282 / 532
266
JAN LHOTSKÝ
CYIL 5 ȍ2014Ȏ
improvement of human rights situation in the particular states parties. Moreover, as
the number of treaty bodies increases and so does the number of ratifications of each
treaty, the negative impact of the weaknesses rises with the growth of the mechanism.
Pointing to the fact that the majority of states parties do not report to the treaty
bodies properly and even in spite of this the committees are unable to process
their workloads, the High Commissioner stated:
“The treaty body system is surviving
because of the dedication of the experts, who are unpaid volunteers, the support of staff in
OHCHR
30
and States’ non-compliance with reporting obligations.”
Further she adds: “
It
is unacceptable that the system can only function because of non-compliance
”.
31
To make
the mechanism function it is necessary to implement far-reaching measures that would
eliminate or significantly reduce the weaknesses discussed in section 2.3. Among these
it is crucial to increase the cooperation of states. Moreover, the mechanism needs to
be simplified and to start functioning as a system.
In this regard, the reform proposal of 2006 to create a Unified Standing Treaty
Body, a full-time committee of human rights experts that could work also in chambers,
is to be reviewed. Although many aspects would still need to be properly discussed,
this proposal combined with the utilization of the comprehensive reporting calendar
provides for a solution that should be supported in the long-term.
Nevertheless, in the past this
reform
proposal was replaced by a
strengthening
proposal
.
Within the treaty body strengthening process in 2012 the High Commissioner
published a set of measures to be implemented, with the leading proposal being to
introduce a comprehensive reporting calendar. However, within the intergovernmental
process further discussions on possible improvements were relocated to the UN General
Assembly, so that the states gained more influence in the negotiations. As a result, the
comprehensive reporting calendar did not make its way into the outcome and the
approved measures are in general cost-neutral.
The final General Assembly Resolution 68/268 of April 2014 includes important
measures that will partially improve the current functioning of the treaty bodies.
However, it does not respond to the real deficiencies of the system. According to the
outcome, based on the functioning of the system a new review should take place no
later than six years after adopting the present resolution. Therefore, I suggest using the
first half of this period to analyse the functioning according to new rules and the second
half to properly discuss the more ambitious reform proposals, including implementing
the comprehensive reporting calendar and creating the Unified Standing Treaty Body.
Hopefully more courage and interest for an effectively functioning human rights
mechanism on the universal level will be present among the states parties and other
stakeholders in this respect when 2020 draws nearer.
30
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
31
Report of the High Commissioner A/66/860, p. 9.