15. Bolivia

12 November 1982

E/1990/5/Add.44 (E/C.12/2001/SR.15-17)

Due on 30 June 2005

Annex I (continued)

State party	Date of entry into force	Initial reports	Second periodic reports
Articles 6-9	Articles 10-12	Articles 13-15	Articles 6-9	Articles 10-12	Articles 13-15
(Summary records of consideration of reports)

16. Bosnia and Herzegovina	6 March 1993	Overdue
17. Brazil	24 April 1992	E/1990/5/Add.53 (Received 21 August 2001 - Pending consideration)
18. Bulgaria	3 January 1976	E/1978/8/Add.24 (E/1980/WG.1/ SR.12)	E/1980/6/Add.29 (E/1982/WG.1/ SR.8)	E/1982/3/Add.23 (E/1983/WG.1/ SR.11-13)	E/1984/7/Add.18 (E/1985/WG.1/ SR.9 and 11)	E/1986/4/Add.20 (E/C.12/1988/ SR.17-19)
19. Burkina Faso	4 April 1999	Overdue (Was due on 30 June 2001)
20. Burundi	9 August 1990	Overdue
21. Cambodia	26 August 1992	Overdue
22. Cameroon	27 September 1984	E/1990/5/Add.35 (E/C.12/1999/ SR.41-43)	E/1986/3/Add.8 (E/C.12/1989/ SR.6-7)	E/1990/5/Add.35 (E/C.12/1999/ SR.41-43)	Overdue (Was due on 30 June 2001)
23. Canada	19 August 1976	E/1978/8/Add.32 (E/1982/WG.1/ SR.1-2)	E/1980/6/Add.32 (E/1984/WG.1/ SR.4 and 6)	E/1982/3/Add.34 (E/1986/WG.1/ SR.13, 15 and 16)	E/1984/7/Add.28 (E/C.12/1989/ SR.8 and 11)	E/1990/6/Add.3 (E/C.12/1993/SR.6 and 7)
24. Cape Verde	6 November 1993	Overdue
25. Central African Republic	8 August 1981	Overdue
26. Chad	9 September 1995	Overdue
27. Chile	3 January 1976	E/1978/8/Add.10 and 28 (E/1980/WG.1/ SR.8-9)	E/1980/6/Add.4 (E/1981/WG.1/ SR.7)	E/1982/3/Add.40 (E/C.12/1988/ SR.12-13 and 16)	E/1984/7/Add.1 (E/1984/WG.1/ SR.11-12)	E/1986/4/Add.18 (E/C.12/1988/ SR.12-13 and 16)	Overdue
28. China*	27 June 2001	Due on 30 June 2003
29. Colombia	3 January 1976	E/1978/8/Add.17 (E/1980/WG.1/ SR.15)	E/1986/3/Add.3 (E/1986/WG.1/ SR.6 and 9)	E/1982/3/Add.36 (E/1986/WG.1/ SR.15, 21 and 22)	E/1984/7/Add.21/Rev.1 (E/1986/WG.1/ SR.22 and 25)	E/1986/4/Add.25 (E/C.12/1990/ SR.12-14 and 17)	E/1990/7/Add.4 (E/C.12/1991/ SR.17, 18 and 25)
30. Costa Rica	3 January 1976	E/1990/5/Add.3 (E/C.12/1990/SR.38, 40, 41 and 43)	Overdue
31. Côte d’Ivoire	26 June 1992	Overdue
32. Croatia	8 October 1991	E/1990/5/Add.46 (E/C.12/2001/SR.69-71)	Due on 30 June 2006
33. Cyprus	3 January 1976	E/1978/8/Add.21 (E/1980/WG.1/ SR.17)	E/1980/6/Add.3 (E/1981/WG.1/ SR.6)	E/1982/3/Add.19 (E/1983/WG.1/ SR.7-8)	E/1984/7/Add.13 (E/1984/WG.1/ SR.18 and 22)	E/1986/4/Add.2 and 26 (E/C.12/1990/ SR.2, 3 and 5)

Annex I (continued)

State party	Date of entry into force	Initial reports	Second periodic reports
Articles 6-9	Articles 10-12	Articles 13-15	Articles 6-9	Articles 10-12	Articles 13-15
(Summary records of consideration of reports)

34. Czech Republic	1 January 1993	E/1990/5/Add.47 (Pending consideration)
35. Democratic People’s Republic of Korea	14 December 1981	E/1984/6/Add.7 (E/C.12/1987/ SR.21-22)	E/1986/3/Add.5 (E/C.12/1987/ SR.21-22)	E/1988/5/Add.6 (E/C.12/1991/ SR.6, 8 and 10)	Overdue
36. Democratic Republic of the Congo	1 February 1977	E/1984/6/Add.18 E/1986/3/Add.7 E/1982/3/Add.41 (E/C.12/1988/SR.16-19)	Overdue
37. Denmark	3 January 1976	E/1978/8/Add.13 (E/1980/WG.1/ SR.10)	E/1980/6/Add.15 (E/1981/WG.1/ SR.12)	E/1982/3/Add.20 (E/1983/WG.1/ SR.8-9)	E/1984/7/Add.11 (E/1984/WG.1/ SR.17 and 21)	E/1986/4/Add.16 (E/C.12/1988/ SR.8-9)
38. Dominica	17 September 1993	Overdue
39. Dominican Republic	4 April 1978	E/1990/5/Add.4 (E/C.12/1990/SR.43-45 and 47)	E/1990/6/Add.7 (E/C.12/1996/SR.29 and 30) (E/C.12/1997/SR.29-31)
40. Ecuador	3 January 1976	E/1978/8/Add.1 (E/1980/WG.1/ SR.4-5)	E/1986/3/Add.14 E/1988/5/Add.7 (E/C.12/1990/SR.37-39 and 42)	E/1984/7/Add.12 (E/1984/WG.1/ SR.20 and 22)	Overdue
41. Egypt	14 April 1982	E/1990/5/Add.38 (E/C.12/2000/SR.12 and 13)	Due on 30 June 2003
42. El Salvador	29 February 1980	E/1990/5/Add.25 (E/C.12/1996/SR.15, 16 and 18)	Overdue
43. Equatorial Guinea	25 December 1987	Overdue
44. Eritrea	17 July 2001	Due on 30 June 2003
45. Estonia	21 January 1992	E/1990/5/Add.51 (Received 5 July 2001 - Pending consideration)
46. Ethiopia	11 September 1993	Overdue
47. Finland	3 January 1976	E/1978/8/Add.14 (E/1980/WG.1/ SR.6)	E/1980/6/Add.11 (E/1981/WG.1/ SR.10)	E/1982/3/Add.28 (E/1984/WG.1/ SR.7-8)	E/1984/7/Add.14 (E/1984/WG.1/ SR.17-18)	E/1986/4/Add.4 (E/1986/WG.1/ SR.8-9 and 11)	E/1990/7/Add.1 (E/C.12/1991/ SR.11, 12 and 16)
48. France	4 February 1981	E/1984/6/Add.11 (E/1986/WG.1/ SR.18-19 and 21)	E/1986/3/Add.10 (E/C.12/1989/ SR.12-13)	E/1982/3/Add.30 and Corr.1 (E/1985/WG.1/ SR.5 and 7)	E/1990/6/Add.27 (E/C.12/2001/SR.67- 68)
49. Gabon	21 April 1983	Overdue
50. Gambia	29 March 1979	Overdue
51. Georgia	3 August 1994	E/1990/5/Add.37 (E/C.12/2000/SR.3-5)	E/1990/6/Add.31 (Received 19 June 2001 - Pending consideration)

Annex I (continued)

State party	Date of entry into force	Initial reports	Second periodic reports
Articles 6-9	Articles 10-12	Articles 13-15	Articles 6-9	Articles 10-12	Articles 13-15
(Summary records of consideration of reports)

52. Germany	3 January 1976	E/1978/8/Add.8 and Corr.1 (E/1980/WG.1/ SR.8) E/1978/8/Add.11 (E/1980/WG.1/ SR.10)	E/1980/6/Add.6 (E/1981/WG.1/ SR.8) E/1980/6/Add.10 (E/1981/WG.1/ SR.10)	E/1982/3/Add.15 and Corr.1 (E/1983/WG.1/ SR.5-6) E/1982/3/Add.14 (E/1982/WG.1/ SR.17-18)	E/1984/7/Add.3 and 23 (E/1985/WG.1/ SR.12 and 16) E/1984/7/Add.24 and Corr.1 (E/1986/WG.1/ SR.22-23 and 25)	E/1986/4/Add.11 (E/C.12/1987/ SR.11, 12 and 14) E/1986/4/Add.10 (E/C.12/1987/ SR.19-20)	E/1990/7/Add.12 (E/C.12/1993/ SR.35 and 36)
53. Ghana	7 December 2000	Due on 30 June 2002
54. Greece	16 August 1985	Overdue
55. Grenada	6 December 1991	Overdue
56. Guatemala	19 August 1988	E/1990/5/Add.24 (E/C.12/1996/SR.11-14)	Overdue
57. Guinea	24 April 1978	Overdue
58. Guinea- Bissau	2 October 1992	Overdue
59. Guyana	15 May 1977	E/1990/5/Add.27 (Pending consideration)	E/1982/3/Add.5, 29 and 32 (E/1984/WG.1/ SR.20 and 22 and E/1985/WG.1/ SR.6)
60. Honduras	17 May 1981	E/1990/5/Add.40 (E/C.12/2001/SR.5-8)	Due on 30 June 2006
61. Hungary	3 January 1976	E/1978/8/Add.7 (E/1980/WG.1/ SR.7)	E/1980/6/Add.37 (E/1986/WG.1/ SR.6-7 and 9)	E/1982/3/Add.10 (E/1982/WG.1/ SR.14)	E/1984/7/Add.15 (E/1984/WG.1/ SR.19 and 21)	E/1986/4/Add.1 (E/1986/WG.1/ SR.6-7 and 9)	E/1990/7/Add.10 (E/C.12/1992/ SR.9, 12 and 21)
62. Iceland	22 November 1979	E/1990/5/Add.6 and 14 (E/C.12/1993/SR.29-31)	E/1990/6/Add.15 (E/C.12/1999/SR.3-5)
63. India	10 July 1979	E/1984/6/Add.13 (E/1986/WG.1/ SR.20 and 24)	E/1980/6/Add.34 (E/1984/WG.1/ SR.6 and 8)	E/1988/5/Add.5 (E/C.12/1990/ SR.16-17 and 19)	Overdue
64. Iran (Islamic Republic of)	3 January 1976	E/1990/5/Add.9 (E/C.12/1993/SR.7-9 and 20)	E/1982/3/Add.43 (E/C.12/1990/ SR.42-43 and 45)	Overdue
65. Iraq	3 January 1976	E/1984/6/Add.3 and 8 (E/1985/WG.1/ SR.8 and 11)	E/1980/6/Add.14 (E/1981/WG.1/ SR.12)	E/1982/3/Add.26 (E/1985/WG.1/ SR.3-4)		E/1986/4/Add.3 (E/1986/WG.1/ SR.8 and 11)	E/1990/7/Add.15 (E/C.12/1994/ SR.11 and 14)
66. Ireland	8 March 1990	E/1990/5/Add.34 (E/C.12/1999/SR.14-16)	E/1990/6/Add.29 (Pending consideration)

Annex I (continued)

State party	Date of entry into force	Initial reports	Second periodic reports
Articles 6-9	Articles 10-12	Articles 13-15	Articles 6-9	Articles 10-12	Articles 13-15
(Summary records of consideration of reports)

67. Israel	3 January 1992	E/1990/5/Add.39 (E/C.12/1998/SR.31-33)	E/1990/6/Add.32 (Received 3 August 2001 ‑ Pending consideration)
68. Italy	15 December 1978	E/1978/8/Add.34 (E/1982/WG.1/ SR.3-4)	E/1980/6/Add.31 and 36 (E/1984/WG.1/ SR.3 and 5)		E/1990/6/Add.2 (E/C.12/1992/SR.13, 14 and 21)
69. Jamaica	3 January 1976	E/1978/8/Add.27 (E/1980/WG.1/ SR.20)	E/1986/3/Add.12 (E/C.12/1990/ SR.10-12 and 15)	E/1988/5/Add.3 (E/C.12/1990/ SR.10-12 and 15)	E/1984/7/Add.30 (E/C.12/1990/ SR.10-12 and 15)	E/1990/6/Add.28 (E/C.12/2001/SR.73)
70. Japan	21 September 1979	E/1984/6/Add.6 and Corr.1 (E/1984/WG.1/ SR.9-10)	E/1986/3/Add.4 and Corr.1 (E/1986/WG.1/ SR.20-21 and 23)	E/1982/3/Add.7 (E/1982/WG.1 SR.12-13)	E/1990/6/Add.21 and Corr.1 (E/C.12/2001/SR.42-43)
71. Jordan	3 January 1976	E/1984/6/Add.15 (E/C.12/1987/ SR.6-8)	E/1986/3/Add.6 (E/C.12/1987/ SR.8)	E/1982/3/Add.38/ Rev.1 (E/C.12/1990/ SR.30-32)	E/1990/6/Add.17 (E/C.12/2000/SR.30-33)
72. Kenya**	3 January 1976	Overdue	Overdue
73. Kuwait	31 August 1996	Overdue
74. Kyrgyzstan	7 January 1995	E/1990/5/Add.42 (E/C.12/2000/SR.42-44)	Due on 30 June 2005
75. Latvia	14 July 1992	Overdue
76. Lebanon	3 January 1976	E/1990/5/Add.16 (E/C.12/1993/SR.14, 16 and 21)	Overdue
77. Lesotho	9 December 1992	Overdue
78. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya	3 January 1976	E/1990/5/Add.26 (E/C.12/1997/SR.20-21)	E/1982/3/Add.6 and 25 (E/1983/WG.1/ SR.16-17)	Overdue
79. Liechtenstein	10 March 1999	Overdue (Was due on 30 June 2001)
80. Lithuania	20 February 1992	Overdue
81. Luxembourg	18 November 1983	E/1990/5/Add.1 (E/C.12/1990/SR.33-36)	E/1990/6/Add.9 (E/C.12/1997/SR.48-49)
82. Madagascar	3 January 1976	E/1978/8/Add.29 (E/1981/WG.1/ SR.2)	E/1980/6/Add.39 (E/1986/WG.1/ SR.2-3 and 5)	Overdue	E/1984/7/Add.19 (E/1985/WG.1/ SR.14 and 18)	Overdue
83. Malawi	22 March 1994	Overdue
84. Mali	3 January 1976	Overdue
85. Malta	13 December 1990	Overdue
86. Mauritius	3 January 1976	E/1990/5/Add.21 (E/C.12/1995/SR.40, 41 and 43)	Overdue

Annex I (continued)

State party	Date of entry into force	Initial reports	Second periodic reports
Articles 6-9	Articles 10-12	Articles 13-15	Articles 6-9	Articles 10-12	Articles 13-15
(Summary records of consideration of reports)

