Contents

			Page
Introduction	4
Organization of the meeting	5
Summary of the discussions	6
General Assembly review of the treaty body system in 2020: follow-up	6
Progress made on the alignment of working methods and practices of the treaty bodies	7
Implementation by the treaty bodies of the Guidelines against Intimidation or Reprisals (San José guidelines)	8
Implementation by the treaty bodies of the guidelines on the independence and impartiality of members of the human rights treaty bodies (the Addis Ababa guidelines)	9
Modalities and organization of future meetings of Chairs and other intersessional activities	10
Meetings and consultations	10
Meetings with high-level United Nations officials	10
Consultation with States parties	11
Consultation with United Nations entities	12
Consultation with civil society organizations	14
Decisions and recommendations	14
General Assembly review of the human rights treaty body system in 2020: follow-up	15
Conclusions of the Chairs of the treaty bodies at the thirty-fourth meeting of the Chairs	15
Progress made on the alignment of working methods and practices of the treaty bodies, including with regard to the periodic review schedule	20
Implementation by the treaty bodies of the Guidelines against Intimidation or Reprisals (San José guidelines)	20
Implementation by the treaty bodies of the guidelines on the independence and impartiality of members of the human rights treaty bodies (the Addis Ababa guidelines)	20
Modalities and organization of future meetings of Chairs and other intersessional activities	21
Agenda and location of the thirty-fifth meeting of the Chairs of the human rights treaty bodies	21
Annex
Provisional agenda and programme of work, as revised	22

I.Introduction

1.The thirty-fourth annual meeting of the Chairs of the human rights treaty bodies was held in New York from 30 May to 3 June 2022. The Chairs held eight formal meetings, four of which were public entirely or in part, and which were also webcast. They also held two informal meetings outside Headquarters, due to the official United Nations holiday on 30 May 2022.

2.The annual meeting is a forum for the Chairs to maintain communication and dialogue with each other on common issues and challenges.

3.The Chairs focused their discussion on, among other topics, the follow-up to the review by the General Assembly of the human rights treaty body system in 2020 and progress made on the alignment of the working methods and practices of the treaty bodies.

4.In paragraph 38 of its resolution 68/268, the General Assembly encouraged the human rights treaty bodies, with a view to accelerating the harmonization of the treaty body system, to continue to enhance the role of their Chairs in relation to procedural matters, including with respect to formulating conclusions on issues related to working methods and procedural matters, promptly generalizing good practices and methodologies among all treaty bodies, ensuring coherence across the treaty bodies and standardizing working methods.

5.The meetings of the Chairs are convened annually pursuant to General Assembly resolution 49/178. The last in-person meeting of the Chairs was held in New York in 2019 pursuant to the Chairs’ decision at their twenty-eighth meeting, in the light of General Assembly resolution 68/268, and in particular of the call by States parties to strengthen interaction between the treaty bodies and States parties, and of the 2020 review of the treaty body system by the Assembly, to hold the annual Chairs’ meetings leading up to 2020 in New York.

6.The following documents served as background to the meeting:

(a)Provisional agenda and annotations (HRI/MC/2022/1);

(b)Note by the Secretariat transmitting an aide-mémoire on tracking the implementation status of decisions and recommendations of the Chairs of the treaty bodies (HRI/MC/2022/2);

(c)Note by the Secretariat on progress made on the alignment of working methods and practices of the treaty bodies (HRI/MC/2022/3), identifying progress achieved in aligning working methods, highlighting good practices and making suggestions for ways in which to enhance coherence and consistency across the treaty body system;

(d)Note by the Secretariat on practices of the human rights treaty bodies on intimidation and reprisals and issues for further action by the Chairs (HRI/MC/2022/4), which includes information on the implementation by the treaty bodies of the Guidelines against Intimidation or Reprisals (San José Guidelines), with a particular focus on trends and cases of reprisals in the treaty bodies;

(e)Three conference room papers mapping out treaty body working methods and practices (HRI/MC/2022/CRP.1, HRI/MC/2022/CRP.2, HRI/MC/2022/CRP.3), one on the coordination of thematic issues in the reporting procedure, one on remedies and measures of reparation in treaty body jurisprudence and one on inquiries and country visits;

7.In addition, the treaty bodies submitted written contributions to the thirty-fourth meeting of the Chairs, which are available from the meeting web page.

II.Organization of the meeting

8.The meeting was attended by all 10 Chairs, as follows: Mohamed Abdel-Moneim, Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; Gladys Acosta Vargas, Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women; Edgar Corzo Sosa, Committee on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families; Claude Heller, Committee against Torture; Suzanne Jabbour, Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; Rosemary Kayess, Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities; Mikiko Otani, Committee on the Rights of the Child; Photini Pazartzis, Human Rights Committee; Verene Shepherd, Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; and Carmen Rosa Villa Quintana, Committee on Enforced Disappearances.

