Twenty-fifth meeting of chairpersons

of the human rights treaty bodies

Geneva, 24–28 June 2013

Item 4 of the provisional agenda

Follow-up to the recommendations of the twenty-fourth meeting of chairpersons

of the human rights treaty bodies, including harmonization of the working methods

Other activities of the human rights treaty bodies and participation of stakeholders in the human rights treaty body process

Note by the Secretariat

Summary

As stated in the report of the Chairs of the human rights treaty bodies on their twenty-fourth meeting (A/67/222, para. 32(c)), the Chairs of the human rights treaty bodies recommended that the Secretariat produce and regularly update an implementation report in that respect for consideration by the meeting of Chairs in order to review progress and full implementation, bearing in mind that the strengthening process was by definition a continuing one. The Chairs also decided to include the issue of treaty body strengthening and, in particular, the implementation of the recommendations contained in the High Commissioner’s report on the agenda of their next meeting. This report, produced by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, provides an updated overview of other activities of the human rights treaty bodies and the participation of stakeholders in the human rights treaty body process.

Contents

Paragraphs Page

I.Other activities of the human rights treaty bodies 1–243–8

A.Follow-up to concluding observations1–93–5

B.Early warning and urgent action procedures10–125

C.General comments/recommendations13–18 5–7

D.Days of general discussion and thematic debates/discussions19–207

E.Committee statements21–247–8

II.Participation of stakeholders in the treaty body process25–428–12

A.Participation of United Nations specialized agencies, funds and

programmes and other United Nations entities25–318–9

B.Interaction with special procedures of the Human Rights Council329

C.Participation of national human rights institutions33–369–10

D.Interaction with civil society37–4210–12

III.Other matters43–5012–13

A.Informal consultations with States parties43–4412

B.Sources of additional information concerning treaty bodies45–50 12–13

I. Other activities of the human rights treaty bodies

A. Follow-up to concluding observations

1.All treaty bodies request States parties to provide information on implementation of the recommendations contained in previous concluding observations in their periodic reports or during the constructive dialogue. While all committees are making use of the regular reporting cycle to follow up to previous concluding observations, five treaty bodies (the Human Rights Committee, the Committee against Torture (CAT), the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and the Committee on Enforced Disappearances (CED)) have adopted formal procedures to monitor more closely the implementation of specific concluding observations.

2.The Human Rights Committee, in accordance with its follow-up procedure, identifies two to four recommendations in its concluding observations for immediate attention: the State party is requested to provide information on the implementation of these recommendations within one year. The Committee, through its Special Rapporteur for follow-up to concluding observations, produces a follow-up progress report at each session. This report includes a summary of the State party’s follow-up report and information from civil society organizations (CSOs) and other sources, as well as the assessment of the Committee. The Committee examines the Special Rapporteur’s follow-up progress report at a public meeting, and includes a chapter on follow-up in its annual report to the General Assembly. In order to assess the information on follow-up provided by States parties, the Committee has established the qualitative criteria set out in table 1. The Committee further informs the State party of the decision taken on the follow-up report provided by the State party. If a State party does not collaborate with the follow-up procedure, or adopts measures that the Committee deems unsatisfactory, the Special Rapporteur can request a meeting with a representative of the State party. The Committee has produced and updated a follow-up table which includes all the information on States parties that have gone through the follow-up process since July 2006. The table is presented as an annex to the follow-up progress report. The Committee also publishes on its website CSO submissions on follow-up together with the follow-up replies from States parties.

Table 1

Follow-up assessment criteria of the Human Rights Committee

	Assessment criteria
Reply/action satisfactory
A	Reply largely satisfactory
Reply/action partially satisfactory
B1	Substantive action taken, but additional information required
B2	Initial action taken, but additional information required
Reply/action not satisfactory
C1	Reply received but actions taken do not implement the recommendation
C2	Reply received but not relevant to the recommendation
No cooperation with the Committee
D1	No reply received within the deadline, or no reply to any specific question in the report
D2	No reply received after reminder(s)
The measures taken are contrary to the recommendations of the Committee
E	The reply indicates that the measures taken go against the recommendations of the Committee

3.CAT requests States parties to provide follow-up information on a limited number of recommendations within one year. Such “follow‑up” recommendations are of a protective nature, and it is considered feasible to comply with them within one year. A rapporteur is appointed by the Committee to monitor the State party’s compliance with these requests. The rapporteur assesses the information provided by the State party in consultation with the country rapporteur and presents progress reports to the Committee on the results of the procedure at every session (rule 72 of the Committee’s rules of procedure).

