COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS

Twenty-second session

SUMMARY RECORD OF THE SECOND PART (PUBLIC)* OF THE 14th MEETING

Held at the Palais Wilson, Geneva,

on Thursday, 4 May 2000, at 10 a.m.

Chairperson: Ms. BONOAN‑DANDAN

CONTENTS

CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS

(a)REPORTS SUBMITTED BY STATES PARTIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH

ARTICLES 16 AND 17 OF THE COVENANT (continued)

Second periodic report of Jordan (continued)

The public part of the meeting was called to order at 11.20 a.m.

CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS

(a)REPORTS SUBMITTED BY STATES PARTIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH

ARTICLES 16 AND 17 OF THE COVENANT (continued)

Second periodic report of Jordan (E/1990/6/Add.17); core document

(HRI/CORE/Add.18/Rev.1); country profile (E/C.12/CA/JOR/1); list of issues (E/C.12/Q/JOR/1) (continued)

1.At the invitation of the Chairperson, the representative of Jordan took a place at the Committee table.

2.The CHAIRPERSON invited the representative of Jordan to make his comments.

3.Mr. MADI (Jordan) said he wished to present his Government’s apologies to the Committee. For reasons beyond the Government’s control, Jordan was not currently in a position to send a suitable delegation to meet the Committee or to submit written responses to the list of issues. Written responses would, however, be forthcoming in the near future.

4.On instructions from his Government, he requested a postponement of the consideration of the second periodic report of Jordan. He assured Committee members that his country would then be in a position to send a delegation to introduce the report and reply to their questions.

5.Lastly, he said that Jordan fully complied with its obligations under the 17 international human rights instruments to which it was a party, in particular the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and that it attached great importance to cooperation with the treaty bodies.

6.The representative of Jordan withdrew.

7.The CHAIRPERSON suggested that, as in the case of Portugal, consideration of the periodic report of Jordan (E/1990/6/Add.17) should be postponed at the request of the State party. She also suggested sending a letter to all States parties and to the Economic and Social Council informing them that the Committee had decided that rule 62, paragraph 3, of its rules of procedure would be strictly applied as from its twenty‑third session: i.e., if a State party’s report was withdrawn less than six months before it was scheduled for review, it would be considered even in the absence of representatives. She suggested that, as the Human Rights Committee had recently been in a similar position, she could discuss the matter with the Chairperson of that Committee and raise it at the meeting of chairpersons of the treaty bodies, to be held in June, and establish a common position on the procedure to be adopted in cases of last‑minute withdrawal.

8.She then read out the note verbale that was usually sent to States parties informing them of the date set for consideration of their reports and requesting them to send a delegation. She suggested making the text stronger, particularly the paragraph stating that the report would be

considered in the absence of a delegation if the State party failed to request a postponement of consideration of the report within the time limit, i.e. six weeks from receipt of the note verbale from the Committee.

9.Mr. KOUZNETSOV, Mr. CEVILLE, Mr. GRISSA, Mr. ANTANOVICH and Mr. ATANGANA said they were in favour of strict implementation of rule 62, article 3, of the Committee’s rules of procedure.

10.Ms. JIMENEZ BUTRAGUEÑO asked whether it might not be possible for the Committee to acknowledge receipt of correspondence from States parties, in order to avoid misunderstandings that might hamper the Committee’s work.

11.Mr. ANTANOVICH said he supported the proposal to adopt a common position with the Human Rights Committee.

12.After an exchange of views in which the CHAIRPERSON, Mr. ANTANOVICH, Mr. ATANGANA, Mr. SADI, Mr. MARCHAN ROMERO, Mr. HUNT, Mr. TEXIER and Mr. GRISSA took part, the CHAIRPERSON summarized the discussion by saying that the note verbale informing States parties of the date when their reports would be considered should be drafted more strongly, reminding them that, under article 16 of the Covenant, they had undertaken to submit reports and that, in accordance with rule 62, paragraph 3, of its rules of procedure, the Committee would consider each report on the date set even in the absence of representatives of the State party. A formal decision would be taken at a later meeting.

The meeting rose at 12.15 p.m.