languages. These are posted on the OHCHR web site, and in the case of CEDAW, on the DAW
web site, initially in advance unedited form to allow interested parties immediate access. Once
the translated texts are finalized, they are publicly available on the ODS. The concluding
observations/comments are also distributed electronically to subscribers to the treaty bodies
listserve, an electronic notification service administered by OHCHR.
Comments by States parties on concluding observations/comments
71. In accordance with specific provisions in the treaties, States parties may, if they wish,
submit to the relevant committee comments on the concluding observations/comments adopted
with respect to their reports. All treaty bodies may make any such comments received publicly
available. Observations by States parties on concluding comments of CEDAW are circulated to
the Committee members and their receipt acknowledged in an annex to the Committee’s report
HRI/MC/2005/4
page 20
to the General Assembly (Decision 21/II, A/54/38/Rev.1, p. 45). The Committee may also
decide to make the observations available independently of its annual report. In accordance with
article 9 of the Convention, comments on CERD concluding observations are included in the
Committee’s annual report to the General Assembly. Comments on the concluding observations
of HRC and CAT may be issued as an official document, and they may be referred to, but not
included, in their annual reports. It should be noted that some States parties are also required to
submit follow-up reports under these committees’ follow-up procedures. CRC will similarly
acknowledge comments received in its sessional and biennial reports, and may reproduce them
as separate documents upon formal request. CESCR makes any comments received public, as
submitted, for information purposes only, as Committee documents and mentions them in its
annual report (E/2005/22).
F. Follow-up to concluding observations
Follow-up procedures
72. All treaty bodies request States parties to provide information on implementation of the
recommendations contained in previous concluding observations/comments in their subsequent
reports or during the constructive dialogue. Several treaty bodies have also recently introduced
formal procedures to monitor more closely implementation of specific concluding observations.
73. Since March 2001, HRC has systematically applied a follow-up procedure whereby the
Committee identifies a number of specific recommendations in its concluding observations as
requiring immediate attention, and requests the State party to provide additional information on
their implementation within a set period (usually one year). The concluding observations set a
provisional date for submission of the next periodic report. A rapporteur on follow-up to
concluding observations reviews the information received from the State party and, on the basis
of this follow-up progress report, the Committee may confirm or amend the date for submission
of the next periodic report (rule 72). This procedure is currently not applied in cases where the
Committee examines implementation of the Covenant by a State party in the absence of a report.
74. At its thirtieth session, in May 2003, CAT introduced a follow-up procedure (rule 68,
para. 1), whereby the Committee requests follow-up reports within one year. A rapporteur to
monitor the State party’s compliance with these requests has been appointed.
75. CERD has a long-standing procedure, set out in rule 65 of its rules of procedure, whereby
the Committee may request further information or an additional report concerning, inter alia,
action taken by States parties to implement the Committee’s recommendations. At its
sixty-fourth session, in March 2004, the Committee decided to supplement this procedure with
the appointment of a coordinator on follow-up. The coordinator, the first of whom was
appointed at the sixty-fifth session in August 2004, is appointed for a period of two years and
works in cooperation with the country rapporteurs. A working paper clarifying the mandate of
the coordinator was adopted by CERD at its sixty-sixth session in February/March 2005.
76. CESCR may, in its concluding observations, make a specific request to a State party to
provide more information or statistical data prior to the date on which the next periodic report is
due. Information provided in accordance with this procedure will be considered at the next
HRI/MC/2005/4
page 21
pre-sessional working group, which, based on that information, can recommend that the
Committee take note of the information, adopt specific additional concluding observations in
response to that information, recommend that the matter be pursued through a request for further
information, or authorize the Chairperson to inform the State party, in advance of the next
session, that the Committee will take up the issue at that session, preferably in the presence of a
representative of the State party. If the additional information requested in accordance with
these procedures is not provided by the specified date, or is considered to be unsatisfactory, the
Chairperson, in consultation with the Bureau, may pursue the matter with the State party. Where
the Committee has been unable to obtain the information it requires, it may request that the State
party accept a technical assistance mission consisting of one or two Committee members, an
approach which it has applied in relation to two States parties. In cases where the State party is
unwilling to accept the proposed mission, the Committee may make appropriate
recommendations to the Economic and Social Council.