4.CERD has set out a follow-up procedure whereby the Committee may request further information or an additional report concerning, inter alia, action taken by States parties to implement the Committee’s recommendations. This procedure has been supplemented with the appointment of a coordinator on follow-up. The coordinator, who is appointed for a period of two years, works in cooperation with the country rapporteurs and presents the follow-up report to the Committee at each session.

5.CEDAW introduced a follow-up procedure in June 2008 whereby it requests States parties to provide follow-up information on the implementation of two recommendations in its concluding observations within two years. The Committee appoints a rapporteur on follow-up and an alternate, who are responsible for assessing the follow-up reports using an established methodology.

6.The CED rules of procedure provide for follow-up to its concluding observations. However, at the time of drafting of the present report, the follow-up procedure had not yet been applied by the Committee.

7.The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) has identified up to two-recommendations for follow-up since 2012 and appoints one of its members as rapporteur for follow-up.

8.The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) may, in its concluding observations, make a specific request to a State party to provide more information or statistical data prior to the date on which its next periodic report is due. This procedure, however, is rarely used. Where the Committee has been unable to obtain the information it requires, it may request that the State party accept a technical assistance mission consisting of one or two Committee members, an approach which it has applied in relation to two States parties. In cases where the State party is unwilling to accept the proposed mission, the Committee may make appropriate recommendations to the Economic and Social Council.

9.The Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) does not have a written follow-up procedure; nor does it identify priority issues for follow-up in its concluding observations. The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) plays a special role in follow-up to the concluding observations of CRC, and CRC members regularly participate in follow-up activities in States parties, with the support of Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), UNICEF and other partners. The Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (CMW) has decided not to include specific requests for follow-up in its concluding observations on initial reports. However, country rapporteurs would be tasked with examining any follow-up information received from States parties and reporting back to the Committee.

B. Early warning and urgent action procedures

10.Since 1993, CERD has developed procedures relating to early warning measures and urgent action (A/48/18, annex III), the former directed at preventing existing problems in States parties from escalating into new conflict or preventing a resumption of conflict, and the latter to respond to problems requiring immediate attention to prevent or limit the scale or number of serious violations of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The procedures may be invoked by the Committee itself or by interested parties such as CSOs. A five-member working group directs the Committee’s work on early warning and urgent action.

11.CRPD’s methods of work also provide for early-awareness and urgent action procedures aimed at preventing existing problems within States parties from escalating into full-fledged conflicts or preventing the revival of pre-existing problems. The Committee can also consider issues that may require immediate attention in order to avoid serious violations of the Convention or to reduce the number or degree of such violations.

12. Based on article 30 of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, any person having a legitimate interest may submit a request to the Committee on Enforced Disappearances that a disappeared person should be sought and found as a matter of urgency. If such a request is deemed well-founded by the Committee, it may request the State party concerned to provide information on the situation of the person sought. The Committee can also make recommendations and continue to follow up on the case for as long as the fate of the person sought remains unresolved. Given the urgency of the procedure, the rapporteur on urgent action, who is designated by the Committee, continues to work between sessions in accordance with rules 57 to 64 of its rules of procedure. This urgent action procedure is different from that of any other treaty body.

C. General comments/recommendations

13.All committees have adopted the practice of setting out their views on the content of the obligations assumed by States parties in the form of “general comments” based on the Convention or Covenant concerned and in accordance with the relevant committee’s rules of procedure. General comments have evolved in length and complexity and now constitute detailed and comprehensive commentaries on specific provisions of the treaties and on the relationship between the articles of the Convention or Covenant and specific themes or issues. Several treaty bodies have revised or replaced their general comments in the light of experience gained through consideration of reports.