87. Mexico	23 June 1981	E/1984/6/Add.2 and 10 (E/1986/WG.1/ SR.24, 26 and 28)	E/1986/3/Add.13 (E/C.12/1990/ SR.6, 7 and 9)	E/1982/3/Add.8 (E/1982/WG.1/ SR.14-15)	E/1990/6/Add.4 (E/C.12/1993/SR.32-35 and 49)
88. Monaco	28 November 1997	Overdue
89. Mongolia	3 January 1976	E/1978/8/Add.6 (E/1980/WG.1/ SR.7)	E/1980/6/Add.7 (E/1981/WG.1/ SR.8-9)	E/1982/3/Add.11 (E/1982/WG.1/ SR.15-16)	E/1984/7/Add.6 (E/1984/WG.1/ SR.16 and 18)	E/1986/4/Add.9 (E/C.12/1988/ SR.5 and 7)
90. Morocco	3 August 1979	E/1990/5/Add.13 (E/C.12/1994/SR.8-10)	E/1990/6/Add.20 (E/C.12/2000/SR.70-72)
91. Namibia	28 February 1995	Overdue
92. Nepal	14 August 1991	E/1990/5/Add.45 (E/C.12/2001/SR.44-46)	Due on 30 June 2006
93. Netherlands	11 March 1979	E/1984/6/Add.14 and 20 (E/C.12/1987/ SR.5-6) (E/C.12/1989/ SR.14-15)	E/1980/6/Add.33 (E/1984/WG.1/ SR.4-6 and 8)	E/1982/3/Add.35 and 44 (E/1986/WG.1/ SR.14 and 18) (E/C.12/1989/ SR.14-15)	E/1990/6/ Add.11 ‑13 (E/C.12/1998/ SR.13-17)	E/1986/4/Add.24 (E/C.12/1989/ SR.14-15)	E/1990/6/ Add.11 ‑13 (E/C.12/1998/ SR.13-17)
94. New Zealand	28 March 1979	E/1990/5/Add.5, 11 and 12 (E/C.12/1993/SR.24-26)	E/1990/6/Add.33 (Received 30 September 2001 ‑ Pending consideration)
95. Nicaragua	12 June 1980	E/1984/6/Add.9 (E/1986/WG.1/ SR.16-17 and 19)	E/1986/3/Add.15-16 (E/C.12/1993/ SR.27-28)	E/1982/3/Add.31 and Corr.1 (E/1985/WG.1/ SR.15)	Overdue
96. Niger	7 June 1986	Overdue
97. Nigeria	29 October 1993	E/1990/5/Add.31 (E/C.12/1998/SR.6-8)	Overdue
98. Norway	3 January 1976	E/1978/8/Add.12 (E/1980/WG.1/ SR.5)	E/1980/6/Add.5 (E/1981/WG.1/ SR.14)	E/1982/3/Add.12 (E/1982/WG.1/ SR.16)	E/1984/7/Add.16 (E/1984/WG.1/ SR.19 and 22)	E/1986/4/Add.21 (E/C.12/1988/ SR.14-15)	E/1990/7/Add.7 (E/C.12/1992/ SR.4-5 and 12)
99. Panama	8 June 1977	E/1984/6/Add.19 (E/C.12/1991/ SR.3, 5 and 8)	E/1980/6/Add.20 and 23 (E/1982/WG.1/ SR.5)	E/1988/5/Add.9 (E/C.12/1991/ SR.3, 5 and 8)	E/1990/6/Add.24 (E/C.12/2001/ SR.36)	E/1986/4/Add.22 (E/C.12/1991/ SR.3, 5 and 8)	E/1990/6/Add.24 (E/C.12/2001/ SR.36)
100. Paraguay	10 September 1992	E/1990/5/Add.23 (E/C.12/1996/SR.1, 2 and 4)	Overdue
101. Peru	28 July 1978	E/1984/6/Add.5 (E/1984/WG.1/ SR.11 and 18)	E/1990/5/Add.29 (E/C.12/1997/SR.14-17)	Overdue
102. Philippines	3 January 1976	E/1978/8/Add.4 (E/1980/WG.1/ SR.11)	E/1986/3/Add.17 (E/C.12/1995/ SR.11, 12 and 14)	E/1988/5/Add.2 (E/C.12/1990/ SR.8-9 and 11)	E/1984/7/Add.4 (E/1984/WG.1/ SR.15 and 20)	Overdue

Annex I (continued)

State party	Date of entry into force	Initial reports	Second periodic reports
Articles 6-9	Articles 10-12	Articles 13-15	Articles 6-9	Articles 10-12	Articles 13-15
(Summary records of consideration of reports)

103. Poland	18 June 1977	E/1978/8/Add.23 (E/1980/WG.1/ SR.18-19)	E/1980/6/Add.12 (E/1981/WG.1/ SR.11)	E/1982/3/Add.21 (E/1983/WG.1/ SR.9-10)	E/1984/7/Add.26 and 27 (E/1986/WG.1/ SR.25-27)	E/1986/4/Add.12 (E/C.12/1989/ SR.5-6)	E/1990/7/Add.9 (E/C.12/1992/ SR.6-7 and 15)
104. Portugal	31 October 1978		E/1980/6/Add.35/ Rev.1 (E/1985/WG.1/ SR.2 and 4)	E/1982/3/Add.27/ Rev.1 (E/1985/WG.1/ SR.6 and 9)	E/1990/6/Add.6 (E/C.12/1995/SR.7, 8 and 10) E/1990/6/Add.8 (Macau) (E/C.12/1996/SR.31-33)
105. Republic of Korea	10 July 1990	E/1990/5/Add.19 (E/C.12/1995/SR.3, 4 and 6)	E/1990/6/Add.23 (E/C.12/2001/SR.12-14)
106. Republic of Moldova	26 March 1993	E/1990/5/Add.52 ( Received 2 July 2001 - Pending consideration)
107. Republic of the Congo	5 January 1984	Overdue (Without report: E/C.12/2000/SR.16-17)
108. Romania	3 January 1976	E/1978/8/Add.20 (E/1980/WG.1/ SR.16-17)	E/1980/6/Add.1 (E/1981/WG.1/ SR.5)	E/1982/3/Add.13 (E/1982/WG.1/ SR.17-18)	E/1984/7/Add.17 (E/1985/WG.1/ SR.10 and 13)	E/1986/4/Add.17 (E/C.12/1988/ SR.6)	E/1990/7/Add.14 (E/C.12/1994/ SR.5, 7 and 13)
109. Russian Federation	3 January 1976	E/1978/8/Add.16 (E/1980/WG.1/ SR.14)	E/1980/6/Add.17 (E/1981/WG.1/ SR.14-15)	E/1982/3/Add.1 (E/1982/WG.1/ SR.11-12)	E/1984/7/Add.7 (E/1984/WG.1/ SR.9-10)	E/1986/4/Add.14 (E/C.12/1987/ SR.16-18)	E/1990/7/Add.8 (Withdrawn)
110. Rwanda	3 January 1976	E/1984/6/Add.4 (E/1984/WG.1/ SR.10 and 12)	E/1986/3/Add.1 (E/1986/WG.1/ SR.16 and 19)	E/1982/3/Add.42 (E/C.12/1989/ SR.10-12)	E/1984/7/Add.29 (E/C.12/1989/ SR.10-12)	Overdue
111. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines	9 February 1982	Overdue
112. San Marino	18 January 1986	Overdue
113. Senegal	13 May 1978	E/1984/6/Add.22 (E/C.12/1993/ SR.37-38)	E/1980/6/Add.13/ Rev.1 (E/1981/WG.1/ SR.11)	E/1982/3/Add.17 (E/1983/WG.1/ SR.14-16)	E/1990/6/Add.25 (E/C.12/2001/SR.32-33)
114. Seychelles	5 August 1982	Overdue
115. Sierra Leone	23 November 1996	Overdue
116. Slovakia	28 May 1993	E/1990/5/Add.49 (Received 2 March 2001 - Pending consideration)
117. Slovenia	6 July 1992	Overdue

Annex I (continued)

State party	Date of entry into force	Initial reports	Second periodic reports
Articles 6-9	Articles 10-12	Articles 13-15	Articles 6-9	Articles 10-12	Articles 13-15
(Summary records of consideration of reports)

118. Solomon Islands	17 March 1982	Overdue (Without report: E/C.12/1999/SR.9) E/1990/5/Add.50 (Received 2 July 2001 - Pending consideration)
119. Somalia	24 April 1990	Overdue
120. Spain	27 July 1977	E/1978/8/Add.26 (E/1980/WG.1/ SR.20)	E/1980/6/Add.28 (E/1982/WG.1/ SR.7)	E/1982/3/Add.22 (E/1983/WG.1/ SR.10-11)	E/1984/7/Add.2 (E/1984/WG.1/ SR.12 and 14)	E/1986/4/Add.6 (E/1986/WG.1/ SR.10 and 13)	E/1990/7/Add.3 (E/C.12/1991/ SR.13-14, 16 and 22)
121. Sri Lanka	11 September 1980	E/1990/5/Add.32 (E/C.12/1998/SR.3-5)
122. Sudan	18 June 1986	E/1990/5/Add.41 (E/C.12/2000/SR.36 and 38-41)	Due 30 June 2003
123. Suriname	28 March 1977	E/1990/5/Add.20 (E/C.12/1995/SR.13 and 15-16)	Overdue
124. Sweden	3 January 1976	E/1978/8/Add.5 (E/1980/WG.1/ SR.15)	E/1980/6/Add.8 (E/1981/WG.1/ SR.9)	E/1982/3/Add.2 (E/1982/WG.1/ SR.19-20)	E/1984/7/Add.5 (E/1984/WG.1/ SR.14 and 16)	E/1986/4/Add.13 (E/C.12/1988/ SR.10-11)	E/1990/7/Add.2 (E/C.12/1991/ SR.11-13 and 18)
125. Switzerland	18 September 1992	E/1990/5/Add.33 (E/C.12/1998/SR.37-39)	Overdue
126. Syrian Arab Republic	3 January 1976	E/1978/8/Add.25 and 31 (E/1983/WG.1/ SR.2)	E/1980/6/Add.9 (E/1981/WG.1/ SR.4)		E/1990/6/Add.1 (E/C.12/1991/SR.7, 9 and 11)
127. Tajikistan	4 April 1999	Overdue
128. Thailand	5 December 1999	Due on 30 June 2002
129. The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia	17 September 1991	Overdue
130. Togo	24 August 1984	Overdue (Without report: E/C.12/2001/SR.19 and 25)
131. Trinidad and Tobago	8 March 1979	E/1984/6/Add.21 E/1986/3/Add.11 E/1988/5/Add.1 (E/C.12/1989/SR.17-19)	E/1990/6/Add.30 (Received 28 September 2000 - Pending consideration)
132. Tunisia	3 January 1976	E/1978/8/Add.3 (E/1980/WG.1/ SR.5-6)	E/1986/3/Add.9 (E/C.12/1989/ SR.9)		E/1990/6/Add.14 (E/C.12/1999/SR.17-19)
133. Turkmenistan	1 August 1997	Overdue
134. Uganda	21 April 1987	Overdue
135. Ukraine	3 January 1976	E/1978/8/Add.22 (E/1980/WG.1/ SR.18)	E/1980/6/Add.24 (E/1982/WG.1/ SR.5-6)	E/1982/3/Add.4 (E/1982/WG.1/ SR.11-12)	E/1984/7/Add.9 (E/1984/WG.1/ SR.13-15)	E/1986/4/Add.5 (E/C.12/1987/ SR.9-11)	E/1990/7/Add.11 (Withdrawn)

Annex I (continued)

State party	Date of entry into force	Initial reports	Second periodic reports
Articles 6-9	Articles 10-12	Articles 13-15	Articles 6-9	Articles 10-12	Articles 13-15
(Summary records of consideration of reports)

136. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland	20 August 1976	E/1978/8/Add.9 and 30 (E/1980/WG.1/ SR.19 and E/1982/WG.1/ SR.1)	E/1980/6/Add.16 and Corr.1, Add.25 and Corr.1 and Add.26 (E/1981/WG.1/ SR.16-17)	E/1982/3/Add.16 (E/1982/WG.1/ SR.19-21)	E/1984/7/Add.20 (E/1985/WG.1/ SR.14 and 17)	E/1986/4/Add.23 (E/C.12/1989/ SR.16-17) E/1986/4/ Add.27 ‑28 (E/C.12/1994/ SR.33-34 and 36 ‑37)	E/1990/7/Add.16 (E/C.12/1994/ SR.33 ‑34 and 36 ‑37)
137. United Republic of Tanzania	11 September 1976	Overdue	E/1980/6/Add.2 (E/1981/WG.1/ SR.5)	Overdue
138. Uruguay	3 January 1976	E/1990/5/Add.7 (E/C.12/1994/SR.3, 4, 6 and 13)	E/1990/6/Add.10 (E/C.12/1997/SR.42-44)
139. Uzbekistan	28 December 1995	Overdue
140. Venezuela	10 August 1978	E/1984/6/Add.1 (E/1984/WG.1/ SR.7-8 and 10)	E/1980/6/Add.38 (E/1986/WG.1/ SR.2 and 5)	E/1982/3/Add.33 (E/1986/WG.1/ SR.12 and 17-18)	E/1990/6/Add.19 (E/C.12/2001/SR.3-5)
141. Viet Nam	24 December 1982	E/1990/5/Add.10 (E/C.12/1993/SR.9-11)	Overdue
142. Yemen	9 May 1987	Overdue
143. Yugoslavia	3 January 1976	E/1978/8/Add.35 (E/1982/WG.1/ SR.4 and 5)	E/1980/6/Add.30 (E/1983/WG.1/ SR.3)	E/1982/3/Add.39 (E/C.12/1988/ SR.14-15)	E/1984/7/Add.10 (E/1984/WG.1/ SR.16 and 18)	E/1990/6/Add.22 (Withdrawn)
144. Zambia	10 July 1984	Overdue	E/1986/3/Add.2 (E/1986/WG.1/ SR.4-5 and 7)	Overdue
145. Zimbabwe	13 August 1991	E/1990/5/Add.28 (E/C.12/1997/SR.8-10 and 14)	Overdue

Annex I (continued)

B. Third and fourth periodic reports

State party	Date of entry into force	T hird periodic reports	F ourth periodic reports
		( Summary records of consideration of reports)
1. Afghanistan	24 April 1983
2. Albania	4 January 1992
3. Algeria	12 December 1989	Due on 30 June 2006
4. Angola	10 April 1992
5. Argentina	8 November 1986	Overdue
6. Armenia	13 December 1993
7. Australia	10 March 1976	E/1994/104/Add.22 (E/C.12/2000/SR.45-47)	Due on 30 June 2005
8. Austria	10 December 1978	Overdue
9. Azerbaijan	13 November 1992
10. Bangladesh	5 January 1999
11. Barbados	3 January 1976
12. Belarus	3 January 1976	E/1994/104/Add.6 (E/C.12/1996/SR.34-36)	Overdue
13. Belgium	21 July 1983	Due on 30 June 2005
14. Benin	12 June 1992
15. Bolivia	12 November 1982
16. Bosnia and Herzegovina	6 March 1993
17. Brazil	24 April 1992
18. Bulgaria	3 January 1976	E/1994/104/Add.16 (E/C.12/1999/SR.30-32)	Overdue (Was due on 30 June 2001)
19. Burkina Faso	4 April 1999
20. Burundi	9 August 1990
21. Cambodia	26 August 1992
22. Cameroon	27 September 1984
23. Canada	19 August 1976	E/1994/104/Add.17 (E/C.12/1998/SR.46-48)	Overdue
24. Cape Verde	6 November 1993
25. Central African Republic	8 August 1981