G. Strategies to encourage reporting by States parties
77. All committees have adopted strategies to encourage reporting by States parties. Several
allow for the combination of reporting obligations in a single document. A document on the
recent reporting history of States parties is prepared for the annual meeting of chairpersons of
human rights treaty bodies, and a list of reports that are overdue are included in the annual
reports of most treaty bodies, with some, such as HRC, CEDAW and CERD, providing lists of
States parties whose reports are 5 and 10 years overdue, respectively. Most committees send
targeted reminders to States parties whose reports, in particular initial reports, are overdue. In
the case of CAT, two members have been appointed by the Committee to maintain contacts with
representatives of non-reporting States in order to encourage the preparation and submission of
reports.
The review procedure: consideration of a country situation in the absence of a report
78. All committees have adopted the practice, pioneered by CERD in 1991 under its “review
procedure”, of proceeding with examination of the state of implementation of the relevant treaty
by the State party even though no report has been received (see CERD, A/58/18, annex IV,
Section P; CESCR, E/C.12/2004/9; CEDAW, rule 65; HRC, rule 70; CAT, rule 65; CRC,
CRC/C/33, paras. 29 to 32 and rule 67). In general:
(i) The committee notifies a non-reporting State party of its intention to examine
implementation of the relevant treaty by the State party in the absence of a report
during a public meeting on a specified date. The State party may respond by
submitting a report, at which time the procedure is suspended and the normal
process of consideration of the report begins. Where the State party concerned
indicates that a report will be provided, pending receipt of that report, the review
may be postponed to another session;
(ii) The committee may formulate a list of issues and questions for the State party,
which is invited to send a delegation to attend the session. If the State party is not
represented, the committee may decide to proceed with the review, or it may notify
the State party of a new date for consideration;
HRI/MC/2005/4
page 22
(iii) The committee reviews the situation in the country on the basis of information
available to it, including any dialogue with the State party delegation and
information submitted by United Nations partners and NGOs. The committee will
prepare provisional concluding observations, which will be referred to, but not
published, in its annual report and which will be transmitted to the State party.
These provisional concluding observations become final if the State party does not
respond or indicate that it will submit a report in the near future.
79. This procedure is used in exceptional cases only. In many cases, notification by the
committee that it intends to consider the situation in a country in the absence of a report
encourages the State party to produce a report. As the procedure constitutes an important
strategy to encourage States parties to submit reports, it is generally invoked where reports are
very overdue. CERD, for example, reviews States parties that are at least five years late in the
submission of their initial or periodic reports. When no report has been received from a State
party after the initiation of the first review, a subsequent round of reviews may take place.
80. CRC has yet to carry out a review under this procedure, but, in 2004, issued 10 notices of
planned reviews, resulting in submission of the 10 initial reports. For the first time, in July 2004,
CEDAW invited two States parties whose initial reports were long overdue to submit them by a
specified date.
H. Early warning and urgent action procedures
81. Since 1993, CERD has developed procedures relating to early warning measures and
urgent action (A/48/18, annex III), the former directed at preventing existing problems in States
parties from escalating into new conflict or preventing a resumption of conflict, and the latter to
respond to problems requiring immediate attention to prevent or limit the scale or number of
serious violations of the Convention.
82. The procedures may be invoked by the Committee itself or by interested parties such as
NGOs. The Committee has established a working group to direct its work under the procedures,
which may request written submissions from the State party and may formulate questions for it.
A delegation from the State party is invited to attend the meeting at which the matter will be
discussed in order to respond to members’ questions, but the Committee may proceed with
consideration of the matter even if the State party declines to send a delegation. Written
submissions may also be made by other interested parties. After considering the matter, the
Committee adopts a formal decision, which may include requests for action by the State party
and the provision of further information in the next periodic report. These procedures have
been used since 1993 in relation to more than 20 States parties. The Committee has conducted
two field visits in connection with the procedure and has drawn the attention of the
Secretary-General, the Security Council and other relevant bodies to situations in relation to
six States parties.