14.The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has defined the purpose of issuing general comments as follows (E/2000/22, para. 51):

(a)To make the experience gained so far through the examination of States parties’ reports available for the benefit of all States parties, in order to assist and promote their further implementation of the Covenant;

(b)To draw the attention of the States parties to insufficiencies disclosed by a large number of reports;

(c)To suggest improvements in the reporting procedures; and

(d)To stimulate the activities of the States parties, international organizations and the specialized agencies concerned in achieving progressively and effectively the full realization of the rights recognized in the Covenant.

Process of adoption of general comments

15.All treaty bodies have developed procedures for the formulation of general comments, which broadly follow the procedure adopted by CEDAW for its general recommendations in 1997 (A/52/38/Rev.1, para. 480). This involves the following basic stages:

(a)Wide consultation with specialized agencies, civil society, academics and other human rights treaty bodies, sometimes in the context of a day of general discussion or thematic debate;

(b)Preparation of a draft by one or more designated members of the committee on the basis of the consultation process, for further discussion by the committee and interested parties;

(c)Formal adoption of the revised draft of the general comment in plenary session.

Some committees seek expert advice from United Nations specialized agencies or other sources, including academics, in the formulation of general comments, and informal background papers may be requested from other interested parties.

16.CESCR has adopted an outline for drafting general comments (E/2000/22, annex IX). The outline is designed to ensure consistency and clarity in the content, format, structure and ambit of general comments, thus promoting their accessibility and strengthening the authoritative interpretation of the Covenant. In the Committee’s view, general comments should be reader-friendly and readily understandable to a broad range of readers, primarily States parties to the Covenant. The Committee may devote a day of general discussion to the subject of the general comment or draft text, inviting input and discussion from a range of external experts on the subject.

17.At any time, members of a treaty body may propose that a general comment relating to a specific article, provision or theme be prepared. Most committees circulate draft general comments to a selected number of experts, including those from other treaty bodies, for comments, with some adopting the practice of calling for comments on the text of the general comment from other treaty bodies. Some treaty bodies request that draft general comments be posted on the OHCHR website to allow for wider input. The Human Rights Committee welcomes comments from all interested stakeholders, including States parties to the Covenant, United Nations specialized agencies and other sources such as academics and CSOs, once it has completed its first reading of its draft general comments. At this point the draft is posted on the Committee’s web page for comments.

18.It was recommended at the fourth inter-committee meeting that treaty bodies should consider drafting joint general comments on issues of common concern, and this recommendation was reiterated at the seventh inter-committee meeting. No joint general comment has yet been adopted but, subsequent to the first meeting of a joint CRC/CEDAW working group on 23 January 2010, CRC and CEDAW have been working together on a joint general comment/recommendation on the issue of harmful practices.

D. Days of general discussion and thematic debates/discussions

19.Five treaty bodies (CESCR, CERD, CMW CRC and CRPD) have adopted the practice of organizing what are variously described as “thematic debates”, “thematic discussions” or “days of general discussion” in order to discuss issues of general concern to the implementation of their treaties. Thematic discussions have been convened by CERD on specific themes in order to specify the extent of its responsibilities under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and to provide States parties with guidance on more complete fulfilment of their obligations. CERD and CRC hold regular annual or bi-annual thematic discussions, whereas CESCR organizes these on an ad hoc basis, mainly in relation to the preparation of a general comment, and may decide to invite general participation or restrict it to a limited number of experts. CEDAW and CAT convene open discussions in the context of the preparation of general comments. The Human Rights Committee held its first day of general discussion during its 106th session in October 2012 in preparation for the first draft of a new general comment on article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It invited CSOs, national human rights institutions (NHRIs) and academics to take part in the discussion. Since 1992, CRC has convened 20 days of general discussion, open to all interested parties, at the end of which the Committee adopted recommendations. The Committee’s general discussions can also be held on the basis of article 45 (c) of the Convention, a unique provision that allows the Committee to recommend that the General Assembly request the Secretary-General to undertake studies on specific issues relating to the rights of the child. The 1992 discussion day on children in armed conflict formed the background to the Secretary-General’s comprehensive study on the impact of armed conflict on children, while the general discussion days in 2000 and 2001 led to the General Assembly’s request to the Secretary-General to conduct an in-depth study on violence against children.