Annex I (continued)
State party	Date of entry into force	Third periodic reports	Fourth periodic reports
		(Summary records of consideration of reports)
26. Chad	9 September 1995
27. Chile	3 January 1976	Overdue
28. China	27 June 2001
29. Colombia	3 January 1976	E/1994/104/Add.2 (E/C.12/1995/SR.33 and 35)	E/C.12/4/Add.6 (E/C.12/2001/SR.63-64) Fifth periodic report due on 30 June 2006
30. Costa Rica	3 January 1976
31. Côte d’Ivoire	26 June 1992
32. Croatia	8 October 1991
33. Cyprus	3 January 1976	E/1994/104/Add.12 (E/C.12/1998/SR.34-36)	Overdue
34. Czech Republic	1 January 1993
35. Democratic People’s Republic of Korea	14 December 1981
36. Democratic Republic of the Congo	1 February 1977
37. Denmark ***	3 January 1976	E/1994/104/Add.15 (E/C.12/1999/SR.11-13)	Overdue
38. Dominica	17 September 1993
39. Dominican Republic	4 April 1978	Overdue
40. Ecuador	3 January 1976
41. Egypt	14 April 1982
42. El Salvador	29 February 1980
43. Equatorial Guinea	25 December 1987
44. Eritrea	17 July 2001
45. Estonia	21 January 1992
46. Ethiopia	11 September 1993
47. Finland	3 January 1976	E/1994/104/Add.7 (E/C.12/1996/SR.38 and 40)	E/C.12/4/Add.1 (E/C.12/2000/SR.61-63) Fifth periodic report due on 30 June 2005
48. France	4 February 1981	Due on 30 June 2006
49. Gabon	21 April 1983
50. Gambia	29 March 1979
51. Georgia	3 August 1994
52. Germany	3 January 1976	E/1994/104/Add.14 (E/C.12/1998/SR.40-42)	E/C.12/4/Add.3 (E/C.12/2001/SR.48-49) Fifth periodic report due 30 June 2006
53. Ghana	7 December 2000
54. Greece	16 August 1985
55. Grenada	6 December 1991
56. Guatemala	19 August 1988
57. Guinea	24 April 1978
58. Guinea-Bissau	2 October 1992
59. Guyana	15 May 1977
60. Honduras	17 May 1981
61. Hungary	3 January 1976	Overdue
62. Iceland	22 November 1979	E/1994/104/Add.25 (Received on 8 October 2001 - Pending consideration)
63. India	10 July 1979
64. Iran (Islamic Republic of)	3 January 1976
65. Iraq	3 January 1976	E/1994/104/Add.9 (E/C.12/1997/SR.33-35)	Overdue
66. Ireland	8 March 1990
67. Israel	3 January 1992
68. Italy	15 December 1978	E/1994/104/Add.19 (E/C.12/2000/SR.6-8)
69. Jamaica	3 January 1976	Due on 30 June 2003
70. Japan	21 September 1979	Due on 30 June 2006
71. Jordan	3 January 1976	Due on 30 June 2003
72. Kenya	3 January 1976
73. Kuwait	31 August 1996
74. Kyrgyzstan	7 January 1995
75. Latvia	14 July 1992
76. Lebanon	3 January 1976
77. Lesotho	9 December 1992
78. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya	3 January 1976
79. Liechtenstein	10 March 1999
80. Lithuania	20 February 1992
81. Luxembourg	18 November 1983	E/1994/104/Add.24 (Received 13 July 2001 - Pending consideration)
82. Madagascar	3 January 1976
83. Malawi	22 March 1994
84. Mali	3 January 1976
85. Malta	13 December 1990
86. Mauritius	3 January 1976
87. Mexico	23 June 1981	E/1994/104/Add.18 (E/C.12/1999/SR.44-46)
88. Monaco	28 November 1997
89. Mongolia	3 January 1976	E/1994/104/Add.21 (E/C.12/2000/SR.34-37)	Due on 30 June 2003
90. Morocco	3 August 1979	Due on 30 June 2004
91. Namibia	28 February 1995
92. Nepal	14 August 1991
93. Netherlands	11 March 1979	Overdue
94. New Zealand	28 March 1979
95. Nicaragua	12 June 1980
96. Niger	7 June 1986
97. Nigeria	29 October 1993
98. Norway	3 January 1976	E/1994/104/Add.3 (E/C.12/1995/SR.34 and 36-37)	Overdue
99. Panama	8 June 1977	Due on 30 June 2004
100. Paraguay	10 September 1992
101. Peru	28 July 1978
102. Philippines	3 January 1976
103. Poland	18 June 1977	E/1994/104/Add.13 (E/C.12/1998/SR.10-12)	E/C.12/4/Add.9 (Received on 12 April 2001 - Pending consideration)
104. Portugal	31 October 1978	E/1994/104/Add.20 (E/C.12/2000/SR.58-60)	Due on 30 June 2005
105. Republic of Korea	10 July 1990	Due on 30 June 2006
106. Republic of Moldova	26 March 1993
107. Republic of the Congo	5 January 1984
108. Romania	3 January 1976	Overdue
109. Russian Federation	3 January 1976	E/1994/104/Add.8 (E/C.12/1997/SR.11-14)	E/C.12/4/Add.10 (Received on 15 November 2001 - Pending consideration)
110. Rwanda	3 January 1976
111. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines	9 February 1982
112. San Marino	18 January 1986
113. Senegal	13 May 1978	Due on 30 June 2003
114. Seychelles	5 August 1982
115. Sierra Leone	23 November 1996
116. Slovakia	28 May 1993
117. Slovenia	6 July 1992
118. Solomon Islands	17 March 1982
119. Somalia	24 April 1990
120. Spain	27 July 1977	E/1994/104/Add.5 (E/C.12/1996/SR.3 and 5‑7)	Overdue
121. Sri Lanka	11 September 1980
122. Sudan	18 June 1986
123. Suriname	28 March 1977
124. Sweden	3 January 1976	E/1994/104/Add.1 (E/C.12/1995/SR.13 and 15-16)	E/C.12/4/Add.4 (E/C.12/2001/SR.61-62) Fifth periodic report due on 30 June 2006
125. Switzerland	18 September 1992
126. Syrian Arab Republic	3 January 1976	E/1994/104/Add.23 (E/C.12/2001/SR.34-35)	Due on 30 June 2006
127. Tajikistan	4 April 1999
128. Thailand	5 December 1999
129. The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia	17 September 1991
130. Togo	24 August 1984
131. Trinidad and Tobago	8 March 1979
132. Tunisia	3 January 1976
133. Turkmenistan	1 August 1997
134. Uganda	21 April 1987
135. Ukraine	3 January 1976	E/1994/104/Add.4 (E/C.12/1995/SR.42 and  44-45)	E/C.12/4/Add.2 (E/C.12/2001/SR.40-41) Fifth periodic report due on 30 June 2006
136. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland	20 August 1976	E/1994/104/Add.10 (Hong Kong) (E/C.12/1996/SR.39, 41, 42 and 44) E/1994/104/Add.11 (E/C.12/1997/SR.36-38)	E/C.12/4/Add.5 (overseas territories) E/C.12/4/Add.7 (Crown territories) (Received 30 January 2001 - Pending consideration) E/C.12/4/Add.8 (Received 30 January 2001 - Pending consideration)
137. United Republic of Tanzania	11 September 1976
138. Uruguay	3 January 1976
139. Uzbekistan	28 December 1995
140. Venezuela	10 August 1978	Due on 30 June 2006
141. Viet Nam	24 December 1982
142. Yemen	9 May 1987
143. Yugoslavia	3 January 1976	Due on 30 June 2002
144. Zambia	10 July 1984
145. Zimbabwe	13 August 1991

* The Committee considered the initial report of China on the implementation of the Covenant in the Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong

(E/1990/5/Add.43) at its twenty-fifth session (9th to 11th meetings).

** The Committee considered the situation in Kenya, without a report, at its eighth session (3rd meeting). It examined the initial report of Kenya

(E/1990/5/Add.17) at its tenth session (12th meeting) and requested the State party to submit a new complete report by the end of 1994.

*** Fourth periodic report was due on 30 June 1999. At the request of the Government of Denmark, the Committee, at its twenty-first session (1999),

decided to extend to 30 June 2001 the deadline for the submission of the fourth periodic report.

Annex II

Members of the Committee on Economic,

Social and Cultural Rights

Name of member	Country of nationality	Term expires on 31 December
Mr. Mahmoud Samir AHMED	Egypt	2002
Mr. Clément ATANGANA	Cameroon	2002
Ms. Rocío BARAHONA-RIERA	Costa Rica	2004
Ms. Virginia BONOAN-DANDAN	Philippines	2002
Mr. Dumitru CEAUSU	Romania	2004
Mr. Abdessatar GRISSA	Tunisia	2004
Mr. Paul HUNT	New Zealand	2002
Mr. Valeri KOUZNETSOV	Russian Federation	2002
Mr. Giorgio MALINVERNI	Switzerland	2004
Mr. Jaime MARCHÁN ROMERO	Ecuador	2002
Mr. Sergei MARTYNOV	Belarus	2004
Mr. Ariranga Govindasamy PILLAY	Mauritius	2004
Mr. Kenneth Osborne RATTRAY	Jamaica	2004
Mr. Eibe RIEDEL	Germany	2002
Mr. Waleed M. SADI	Jordan	2004
Mr. Philippe TEXIER	France	2004
Mr. Nutan THAPALIA	Nepal	2002
Mr. Javier WIMER ZAMBRANOM	Mexico	2002

Annex III

A. Agenda of the twenty-fifth session of the Committee on Economic,

Social and Cultural Rights (23 April‑11 May 2001)

1.Opening of the session.

2.Election of officers.

3.Adoption of the agenda.

4.Organization of work.

5.Substantive issues arising in the implementation of the International Covenant on

Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

6.Consideration of reports:

(a)Reports submitted by States parties in accordance with articles 16 and 17 of the

Covenant;

(b)Reports submitted by specialized agencies in accordance with article 18 of the

Covenant.

7.Follow-up to the Committee’s consideration of reports under articles 16 and 17 of the Covenant.

8.Relations with United Nations organs and other treaty bodies.

9.Submission of reports by States parties in accordance with articles 16 and 17 of the

Covenant.

10.Formulation of suggestions and recommendations of a general nature based on the

consideration of reports submitted by States parties to the Covenant and by the

specialized agencies.

11.Miscellaneous matters.

B. Agenda of the twenty-sixth session of the Committee on Economic,

Social and Cultural Rights (13‑31 August 2001)

1.Adoption of the agenda.

2.Organization of work.

3.Substantive issues arising in the implementation of the International Covenant on

Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

4.Follow-up to the Committee’s consideration of reports under articles 16 and 17 of the Covenant.

5.Relations with United Nations organs and other treaty bodies.

6.Consideration of reports:

(a)Reports submitted by States parties in accordance with articles 16 and 17 of the

Covenant;

(b)Reports submitted by specialized agencies in accordance with article 18 of the

Covenant.

7.Submission of reports by States parties in accordance with articles 16 and 17 of the

Covenant.

8.Formulation of suggestions and recommendations of a general nature based on the

consideration of reports submitted by States parties to the Covenant and by the specialized agencies.

9.Miscellaneous matters.

C. Agenda of the twenty-seventh session of the Committee on Economic,

Social and Cultural Rights (12-30 November 2001)

1.Adoption of the agenda.

2.Organization of work.

3.Substantive issues arising in the implementation of the International Covenant on

Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

4.Follow-up to the Committee’s consideration of reports under articles 16 and 17 of the Covenant.

5.Relations with United Nations organs and other treaty bodies.

6.Consideration of reports:

(a)Reports submitted by States parties in accordance with articles 16 and 17 of

the Covenant;

(b)Reports submitted by specialized agencies in accordance with article 18 of

the Covenant.

7.Submission of reports by States parties in accordance with articles 16 and 17 of the

Covenant.

8.Formulation of suggestions and recommendations of a general nature based on the

consideration of reports submitted by States parties to the Covenant and by the specialized agencies.

9.Adoption of the report.

10.Miscellaneous matters.

Annex IV

Letter dated 11 May 2001 from the Chairperson of the Committee on

Economic, Social and Cultural Rights addressed to the Permanent

Representative of Israel to the United Nations Office at Geneva

The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights acknowledges with appreciation the receipt of additional informationa to Israel’s initial reportb as requested by the Committee in its concluding observations.

However, the additional report was submitted beyond the date requested by the Committee and as a result the additional information could not be translated into the required working languages in time for its consideration on 4 May 2001 during the Committee’s twenty‑fifth session.

You will recall that, in its concluding observations in relation to the initial report of Israel, the Committee had requested the submission of additional information in time for its session in November-December 2000 (twenty‑fourth session). The Committee wishes to emphasize that some of the additional information, in particular where it concerns the occupied territories, was requested in order to complete the State party’s initial report and thereby ensure full compliance with its reporting obligations. The Committee therefore regrets that this current delay in submitting the additional information has resulted in another postponement of its consideration to the forthcoming twenty-sixth session of the Committee in August 2001.

The Committee reiterates the legal position shared by other treaty bodies that Israel’s international treaty obligations, as with the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, apply to territories within its internationally recognized borders as well as other areas under its jurisdiction and effective control, including Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The State party’s argument that jurisdiction has been transferred to other parties is not valid from the perspective of the Covenant, particularly in view of Israel currently besieging all the Palestinian territories it occupied in 1967. In response to your letter of 19 April 2000, the Committee reaffirms the principle that political processes, domestic legislation, scarcity of resources or agreements with other parties do not absolve a State from its obligations to ensure the progressive realization of economic, social and cultural rights as provided for by the Covenant.

At its twenty-fifth session, the Committee had at its disposal a variety of recent reports, including those of the Human Rights Inquiry Commission established pursuant to Commission

on Human Rights resolution S-5/1 of 19 October 2000 (E/CN.4/2001/121), of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission (E/CN.4/2001/30) and of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (E/CN.4/2001/114), as well as the letter of 21 February 2001 from the Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations Office at Geneva addressed to the High Commissioner (E/CN.4/2001/133). In light of these and other available reports, the Committee reiterates its deep concern over accounts that Israel’s recent actions in the occupied territories in violation of international human rights law and humanitarian law have resulted in gross violations of the economic, social and cultural rights of Palestinians. The Committee regrets that the ongoing conflict has resulted in the loss of Palestinian and Israeli lives. It is particularly concerned about the lack of protection for Palestinian civilians in the occupied territories and the renewed maltreatment of Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel. Among a number of issues, the Committee expresses grave concern about the following situations, which have serious implications for the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights:

The violation of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination through the continuing occupation of East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza Strip;

The State party’s continuing expropriation of Palestinian national resources, including land and aquifers, for exclusive Jewish control;

The expropriation and devastation of vast areas of Palestinian lands by Israelis in the occupied territories resulting in grave hardships particularly for farmers and agricultural workers;

Continued establishment and expansion of illegal Jewish settlements throughout the occupied territories of East Jerusalem, West Bank and Gaza Strip including those straddling the “green line”;

The destruction of Palestinian homes, mosques, churches, hospitals, public buildings, power plants and commercial establishments through various means including heavy weaponry;

Closures imposed solely on Palestinians, impeding access to health care, education, economic activities pertaining to employment and livelihood, and to the integrity of the family and the right to take part in cultural life through religious expression;

The prevention by the State party military and security forces of medical aid and personnel from ministering to injured Palestinians and the attack of clearly marked medical vehicles and personnel;

Discrimination in law enforcement practices, including the disproportionate use of force and procedures against Palestinians in the occupied territories and Palestinian citizens of Israel.

The Committee welcomes the recent submission of additional information by Israel and appreciates this opportunity to address the situation of the Covenant within the territories of the State party. The Committee looks forward to a constructive dialogue with the delegation of the State party on 17 August 2001 when it considers the additional information already submitted.

(S igned):Virginia Bonoan-Dandan

Chairperson

Committee on Economic, Social

and Cultural Rights

Annex V

Letter dated 11 May 2001 from the Chairperson of the

Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

to the President of the Economic and Social Council

1.The voluminous material from United Nations sources (Commission on Human Rights mechanisms) and from non-governmental organizations - Adalah: Legal Centre for Arab Minority Rights in Israel (Israel); Badil Resource Centre for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights (Bethlehem, Palestine); Boston University Civil Litigation Program (United States of America); Habitat International Coalition, Housing and Land Rights Committee (Middle East/North Africa); LAW: The Palestinian Society for the Protection of Human Rights and the Environment (Jerusalem, Palestine); World Organization against Torture; Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (Gaza, Palestine) - made available to the Committee at its twenty-fifth session (23 April-11 May 2001) under the follow-up procedure with respect to its consideration of the initial report of Israel in 1998 - confirm that the present situation of the Palestinian population in the occupied territories of the West Bank, Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip is dire. In the light of the ongoing crisis and State party’s continuing refusal to apply the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to, and report on, the occupied territories, the Committee makes reference to rule 64 of its rules of procedure. This rule provides that the Committee may make suggestions and recommendations of a general nature on the basis of its consideration of reports submitted by States parties and the reports submitted by specialized agencies in order to assist the Council in fulfilling, in particular, its responsibilities under articles 21 and 22 of the Covenant.

2.Accordingly, the Committee wishes to draw the attention of the Council to its self‑explanatory letter addressed to the State party (see annex IV above) as well as to the nature of the situation relative to the monitoring functions of the Committee with respect to implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in “crisis situations”, which may require action by the Council under articles 21 and 22 of the Covenant:

(a)While discharging its monitoring and reporting functions, the Committee remains limited in the enforcement aspect required to maintain the integrity of the Covenant in such a situation;

(b)The “international measures likely to contribute to the effective progressive implementation of the Covenant” (art. 22), required to uphold the integrity of the Covenant in such a case, therefore fall within the purview of other bodies of the international system;

(c)In view of the Committee’s responsibility to uphold the Covenant and effectively monitor the implementation of the rights recognized therein, the Committee would be remiss if it did not underscore the need for protection measures for the population in the occupied territories. The Committee adds its recognition of these facts as a matter of course in its monitoring work and, with particular reference to the tragic loss of life and limb, the senseless destruction of property and the deliberate starving and economic strangulation of the Palestinian people by the occupying Power;

(d)The Committee recognizes with special appreciation the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967 of the Commission on Human Rights, the Human Rights Inquiry Commission, the mission report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and reliable information from other sources and eyewitness accounts; and notes that these recommendations for effective measures for protection and upholding human rights, in particular economic, social and cultural rights, remain outstanding.

(S igned):Virginia Bonoan-Dandan

Chairperson

Committee on Economic, Social

and Cultural Rights

Annex VI

Statement by the Permanent Representative of Israel to

the United Nations Office at Geneva addressed to the

Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

(17 August 2001, twenty-sixth session)

Unfortunately, while Israel has demonstrated an interest in engaging in a constructive dialogue with this Committee, and has invested considerable efforts in order to provide it with the requested additional information, as well as the submission of its second periodic report, one is left with the distinct impression that the negative approach towards Israel has become a pattern in the conduct of this Committee.

Furthermore, in light of the substantial differences of opinion between Israel and the Committee in regard to its mandate and the applicability of the Covenant with regard to the territories, it would seem not only appropriate, but imperative, that all controversial aspects be discussed in a comprehensive and thorough manner, as part of the consideration of Israel’s second periodic report.

Further to Israel’s legal position concerning the Covenant’s applicability, as detailed in our letter of 3 May, I would like to take this opportunity to express Israel’s dismay at several questionable procedural practices of this Committee, to which Israel has been subjected over these past years. They indicate a pattern of applying exceptional procedural practices and double standards towards Israel in contrast to the human rights treaty regime foundation of due process and the rule of law.

As I have already mentioned, Israel has made a candid effort to report regularly, and to engage in a professional dialogue on human rights with this Committee. Israel has premised its participation in the United Nations human rights treaty system on the expectation shared by all State parties, that the application of the legal standards by the treaty monitoring bodies would be in accordance with the fundamental principles of transparency, objectivity, due process and equal treatment. This trust in the members of the monitoring bodies to conduct themselves as independent experts operating through these essential guidelines has been, in our view, violated by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. I would like to highlight some recent actions taken by the Committee concerning Israel, which are reflective of this pattern of conduct.