83. In the 1990s, HRC requested that several States parties facing serious difficulties in the
implementation of rights contained in the Covenant either present their overdue initial/periodic
reports without delay or prepare ad hoc reports on specific issues. Three States parties submitted
HRI/MC/2005/4
page 23
ad hoc reports as requested. In March 2004, the Committee’s Bureau discussed the possibility of
reviving this urgent procedure/ad hoc reporting procedure and in March 2005, after further
discussion, the Committee requested one State party to produce an ad hoc report.
I. Participation of United Nations agencies, funds and programmes
84. Most treaty bodies have adopted modalities for interaction with specialized agencies and
other bodies of the United Nations. This interaction is specifically envisaged in the provisions
of some of the treaties (articles 16 to 24 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights; article 40, paragraph 2, of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights; article 22 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
against Women; article 45 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child; and article 74 of the
Convention on the Rights of Migrant Workers. Most treaty bodies have made provision for this
in their rules of procedure (HRC, rule 67; CEDAW, rules 44 and 45; CAT, rule 62; CRC,
rule 70). Two treaties, the Conventions on the Rights of the Child and on Migrants, mention
specific specialized agencies in relation to the work of their treaty bodies - the United Nations
Children’s Fund (UNICEF) in article 45 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and ILO in
article 74 of the Convention on the Rights of Migrant Workers.
85. Most of the treaties provide for their committees to forward States parties’ reports
to relevant United Nations entities through the Secretary-General, although not all
committees actually do this. Reports, as official documents, are sent to these entities as part
of the general distribution, are available through the ODS and are posted on the OHCHR
and DAW web sites.
Submission of written information by specialized agencies to the treaty bodies
86. Three of the treaties (the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and
the Convention on the Rights of the Child) provide for United Nations specialized agencies to
submit specific reports to the relevant treaty bodies on implementation of the treaty in areas
falling within the scope of their activities. In practice, these committees do not require the
specialized agencies to submit separate reports on their own activities, but most committees may
invite specialized agencies to provide written reports containing country-specific information on
States parties whose reports are before them. Depending on the committee, such information is
requested for the full committee session and the pre-sessional working group/country task force.
All relevant agencies are informed by e-mail or fax of the countries whose reports are due to be
considered in the pre-sessions or sessions of CEDAW, CESCR, CRC and HRC, and input is
requested. CERD systematically receives information from ILO and the Office of the
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) at the request of the secretariat.
CAT maintains regular contacts with UNHCR, which provides confidential information on a
regular basis. UNICEF, ILO, the World Health Organization and UNHCR provide written
information systematically to the treaty bodies. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations, the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, UNAIDS, the
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, the United Nations
HRI/MC/2005/4
page 24
Development Fund for Women, the United Nations Population Fund and the International
Organization for Migration (which is outside the United Nations system) also provide input on
occasion. Some agencies, in particular UNHCR, may request that written information submitted
be kept confidential.
87. CEDAW has adopted specific guidelines for reports of United Nations specialized
agencies and entities (A/56/38, part two, paras. 392-395). Country-specific information should
be provided and questions posed by the Committee’s pre-sessional working group kept in mind
and put into perspective by reference to global and/or regional data and trends on the subject.
Country-specific information should be complemented with additional information on the
agency’s programmes in the country or region. Wherever possible, United Nations bodies and
specialized agencies are also invited to include in their reports information on ongoing efforts
made towards supporting the ratification of the Optional Protocol.
Provision for participation of representatives of specialized agencies
88. Representatives of specialized agencies are also invited by CEDAW, CESCR, CRC and
HRC to meet with the committee during the session to discuss the situation in the countries
whose reports are being considered. Representatives of United Nations entities may address
CESCR, CEDAW and CRC during a designated meeting at the beginning of the pre-sessional
working group. HRC invites representatives to a designated meeting in plenary at the beginning
of the session. CEDAW and CESCR invite representatives to the session, in addition to the
pre-sessional working group meetings.