20. CED may convene days of general discussion on the Convention, according to rule 55 of its rules of procedure, in order to enhance a deeper understanding of the content and implications of the Convention. Given the relatively recent establishment of the Committee, no day of general discussion has been organized yet. However, CED has organized three closed thematic discussions on: (a) gender and enforced disappearance; (b) the responsibility of the State and the role of non-State actors; and (c) enforced disappearance and trafficking. Representatives of United Nations agencies, United Nations human rights mechanisms and CSOs participated in the discussions.

E. Committee statements

21.Some treaty bodies formulate statements on international developments and issues that have a bearing on the implementation of the treaty they monitor. CESCR has adopted statements in the context of a number of world conferences, as well as statements on globalization, trade, intellectual property and the world food crisis. In 2012, CESCR adopted statements on the right to development; the green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication; and the obligations of States parties regarding the corporate sector and economic social and cultural rights. It has also adopted two “open letters”, one on austerity measures in the context of the economic and financial crisis and the other on the post-2015 development agenda.

22.Several committees have issued statements jointly with other United Nations bodies. CAT issues an annual joint statement with the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and the Board of Trustees of the United Nations Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture on the occasion of the International Day in Support of Victims of Torture. The Human Rights Committee has not adopted the practice of issuing formal statements. CED issued a joint statement with the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances on the occasion of the International Day of the Victims of Enforced Disappearances on 30 August 2012.

23.The chairpersons of treaty bodies have also issued joint statements. In September 2010, for example, the treaty body chairpersons issued a joint statement on the realization of the Millennium Development Goals.

24.CRC and CEDAW also adopt “decisions”, which can concern either methods of work or substantive issues. CRC has adopted over 40 such decisions/recommendations (see CRC/C/19/Rev.10) since 1991 and CEDAW has adopted over 100 decisions since 1983. Decisions are generally included in the annual reports.

II. Participation of stakeholders in the treaty body process

A. Participation of United Nations specialized agencies, funds and programmes and other United Nations entities

25.Most treaty bodies have adopted procedures for interaction with specialized agencies and other bodies of the United Nations. This interaction is specifically provided for in the provisions of some of the treaties. Most treaty bodies have also made provision for such interaction in their rules of procedure. Some committees have appointed focal points to interact with United Nations entities.

26. CED is unique in that it is mandated under the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance to consult with other treaty bodies, in particular the Human Rights Committee, with a view to ensuring the consistency of their respective observations and recommendations. CED has met formally with a member of the Human Rights Committee and informally with members of CAT.

27.Five treaties (the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women; the Convention on the Rights of the Child; and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) provide explicitly for United Nations specialized agencies to submit specific reports to the relevant treaty bodies on implementation of the treaty in areas falling within the scope of their activities.

28.All relevant agencies are informed of the countries whose reports are due to be considered in the pre-sessional meetings or sessions of the treaty bodies and input is requested. UNICEF, the International Labour Organization, the World Health Organization and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees systematically provide written information to the treaty bodies. Other United Nations entities, such as the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, UNAIDS, the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, UN Women and the United Nations Population Fund, also submit information to treaty bodies, as does the International Organization for Migration.

29.Some agencies may request that the information they provide be kept confidential.

30.All committees invite representatives of specialized agencies to meet with the committee during the session to discuss the situation in the countries whose reports are being considered or at meetings of pre-sessional working groups. Some committees also meet with representatives of United Nations entities in closed meetings.

31.The committees encourage United Nations country teams to undertake follow-up activities on the basis of concluding observations, to support States parties in their implementation of the concluding observations at country level, and to submit further information when the State party’s next report is due for consideration.

B. Interaction with special procedures of the Human Rights Council

32.Information from the reports of country-specific and thematic special procedures mandate holders is routinely provided to treaty bodies by OHCHR, and treaty bodies regularly interact with special procedures. This interaction may be related to the reporting process, discussion days, general comments or other issues related to the committees’ work. In some cases, regular coordination with special procedures is mandated by treaty: this is the case, for instance with the Committee on Enforced Disappearances. Some committees have appointed a focal point to interact with special procedures.

C.Participation of national human rights institutions

33.All treaty bodies regularly invite NHRIs and the Geneva-based representative of the International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights to submit information to treaty bodies and attend their sessions. CRC and CEDAW engage both with general NHRIs and with child-specific NHRIs (including children’s ombudsmen) or, where they exist, institutions dealing with gender issues. Some committees provide NHRIs with formal opportunities to address them in private or closed meetings. NHRIs may also address committees informally at lunchtime briefings, together with CSOs or separately.