As you may recall, when Israel’s initial report was considered in 1998, the Committee in its concluding observations, requested additional information to be submitted prior to the submission of the next report. Furthermore, in its letter of 1 December 2000,a the Committee introduced new issues relating to the current violence in the region, which clearly could not possibly fall within the discussion of Israel’s initial report and the additional information requested with respect to the initial report. This letter went far beyond scheduling timetables for the submission and consideration of additional information. It specifically detailed highly criticized and controversial “reports” in the form of statements of fact, without there having been any dialogue scheduled with Israel for that session. Most disturbingly, the new issues introduced in the letter, constituted a one-sided political statement, demonstrating prejudice on the part of the Committee.

It also set two deadlines, one for the receipt of the additional information by 1 March 2001 and the other for the submission of the second periodic report by 31 March 2001, specifically insisting that the information must be submitted and considered on separate occasions. Despite the fact that Israel indicated by a note verbale in early November 2000, that it would respond to the request for information in its second periodic report, expected to be available in early 2001, the Committee singled-out one of the issues in question, for consideration in May 2001. This is an obvious and blatant attempt to keep Israel regularly and frequently on its agenda. In addition, the Committee has heard oral submissions from non-governmental organizations concerning Israel, in the absence of a report from Israel having been scheduled for consideration. This is an unprecedented practice, inconsistent with the essence of the treaty monitoring system.

In December 1999 the Committee adopted “Follow-up procedures in relation to the consideration of reports”, which delineated a step-by-step approach to be taken in the case of requests for additional information. These procedures in their application to Israel, were applied prior to their submission to the Economic and Social Council, for its consideration, quite contrary to the Committee’s expected relationship with the Council according to its resolution 1985/17 of 28 May 1985.

The Committee’s exceptional focus on Israel is all the more unjustified given the Committee’s massive backlog of reports, and the numerous States which have failed to report at all. It certainly stood in marked contrast to the Committee’s follow-up action with respect to the only similar situation at the time.

Ms. Anne Bayefsky recently submitted a report to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights regarding the treaty system, which features an exhaustive examination of the treaty bodies procedures. Ms. Bayefsky pointed out that, in practice, this so-called “follow-up” procedure has been used by the Committee simply as a means to place Israel on the agenda at any time it sees fit (The UN Human Rights Treaty System: Universality at the Crossroads, sect. 24, p. 79).

The Committee’s pattern of conduct towards Israel stands in direct contrast to the principles of the treaty system which are founded on the expectation of a regular and equal consideration of every State party’s compliance with the treaty. One can only question the true motivation behind the Committee’s conduct towards Israel in this regard.

At its twenty-fifth session on 23 April 2001, while the Committee heard numerous oral submissions from non-governmental organizations on Israel’s compliance with the Covenant, it did not consider the additional information which had been submitted by Israel on 20 April 2001 in response to the Committee’s request. Instead, it then set a new date for consideration of the additional information, today, on 17 August, on the grounds that there was insufficient time for translation of Israel’s additional information, although it was not deemed problematic to hear non-governmental organization reports on the same subject at the April session. In other words, the Committee heard oral submissions from non-governmental organizations about the State party, changed the date of the consideration of the State party’s additional information and the discussion with the State party to the following session, and then reached substantive conclusions on the very subject about which the additional information had been requested.

Furthermore, in another historic first, having heard only from non-governmental organizations and not from the State party, the Committee’s recommendations called for the substantive involvement in July 2001 of the Economic and Social Council in the matter and its participation in the Committee’s condemnation of Israel, despite the fact that dialogue with the State party had been scheduled for 17 August 2001.

By such actions, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is prejudicing its prestige in the human rights treaty system. It has singled out one State for criticism without reviewing its reports or information, without engaging in a genuine constructive dialogue with it, and without following its own rules of procedure. This conduct, to which we are exposed in the political United Nations forums, such as the General Assembly, is completely unacceptable when exercised by a Committee whose mandate is human rights, and which not only claims to be a professional monitoring body, but is also explicitly required to act as such, by virtue of its very own mandate.

Economic and Social Council resolution 1985/17 explicitly requires that the members of the Committee be appointed as independent experts “with recognized competence in the field of human rights, serving in their personal capacity”. However, the Committee’s biased practices and its blatant disregard for the fundamental principles of due process cast serious doubts as to its alleged objectivity and capacity to engage in a constructive dialogue. Its discriminatory treatment of Israel, lack of bona fides and the use of double-standards stand in marked contrast to its mandate. The failure of this human rights treaty monitoring body to apply the Covenant within its mandate, in an apolitical and even-handed process, presents a direct challenge to the integrity of the treaty system.

In addition to the serious procedural reservations I have emphasized, I would like to conclude by reiterating Israel’s reservation with regard to the Committee’s handling of events in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. It has consistently been Israel’s position that consideration of questions of human rights in these territories is not within the mandate of the Committee, as

such territories fall within the context of armed conflict and international humanitarian law. Furthermore, it is completely inconsistent with the changing reality on the ground, where, pursuant to the Israeli-Palestinian agreements, the overwhelming majority of powers and responsibilities in all civil spheres, including economic, social and cultural rights, as well as a variety of security issues, have been transferred to the Palestinians. Israel, thus, has neither the responsibility, nor the capability for reporting on human rights in these areas.

It is Israel’s hope that the Committee engage both in an introspective reflection and in a constructive dialogue on all matters raised in this statement, in the hope that a discussion and consideration of Israel’s second periodic report will indeed be apolitical, productive and forward‑looking.

In view of what I have said, Israel does not intend to participate in the present session.

A nnex VII

Poverty and the International Covenant

on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

Statement of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural

Rights to the Third United Nations Conference on the Least

Developed Countries*

1.In 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights established that poverty is a human rights issue.a This view has been reaffirmed on numerous occasions by various United Nations bodies, including the General Assembly and Commission on Human Rights.b Although the term is not explicitly used in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,c poverty is one of the recurring themes in the Covenant and has always been one of the central concerns of the Committee. The rights to work, an adequate standard of living, housing, food, health and education, which lie at the heart of the Covenant, have a direct and immediate bearing upon the eradication of poverty. Moreover, the issue of poverty frequently arises in the course of the Committee’s constructive dialogue with States parties. In the light of experience gained over many years, including the examination of numerous reports of States parties, the Committee holds the firm view that poverty constitutes a denial of human rights.

2.Accordingly, the Committee warmly welcomes the renewed commitment of a number of States and international organizations to the policy objective of poverty eradication, as well as related policy goals such as the elimination of social exclusion. The Committee regrets, however, that the “human rights” dimensions of poverty eradication policies rarely receive the attention they deserve. This neglect is especially regrettable because a human rights approach to poverty can reinforce anti-poverty strategies and make them more effective.

3.The present statement is aimed at encouraging the integration of human rights into poverty eradication policies by outlining how human rights generally, and the Covenant in particular, can empower the poor and enhance anti-poverty strategies. It is not sought in this statement to formulate a detailed anti-poverty programme or plan of action, but to identify concisely the distinctive contribution of international human rights to poverty eradication. The preparation of operational anti-poverty programmes is a separate undertaking of the first importance which all actors should pursue as a matter of urgency and with due regard to international human rights.

Scale and nature of the problem

4.The President of the World Bank recently wrote:

Poverty remains a global problem of huge proportions. Of the world’s 6 billion people, 2.8 billion live on less than $2 a day, and 1.2 billion on less than $1 a day. Six infants of every 100 do not see their first birthday, and 8 do not survive to their fifth. Of those who do reach school age, 9 boys in 100, and 14 girls, do not go to primary school.d

While statistics do not provide a complete understanding of poverty, these shocking figures signify massive and systemic breaches of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, as well as of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, the Convention on the Rights of the Child and other international human rights instruments.

5.Poverty is not confined to developing countries and societies in transition, it is a global phenomenon experienced in varying degrees by all States. Many developed States have impoverished groups, such as minorities or indigenous peoples, within their jurisdictions. Also, within many rich countries there are rural and urban areas where people live in appalling conditions - pockets of poverty amid wealth. In all States, women and girls bear a disproportionate burden of poverty, and children growing up in poverty are often permanently disadvantaged. In the Committee’s view, the greater empowerment of women in particular is an essential precondition for the eradication of global poverty.

6.While the common theme underlying poor people’s experiences is one of powerlessness,e human rights can empower individuals and communities. The challenge is to connect the powerless with the empowering potential of human rights. Although human rights are not a panacea, they can help to equalize the distribution and exercise of power within and between societies.

Definitions

7.In the recent past, poverty was often defined as insufficient income to buy a minimum basket of goods and services. Today, the term is usually understood more broadly as the lack of basic capabilities to live in dignity. This definition recognizes poverty’s broader features, such as hunger, poor education, discrimination, vulnerability and social exclusion.f The Committee notes that this understanding of poverty corresponds with numerous provisions of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

8.In the light of the International Bill of Rights, poverty may be defined as a human condition characterized by sustained or chronic deprivation of the resources, capabilities, choices, security and power necessary for the enjoyment of an adequate standard of living and other civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights. While acknowledging that there is no universally accepted definition, the Committee endorses this multidimensional understanding of poverty, which reflects the indivisible and interdependent nature of all human rights.

The international human rights normative framework

9.International human rights provide a framework of norms or rules upon which detailed global, national and community-level poverty eradication policies can be constructed. While poverty raises complex multisectoral issues that are not amenable to simple solutions, the application of the international human rights normative framework to these issues helps to ensure that essential elements of anti-poverty strategies such as non-discrimination, equality, participation and accountability receive the sustained attention they deserve. In this context, the Committee wishes to briefly highlight three features of the international human rights normative framework.

10.First, the normative framework encompasses the entire range of civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights, and the right to development. While the rights enumerated in the Covenant, such as the right to an adequate standard of living, are of central importance to the poor, the Committee emphasizes that all civil and political rights, as well as the right to development, are also indispensable to those living in poverty.g Because of its mandate,

expertise and experience, the Committee gives particular attention to the economic, social and cultural rights dimensions of anti‑poverty strategies, but all rights are equally important as a means of ensuring that all people can live in freedom and dignity.

11.Second, non-discrimination and equality are integral elements of the normative framework, including the Covenant. Sometimes poverty arises when people have no access to existing resources because of who they are, what they believe or where they live. Discrimination may cause poverty, just as poverty may cause discrimination. Inequality may be entrenched in institutions and deeply rooted in social values that shape relationships within households and communities. Accordingly, the international norms of non-discrimination and equality, which demand that particular attention be given to vulnerable groups and individuals from such groups, have profound implications for anti-poverty strategies.

12.Third, the normative framework includes the right of those affected by key decisions to participate in the relevant decision-making processes. The right to participate is reflected in numerous international instruments, including the Covenant and the Declaration on the Right to Development.h In the Committee’s experience, a policy or programme that is formulated without the active and informed participation of those affected is most unlikely to be effective. Although free and fair elections are a crucial component of the right to participate, they are not enough to ensure that those living in poverty enjoy the right to participate in key decisions affecting their lives.

13.In conclusion, anti-poverty policies are more likely to be effective, sustainable, inclusive, equitable and meaningful to those living in poverty if they are based on international human rights. For this to occur, human rights need to be taken into account in all relevant policy‑making processes.i Thus, there is a need for appropriately trained officials operating good processes informed by reliable, disaggregated data.

Obligations and accountability

14.The Covenant empowers the poor by granting them rights and imposing legal obligations on others, such as States. Critically, rights and obligations demand accountability: unless supported by a system of accountability, they can become no more than window dressing. Accordingly, the human rights approach to poverty emphasizes obligations and requires that all duty-holders, including States and international organizations, are held to account for their conduct in relation to international human rights law. In its General Comment No. 9 (1998) on domestic application of the Covenant, the Committee remarked upon mechanisms of legal

accountability for State parties. As for other duty-holders, they must determine which accountability mechanisms are most appropriate in their particular case. However, whatever the mechanisms of accountability, they must be accessible, transparent and effective.j

Core obligations: national and international responsibilities

15.According to the Covenant, article 2, paragraph 1, the enumerated rights are subject to resource availability and may be realized progressively. However, paragraph 10 of General Comment No. 3 (1990) on the nature of States parties’ obligations (art. 2, para. 1, of the Covenant), confirms that State parties have a “core obligation to ensure the satisfaction of, at the very least, minimum essential levels of each of the rights” enunciated in the Covenant. As the Committee observes, without such a core obligation, the Covenant “would be largely deprived of its raison d’être”.

16.More recently, the Committee began to identify the core obligations arising from the “minimum essential levels” of the rights to food, education and health (General Comments No. 11 (1999) on plans of action for primary education (art. 14 of the Covenant), No. 13 (1999) and No. 14 (2000), respectively), and it confirmed, in its General Comment No. 14 (2000) (sect. III, para. 47) that these core obligations are “non-derogable”. In this General Comment (sect. II, para. 45), the Committee emphasizes that it is incumbent on all those in a position to assist, to provide “international assistance and cooperation, especially economic and technical” to enable developing countries to fulfil their core obligations.kIn short, core obligations give rise to national responsibilities for all States and international responsibilities for developed States, as well as others that are “in a position to assist”.

17.Thus, the core obligations of economic, social and cultural rights have a crucial role to play in national and international developmental policies, including anti-poverty strategies. When grouped together, the core obligations establish an international minimum threshold that all developmental policies should be designed to respect. In accordance with the Committee’s General Comment No. 14 (2000), it is incumbent on all those who can assist, to help developing countries respect this international minimum threshold. If a national or international anti-poverty strategy does not reflect this minimum threshold, it is inconsistent with the legally binding obligations of the State party.

18.To avoid any misunderstanding, the Committee wishes to emphasize three points. First, because core obligations are non-derogable, they continue to exist in situations of conflict, emergency and natural disaster. Second, because poverty is a global phenomenon, core obligations have great relevance to some individuals and communities living in the richest

States. Third, after a State party has ensured the core obligations of economic, social and cultural rights, it continues to have an obligation to move as expeditiously and effectively as possible towards the full realization of all the rights in the Covenant.

Conclusion

19.The Committee strongly recommends the integration of international human rights norms into participatory, multisectoral national poverty eradication or reduction plans.l Such anti‑poverty plans have an indispensable role to play in all States, no matter what their stage of economic development.

20.Non-State actors, including international organizations, national human rights institutions, civil society organizations and private businesses, also have heavy responsibilities in the struggle against poverty. Each should clearly identify how it can contribute to poverty eradication, keeping in mind the human rights dimensions of poverty as outlined in this statement.

21.The Committee is deeply aware that there are structural obstacles to the eradication of poverty in developing countries. Through its various activities, including the reporting process and the adoption of general comments, the Committee attempts to assist developing States by identifying measures that they can and should take to address these obstacles. However, some of the structural obstacles confronting developing States’ anti-poverty strategies lie beyond their control in the contemporary international order. In the Committee’s view, it is imperative that measures be urgently taken to remove these global structural obstacles - such as unsustainable foreign debt, the widening gap between rich and poor and the absence of an equitable multilateral trade, investment and financial system - otherwise the national anti-poverty strategies of some States have a limited chance of sustainable success. In this regard, the Committee notes article 28 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,m as well as the Declaration on the Right to Development, in particular article 3, paragraph 3.n

22.So far as its resources and other responsibilities permit, the Committee continues to prepare additional general comments that clarify the normative content of economic, social and cultural rights, including their core obligations, and invites all parties to assist in this important and challenging task.

23.Conscious of their far-reaching importance, the Committee confirms its willingness to discuss the issues identified in this statement with all those committed to the eradication of poverty.

A nnex VIII

Letter dated 28 March 2001 addressed by the Chairperson of the Committee

on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to the Chairperson of the

Intergovernmental Preparatory Committee for the Third United Nations

Conference on the Least Developed Countries, Mr. Jacques Scavée

The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has been ratified by 32 of the 48 States currently designated by the United Nations as “least developed countries”. The Covenant, which has been ratified by 144 States, also has implications for richer countries in their relations with least developed countries. Further, while the Covenant primarily imposes obligations on states, it has serious implications for non-State actors, including international organizations, in their dealings with least developed countries.