89. The participation of specialized agencies in the pre-sessional working groups of CEDAW
and CRC and the beginning of CEDAW and HRC sessions takes place in closed meetings. In
CESCR, all or part of the meeting may be open or closed, according to the wishes of the
representatives of the agencies present. In order for the Committee to benefit fully from the
information provided, CEDAW encourages in its guidelines that agencies or bodies ensure that
representatives are equipped to respond to the questions and comments that may be raised by
Committee members.
90. Certain agencies maintain close links with specific committees. The working
relationship between UNICEF and CRC, encouraged by the Convention, is close and
extends beyond consideration of reports to include assistance to States parties to facilitate
the reporting process, drafting of general comments, involvement in days of general discussion
and assistance with informal field visits. The relationship between ILO and CMW is also
specified in the Convention. CESCR has forged a close working relationship with UNESCO in
connection with the right to education. Some United Nations agencies, funds and programmes
have also worked together with certain treaty bodies to assist in the drafting of specific general
comments.
91. CEDAW designates individual members to serve as focal points for various
United Nations entities. In 2003, CERD also appointed such focal points, but they have
hitherto not been active.
HRI/MC/2005/4
page 25
J. Interaction with special procedures of the Commission on Human Rights
92. Although relevant information from the reports of country-specific and thematic special
rapporteurs is routinely provided to treaty bodies by OHCHR and DAW, input from the special
procedures of the Commission on Human Rights to the reporting process is irregular, except for
the close collaboration between the Special Rapporteur on torture and CAT, which includes the
sharing of country-specific information relating to States parties’ reports and individual
communications.
93. Outside of its work in considering of reports, CESCR has consistently invited special
rapporteurs of the Commission on Human Rights and of the Sub-Commission on the Promotion
and Protection of Human Rights, chairpersons of Commission working groups and others to
address it and engage in discussions. Similarly, special procedures mandate holders have
attended CERD sessions in the context of both its annual thematic debate and other ad hoc
debates that are held periodically, and the Committee has sought to exchange information with
international or regional mechanisms or bodies entrusted with monitoring the observance of
or respect for human rights, particularly in matters covered by the Convention or the
Durban Declaration and Programme of Action. CEDAW has interacted in particular with the
Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, while the
independent expert appointed by the Secretary-General to lead an in-depth study of the question
of violence against children and several special rapporteurs have interacted with CRC.
K. Participation of national human rights institutions (NHRIs)
94. Three committees have adopted general comments on the role of national human rights
institutions in their work. General comment No. 10 of CESCR acknowledges the role of
NHRIs in monitoring implementation of the Covenant at the national level. In its general
recommendation No. XVII concerning the establishment of national institutions to facilitate
implementation of the Convention, CERD recommends that where NHRIs have been
established, “they should be associated with the preparation of reports and possibly included
in government delegations in order to intensify the dialogue between the Committee and
the State party concerned”. The detailed general comment No. 2 (2002) of CRC includes a
section on reporting to the Committee and cooperation between NHRIs and United Nations
agencies and human rights mechanisms. The Committee suggests that NHRIs should
contribute independently to the reporting process and “monitor the integrity of government
reports to international treaty bodies with respect to children’s rights, including through
dialogue with the Committee on the Rights of the Child at its pre-sessional working group
and with other relevant treaty bodies”. It also considers it appropriate for States parties
to consult with independent human rights institutions during the preparation of their
reports to the Committee, provided that the independence of these bodies and their
independent role in providing information to the Committee is respected. In contradiction
to CERD, the CRC considers that “it is not appropriate to delegate to NHRIs the drafting of
reports or to include them in the government delegation when reports are examined by the
Committee”. CEDAW will consider its interaction with NHRIs at its thirty-third session in
July 2005.
HRI/MC/2005/4
page 26
95. NHRIs of the States parties which are to be considered by CAT are routinely informed
about the forthcoming consideration and invited to submit written information. NHRIs may
request a private meeting with CRC. NHRIs are also informed about the programme of work of
CERD for each session and provided with copies of the reports due to be considered by the
Committee (A/58/18, annex IV). NHRIs may provide information to any interested members on
issues relating to the consideration of reports of States parties, in informal meetings outside the
Committee’s working hours, and may respond to requests to clarify or supplement such
information. On several occasions, NHRI representatives have taken part in such informal
lunchtime briefings. At its sixty-sixth session, with the agreement of the State party’s
delegation, CERD provided one NHRI with the opportunity to make an oral presentation in the
plenary on the second day of the consideration of the State party’s report. NHRI representatives
were seated separately from representatives of NGOs, with a sign clearly identifying them.