34. Some committees, including CESCR, CERD, CRC and the Human Rights Committee, have adopted general comments or statements on the role of national human rights institutions in their work. General comment No. 10 of CESCR acknowledges the role of NHRIs in monitoring implementation of the Covenant at the national level. In its general recommendation No. 17 on the establishment of national institutions to facilitate implementation of the Convention, CERD recommends that, where NHRIs have been established, “they should be associated with the preparation of reports”. General comment No. 2 of CRC, on the role of independent human rights institutions in the promotion and protection of the rights of the child, includes a section on reporting to the Committee and cooperation between NHRIs and United Nations agencies and human rights mechanisms. The Committee suggests that NHRIs should contribute independently to the reporting process and “monitor the integrity of government reports to international treaty bodies with respect to children’s rights”. It also considers it appropriate for States parties to consult with independent NHRIs during the preparation of their reports to the Committee, provided that the independence of these bodies and their independent role in providing information to the Committee is respected. However, CRC considers that “it is not appropriate to delegate to NHRIs the drafting of reports or to include them in the government delegation when reports are examined by the Committee”. During its October session in 2012, the Human Rights Committee adopted a paper on its collaboration with NHRIs, which recognizes the important role that NHRIs play in bridging the gap between international and national human rights systems.

35.Concluding observations on States parties’ reports consistently refer to national human rights institutions, which may engage with the treaty body in following up on the implementation of the treaty body’s concluding observations.

36.Of the 148 States parties whose reports were considered by the human rights treaty bodies between April 2012 and March 2013, 94 had a national human rights institution (see table 2). Of these institutions, 53 participated in the treaty body process, including by submitting alternative reports, briefing treaty bodies prior to review of the State party’s report, attending the session, or a combination of these activities.

Table 2

E ngagement of national human rights institutions in the treaty body process , April 2012–March 2013

Committee	Number of States p arties reviewed	Number of States p arties with a n NHRI	Submission of information	Briefing	Attendance
CAT	17	11	7	6	6
CERD	28	22	9	5	7
CESCR	12	10	6	6	7
H uman R ights C ommittee	16	11	4	4	4
CEDAW	35	15	5	2	3
CMW	4	3	0	1	1
CRC	32	21	7	5	5
CRPD	4	3	1	0	0
Total	148	94	39	29	32

D. Interaction with civil society

37.All treaty bodies have developed procedures for interaction with civil society organizations. Some of the treaties, such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, expressly provide for a role for CSOs in the work of the treaty body. Written information is received from international, regional, national and local organizations, and may be submitted by individual CSOs or national coalitions or committees of CSOs. CSOs contribute country-specific information on States parties whose reports are due for consideration, but may also provide input for the list of issues or themes. Where they exist, early warning and urgent action procedures may be invoked by CSOs.

38.Written statements that are submitted to CESCR at least three months in advance by CSOs in status with the Economic and Social Council (or sponsored by such a CSO) are issued as United Nations documents. Treaty bodies require that CSO statements be specific to the articles of the conventions, focusing on the most pressing issues from the CSO perspective and providing suggestions for specific questions that the pre-sessional working group might consider incorporating in the list of issues for the State party concerned. CSO input should also be reliable, not abusive, and of direct relevance to the matters under consideration. All committees make written information formally submitted by CSOs in relation to the consideration of a specific State party’s report available on the OHCHR website. However, committees respect any CSO requests for confidentiality.

39. Meetings between a committee and CSOs may be organized prior to the session to allow CSOs to brief committee members orally. The Human Rights Committee further invites CSOs to address the Committee during the process of drafting lists of issues. CESCR and CRC have adopted specific guidelines on NGO participation in their work and some committees provide an information note for CSOs. In March 2012, the Human Rights Committee adopted a paper on its relationship with CSOs to clarify and strengthen this relationship and to enhance their contribution to the implementation of the Covenant at the domestic level. Some Committees have also appointed focal points for liaising with CSOs.

