Tenth inter-committee meeting of human rights treaty bodiesGeneva, 30 November–2 December 2009

Follow-up to decisions

Overview of follow-up procedures

1.All of the four treaty bodies currently dealing with individual communications — the Human Rights Committee, the Committee against Torture, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women — have formal follow-up procedures to monitor and encourage the implementation of their decisions. To a large extent, these procedures have been harmonized.

2.The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has not yet registered any individual communications. Neither the Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families nor the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights have yet considered individual communications as the provisions or instrument relating thereto have not yet become operative.

3.In July 1990, the Human Rights Committee established a procedure for follow-up to its views under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and created the position of Special Rapporteur for follow-up to views, with a mandate of two years, which is renewable. Prior to 1990, the Committee was seldom informed of action taken by States parties with respect to its views. Since 1990, the procedure has gradually been developed. The modalities of follow-up and functions of the Rapporteur are set out in rules 101 and 103 of the rules of procedure of the Human Rights Committee.

4.In decisions with a finding of a violation of the Covenant, the Committee gives the State party 180 days to provide information on measures taken to comply with the Committee’s recommendations. The recommendation or remedy is in principle of a general nature, allowing the State party a certain discretion in implementation subject to its own legal or administrative system, but may include, inter alia, an amendment to legislation, the provision of compensation, retrial, or release or early release of the author. Following the paragraph in which the Committee finds a violation, the following standard language is used:

The Committee is of the view that the author is entitled, under article 2, paragraph 3 (a), of the Covenant, to … [the remedy]. The State party is under an obligation to ensure that similar violations do not occur in the future.

Bearing in mind that, by becoming a State party to the Optional Protocol, the State party has recognized the competence of the Committee to determine whether there has been a violation of the Covenant or not and that, pursuant to article 2 of the Covenant, the State party has undertaken to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant and to provide an effective and enforceable remedy in case a violation has been established, the Committee wishes to receive from the State party, within 90 days, information about the measures taken to give effect to the Committee’s Views.

5.Information on follow-up is regarded as public information. If information is received from the State party, it is routinely transmitted to the author, who is given two months to comment on the State party’s submission. A summary of the State party’s response and author’s comments is presented by the Special Rapporteur in the form of interim reports (updates on follow-up information received between sessions), including recommendations on further action, and discussed in principle in public session by the Committee. These reports are compiled and published in the Committee’s annual report to the General Assembly, including any decisions made by the Committee on the nature of the State party’s response. If no information is received within a reasonable time after expiry of the deadline, the Special Rapporteur, through the secretariat, sends a reminder to the State party. If no information is forthcoming, the Special Rapporteur generally seeks to organize a meeting with a State party representative to discuss the facilitation of implementation.

6.Follow-up missions to States parties that have experienced particular difficulties with the implementation of the Committee’s views may be organized. Only one such mission has been carried out to date (Jamaica, 24 to 30 June 1995). Where insufficient or no follow-up information has been provided by a State party, the Committee systematically seeks information from the State party during the examination of its subsequent periodic report under article 40 of the Covenant. The Committee has also expressed its satisfaction with follow-up information provided during the reporting process.

7.In May 2002, the Committee against Torture revised its rules of procedure and established the function of Special Rapporteur for follow-up on decisions to complaints submitted under article 22. The modalities of follow-up and functions of the Special Rapporteur are set out in rule 114 of the Committee’s rules of procedure. Prior to the formal appointment of a follow-up rapporteur, requests for follow-up were made on an ad hoc basis. Only in a minority of cases did the State party volunteer information on action taken and the complainant’s circumstances after a finding of a violation.

8.In decisions with a finding of a violation of the Convention, the Committee gives the State party 90 days to provide information on measures taken to comply with the Committee’s recommendations. The following standard language is added to the final paragraph after the finding of a violation, together with the suggested remedy:

The Committee urges the State party to ... [the remedy] and, in accordance with rule 112, paragraph 5, of its rules of procedure, to inform it, within 90 days from the date of the transmittal of this decision, of the steps taken in response to the views expressed above.

9.The procedure following the finding of a violation of the Convention is the same as that outlined in paragraph 4 above. Information on follow-up is regarded as public information. The interim follow-up reports are compiled and published in the Committee’s annual report to the General Assembly, including any decisions made by the Committee on the nature of the State party’s response. The Committee against Torture also considers follow-up in public session. To date, it has undertaken one mission, upon agreement by the State party, of a confidential nature.

10.Article 7, paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women explicitly obliges States parties to give due consideration to the views and recommendations of the Committee, if any, and to submit follow-up information within six months. Further information may also be sought from the State party, including in its subsequent reports. Rule 73 of its rules of procedure relates to the Committee’s follow-up procedure on views, in particular the designation and functions of the rapporteur or working group on follow-up. Rule 74 states that information on follow-up, including the decisions of the Committee on follow-up, shall not be confidential unless otherwise decided by the Committee.

11.In decisions with a finding of a violation of the Convention, the Committee gives the State party six months to provide information on measures taken to comply with the Committee’s recommendations. The standard language below is added to the final paragraph after the finding of a violation and after the suggested remedy (given that the follow-up procedure of this Committee is based on the Convention itself, the pertinent articles of the Convention are relied upon):

In accordance with article 7, paragraph 4, the State party shall give due consideration to the views of the Committee, together with its recommendations, and shall submit to the Committee, within six months, a written response, including any information on any action taken in the light of the views and recommendations of the Committee. The State party is also requested to publish the Committee’s views and recommendations and to have them translated into the ... [State party] language and widely distributed in order to reach all relevant sectors of society.

12.Prior to July 2008, follow-up to decisions was undertaken on an ad hoc basis. In July 2008, as part of the harmonization process and for the purposes of ensuring consistency with other treaty bodies, the Committee decided to adopt follow-up reports on decisions at each session, and to include them in its annual report to the General Assembly. An updated report is prepared for each session and reviewed by the working group prior to the Committee. The contents of the reports are compiled in the follow-up chapter of the annual report. The procedure following the finding of a violation of the Convention is the same as that outlined in paragraph 4 above.

13.In August 2005, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination decided to amend its rules of procedure to establish a procedure to follow up on its decisions and recommendations adopted following the examination of communications.

14.In decisions with a finding of a violation of the Convention, the Committee gives the State party 90 days to provide information on measures taken to comply with the Committee’s recommendation. The following standard language is added to the final paragraph after the finding of a violation and after the suggested remedy:

The Committee wishes to receive, within 90 days, information from the ... [State party] about the measures taken to give effect to the Committee’s Opinion.

15.The procedure following the finding of a violation of the Convention is the same as that outlined in paragraph 4 above. Information on follow-up is regarded as public information. The interim follow-up reports are compiled and published in the Committee’s annual report to the General Assembly, including any decisions made by the Committee on the nature of the State party’s response. The Committee also considers follow-up in public session.