L. Participation of non-governmental organizations
96. Although all treaty bodies have developed modalities for interaction with NGOs,
article 45 (a) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child is the only human rights treaty
provision that expressly envisages a role for NGOs in the work of the treaty body. It entitles
CRC to seek expert advice on implementation of the Convention from specialized agencies
and UNICEF, and “other competent bodies”, which is understood to include NGOs. Since its
first session in 1991, the Committee, in cooperation with the NGO Group for CRC, has
systematically encouraged NGOs to submit reports, documentation or other information in order
to provide it with a comprehensive picture and expertise as to how the Convention is being
implemented in a particular country. Written information is received from international,
regional, national and local organizations, and may be submitted by individual NGOs or national
coalitions or committees of NGOs.
97. CESCR and CRC have adopted specific guidelines on NGO participation in their work
(CESCR, E/C.12/2000/6; CRC, CRC/C/90, annex VII). CESCR requires that NGO statements
be specific to the articles of the Covenant, focusing on the most pressing issues from the NGO
perspective and providing suggestions for specific questions that the pre-sessional working group
may consider incorporating in the list of issues with respect to the State party concerned. NGO
input should also be of direct relevance to matters under consideration by the Committee, be
reliable, and not abusive. CEDAW invites representatives of NGOs to make oral or written
statements and provide information or documentation to the Committee or its pre-sessional
working group (rule 47).
Submission of written information
98. HRC, CERD and CAT invite NGOs to provide reports containing country-specific
information on States parties whose reports are due for consideration (see for example CAT,
rule 62). CESCR, CEDAW and CRC similarly welcome written information from national and
international NGOs at both their pre-sessional working groups, during the drafting of the list of
issues, and the full committee session at which the State party report will be considered. The
CRC requires submissions to be made two months prior to its pre-sessional working group.
CERD also accepts written submissions from NGOs in relation to its early warning and urgent
action procedures, and these procedures may be invoked by NGOs.
HRI/MC/2005/4
page 27
Confidentiality of NGO information
99. CESCR asks the secretariat to ensure that any written information formally submitted to
it by individuals or NGOs in relation to the consideration of a specific State party’s report be
made available as soon as possible to the representative of the State concerned. CAT has
adopted the same practice, although individual NGOs may object to the State party being given
its written submission, in which case the Committee will disregard the submission. At its
thirty-fourth session in May 2005, CAT, on a trial basis, made NGO information available
through a designated Extranet web site. The CRC guidelines allow NGOs to request that their
written submissions be kept confidential.
Oral briefings during pre-sessional preparations
100. CESCR, CEDAW and CRC devote specific meetings during their pre-sessional working
groups to NGOs to enable them to brief members orally on the situation in States parties whose
reports are under consideration. In March 2005, HRC invited NGOs to address the country task
force, which was in the process of drafting a list of issues for one State party. The practice will
be continued at forthcoming sessions.
101. NGOs wishing to participate in the CRC pre-sessional working group must submit a
written request to the Committee at least two months in advance. The Committee then invites
selected NGOs to attend, on the basis of the written information submitted. Introductory
remarks by participants are limited to a maximum of 15 minutes for NGOs coming from the
country concerned and 5 minutes for others, allowing time for a constructive dialogue. The CRC
and CEDAW pre-sessional working groups meet in private, and CESCR meets with NGOs in an
open meeting.
Oral briefings during session time
102. Most committees make provision for representatives of NGOs to brief members during
the session at which the State party’s report is to be considered. HRC and CESCR set aside
meeting time on the first day of the session for this purpose, and CEDAW at the beginning of the
first and second week of the session, according to its schedule. CAT invites NGOs to brief
Committee members orally in private during formal meetings, devoted to one country at a time,
the day before the report of the State party is considered. Exceptionally, CRC may allow NGOs
to update the Committee during the session at which the report of the State party concerned is to
be considered. NGOs do not brief CERD during formal session time. Except in the case of
CESCR, where the meeting is open and covered by the press services, and CEDAW, where the
meeting is open, oral briefings during session time take place in closed meetings.