This letter does not attempt to address all aspects of the relationship between the Covenant and least developed countries. Instead, it highlights one feature of the Covenant that has a particular bearing on least developed countries: the Covenant’s contribution to the eradication of poverty. Based on the long experience of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the following brief remarks signal how human rights generally, and the Covenant in particular, can empower the poor and enhance anti-poverty strategies:

(a)While the common theme underlying poor people’s experience is one of powerlessness, human rights can empower individuals and communities. The challenge is to connect these individuals and communities with the empowering potential of human rights. Crucially, human rights can help to equalize the distribution and exercise of power within and between societies;

(b)Although the term is not explicitly used in the Covenant, poverty is one of the recurring themes in the Covenant and has always been one of the central concerns of the Committee. The rights to an adequate standard of living, adequate shelter, food, health and education lie at the heart of the Covenant - and they also have a direct and immediate bearing upon the eradication of poverty. In short, poverty is a human rights issue;

(c)Non-discrimination and equality are integral elements of the Covenant, as well as other international human rights instruments. Discrimination may cause poverty, just as poverty may cause discrimination. Inequality may be entrenched in institutions and rooted in social values. Thus, the international norms of non-discrimination and equality, which demand that particular attention be given to vulnerable individuals and communities, have profound implications for all anti-poverty strategies;

(d)The right to participate is reflected in numerous international instruments, including the Covenant, and in the Declaration on the Right to Development.a In the Committee’s experience, a policy or programme that is formulated without the active and informed participation of those affected is most unlikely to be effective;

(e)Critically, rights - and the obligations or duties that flow from them - demand accountability. Unless supported by a system of accountability, rights and obligations can become no more than window-dressing. The human rights approach to poverty emphasizes obligations and requires that all duty-holders, including States and international organizations, are held to account for their conduct in relation to international human rights law;

(f)Some of the structural obstacles confronting developing States’ anti-poverty strategies lie beyond their control in the contemporary international order. In the Committee’s view, it is imperative that measures be urgently taken to remove these global structural obstacles, otherwise the national anti-poverty strategies of developing States have limited chance of sustainable success. Further, given the reference to “international assistance and cooperation, especially economic and technical” in article 2, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, as well as other provisions of international law, the Committee is of the firm opinion that it is incumbent on all States and non‑State actors that are in a position to assist, to help developing countries fulfil their obligations under the Covenant;

(g)Anti-poverty policies that are based upon international human rights are more likely to be effective, durable, inclusive, equitable and meaningful to those living in poverty. Accordingly, human rights need to be taken into account in all relevant national and international policy-making processes. The Committee strongly recommends the integration of international human rights norms into participatory, multisectoral poverty eradication or reduction plans, such as those anticipated by the enhanced Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative;

(h)In summary, the Covenant and other international human rights instruments provide a framework of norms or rules upon which detailed global, national and community‑level poverty eradication policies can be constructed. While poverty raises complex multisectoral issues that are not amenable to simple solutions, the application of the international human rights normative framework to these issues helps to ensure that essential elements of anti-poverty strategies, such as non-discrimination, equality, participation, and accountability receive the sustained attention they deserve.

Presently, the Committee is formulating a statement on the relationship between poverty and the Covenant. I am confident that this statement will be adopted by the Committee at its forthcoming session (23 April-11 May) and I look forward to bringing it to the attention of participants at the Third Conference on the Least Developed Countries in Brussels.

I would be most grateful if this letter were made available to all participants at next week’s Intergovernmental Preparatory Committee for the Third United Nations Conference on the Least Developed Countries.

(S igned):Virginia Bonoan-Dandan

Chairperson

Committee on Economic, Social

and Cultural Rights

A nnex IX

A. Letter dated 5 July 2001 from the Chairperson of the Committee

on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights addressed to the

United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

I am writing today as a follow-up to our discussions on the need for the development of Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights guidelines on technical cooperation for the integration of human rights in national poverty reduction strategies and Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers. The fruitful meeting hosted by the Office of the High Commissioner on Saturday 23 June 2001 has certainly helped to advance the process by allowing us to clarify our approach, survey the substantive issues at stake and formulate a process and a work programme for the important task ahead. Your personal attendance at the meeting, the strong endorsement that you gave the initiative, and your suggestion of the possibility of a major policy statement on the matter in six months were highly appreciated by all of us. May I add that I share entirely your understanding that this undertaking represents an important and concrete response by the human rights community to the agenda of developing countries themselves, in particular the least developed countries.

The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, like the Commission on Human Rights, has long encouraged the Office of the High Commissioner to develop further its advisory capacities and programmes in the fields of development and economic, social and cultural rights. As you are aware, the Committee has recently issued its Statement on poverty and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, in which the Committee underlines that international human rights provide a framework of norms or rules upon which detailed global, national and community-level poverty eradication policies can be constructed. To quote from that statement:

While poverty raises complex multisectoral issues that are not amenable to simple solutions, the application of the international human rights normative framework to these issues helps to ensure that essential elements of anti-poverty strategies, such as non-discrimination, equality, participation and accountability receive the sustained attention they deserve (annex VII above, para. 9).

As you will also recall, at a special meeting held by the Committee in Geneva on 7 May 2001, during which we examined the role of economic, social and cultural rights in the development activities of international institutions, members of the Committee underscored the importance of technical assistance to States parties in supporting their efforts to integrate human rights (including the rights contained in the Covenant) in national poverty reduction strategies and Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers. We were specially gratified by your subsequent reference to this point in your statement to the Third United Nations Conference on the Least Developed Countries, held in Brussels on 14 May 2001, and your pledge there to organize in the near future a workshop to identify, in very precise and practical terms, how to integrate human rights into poverty reduction strategies and programmes, and to encourage States to seek technical advice and assistance regarding the integration of human rights into their poverty reduction strategies and programmes.

In order that the United Nations human rights programmes, and the Office of the High Commissioner in particular, may be better prepared to respond to requests from States for advice in this area and, as agreed at our meeting of last Saturday, we believe that the Office of the High Commissioner, with the support of the Committee and other relevant actors, should first develop substantive guidelines on advisory services and technical assistance to States on integrating human rights in national poverty reduction strategies, including Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers. To these ends, we would like to encourage the Office of the High Commissioner to develop and implement a project for the preparation and use of such guidelines, and to offer our support in that endeavour. I believe that the important conceptual work already undertaken by your Office in this area, together with the recommendations of the Committee and those of the Commission and its mechanisms, provide a strong starting point for the project. Based on our consultations, we would see this as a multi-stage project of the Office of the High Commissioner, which would begin with the drafting of an annotated outline and proceed through consultation, drafting, a review workshop, subsequent revision, adoption by the Office of the High Commissioner, piloting in selected countries and broad dissemination and use.

Were the process to begin immediately, we believe that draft guidelines could be ready for public launching during your participation at the International Conference on Financing for Development in Mexico in March 2002. While the principal purpose of the guidelines would be to form the basis for the Office of the High Commissioner’s technical cooperation with countries in this area, at their request, the guidelines would undoubtedly serve a much broader purpose, in informing development partners and the international community of the specific requirements, concerns and values of a human rights approach to poverty eradication.

I look forward to discussing the matter further with you, at your earliest convenience and to working with the Office of the High Commissioner on seeing the project through to its important conclusion.

(S igned):Virginia Bonoan-Dandan

Chairperson

Committee on Economic, Social

and Cultural Rights

B. Letter dated 25 July 2001 from the United Nations High Commissioner

for Human Rights addressed to the Chairperson of the Committee on

Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

Thank you for your letter dated 5 July 2001, in which you encourage the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to develop, with the support of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, substantive guidelines to assist States in the practical task of integrating human rights into poverty reduction strategies, including Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers.

As you know, I fully share the Committee’s view that international human rights provide a framework of norms upon which poverty eradication policies can be constructed, and I welcomed the Committee’s recent Statement on poverty and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. I believe that this approach must be central to the international community’s commitment to eliminate poverty, as expressed in the Millennium Declaration adopted by the General Assembly in September 2000.

The Office of the High Commissioner looks forward to undertaking this project, working with the Voluntary Fund for Technical Cooperation in the Field of Human Rights, as well as with the assistance of specialist consultants and with support from members of the Committee.

The project, as you present it and as I understand it, is complex, and requires both understanding of human rights principles and development policies, and knowledge of the evolving operational experience in designing and executing poverty reduction strategies. To be successful, the importance of the project needs to be equally recognized by the human rights community, by national authorities, and by those international agencies who are active in the design and implementation of national strategies.

For all these reasons, I believe that the project should have a realistic time frame, and that its design should allow for genuine consultation with and participation by national officials and international development agencies, including the World Bank. I recognize that this means that guidelines, or even guiding principles, are unlikely to be completed by March 2002, when the International Conference on Financing for Development takes place in Mexico.

I look forward to further discussions as this important project develops.

(Signed):Mary Robinson

United Nations High Commissioner

for Human Rights

Annex X

Letter dated 8 November 2001 from the Assistant Director-General for Education, UNESCO, addressed to the Chairperson of the Committee on Economic, Social

and Cultural Rights, regarding the UNESCO Executive Board’s decision

Pursuant to my letter dated 21 June 2001, I have the pleasure to inform you that the recommendation of the Committee on Conventions and Recommendations for the creation of a joint UNESCO/Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights expert group on the right to education was approved by the Executive Board at its 162nd session.a I am attaching a copy of the text of the decision […]

You will appreciate that this decision is essentially in line with the proposal you had made during the dialogue with the Committee on Conventions and Recommendations which was organized on 21 May 2001 at UNESCO Headquarters on monitoring the right to education.

I am sure, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights will welcome this decision. The UNESCO Executive Board is looking forward to the approval of the Economic and Social Council for the creation of this joint expert group so that the necessary measures can be taken to operationalize it and thereby impart greater synergy to our common and soon-to-be institutionalized endeavour for the realization of the right to education in all its dimensions.

(Signed):John Daniel

Assistant Director-General

for Education

a nnex xi

Statement of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural

Rights * to the special session of the General Assembly for an

overall review and appraisal of the implementation of the

decisions taken at the United Nations Conference on Human

Settlements (Habitat II) (New York, 6 to 8 June 2001)

1.On 6 December 1995, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights submitted a statementa to the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat II), in which it recalled the recognition of the right to adequate housing by numerous United Nations organs and bodies - including the General Assembly, the Commission on Human Rights, the Sub‑Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights - since its inclusion in article 25, paragraph 1, of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as in article 11, paragraph 1, of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The latter states: “The States Parties to the … Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing”.

2.The Committee has adopted two general comments regarding the right to adequate housing, which are based on its consideration of reports submitted by States parties to the Covenant, as well as on information emanating from United Nations organs and bodies, and other governmental and non-governmental sources. General Comment No. 4 (1991) on the right to adequate housing (art. 11, para. 1, of the Covenant), adopted at the sixth session of the Committee, aims to provide a normative interpretation of housing as a human right. General Comment No. 7 (1997) on forced evictions, adopted at the sixteenth session of the Committee, focuses specifically on forced evictions as a violation of human rights, as reaffirmed also in Commission on Human Rights resolution 1993/77 of 10 March 1993.

3.The Committee emphasizes its view that the right to adequate housing is a justiciable and enforceable right, and that many elements constituting this right are already the subject of domestic remedies in most of the States parties of the Covenant. Case law concerning housing rights mostly relate to judicial remedies against evictions or demolition; applications for compensation or rehousing following illegal eviction; judicial actions against discriminatory measures in the area of housing; complaints against owners concerning health hazards or inadequate housing, or excessive rent; and judicial actions concerning land ownership.b This case law confirms the legal status of the right to adequate housing.

4.The Committee reaffirms its conviction that the realization of the right to adequate housing is closely linked to the realization of other human rights in the Covenant, as expressed by the principle of the interdependence, indivisibility and interrelatedness of all human rights.

5.In this context, the Committee expresses its support for the position of the Commission on Human Rights’ Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, and on the right to non-discrimination, which he expressed as follows in his report to the fifty-seventh session of the Commission:

[I]t is the intention of the Special Rapporteur to promote greater realization and operationalization of the right to adequate housing through a constructive approach, by closing the gap between legal recognition and practice and seeking solutions to the grave housing and living conditions found globally (E/CN.4/2001/51, p. 3).

6.The Committee is particularly concerned that, in the draft declaration on cities and other human settlements in the new millennium (A/S-25/2, decision 2/1 of the Commission on Human Settlements established as the Preparatory Committee for the special session of the General Assembly), there is no reference to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, to the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, to its relevant General Comments, nor to the right to adequate housing. Such an omission would seriously undermine achievements made over the last decade at the national and international level in promoting the right to adequate housing, and would constitute a step backwards from the recognition of human rights in the 1996 Habitat Agenda.

7.The Committee notes that, in its extensive experience since 1986 in monitoring State compliance with the Covenant, none of the 144 States parties have challenged the recognition by the Committee of a distinct right to adequate housing, which is formally recognized in the constitutions and domestic legislation of many States.

8.The Committee calls upon the Governments participating in the special session of the General Assembly for an overall review and appraisal of the implementation of the decisions taken at the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat II) to maintain conformity with other United Nations documents concerning housing, including the Habitat Agenda itself, which clearly reflect the principles and provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and to reaffirm explicitly that the right to adequate housing is a fundamental human right.

Annex XII

Statement of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights* to the

International Consultative Conference on School Education in Relation to

Freedom of Religion and Belief, Tolerance and Non‑Discrimination

1.The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has the pleasure of submitting the present statement to the International Consultative Conference on School Education in Relation to Freedom of Religion and Belief, Tolerance and Non-Discrimination, being held in Madrid from 23 to 25 November 2001.

2.In compliance with requests by the General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights, the Committee actively contributed to the preparatory process leading up to the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, and made recommendations concerning the draft declaration and programme of action.

3.The Committee’s contributions to the World Conference consisted of two general comments relating to the right to education, namely General Comments No. 11 (1999) on plans of action for primary education (art. 14 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights) and No. 13 (1999) on the right to education (art. 13 of the Covenant).

4.In its submission to the first session of the Preparatory Committee for the World Conference, the Committee focused on the right to education as set forth in articles 13 and 14 of the Covenant, as it is universally recognized that education has a pivotal role to play in the struggle against racism and related intolerance.a This position has also been taken by the General Assembly,b by the Commission on Human Rights (in a report of its Open-ended working group to review and formulate proposals for the World Conferencec) and by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

5.The Committee invites the attention of the International Consultative Conference to those sections of article 13 of the Covenant and its General Comment No. 13 (1999) which explicitly bear upon racism and racial discrimination and as set forth in its submission to the preparatory process of the World Conference:

(a)Article 13, paragraph 1, of the Covenant, setting out the aims and objectives of education, declares that “education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and the sense of its dignity, and shall strengthen the respect for human rights and

fundamental freedoms”. Further, “education shall enable all persons to participate effectively in a free society, promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations and all racial, ethnic or religious groups”;

(b)“The prohibition against discrimination enshrined in article 2, paragraph 2, is subject to neither progressive realization nor the availability of resources; it applies fully and immediately to all aspects of education and encompasses all internationally prohibited grounds of discrimination” (General Comment No. 13 (1999), para. 31);

(c)“The adoption of temporary special measures intended to bring about de facto equality for men and women and for disadvantaged groups is not a violation of the right to non‑discrimination with regard to education, so long as such measures do not lead to the maintenance of unequal or separate standards for different groups, and provided they are not continued after the objectives for which they were taken have been achieved” (ibid., para. 32);

(d)“States parties must closely monitor education - including all relevant policies, institutions, programmes, spending patterns and other practices - so as to identify and take measures to redress any de facto discrimination. Educational data should be disaggregated by the prohibited grounds of discrimination” (ibid., para. 37);

(e)“[T]he form and substance of education, including curricula and teaching methods, have to be acceptable (e.g. relevant, culturally appropriate and of good quality) to students and, in appropriate cases, parents … subject to the educational objectives required by article 13, paragraph 1, and such minimum educational standards as may be approved by the State” (ibid., para. 6 (c));

(f) “[E]ducation has to be flexible so it can adapt to the needs of changing societies and communities and respond to the needs of students within their diverse social and cultural settings” (ibid., para. 6 (d));

(g) “Primary education must be universal, ensure that the basic learning needs of all children are satisfied, and take into account the culture, needs and opportunities of the community” (ibid., para. 9; the General Comment quotes from the World Declaration on Education for All, adopted by the World Conference on Education for All, held in Jomtien, Thailand, in 1990);

(h)The requirement in article 13, paragraph 2, that “an adequate fellowship system shall be established” should be read with the Covenant’s non-discrimination and equality provisions; the fellowship system “should enhance equality of educational access for individuals from disadvantaged groups” (ibid., para. 26);

(i)“Given the principles of non-discrimination, equal opportunity and effective participation in society for all, the State has an obligation to ensure that the liberty [to establish private educational institutions] does not lead to extreme disparities of educational opportunity for some groups in society” (ibid., para. 30).