9.At the first meeting, on 31 May 2022, Mr. Corzo Sosa was elected by acclamation the Chair of the thirty-fourth annual meeting, and Mr. Heller was elected Vice-Chair, on the basis of the established principle of rotation.

10.At the first meeting, Karin Lucke, on behalf of the Director of the New York Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), welcomed the Chairs and made opening remarks. She highlighted that the meeting provided an overdue opportunity for the Chairs to meet face to face with each other for the first time since 2019 and encouraged the Chairs to use the meeting to discuss concrete proposals stemming from the co-facilitators’ report on the 2020 treaty body review, including proposals to establish a predictable schedule of reviews, to further harmonize and align working methods and to identify needs and opportunities for the digital uplift. She expressed appreciation to the Chairs and the Committees for continuing to carry out their vital work, including by identifying issues to prepare constructive dialogue with States parties, drafting and adopting lists of issues prior to reporting, reviewing States parties remotely and continuing their thematic work to provide guidance to States parties on addressing their human rights obligations.

11.Ms. Lucke drew the links between treaty body work and the Secretary-General’s Call to Action for Human Rights and his report entitled “Our Common Agenda” (A/75/982), in which the importance of the treaty bodies and the need to secure the treaty body system with more sustainable financing were recognized. She explained that treaty body recommendations had become central to the analysis of human rights laws and practices at the national level and of States’ compliance with their international human rights obligations. She emphasized that United Nations country teams were increasingly drawing links between treaty body recommendations and the Sustainable Development Goals to foster coherent and effective support to countries working to achieve the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

12.The new Chair thanked the outgoing Chair, Ms. Kayess, for her leadership in chairing the meeting in 2021 during a particularly challenging time and welcomed the participants to the thirty-fourth meeting. He stressed the importance of coming to an agreement on the follow-up to the General Assembly review of the treaty body system in 2020 in order to achieve an outcome that strengthened the treaty body system. He noted that the treaty bodies needed to reinforce the coherence and complementarity of recommendations to ensure that human rights were truly indivisible, interdependent and mutually reinforcing. He suggested that the work of OHCHR on reinforcing digital tools and platforms should in the future include the jurisprudence of the Committees, their general comments and recommendations, the list of issues prior to reporting and the ways in which recommendations were being implemented. He also proposed to make the work of the treaty bodies better known and accessible by publishing a collection of 10 small volumes, one for each treaty body, explaining what treaty bodies did, including their general comments and recommendations, and the practical impact of their work. He also suggested that prestigious universities and institutions dedicated to studying human rights could participate in the work of the treaty bodies, providing them with valuable inputs and helping them to better fulfil their conventional mandates.

13.The Chairs of the treaty bodies congratulated the Chair and Vice-Chair of the thirty-fourth annual meeting and thanked the outgoing Chair for her commitment and leadership and for putting forward the proposal of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, including the changes she had incorporated into the revised version.

14.The Chairs adopted the draft agenda, as revised with the addition of item 4, on individual communications procedures, and three sub-items under agenda item 3: 3.1, on the urgent action procedure; 3.2, on inquiries and visit procedures; and 3.3, on the backlog of State party report reviews. The Chairs also adopted the draft programme of work for the meeting, as revised (see annex).

III.Summary of the discussions

A.General Assembly review of the treaty body system in 2020: follow-up

15.At the first meeting, on 31 May 2022, and the fourth meeting, on 1 June 2022, the Chairs held discussions on the General Assembly review of the treaty body system in 2020 and agreed to focus their time on the Chairs’ proposal on treaty body strengthening, including a predictable review cycle every eight years, coupled with the consideration of an intermediary follow-up review, working methods and digitalization. They also discussed the backlog of State party reviews pending consideration owing to the postponement of reviews during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, as well as the backlog in the consideration of additional information under article 29.4 of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. The backlog of State party report reviews was raised as an issue separate from the issue of the backlog of individual communications. The Chairs proposed to address that issue under the implementation of the eight-year predictable cycle (see sect. V.A below).

16.At the first meeting, the representative of the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights expressed appreciation to the Chairs for allowing stakeholders to contribute to the meeting as well as for making many of the meetings public. The representative urged the Chairs to coordinate the predictable schedule of reviews across treaty bodies, to include review dates and due dates for reports of the States parties and to empower the meeting of Chairs to exercise oversight of the working methods through an inter-Committee coordinating mechanism on working methods and practices.

Inquiries and visit procedures

17.In relation to inquiries and visit procedures, the Chairs suggested that the meeting time and associated staff and the target number of inquiries and visits be based upon previous workloads and trends.

Individual communications procedures and urgent action procedure

18.As a separate agenda item, the Chairs discussed the high number of individual communications pending review and the challenges arising from meeting time and associated staff to handle individual communications. They also discussed the increase in the number of registered urgent actions under the procedure of the Convention on Enforced Disappearance that reflects new urgent actions registered and the urgent actions that remain under consideration (an urgent action remains open until the disappeared person is located). The Chairs highlighted that the case management system for petitions and urgent actions should be a priority for OHCHR. They suggested that there was a need for better digital platforms and a more up-to-date case filing system to address the backlog. The Chairs proposed a more realistic approach for addressing both the backlog and the new communications or the newly registered urgent actions. They suggested that, for purposes of transparency and accountability, statistical data of all registered individual communications and urgent actions, organized by country and language of submission, be made publicly available and kept up to date.