Country-specific briefings to members at the time of committee session
103. Additional lunchtime briefings are regularly convened for HRC to allow NGOs to
provide the most up-to-date country-specific information to members, in advance of the
examination of a particular State party’s report by the Committee. The Committee has reserved
HRI/MC/2005/4
page 28
the right, in the future, to determine whether other briefings by NGOs should also become part of
the Committee’s official programme and thus be provided with interpretation (A/57/40, vol. I,
annex III, para. 12). NGOs may request a private meeting with CRC, while NGO briefings
of CERD, which may be private, take place outside of the Committee’s working hours in
meetings.
The role of coalitions of NGOs in coordinating NGO input into the treaty bodies
104. In the case of several treaty bodies, coalitions are active in coordinating input. For
example, CRC maintains a close working relationship with the NGO Group for the CRC, a
coalition of some 60 to 70 international NGOs, which were active in the drafting of the
Convention and work together to promote its implementation. The NGO Group has a liaison
unit that supports participation of NGOs, particularly national coalitions, in the CRC reporting
process, including coordination of NGO written submissions. It also supports attendance of
national NGOs at the Committee’s sessions in Geneva. International Women’s Rights Action
Watch (IWRAW), and in particular IWRAW-Asia Pacific, facilitates interaction between NGOs
and CEDAW though training sessions convened in New York at the time of the Committee’s
sessions. IWRAW-Asia Pacific also coordinates the submission of NGO reports to CEDAW in
advance of sessions.
IV. OTHER ACTIVITIES RELATED TO THE REPORTING PROCESS
A. General comments/recommendations
105. All committees have adopted the practice of elaborating their views on the content of the
obligations assumed by States parties in the form of “general comments”. Two committees,
CEDAW and CERD, refer to these as “general recommendations”. CERD issued its first general
recommendation in 1972 on the basis of article 9 of the Convention, which allows the
Committee to make suggestions and general recommendations based on its examination of
reports. CEDAW issues its general recommendations under article 21 of the Convention and
HRC under article 40, paragraph 4, of the Covenant. CESCR began preparing general comments
at the invitation of the Economic and Social Council, with a view to assisting the States parties in
fulfilling their reporting obligations (rule 65). General comments have evolved in length and
complexity and now constitute detailed and comprehensive commentaries on specific provisions
of the treaties and on the relationship between the articles of the Convention and specific
themes/issues. Several treaty bodies have revised or replaced their general comments in the light
of experience gained through consideration of reports.
106. CESCR has defined the purpose of issuing general comments as:
(i) To make the experience gained so far through the examination of States parties’
reports available for the benefit of all States parties, in order to assist and promote
their further implementation of the Covenant;
(ii) To draw the attention of States parties to insufficiencies disclosed in a large number
of reports;
HRI/MC/2005/4
page 29
(iii) To suggest improvements in the reporting procedures, and to stimulate the activities
of the States parties, international organizations and the specialized agencies
concerned in achieving progressively and effectively the full realization of the
rights recognized in the Covenant.
Process of adoption of general comments
107. All treaty bodies have developed modalities for the formulation of general comments,
which broadly follow the procedure adopted by CEDAW in 1997 (A/52/38/Rev.1, para. 480).
This includes the following three basic stages:
(i) Wide consultations with specialized agencies, NGOs, academics and other human
rights treaty bodies, sometimes in the context of a day of general discussion or
thematic debate;
(ii) Elaboration of a draft by a designated member of the committee on the basis of the
consultation process, for further discussion by the committee and interested parties;
(iii) Formal adoption of the revised draft of the general comment in plenary session;
(iv) Some committees seek expert advice from United Nations specialized agencies or
other sources, including academics, in the elaboration of general comments, and
informal background papers may be requested from other interested parties.