6.In conclusion, the Committee reaffirms the opening words of its General Comment No. 13 (1999): “Education is both a human right in itself and indispensable means of realizing other human rights. As an empowerment right, education is the primary vehicle by which economically and socially marginalized adults and children can lift themselves out of poverty and obtain the means to participate fully in their communities”. Education is one of the most powerful tools by which the world can overcome racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. Thus, an essential strategy for the elimination of discrimination is a renewed commitment, supported by the necessary resources, to realize the right to education as enshrined in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

annex xiii

Statement by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

on human rights and intellectual property *

Introduction

1.The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights recognizes the broad significance of the creation, ownership and control of intellectual property in a knowledge-based economy and the means that it can afford for promoting or inhibiting the enjoyment of human rights, in particular the rights under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The allocation of rights over intellectual property has significant economic, social and cultural consequences that can affect the enjoyment of human rights. The contemporary importance of intellectual property for human rights reflects two developments. The first is the expansion of the areas covered by intellectual property regimes to include, for example, patenting of biological entities, copyright print protections in the digital domain, and private intellectual property claims with respect to cultural heritage and traditional knowledge. The second is the emergence of universal rules on intellectual property protection in the global trading system.

2.The Committee has resolved to prepare and adopt, as soon as possible, a general comment on intellectual property and human rights. The Committee, however, has decided to adopt this statement as its preliminary contribution to the rapidly evolving debate on intellectual property, which remains high on the international agenda. The statement aims only to identify some of the key human rights principles deriving from the Covenant that are required to be taken into account in the development, interpretation and implementation of contemporary intellectual property regimes. These basic principles will be further refined, elaborated and applied in the Committee’s forthcoming general comment on intellectual property and human rights.a

3.The principles set out in the present statement apply equally to national legislation and international rules and policies concerning intellectual property protection. In particular, the Committee draws attention to the various intellectual property treaties administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), as well as the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (the TRIPS Agreement) of the World Trade Organization, which set out minimum standards for the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights. Reference could also be made to relevant articles of other treaties, such as the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity. In this regard, the Committee recalls previous statements it has made in which it emphasized that the realms of trade, finance and

investment are in no way exempt from human rights principles and that “international organizations with specific responsibilities in those areas should play a positive and constructive role in relation to human rights”.b

4.Article 15, paragraph 1 (c), of the Covenant, together with article 27 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, requires the protection of the moral and material interests of authors in their works. The Committee considers that these intellectual property rights must be balanced with the right to take part in cultural life (art. 15, para. 1 (a), of the Covenant) and to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications (para. 1 (b)). Moreover, article 15, paragraph 2, of the Covenant requires that States parties undertake steps necessary for the conservation, development and diffusion of science and culture. To be consistent with a human rights-based approach, intellectual property regimes should be conducive to realizing these goals. The Committee therefore encourages the development of intellectual property systems and the use of intellectual property rights in a balanced manner that meets the objective of providing protection for the moral and material interests of authors, and at the same time promotes the enjoyment of these and other human rights. Ultimately, intellectual property is a social product and has a social function. The end which intellectual property protection should serve is the objective of human well-being, to which international human rights instruments give legal expression.

Universality, indivisibility and interdependence of human rights

5.Human rights derive from the inherent dignity and worth of all persons, with the human person as the central subject and primary beneficiary of human rights.c The moral and legal guarantees of fundamental freedoms, protections and entitlements both derive from and support people’s self-respect and dignity. Consequently, the entire range of civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights, as well as the right to development, are relevant to intellectual property systems. To be consistent with obligations to respect international human rights, intellectual property regimes must promote and protect all human rights, including the full range of rights guaranteed in the Covenant.

6.The fact that the human person is the central subject and primary beneficiary of human rights distinguishes human rights - including the right of authors to the moral and material interests in their works - from legal rights recognized in intellectual property systems. Human rights are fundamental, inalienable and universal entitlements belonging to individuals, and in some situations groups of individuals and communities. Human rights are fundamental as they derive from the human person as such, whereas intellectual property rights derived from intellectual property systems are instrumental, in that they are a means by which States seek to provide incentives for inventiveness and creativity from which society benefits. In contrast with human rights, intellectual property rights are generally of a temporary nature, and can be revoked, licensed or assigned to someone else.d While intellectual property rights may be allocated, limited in time and scope, traded, amended and even forfeited, human rights are timeless expressions of fundamental entitlements of the human person. Whereas human rights are dedicated to assuring satisfactory standards of human welfare and well-being, intellectual property regimes, although they traditionally provide protection to individual authors and creators, are increasingly focused on protecting business and corporate interests and investments. Moreover, the scope of protection of the moral and material interests of the author provided for under article 15 of the Covenant does not necessarily coincide with what is termed intellectual property rights under national legislation or international agreements.

Equality and non-discrimination

7.Human rights are based on the equality of all persons and their equal standing before the law. For that reason, human rights instruments place great emphasis on protection against discrimination. Article 2, paragraph 2, and article 3 of the Covenant stipulate that States parties undertake to guarantee that the rights enunciated in the Covenant must be exercised without discrimination of any kind as to race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, and to ensure the equal rights of men and women to the enjoyment of all the rights set forth in the Covenant.

8.A human rights-based approach focuses particularly on the needs of the most disadvantaged and marginalized individuals and communities. Because a human right is a universal entitlement, its implementation is evaluated particularly by the degree to which it benefits those who hitherto have been the most disadvantaged and marginalized and brings them up to the mainstream level of protection. Thus, in adopting intellectual property regimes, States and other actors must give particular attention at the national and international levels to the adequate protection of the human rights of disadvantaged and marginalized individuals and groups, such as indigenous peoples (see Statement on poverty and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, annex VII above, para. 11).

Participation

9.International human rights law includes the right of everyone to be consulted and participate in significant decision-making processes that affect them. The right to participate is reflected in numerous international instruments, including the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (art. 13, para. 1) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (art. 25), as well as the Declaration on the Right to Development (art. 2, para. 3). Accordingly, the Committee supports the active and informed participation of all those affected by intellectual property regimes.

Accountability

10.The Committee reiterates its position set out in its Statement on poverty and the Covenant that “rights and obligations demand accountability: unless supported by a system of accountability, they can become no more than window-dressing” (para. 14). While the State holds the primary duty to respect, protect and fulfil human rights, other actors, including non‑State actors and international organizations, carry obligations, which must be subject to scrutiny. Accordingly, the adequate protection of human rights needs accessible, transparent and effective accountability mechanisms to ensure that rights are respected, and where they are not, that victims can find redress. A human rights approach to intellectual property requires that all actors are held to account for their obligations under international human rights law, specifically with regard to the adoption, interpretation and implementation of intellectual property systems.

General legal obligations

11.In the context of intellectual property, it should be noted that while the Covenant provides for progressive realization and acknowledges the constraints due to limits on available resources, it also imposes on States parties various obligations which have immediate effect, including core obligations.e Progressive realization over a period of time should not be interpreted as depriving States parties’ obligations of all meaningful content. Rather, progressive realization means that States parties have a specific and continuing obligation to move as expeditiously and effectively as possible towards the full realization of all the rights enshrined in the Covenant. Accordingly, the Committee wishes to emphasize that national and international intellectual property regimes must be consistent with the obligation of States parties to ensure the progressive realization of full enjoyment of all the rights in the Covenant. Furthermore, all parties are urged to ensure that intellectual property regimes contribute, in a practical and substantive way, to the full realization of all the Covenant rights.

Core obligations

12.In this regard, it should also be recalled that paragraph 10 of the Committee’s General Comment No. 3 (1990) on the nature of States parties’ obligations (art. 2, para. 1, of the Covenant), confirms that States parties have a “core obligation to ensure the satisfaction of, at the very least, minimum essential levels of each of the rights” enunciated in the Covenant. As the Committee observes, without such a core obligation, the Covenant “would be largely deprived of its raison d’être”. More recently, the Committee has begun to identify the core obligations arising from the “minimum essential levels” in relation to the rights to health, food and education.f The Committee wishes to emphasize that any intellectual property regime that

makes it more difficult for a State party to comply with its core obligations in relation to health, food, education, especially, or any other right set out in the Covenant, is inconsistent with the legally binding obligations of the State party.

International cooperation and assistance

13.As the Committee confirmed in paragraph 45 of its General Comment No. 14 (2000) on the right to the highest attainable standard of health (art. 12 of the Covenant), it is particularly incumbent on all those in a position to assist, to provide “international assistance and cooperation, especially economic and technical” (art. 2, para. 1, of the Covenant), in order to enable developing countries to fulfil their core obligations under the Covenant. Accordingly, it is incumbent upon developed States, and other actors in a position to assist, to develop international intellectual property regimes that enable developing States to fulfil at least their core obligations to individuals and groups within their jurisdictions. In this regard, the Committee reaffirms paragraphs 15 to 18 of its Statement on poverty and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

14.The Charter of the United Nations commits all nations to the development of an equitable and just international order that encourages peace, solidarity, social progress and better standards of life for all nations large and small. Article 28 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that everyone has the right to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms in the Declaration can be enjoyed. Article 2, paragraph 1, and article 23 of the Covenant further state that States parties should engage in international cooperation in order to achieve progressively the rights enshrined in the Covenant. Article 15, paragraph 4, of the Covenant further recognizes the benefits to be derived from encouraging and developing international contacts and cooperation in the scientific and cultural fields.g

15.The Committee observes that countries enjoy different levels of development, resulting in different technological needs. While some countries might focus on the protection of technology, others may focus more on facilitating access. It is essential that intellectual property regimes facilitate and promote development cooperation, technology transfer and scientific and cultural collaboration. International rules concerning intellectual property should not necessarily be uniform if this might lead to forms of intellectual property protection inappropriate for development goals. The Committee encourages the adoption and implementation of effective international mechanisms for special and differential treatment for developing countries concerning intellectual property protection.

Self-determination

16.Article 1, paragraph 2, of the Covenant states that “[a]ll peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic cooperation”. National sovereignty over wealth and resources is an important prerequisite for the effective promotion and protection of human rights. In

negotiating, and adhering to, international treaties on intellectual property, States should consider how this will affect their sovereignty over wealth and resources and ultimately their capacity to ensure the rights enshrined in the Covenant.

Balance

17.Article 15 of the Covenant sets out the need to balance the protection of public and private interests in knowledge. On the one hand, paragraph 1 (a) and (b) recognizes the right of everyone to take part in cultural life and to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications. On the other hand, paragraph 1 (c), recognizes the right of everyone to benefit from the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he or she is the author. When adopting and reviewing intellectual property systems, States should bear in mind the need to strike a balance between those concurrent Covenant provisions. In an effort to provide incentives for creation and innovation, private interests should not be unduly advantaged and the public interest in enjoying broad access to new knowledge should be given due consideration. The Committee notes that an example of this need to strike a balance can be found in the recent Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Healthh (para. 3),which recognizes that intellectual property protection is important for the development of new medicines, but at the same time also recognizes the concerns about its effect on prices.

Conclusion

18.The Committee considers of fundamental importance the integration of international human rights norms into the enactment and interpretation of intellectual property law. Consequently, States parties should guarantee the social dimensions of intellectual property, in accordance with international human rights obligations to which they have committed themselves. An explicit commitment to do so and the establishment of a mechanism for a human rights review of intellectual property systems are important steps towards that goal.

19.There is a similar need for intergovernmental organizations to integrate international human rights obligations and principles into their policies, practices and operations. Conscious of the far-reaching importance and complexity of integrating human rights into the development of intellectual property regimes, the Committee confirms its willingness to discuss the issues identified in this statement with relevant actors and its availability to assist States parties and intergovernmental organizations in this process.

Annex XIV

List of general comments adopted by the Committee

on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

The general comments adopted to date by the Committee appear in the following relevant reports: *

No. 1 (1989): on reporting by States parties (third session; E/1989/22-E/C.12/1989/5, annex III);

No. 2 (1990): on international technical assistance measures (art. 22, para. 1, of the Covenant) fourth session; E/1990/23-E/C.12/1990/3 and Corr.1, annex III);

No. 3 (1990): on the nature of States parties’ obligations (art. 2, para. 1, of the Covenant) (fifth session; E/1991/23-E/C.12/1990/8 and Corr.1, annex III);

No. 4 (1991): on the right to adequate housing (art. 11, para. 1, of the Covenant) (sixth session; E/1992/23-E/C.12/1991/4, annex III);

No. 5 (1994): on persons with disabilities (eleventh session; E/1995/22-E/C.12/1994/20 and Corr.1, annex IV);

No. 6 (1995): on the economic, social and cultural rights of older persons (thirteenth session; E/1996/22-E/C.12/1995/18, annex IV);

No. 7 (1997): on the right to adequate housing (art. 11, para. 1, of the Covenant): forced evictions (sixteenth session; E/1998/22-E/C.12/1997/10, annex IV);

No. 8 (1997): on the relationship between economic sanctions and respect for economic, social and cultural rights (seventeenth session; E/1998/22-E/C.12/1997/10, annex V);

No. 9 (1998): on domestic application of the Covenant (eighteenth session; E/1999/22‑E/C.12/1998/26, annex IV);

No. 10 (1998): on the role of national human rights institutions in the protection of economic, social and cultural rights (nineteenth session; E/1999/22-E/C.12/1998/26, annex V);

No. 11 (1999): on plans of action for primary education (art. 14 of the Covenant) (twentieth session; E/2000/22-E/C.12/1999/11 and Corr.1, annex IV);

No. 12 (1999): on the right to adequate food (art. 11 of the Covenant) (twentieth session; E/2000/22-E/C.12/1999/11 and Corr. 1, annex V);

No. 13 (1999): on the right to education (art. 13 of the Covenant) (twenty-first session; E/2000/22-E/C.12/1999/11 and Corr.1, annex VI);

No. 14 (2000): on the right to the highest attainable standard of health (art. 12 of the Covenant) (twenty-second session; E/2001/22-E/C.12/2000/22, annex IV).

Annex XV

List of statements adopted by the Committee

on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

The statements and recommendations adopted by the Committee to date appear in its relevant reports: *

1.Preparatory activities relating to the World Conference on Human Rights: recommendations to the Preparatory Committee for the World Conference (sixth session; E/1992/23-E/C.12/1991/4, chap. IX);

2.Statement to the World Conference on Human Rights on behalf of the Committee (seventh session; E/1993/22-E/C.12/1992/2, annex III);

3.The World Summit for Social Development and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Statement of the Committee (tenth session; E/1995/22‑E/C.12/1994/20 and Corr.1, annex V);

4. Economic, social and cultural rights in the context of the World Summit for Social Development: Statement of the Committee (eleventh session; E/1995/22-E/C.12/1994/20 and Corr.1, annex VI);

5.Fourth World Conference on Women: Action for Equality, Development and Peace ‑ Statement by the Committee (twelfth session; E/1996/22-E/C.12/1995/18, annex VI);

6.United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat II): Statement of the Committee (thirteenth session; E/1996/22-E/C.12/1995/18, annex VIII);

7.Globalization and its impact on the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights (eighteenth session; E/1999/22-E/C.12/1998/26; chap. VI, sect. A, para. 515);

8.Statement of the Committee to the Third Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organization (twenty-first session; E/2000/22-E/C.12/1999/11 and Corr.1, annex VII);

9.Statement of the Committee to the Convention to draft a Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (twenty-second session; E/2001/22-E/C.12/2000/21, annex VIII);

10.Poverty and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Statement of the Committee to the Third United Nations Conference on the Least Developed Countries (twenty-fifth session; E/2002/22-E/C.12/2001/17, annex VII);

11.Statement of the Committee to the special session of the General Assembly for an overall review and appraisal of the implementation of the decisions taken at the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Habitat II) (New York, 6 to 8 June 2001) (twenty-fifth session; E/2002/22-E/C.12/2001/17, annex XI);

12.Statement of the Committee to the International Consultative Conference on School Education in Relation to Freedom of Religion and Belief, Tolerance and Non-Discrimination (twenty-seventh session; E/2002/22-E/C.12/2001/17, annex XII);

13.Statement of the Committee on human rights and intellectual property (twenty-seventh session; E/2002/22-E/C.12/2001/17, annex XIII).

Annex XVI

Days of general discussion held by the Committee on Economic,

Social and Cultural Rights

The following issues have been the focus of discussion:

1.The right to food (third session, 1989);

2.The right to housing (fourth session, 1990);

3.Economic and social indicators (sixth session, 1991);

4.The right to take part in cultural life (seventh session, 1992);

5.The rights of the ageing and elderly (eighth session, 1993);

6.The right to health (ninth session, 1993);

7.The role of social safety nets (tenth session, 1994);

8.Human rights education and public information activities (eleventh session, 1994);

9.The interpretation and practical application of the obligations incumbent on States parties (twelfth session, 1995);

10.A draft optional protocol to the Covenant (thirteenth session, 1995, and fourteenth and fifteenth sessions, 1996);

11.Revision of the general guidelines for reporting (sixteenth session, 1997);

12.The normative content of the right to food (seventeenth session, 1997);

13.Globalization and its impact on the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights (eighteenth session, 1998);

14.The right to education (nineteenth session, 1998);

15.The right of everyone to benefit from the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author (twenty-fourth session, 2000);

16.International consultation on economic, social and cultural rights in development activities of international institutions, organized in cooperation with the High Council for International Cooperation (France) (twenty-fifth session, 2001).