40. Most committees make provision for representatives of CSOs to brief members during the session at which the relevant State party’s report is to be considered. Except in the case of CESCR, where the meeting is open and covered by the United Nations Information Service, and CMW, CRPD and CEDAW, where the meeting is open, oral briefings during session time take place in closed meetings. Committees also welcome lunchtime activities or briefings organized by CSOs.

The role of CSO coalitions

41.In the case of several treaty bodies, national or international coalitions are active in coordinating on a voluntary basis CSO submissions to treaty bodies. For example, CRC maintains a close working relationship with the NGO Group for the Convention on the Rights of the Child, a coalition of some 60 to 70 international NGOs that were active in the drafting of the Convention and that work together to promote its implementation. The NGO Group has a liaison unit that supports the participation of NGOs, particularly national coalitions, in the CRC reporting process, including by coordinating NGO written submissions. It also supports the attendance of national NGOs at the Committee’s sessions in Geneva. The NGO Group has also facilitated interaction with child-led organizations and children themselves. International Women’s Rights Action Watch Asia Pacific facilitates interaction between CSOs and CEDAW though training sessions convened to coincide with the Committee’s sessions and, like other CSOs, coordinates the submission of CSO reports to CEDAW in advance of sessions. The International NGO Platform on the Migrant Workers’ Convention coordinates CSO input for CMW and facilitates the interaction of national CSOs with it.

42.An informal network of CSOs working on torture-related issues submits consolidated reports to CAT. The network includes the Association for the Prevention of Torture, the Centre for Civil and Political Rights, the International Federation for Human Rights Leagues, the International Federation of Action by Christians for the Abolition of Torture, the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims and the World Organisation against Torture,. The Centre for Civil and Political Rights was set up in 2008 to promote, facilitate and develop CSO engagement with the Human Rights Committee. Its activities target national and regional CSOs (including regional CSO networks), as well as thematic CSOs whose mandates relate to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The International Disability Alliance is a network of global and regional organizations of persons with disabilities promoting the effective implementation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The International Coalition against Enforced Disappearances is a global network of organizations of families of the disappeared and CSOs promoting the ratification and implementation of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance.

III. Other matters

A. Informal consultations with States parties

43.Committees regularly convene informal consultations during sessions to discuss matters of mutual concern with States parties. CEDAW has also convened meetings of this type with States that are not party to the Convention.

44.The annual meeting of chairpersons of treaty bodies also holds informal consultations with States.

B. Sources of additional information concerning treaty bodies

1.Official publications

45.OHCHR publishes a series of human rights fact sheets on a range of human rights issues, which include individual fact sheets on each of the core international human rights treaties, setting out in accessible language the provisions of the treaty and the work of its treaty body. A fact sheet on the United Nations human rights treaty system (revised in 2012) provides an overview of the nine core treaties and ten human rights treaty bodies. A full list of fact sheets is available on the OHCHR website, together with the fact sheets themselves, in portable document format (pdf).

46.A film in DVD format on the treaty body system and the core international human rights instruments was produced by OHCHR in 2006, mainly for use as a training tool. The film was revised and updated in 2010 and is available in all six United Nations official languages.

47. The High Commissioner’s report on strengthening the United Nations human rights treaty body system (A/66/860) was published in June 2012 after almost three years of consultations with various stakeholders, including States parties, members of treaty bodies, NHRIs, civil society, United Nations entities and academia. The report provides a set of recommendations for enhancing the effectiveness and efficiency of the system based on a comprehensive analysis of the current treaty body system.

2.Information related to the treaty bodies on the website of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

48.OHCHR maintains a treaty bodies database, which provides access in the six official United Nations languages to all documentation related to the treaty monitoring process, as well as the ratification status and full reporting history of each State party to each treaty. The database is accessible through the OHCHR website, which is currently being updated and improved. OHCHR also operates the civil society list service which automatically circulates treaty body information to subscribers.

49.The Universal Human Rights Index is a searchable, online database compiling the concluding observations adopted by the treaty bodies, the conclusions and recommendations of the Human Rights Council’s special procedures concerning specific countries, recommendations issued under the universal periodic review, and responses by States. The Index can be found on the OHCHR website and is available in all six official United Nations languages.

50.The secretariat maintains web pages for each treaty body on the OHCHR website, to present information related to the work of the treaty bodies and their sessions in a systematic way.