108. CESCR has adopted an outline for drafting general comments (E/2000/22, annex IX).
The outline aims at ensuring consistency and clarity in the content, format, structure and ambit of
future general comments, thus promoting their accessibility and strengthening the authoritative
interpretation of the Covenant provided. In the Committee’s view, general comments should be
reader friendly and readily understandable to a broad range of readers, primarily States parties to
the Covenant.
109. At any time, members of a treaty body may propose that a general comment relating to a
specific article, provision or theme be prepared. The Committee generally shares draft general
comments with a selected number of experts, including those from other treaty bodies, for
comments. Some treaty bodies request that draft general comments be posted on the OHCHR
web site to allow for wider input.
B. Days of general discussion and thematic debates/discussions
110. Four treaty bodies (CESCR, CERD, CRC and CMW) have adopted the practice of
organizing what are variously described as “thematic debates”, “thematic discussions” or “days
of general discussion” in order to discuss issues of general concern to the implementation of their
treaties. Thematic discussions have been convened by CERD on specific themes in order to
specify the extent of its responsibilities under the Convention and provide States parties with
guidance on more complete fulfilment of their obligations. CERD and CRC hold regular annual
HRI/MC/2005/4
page 30
thematic discussions, whereas CESCR organizes these on an ad hoc basis, mainly in relation to
the preparation of a general comment, and may decide to invite general participation or restrict it
to a limited number of experts. CEDAW convenes open discussions in the context of
preparation of general comments only.
111. Since 1992, CRC has convened 13 days of general discussion days, open to all interested
parties, including discussions in working groups on sub-themes, identified in an outline adopted
by the Committee up to eight months in advance. At the end of its discussion days, CRC adopts
recommendations. The general discussions of CRC’s can also work in conjunction with
article 45 (c) of the Convention, a unique provision that allows the Committee to recommend
that the General Assembly request the Secretary-General to undertake action on specific issues
related to the rights of the child. The 1992 discussion day on children in armed conflict formed
the background to the Secretary-General’s comprehensive study on the impact of armed conflict
on children, while the general discussion days in 2000 and 2001 led to the General Assembly’s
request to the Secretary-General to conduct an in-depth study on violence against children.
C. Country visits by treaty body members
112. Treaty bodies have not established formal guidelines or criteria to responding to
invitations to committee members from States parties. The United Nations High Commissioner
for Human Rights has endorsed guidelines for invitations to treaty bodies by States parties before
the consideration of reports (annex I).
D. Committee statements
113. Some treaty bodies formulate statements on international developments and issues that
bear upon the implementation of their treaties. CESCR has adopted statements in the context of
a number of world conferences, as well as statements on globalization and intellectual property.
CERD has adopted statements directed to world conferences and on terrorism and a “declaration
on prevention of genocide”. Statements by CEDAW have covered issues such as reservations,
gender and racial discrimination, solidarity with Afghan women, gender and sustainable
development, discrimination against older women, and the situation of women in Iraq. Several
committees have issued statements jointly with other United Nations bodies: CESCR has issued
a joint statement with the special rapporteurs with regard to the Millennium Development Goals,
and CAT issues an annual joint statement with the Special Rapporteur on torture and the Board
of Trustees of the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture on the occasion of the
United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture. HRC has not adopted the
practice of issuing formal statements.
114. CRC adopts what it formally terms “recommendations”, but now terms “decisions”,
which can concern either its methods of work or substantive issues. Since 1991, the Committee
has adopted over 40 such decisions/recommendations (see CRC/C/19/Rev.10). Recent decisions
by the Committee have included the exceptional combination of reports, content and size of
reports and the proposal for the committee to sit in two chambers. Other decisions, such as those
concerning children in armed conflict, administration of juvenile justice and children without
parental care have been made in the context of the Committee’s days of general discussion.
HRI/MC/2005/4
page 31
V. OTHER MATTERS
A. Meetings with States parties
115. All committees have convened informal consultations with States parties to discuss
matters of mutual concern. CEDAW has also convened such a meeting with States that are not
party to the Convention.