Annex XVII

International consultation on economic, social and cultural rights in

development activities of international institutions *

Report of the High Council for International Cooperation (France) following the

international consultation on economic, social and cultural rights in development

activities of international institutions

1.At the end of the day of general discussion, two major topics were suggested for future work. The first concerned setting up an international discussion forum on economic, social and cultural rights, and the second, proposals for promoting respect for and protection of economic, social and cultural rights.

A. Setting up an international discussion forum on

economic, social and cultural rights

The place of economic, social and cultural rights in the concept of development

2.This concerns a new global social contract. The aim is to recognize the diversity of approaches to development policies, particularly with regard to liberalization policies. A central issue is the relationship between growth and redistribution. Alongside growth, equality and non‑discrimination must constitute the keynotes of any policy.

The justiciability of economic, social and cultural rights

3.Discussions focused on potential conflict between desirable objectives and practical possibilities with regard to economic, social and cultural rights. The issue now is not so much the differentiation between civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights, underlying the differentiation between the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, for which implementation modalities were established in 1966. The universality of rights has been recognized. With due regard for specific situations, all rights in principle may be considered to be immediately applicable. They should all be justiciable and directly applicable before the courts. This is already the case for many economic, social and cultural rights.

Appeal bodies and the acceptance of an international complaints system

4.The current difficulty resides in the acceptance of an international complaints system. The situation has considerably evolved, however, since the 1953 discussion on the complaints procedure before the International Court of Justice. There is much to be learnt from the arbitration bodies of the International Labour Organization, the European Court of Justice, the

establishment of the International Criminal Court, the latest approaches to impunity, the World Trade Organization’s Dispute Settlement Body and the discussion concerning that body’s powers, and the universal competence of Belgian courts, amongst others.

Reconciling conflicting rights

5.This question has come to the fore with the formalization of new rights. Many illustrations were given, such as the right to health in relation to the right to intellectual property in the case of generic medicines; the right to rehousing in the event of eviction in relation to the right to property, etc. How should a hierarchy of rights be drawn up in relation to values and situations? The importance of public debate and the mobilization of civil societies were stressed with regard to debt and AIDS treatment.

The evaluation of public policies and international agencies

6.The recognition of economic, social and cultural rights requires a fresh approach to evaluations and gives them a unified framework. In this respect, evaluation modalities become particularly significant, with regard to the independence of evaluation bodies in relation to the agencies, to public, adversarial debate allowing the participation of different social actors, and to diversity of expertise.

The legitimacy of the international system and international agencies

7.The question was raised of the legitimacy of the international system and the architecture of international agencies. This question has become more topical with the development of globalization. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights may be a decisive element in discussions on legitimacy and its implications worldwide. In this respect, it is worth considering the problems that arise from joint responsibility in global economic matters; this issue has been raised on several occasions in the last 20 years, especially in the context of debt crisis management.

B. Proposals for promoting respect for and protection of economic,

social and cultural rights

To encourage States to incorporate economic, social and cultural rights

in their strategic policies

8.Several national measures were advocated in this respect. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights proposed that a person should be appointed in every ministry and in every country in order to ensure that strategic decisions and documents are compatible with respect for rights and in order to promote a rights-based approach. That person could even be considered as a correspondent of the Office of the High Commissioner. Furthermore, countries could be provided with expert support to coordinate their different international commitments and to strengthen their power of negotiation. It was also proposed that all international agreements be systematically submitted to parliamentary supervision and public debate in all the countries concerned.

To consider that all international agencies, regardless of their function, must respect international covenants and agreements

9.Many measures applying to international specialized agencies were discussed. The legal debate on the obligations of international agencies arising from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and from international covenants and agreements, which began at the meeting, is to be continued. The direct responsibility of States that have signed such treaties must be reaffirmed, particularly in the case of States holding a special position on the decision‑making bodies or membership of the agencies concerned. This reaffirmation implies sharper vigilance on the part of associations monitoring such matters, which are responsible for alerting public opinion. Other measures concerned the question of bodies responsible for assessing the policies of international agencies, the publication of an annual report on respect for human rights in the activities of international agencies, and the participation of significant civil society bodies in those assessments. The appointment of experts to monitor specific rights might be a way of strengthening the partnership between the Office of the High Commissioner and international specialized agencies.

To ensure the compatibility of Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers with human rights

10.Several of the measures advocated concerned economic instruments and more particularly Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers. The Office of the High Commissioner has already started to assess a number of strategy papers from the point of view of respect for human rights. A working group might be set up to study the respect for rights in strategy papers: for example, what would a Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper based on economic, social and cultural rights be like? The aim would be to start discussions with the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund at the global level of the programme for alleviating the debt of heavily indebted poor countries, with a view to integrating strategy papers and economic, social and cultural rights, for countries that agree to this. A joint expert group was set up with the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization on monitoring the right to education. Other measures were suggested, especially to replace conditionalities by a joint approach and negotiated agreements and to “sanctuarize” health and education expenditure in adjustment programmes, in order to maintain the quantitative targets of the Millennium Summit.

To mobilize societies for the defence and protection of economic, social and cultural right s

11.Several measures were recalled concerning the mobilization of civil societies. They included the universality of civil and political as well as economic, social and cultural rights, in the construction of a universal conscience based on common values. A special appeal is to be made to researchers, academics and intellectuals to make a particular study of concepts linking the universality of rights with the specificity of cultures and situations. Mobilizing public opinion requires public debate and commitment; associations, civil society representations and the media must play a special role in this respect. The idea of building a global public opinion is

still very theoretical. It implies paying special attention to possible action by associations in the global system and the manner in which human rights questions are dealt with in the international media.

To ensure respect for economic, social and cultural rights by guaranteeing equal access to basic social services

12.This aspect was brought up several times but never discussed in great detail. The matter has to be considered on three levels: local, national and global. The discussion centred not so much on the importance or the existence of social services, which are generally accepted. It concerned access policies, forms of organization, links with the market and the role of different actors. Discussions focused on the question of how to finance basic services, assuming equal access. The question of global public goods from this point of view opens up future avenues for discussion. The High Council for International Cooperation offered to follow up the question and invited any interested participants to attend the September 2001 seminar on the subject.

To reactivate the procedure for adopting an additional protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

13.The World Conference on Human Rights, held in Vienna in 1993, asked the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to prepare a draft optional protocol to the Covenant. This draft was prepared and adopted by the Committee at the end of 1996a and submitted to the Commission on Human Rights. It covered many themes regarding significant advances in economic, social and cultural rights. Owing to a lack of interest on the part of States, however, the procedure ground to a halt. It could now be reactivated by mobilizing the associations concerned and submitting the matter back to the States. The question would need to be looked at on the three levels: local, national and global. It would also provide an opportunity, in public discussion, to highlight the importance of economic, social and cultural rights within human rights as a whole. It would also be a way of drawing attention to the value and topicality of a human rights-based approach in economic and social strategies and policies.

Annex XVIII

A. List of States parties’ delegations which participated in the consideration

of their respective reports by the Committee on Economic, Social and

Cultural Rights at its twenty-fifth session

VENEZUELA	Representative:	Mr. Werner Corrales Leal Ambassador Permanent Representative of Venezuela to the United Nations Office at Geneva
	Advisers:	Mr. Victor Rodríguez Cedeño Ambassador Deputy Permanent Representative of Venezuela to the United Nations Office at Geneva
		Mr. José Avendaño Timaury Director of Domestic Policy Ministry of the Interior and Justice
		Ms. Doris Francia Director for Human Rights Ministry of the Interior and Justice
		Mr. Francisco Durán Vice Minister of Health and Social Development
		Ms. Maryann Hanson Vice Minister for Educational Affairs Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports
		Ms. Betty Josefina Torres Díaz Counsellor Ministry of Labour
		Mr. Germán Saltrón Director-General Ombudsman’s Office
		Ms. Hillys López de Penso Deputy Attorney-General of the Republic
		Ms. Ishbak Madai Hernández Counsellor Permanent Mission of Venezuela to the United Nations Office at Geneva
		Mr. Vladimir González Villaparedes Second Secretary Permanent Mission of Venezuela to the United Nations Office at Geneva
HONDURAS	Representative:	Mr. Roy Edmundo Medina Attorney-General of the Republic Head of Delegation
	Advisers:	Ms. Olmeda Rivera Ramírez Ambassador Permanent Representative of Honduras to the United Nations Office at Geneva
		Ms. Gracibel Bú Figueroa Counsellor of the Permanent Mission of Honduras to the United Nations Office at Geneva
		Mr. Armando Euceda Deputy Secretary of State Department of Education
		Mr. Octavio Salomón Núñez Director-General for Special Affairs Secretariat for Foreign Relations
		Mr. Mauricio R. Aguilar Robles Director for Human Rights and Drug Trafficking Affairs Secretariat for Foreign Relations
		Ms. Teodolinda Pineda Executive Director Honduran Institute for Children and the Family (IHNFA)
		Mr. Jorge Ponce Turcios Special Advisor State Secretariat Departments of Labour and Social Security
		Mr. Sergio A. Carias Director Planning and Management Evaluation Unit State Secretariat in the Department of Health
		Ms. Edna Ortega Technical Assistant Social Intervention Programme (IHNFA)
HONG KONG	Representative:	Mr. W.K. Lam Team Leader Secretary for Home Affairs Home Affairs Bureau
	Advisers:	Mr. R.C. Allcock Deputy Team Leader Solicitor General Department of Justice
		Mr. Stephen Wong Deputy Solicitor General Department of Justice
		Ms. Amy Chan Senior Government Counsel Department of Justice
		Ms. Elaine Chung Deputy Secretary for Housing Housing Bureau
		Ms. Erica Ng Principal Assistant Secretary Education and Manpower Bureau
		Ms. Diane Wong Principal Assistant Secretary Health and Welfare Bureau
		Ms. Brenda Fung Principal Assistant Secretary Health and Welfare Bureau
		Mr. John Dean Principal Assistant Secretary Home Affairs Bureau
		Mr. David Chan Chief Information Officer Home Affairs Bureau
REPUBLIC OF KOREA	Representative:	Mr. Eui yong Chung Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Permanent Representative of the Republic of Korea to the United Nations Office at Geneva
	Advisers:	Mr. Gil-sou Shin Counsellor Permanent Mission of the Republic of Korea to the United Nations Office at Geneva
		Mr. Seung-cheol Han Counsellor (legal affairs) Permanent Mission of the Republic of Korea to the United Nations Office at Geneva
		Mr. Chan-jin Moon Counsellor (health) Permanent Mission of the Republic of Korea to the United Nations Office at Geneva
		Mr. Kang-il Huh First Secretary Permanent Mission of the Republic of Korea to the United Nations Office at Geneva
		Mr. Sung-ki Yi First Secretary (labour) Permanent Mission of the Republic of Korea to the United Nations Office at Geneva
		Mr. Dal-ho Chung Director-General for International Organizations Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade
		Mr. Kyung-wha Kang Deputy Director-General for International Organizations Ministry of Foreign Affairs
		Mr. Hun-soo Kim Director Planning and Budget Division Ministry of Labour
		Ms. Ki-soon Lee Director Women’s Rights Planning Division Ministry of Gender Equality
		Mr. Nak-young Oh Deputy Director Human Rights and Social Affairs Division Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade
		Mr. Man-kee Min Deputy Director Human Rights Division Ministry of Justice
		Mr. Suk-kyu Lee Deputy Director International Cooperation Division Ministry of Health and Welfare
		Mr. Hae-young Chung Assistant Director International Cooperation Division Ministry of Labour
		Ms. Yun-ye Cho International Relations Office Ministry of Gender Equality
		Mr. Kyung-seo Park Ambassador for Human Rights
BOLIVIA	Representative:	Mr. Luis Eduardo Serrate Céspedes Deputy Minister for Human Rights Head of Delegation
	Advisers:	Ms. Florencia Ballivián de Romero Ambassador Permanent Representative of Bolivia to the United Nations Office at Geneva
		Mr. Pedro Gumucio Dagrón Minister Counsellor (political and social affairs) Permanent Mission of Bolivia to the United Nations Office at Geneva
		Mr. Álvaro Camacho Expert from the Public Administration

B. List of States parties’ delegations which participated in the consideration

of their respective reports by the Committee on Economic, Social

and Cultural Rights at its twenty-sixth session

SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC	Representative:	Mr. Toufik Salloum Ambassador Permanent Representative of the Syrian Arab Republic to the United Nations Office at Geneva
	Advisers:	Mr. Abboud Sarraj Dean of the Damascus Law Faculty
		Mr. Fayçal Khabbaz-Hamoui Minister Counsellor Permanent Mission of the Syrian Arab Republic to the United Nations Office at Geneva
		Mr. Ibrahim Ibrahim Minister Counsellor Permanent Mission of the Syrian Arab Republic to the United Nations Office at Geneva
PANAMA	Representative:	Mr. Anel Beliz Ambassador Permanent Representative of Panama to the United Nations Office at Geneva
UKRAINE	Representative:	Mr. Volodinir Pavlishin Head of Delegation Director Department on Social Partnership Ministry of Labour and Social Policy
	Advisers:	Mr. Mykhailo Osnach Deputy Permanent Representative Permanent Mission of Ukraine to the United Nations Office at Geneva
		Ms. Ivanna Markina Second Secretary Permanent Mission of Ukraine to the United Nations Office at Geneva
		Mr. Oleksandr Yurpolskyi Deputy Director State Department on Nationalities and Migration Issues Ministry of Justice
		Mr. Gennadyi Zuhravyi Head of the Department on Nationalities State Department on Nationalities and Migration Issues Ministry of Justice
		Mr. Vyacheslav Phrolov Director Department on Economic Issues Ministry of the Economy
		Mr. Yaroslav Boliubash First Deputy Head Department of Higher Education Ministry of Education and Science
		Ms. Oksana Krasnovid Attaché Department of International Organizations Ministry of Foreign Affairs
NEPAL	Representative:	Mr. Shambhu Ram Simkhada Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Permanent Representative of Nepal to the United Nations Office at Geneva
	Advisers:	Mr. Nabin Bahadur Shrestha Minister Counsellor and Deputy Chief of Mission Permanent Mission of Nepal to the United Nations Office at Geneva
		Mr. Suresh Man Shrestha Deputy Permanent Representative Permanent Mission of Nepal to the United Nations Office at Geneva
JAPAN	Representative:	Mr. Koichi Haraguchi Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Permanent Representative of Japan to the United Nations Office at Geneva
	Advisers:	Mr. Yasuaki Nogawa Minister Deputy Permanent Representative Permanent Mission of Japan to the United Nations Office at Geneva
		Mr. Masatoshi Tsunaki Director General Affairs Division Gender Equality Bureau Cabinet Office
		Mr. Michio Sakai Director Human Rights Promotion Division Human Rights Bureau Ministry of Justice
		Mr. Hiroyasu Izumi Director Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs Division Multilateral Cooperation Department Foreign Policy Bureau Ministry of Foreign Affairs
		Mr. Masaru Watanabe Counsellor Permanent Mission of Japan to the United Nations Office at Geneva
		Ms. Chihoko Asada Investigation Officer General Affairs Division Equal Employment, Children and Family Bureau Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare
		Mr. Atsuhiko Beppu Counsellor Permanent Mission of Japan to the United Nations Office at Geneva
		Mr. Fumiaki Saito Investigation Officer International Affairs Division Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare
		Ms. Sanae Aoki Director Office of Student Guidance Policy Student Affairs Division Elementary and Secondary Education Bureau Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology
		Mr. Hiroshi Morimoto Deputy Director Secretarial Division Minister’s Secretariat Ministry of Justice
		Mr. Nobuhiro Watanabe Assistant Director Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs Division Multilateral Cooperation Department Foreign Policy Bureau Ministry of Foreign Affairs
		Mr. Takashi Shibuya First Secretary Permanent Mission of Japan to the United Nations Office at Geneva
		Mr. Mutsuo Kawai Deputy Director International Division for Infrastructure Policy Bureau Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport
		Mr. Keiji Inoue Deputy Director International Affairs Division Minister’s Secretariat Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology
		Mr. Yoshihito Amano Police Superintendent Juvenile Division Community Safety Bureau National Police Agency
		Ms. Junko Yamashita Official Human Rights and Humanitarian Division Multilateral Cooperation Department Foreign Policy Bureau Ministry of Foreign Affairs
		Mr. Shinichiro Mori Director General Policy Planning and Evaluation (Section Chief) Office of Counsellor for Social Security Division Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare
		Ms. Mitsue Numoto Official Office of International Affairs Secretarial Division Ministry of Justice
		Ms. Naoko Maeda Special Assistant Permanent Mission of Japan to the United Nations Office at Geneva
		Mr. Derek Seklecki Political Staff Permanent Mission of Japan to the United Nations Office at Geneva
GERMANY	Representative:	Mr. Walter Lewalter Ambassador Permanent Representative of Germany to the United Nations Office at Geneva
	Advisers:	Mr. Peter Rothen First Counsellor Permanent Mission of Germany to the United Nations Office at Geneva
		Mr. Robert Dieter First Secretary Permanent Mission of Germany to the United Nations Office at Geneva
		Mr. Dietrich Willers Head of Department Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs
		Mr. Almut Wittling-Vogel Permanent Deputy Agent for Human Rights Federal Ministry of Justice
		Mr. Jürgen Haberland Head of Department Federal Ministry of the Interior
		Ms. Renate Augstein Head of Department Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth
		Mr. Walter Lindner Deputy Head of Department Federal Foreign Ministry
		Ms. Daniela Kuck-Schneemelcher First Secretary Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs

C. List of States parties’ delegations which participated in the consideration

of their respective reports by the Committee on Economic, Social

and Cultural Rights at its twenty-seventh session

SWEDEN	Representative :	Ms. Lise Bergh State Secretary for Gender Equality Head of Delegation Ministry of Industry, Employment and Communications
	Advisers :	Mr. Lars Bäck Political Adviser for Gender Equality Affairs Ministry of Industry, Employment and Communications
		Mr. Göran Lindqvist Deputy Director Ministry of Industry, Employment and Communications
		Mr. Anders Sälsby Deputy Director Ministry of Industry, Employment and Communications
		Ms. Annika Mansnérus Desk Officer Ministry of Health and Social Affairs
		Ms. Hedvig Trost Legal Advisor Ministry of Justice
		Ms. Ingrid Lindskog Deputy Director Ministry of Education and Science
		Ms. Myrna Smitt Deputy Director Ministry of Education and Science
		Ms. Sophia Ahlberg Desk Officer Ministry for Foreign Affairs
COLOMBIA	Representative :	Mr. Manuel Fernando Castro Adviser to the Director-General National Planning Department
ALGERIA	Representative :	Mr. Mohamed-Salah Dembri Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Permanent Representative of Algeria to the United Nations Office at Geneva Head of Delegation
	Advisers :	Mr. Wahid Laraba General Secretary a.i. Ministry of Social Action and Solidarity
		Mr. Mohamed Berrah Minister Counsellor Permanent Mission of Algeria to the United Nations Office at Geneva
		Mr. Brahim Lakrouf Director Ministry of the Interior and Local Collectivities
		Mr. Mouloud Megrerouche Director Ministry of Labour and Social Security
		Ms. Fadela Ladjel Director Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs
		Mr. Abdelaziz Boudiaf Director of Research Ministry of Professional Training
		Ms. Leila Boumeghar Research Officer Ministry of Justice
		Ms. Samira Hadj Dillali Research Officer Ministry of Communication and Culture
		Ms.Fatma Zohra Chaieb Research Officer Ministry of Health
		Mr. Mohamed El Amine Bencherif Deputy Director for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs Ministry for Foreign Affairs
		Ms. Nadia Lamrani Diplomatic Secretary General Directorate for Multilateral Relations Ministry for Foreign Affairs
FRANCE	Representative :	Mr. Patrick Henault Ambassador for Human Rights Questions
	Advisers :	Mr. Bernard Kessedjian Ambassador Permanent Representative of France to the United Nations Office at Geneva
		Ms. Michèle Dubrocard Deputy Director for Human Rights Directorate of Legal Affairs
		Ms. Valérie Fontaine Chargée de mission at the International and Human Rights Sector Office of the Ombudsman (Le Médiateur de la République)
		Ms. Frédérique Doublet Chief of the Office of Comparative and International Law Directorate of Civil Liberties and Legal Affairs Ministry of the Interior
		Ms. Sarah Pellet Chargée de mission National Consultative Commission on Human Rights
		Mr. Michel Alessio Chargé de mission for Regional Languages Délégation générale à la langue française Ministry of Culture
		Mr. André Guyetan Deputy to the Chief of the Office of the Directorate for International Relations and Cooperation Ministry of National Education, Research and Technology
		Mr. Edwin Matutano Legal writer Civil and Legal Affairs Directorate Ministry of Justice
		Ms. Olivia Wingert Magistrate for Human Rights Office of European and International Affairs Ministry of Justice
		Ms. Marie-Christine Coent Chief of the Office of Multilateral Affairs Directorate for European and International Affairs Ministry of Employment and Solidarity
		Ms. Nadia Marot Chief of the Office for International Affairs Population and Migration Directorate Ministry of Employment and Solidarity
		Mr. Robert Mounier-Vehier Chargé de mission Labour Relations Office Ministry of Employment and Solidarity
		Ms. Annie Badouart Chief, Social Policy Office Office of Urban Development and Housing Ministry of Infrastructure
		Mr. Xavier Dupont Assistant to the Deputy Director for Social Integration and Anti-Marginalization Policy General Directorate for Social Action Ministry of Employment and Solidarity
		Mr. Alain Puzenat State Secretariat for Overseas Affairs
		Mr. Patrick Desseix General Directorate for International Cooperation and Development Ministry for Foreign Affairs
		Ms. Virginie Bahnik Permanent Mission of France to the United Nations Office at Geneva
CROATIA	Representative :	Mr. Nino Žganec Assistant Minister of Labour and Social Welfare
	Advisers :	Ms. Sanja Crnković Director Croatian Employment Bureau
		Ms. Lidija Lukina Karajković Assistant Minister of Justice, Administration and Local Self-Government
		Mr. Zlatko Ljubić Assistant Minister for Education and Sports
		Ms. Ksenija Zeman Head of Department Ministry of Health
		Mr. Branko Sočanac Head of Department Ministry of Foreign Affairs
		Ms. Mira Lenardic Secretary Ministry for Public Works, Reconstruction and Construction
		Ms. Dejana Bouillet Assistant Director State Bureau for the Protection of Family, Maternity and Youth
		Ms. Anica Hunjet Head of Department for Higher Education Ministry of Science and Technology
		Ms. Spomenka Cek Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Permanent Representative of Croatia to the United Nations Office at Geneva
		Ms. Vesna Kos First Secretary Permanent Mission of Croatia to the United Nations Office at Geneva

Annex XIX

A. List of documents of the Committee at its twenty-fifth session

E/1990/5/Add.40	Initial reports submitted by States parties to the Covenant: Honduras
E/1990/5/Add.43	Idem: China (Hong Kong Special Administrative Region)
E/1990/5/Add.44	Idem: Bolivia
E/1990/6/Add.19	Second periodic reports submitted by States parties to the Covenant: Venezuela
E/1990/6/Add.23	Idem: Republic of Korea
E/2001/22-E/C.12/2000/21	Report of the Committee on its twenty-second, twenty-third and twenty-fourth sessions
E/C.12/1	Concluding observations of the Committee on reports submitted by States parties in accordance with articles 16 and 17 of the Covenant: note by the Secretary-General
E/C.12/1989/L.3/Rev.3	Note by the Secretary-General
E/C.12/1990/4/Rev.1	Rules of procedure of the Committee
E/C.12/1993/3/Rev.4	Status of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and reservations, withdrawals, declarations and objections under the Covenant: note by the Secretary-General
E/C.12/2001/1	Provisional agenda and annotations: note by the Secretary‑General
E/C.12/2001/2	States parties to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the status of the submission of reports in accordance with the programme established by the Economic and Social Council in resolution 1988/4 and article 58 of the rules of procedure of the Committee: note by the Secretary-General
E/C.12/2001/3	Follow-up to the consideration of reports under articles 16 and 17 of the Covenant: note by the secretariat
E/C.12/2001/4	Background paper submitted by Mr. Fantu Cheru (American University, Washington, D.C.): “Gender equality and globalization: understanding complex dimensions of opportunity and challenge”
E/C.12/2001/5	Discussion paper by Ms. Isabelle Daugareilh (Centre national de la recherche scientifique, Bordeaux, France) and Ms. Alice Sindzingre (Centre national de la recherche scientifique, Paris) : “Strategies for the development and revival of economic and social rights”
E/C.12/2001/6	Background paper submitted by Mr. Hamish Jenkins, Non‑Governmental Liaison Service: “Global economic governance and national policy autonomy in the pursuit of economic, social and cultural rights”
E/C.12/2001/7	Discussion paper submitted by Mr. Nuri Albala (International Association of Democratic Lawyers and Observatoire de la mondialisation, Paris): “The citizen and the State: the duty to ensure the primacy of human rights in any international negotiation”
E/C.12/2001/8	Background paper submitted by Mr. Alfredo Sfeir-Younis (Special Representative of the World Bank to the United Nations and the World Trade Organization, Geneva, Switzerland): “Economic, social and cultural rights and development strategies: human rights economics in international relations”
E/C.12/2001/9	Background paper submitted by Mr. Michel Dispersyn (Free University of Brussels, Universities of Bordeaux and Nantes): “The social dimension of the European Union’s Generalized System of Preferences (GSP)”
E/C.12/2001/10	Poverty and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: statement adopted by the Committee on 4 May 2001
E/C.12/2001/L.1/Rev.1	Programme of work: note by the Secretary-General
E/C.12/2001/NGO/1	Written statement on the situation of economic, social and cultural rights in the Republic of Korea jointly submitted by Pax Romana, a non-governmental organization in special consultative status with the Economic and Social Council, and by Citizen’s Network for Cultural Reform, Council for Representatives of Health Care Organizations, Green Korea United, Joint Committee for Migrant Workers in Korea, Korea Center for City and Environment Research, Korea Women’s Associations United, Korean Confederation of Trade Unions,
	Korean Federation for Worker’s Safety and Health, Korean People’s Artists Federation, Korean Teachers’ and Educational Workers’ Union, Lawyers for a Democratic Society, National Association of Professors for a Democratic Society, People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy, People’s Solidarity for Social Progress, Research Institute for Differently Abled Peoples’ Rights in Korea, Sarangbang Group for Human Rights, Struggle Network for Migrant Workers’ Rights and Freedom
E/C.12/Q/BOL/1	List of issues: Bolivia
E/C.12/Q/HKSAR/1	Idem: China (Hong Kong Special Administrative Region)
E/C.12/Q/HON/1	Idem: Honduras
E/C.12/Q/REPOFKOR/2	Idem: Republic of Korea
E/C.12/Q/VEN/1	Idem: Venezuela
E/C.12/1/Add.56	Concluding observations of the Committee: Venezuela
E/C.12/1/Add.57	Idem: Honduras
E/C.12/1/Add.58	Idem: China (Hong Kong Special Administrative Region)
E/C.12/1/Add.59	Idem: Republic of Korea
E/C.12/1/Add.60	Idem: Bolivia
E/C.12/1/Add.61	Idem: Togo (non-reporting State)
E/C.12/2001/SR.1‑29/Add.1 and E/C.12/2001/ SR.1‑29/Add.1/Corrigendum	Summary records of the twenty-fifth session (1st to 29th meetings) of the Committee

B. List of documents of the Committee at its twenty-sixth session

E/1989/5/Add.14	Additional information submitted by States parties to the Covenant following the consideration of their reports by the Committee: Israel
E/1990/5/Add.45	Initial reports submitted by States parties to the Covenant: Nepal
E/1990/6/Add.21 and Corr.1	Second periodic reports submitted by States parties to the Covenant: Japan
E/1990/6/Add.24	Idem: Panama
E/1990/6/Add.25	Idem: Senegal
E/1994/104/Add.23	Third periodic reports by States parties to the Covenant: Syrian Arab Republic
E/C.12/4/Add.2	Fourth periodic reports by States parties to the Covenant: Ukraine
E/C.12/4/Add.3	Idem: Germany
E/2001/22-E/C.12/2000/21	Report of the Committee on its twenty-second, twenty-third and twenty-fourth sessions
E/C.12/1	Concluding observations of the Committee on reports submitted by States parties in accordance with articles 16 and 17 of the Covenant: note by the Secretary-General
E/C.12/1989/L.3/Rev.3	Note by the Secretary-General
E/C.12/1990/4/Rev.1	Rules of procedure of the Committee
E/C.12/1993/3/Rev.4	Status of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and reservations, withdrawals, declarations and objections under the Covenant: note by the Secretary-General
E/C.12/2001/3	Follow-up to the consideration of reports under articles 16 and 17 of the Covenant: note by the secretariat
E/C.12/2001/11	Provisional agenda and annotations: note by the Secretary‑General
E/C.12/2001/12	States parties to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the status of the submission of reports in accordance with the programme established by the Economic and Social Council in resolution 1988/4 and article 58 of the rules of procedure of the Committee: note by the Secretary‑General
E/C.12/2001/SA/1	Note by the Secretary-General: twenty-eighth report of the International Labour Organization
E/C.12/2001/L.2/Rev.1	Programme of work: note by the Secretary-General
E/C.12/2001/NGO/2	Written statement submitted by the International Movement Against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism, a non‑governmental organization on the Roster of the Economic and Social Council
E/C.12/2001/NGO/3	Written statement submitted by Shimin Gaikou Centre (Citizens’ Diplomatic Centre for the Rights of Indigenous Peoples), a non-governmental organization in special consultative status with the Economic and Social Council
E/C.12/2001/NGO/4	Written statement on the situation of economic, social and cultural rights in Japan jointly submitted by the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, a non-governmental organization in special consultative status with the Economic and Social Council, and the Japanese Workers’ Committee for Human Rights
E/C.12/Q/GER/2	List of issues: Germany
E/C.12/Q/JAP/1	Idem: Japan
E/C.12/Q/NEP/1	Idem: Nepal
E/C.12/Q/PAN/1	Idem: Panama
E/C.12/Q/SEN/1	Idem: Senegal
E/C.12/Q/SYR/1	Idem: Syrian Arab Republic
E/C.12/Q/UKR/2	Idem: Ukraine
E/C.12/1/Add.62	Concluding observations of the Committee: Senegal
E/C.12/1/Add.63	Idem: Syrian Arab Republic
E/C.12/1/Add.64	Idem: Panama
E/C.12/1/Add.65	Idem: Ukraine
E/C.12/1/Add.66	Idem: Nepal
E/C.12/1/Add.67	Idem: Japan
E/C.12/1/Add.68	Idem: Germany
E/C.12/1/Add.69	Idem: Israel
E/C.12/2001/SR.30‑58/Add.1 and E/C.12/2001/SR.30‑58/ Add.1/Corrigendum	Summary records of the twenty-sixth session(30th to 58th meetings) of the Committee

C. List of documents of the Committee at its twenty-seventh session

E/1990/5/Add.46	Initial reports submitted by States parties to the Covenant: Croatia
E/1990/6/Add.26	Second periodic reports submitted by States parties to the Covenant: Algeria
E/1990/6/Add.27	Idem: France
E/1990/6/Add.28	Idem: Jamaica
E/C.12/4/Add.4	Fourth periodic reports by States parties to the Covenant: Sweden
E/C.12/4/Add.6	Idem: Colombia
E/2001/22-E/C.12/2000/21	Report of the Committee on its twenty-second, twenty-third and twenty-fourth sessions
E/C.12/1	Concluding observations of the Committee on reports submitted by States parties in accordance with articles 16 and 17 of the Covenant: note by the Secretary-General
E/C.12/1989/L.3/Rev.3	Note by the Secretary-General
E/C.12/1990/4/Rev.1	Rules of procedure of the Committee
E/C.12/1993/3/Rev.5	Status of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and reservations, withdrawals, declarations and objections under the Covenant: note by the Secretary-General
E/C.12/2001/3	Follow-up to the consideration of reports under articles 16 and 17 of the Covenant: note by the secretariat
E/C.12/2001/13	Provisional agenda and annotations: note by the Secretary‑General
E/C.12/2001/14	States parties to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the status of the submission of reports in accordance with the programme established by the Economic and Social Council in resolution 1988/4 and article 58 of the rules of procedure of the Committee: note by the Secretary‑General
E/C.12/2001/15	Human rights and intellectual property: statement by the Committee
E/C.12/2001/16	Statement of the Committee to the International Consultative Conference on School Education in Relation to Freedom of Religion and Belief, Tolerance and Non-Discrimination, Madrid, 23-25 November 2001
E/C.12/2001/L.3/Rev.1	Programme of work: note by the Secretary-General
E/C.12/Q/ALG/1	List of issues: Algeria
E/C.12/Q/COL/2	Idem: Colombia
E/C.12/Q/CRO/1	Idem: Croatia
E/C.12/Q/FRA/1	Idem: France
E/C.12/Q/JAM/1	Idem: Jamaica
E/C.12/Q/SWE/2	Idem: Sweden
E/C.12/1/Add.70	Concluding observations of the Committee: Sweden
E/C.12/1/Add.71	Idem: Algeria
E/C.12/1/Add.72	Idem: France
E/C.12/1/Add.73	Idem: Croatia
E/C.12/1/Add.74	Idem: Colombia
E/C.12/1/Add.75	Idem: Jamaica
E/C.12/2001/SR.59-87 and E/C.12/2001/ SR.59‑87/Corrigendum	Summary records of the twenty-seventh session (59th to 87th meetings) of the Committee

-----