B. Sources of additional information concerning the treaty bodies
Official publications
116. OHCHR publishes a series of human rights fact sheets on a range of human rights issues,
which include individual fact sheets on each of the human rights treaties, setting out in accessible
language the provisions of the treaty and the work of its treaty body. These were supplemented
in 2005 by a fact sheet on the “United Nations Human Rights Treaty System”, which provides an
overview of the seven core treaties and the seven human rights treaty bodies. A full list of fact
sheets is available on the OHCHR web site, as well as the fact sheets themselves, in Portable
Document Format (PDF).
117. In 2004, the OHCHR regional office in Santiago published compilations of the
concluding observations relating to States parties from Latin America and the Caribbean for
three treaty bodies: HRC (with the Centro de Derechos Humanos of the University of Santiago),
CESCR (with UNDP), and CRC (with the UNICEF regional office for Latin America and the
Caribbean-TACRO, Panama).
The treaty bodies database
118. OHCHR maintains a treaty bodies database, which contains all official documentation
related to the State party reporting process in English, French and Spanish, as well as the full
reporting history of each State party to each treaty. The database is accessible through the
OHCHR web site. The database will be upgraded during 2005 and a search facility for
documentation in all six official languages will be added.
Information related to the treaty bodies on the OHCHR and DAW web sites
119. The secretariat maintains web pages for each of the Geneva-based treaty bodies, hosted
on the OHCHR web site presenting information related to the work of the treaty bodies and their
sessions in a consistent way. The DAW web site contains the CEDAW web pages.
HRI/MC/2005/4
page 32
Annex
GUIDELINES ON COUNTRY VISITS ENDORSED BY
THE UNITED NATIONS HIGH COMMISSIONER
FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
Note on visits of treaty body experts to reporting States
(Endorsed by the High Commissioner on 23 March 2005)
Within the past few years, some States reporting to human rights treaty bodies have
invited the chairperson and/or other members of treaty bodies concerned to visit their
respective territories before the consideration of their report by a treaty body. States extending
invitations have been predominantly from the Asian region and Hong Kong, under the former
United Kingdom administration and at present, as Special Administrative Region of China, has
been particularly active in this regard. Hong Kong has systematically invited treaty body experts
to visit its territory before the consideration of reports of the United Kingdom (until 1999) and of
China (after 1999), which contain a section concerning Hong Kong. Recently, the treaty body
that has received the highest of such invitations has been the Committee on the Rights of the
Child.
The Treaties and Commission Branch (TCB) does not encourage treaty body experts to
visit the territory of a reporting State party before the consideration of its report. Inviting States
frequently suggest that visits prior to consideration provide a direct opportunity for treaty bodies
to assess the degree of implementation of treaty provisions. However, the Branch is of the view
that such invitations may be perceived as an attempt to influence the outcome of the
consideration of the report. In addition, it often happens that the media and civil society in the
countries confuse human rights treaty bodies with the Office of the High Commissioner for
Human Rights and may attribute statements made or positions taken by the treaty body experts
during their visit to the High Commissioner.
TCB has adopted the following guidelines regarding invitations to and visits by treaty
body experts:
1. If an invitation to visit a reporting State party is sent by the Government concerned to
treaty body experts through the secretariat, the invitation will be delivered promptly to its
addressees. However, all treaty bodies should be informed that normally, the secretariat will
not be involved in the preparation of the visit, nor in its conduct, and that no administrative
nor financial support will be made available for it. This will be applied, in particular, when
visits take place before the consideration by the treaty body of the State party’s report.
OHCHR may agree to provide support when the invitation to visit the country is made after the
consideration of the report and when it is directed to following up on treaty body
recommendations.
2. The treaty body experts invited are encouraged to seek the agreement of their colleagues
on the purpose and the usefulness of the visit and to report in writing to them after the visit. It
HRI/MC/2005/4
page 33
would be advisable to disclose whether expenses were covered by the country (or by an NGO),
and whether an honorarium was paid in relation to any lecture, conference, etc., related to the
visit.
3. If an invitation to visit the country of a reporting State party is sent to treaty body experts
by NGOs, those experts are encouraged to inform the Government of that State party
accordingly.
4. In all cases of invitation to visit a country of a reporting State party before its report is
considered by the treaty body concerned, visiting experts are advised to refrain from press
conferences and media relations so as not to run the risk of pre-empting the result of the
consideration of the State party’s report.
-----