19.For related decisions and recommendations, see section V of the present report.

B.Progress made on the alignment of working methods and practices of the treaty bodies

20.At the second meeting, on 31 May 2022, the Chairs discussed the progress made on the alignment of the working methods of the treaty bodies and the action still needed on harmonization. They discussed the note by the Secretariat on the issue (HRI/MC/2022/3), and the three conference room papers mapping out treaty body working methods and practices – one on the coordination of thematic issues in the reporting procedure, one on remedies and measures of reparation in treaty body jurisprudence and one on inquiries and country visits – identifying progress achieved in the alignment of working methods, highlighting good practices and suggesting ways in which to enhance coherence and consistency across the treaty body system. The secretariat also presented information on reporting compliance by States parties for the consideration of the Chairs (A/74/256, para. 49). The information, which was provided online as requested by the Chairs at their previous meeting, showed that, as at 30 April 2022, the reports of 165 of 197 States parties (83 per cent) were overdue and only 32 of 197 States parties (17 per cent) had submitted their reports in a timely manner.

21.The Chairs also discussed the aide-mémoire on tracking the implementation status of decisions and recommendations of the Chairs of the treaty bodies (HRI/MC/2022/2) and the ways in which the Chairs could be further empowered to enhance the working methods, while bearing in mind the specificities of the different mandates. The Chairs discussed the revised proposal of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, according to which coordination and harmonization could be enhanced by an inter-Committee mechanism involving focal points, who would exchange good practices and suggest to the meeting of Chairs improvements that could be adopted by the Committees. Moreover, according to the revised proposal, the Committees would undertake, before introducing any change in their working methods, to seek the views of the mechanism. In the case of divergent views, the issues would be referred to the Chairs before action was taken. The views of OHCHR would be requested regarding human resources and the financial implications of any change in working methods.

22.The Chairs discussed the advantages and disadvantages of the revised proposal and agreed that the process of coordination and harmonization could be enhanced through the use of focal points, appointed by each Committee, to facilitate interaction between the Committees and to make recommendations to the Chairs. The Chairs discussed ways in which to reduce unnecessary duplication while reinforcing helpful repetition and suggested that the issue be further considered by the focal points appointed by each Committee.

23.Regarding reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities, the Chairs agreed that an OHCHR reasonable accommodation policy should be an integral part of the harmonized working methods of the treaty bodies and should include a review mechanism.

24.For related decisions and recommendations, see section V of the present report.

C.Implementation by the treaty bodies of the Guidelines against Intimidation or Reprisals (San José guidelines)

25.At the first meeting, the Chairs discussed the note by the Secretariat on practices of the human rights treaty bodies on intimidation and reprisals and issues for further action by the Chairs (HRI/MC/2022/4), which includes a summary of trends and cases concerning reprisals reported since the previous note, prepared for the thirty-third meeting of Chairs. The secretariat noted in its presentation that, during the pandemic, fewer allegations of reprisals or intimidation had been reported to the secretariat and the treaty body rapporteurs or the focal points on reprisals. Various challenges and obstacles to interacting with the treaty bodies had been raised, including a lack of clarity and awareness of how to participate through online channels, a lack of access to virtual channels by victims, their relatives and lawyers, as well as civil society actors, and a lack of trust in online channels. It was noted that the reduction in the number of reported cases of reprisals might reflect limited access by victims and lawyers to treaty bodies and to international and national mechanisms owing to the pandemic.

26.The secretariat also updated the Chairs on the report of the Secretary-General on cooperation with the United Nations, its representatives and mechanisms in the field of human rights (A/HRC/48/28), which revealed that the reported number of acts of intimidation and reprisals by State and non-State actors against those seeking to cooperate or having cooperated with the United Nations remained high during the reporting period (1 May 2020–30 April 2021). This was partly owing to improved documentation and reporting. Key trends highlighted in the report included the receipt by the secretariat from nearly half the countries mentioned of allegations of monitoring and surveillance, both online and offline, of individuals and groups who had cooperated or tried to cooperate with the United Nations. Some of those cases concerned the use of restrictive legislation that prevents or punishes cooperation with the United Nations, namely on the grounds of national security, including counter-terrorism measures, on the basis of laws governing the activities of civil society organizations.

27.A representative of the non-governmental organization (NGO) International Service for Human Rights introduced its 2021 study on the previous 11 reports of the Secretary-General on reprisals. The study resulted in the finding that engagement with the treaty bodies was the third most often reported trigger of intimidation and reprisals, that the treaty bodies took public action in 54 per cent of cases and that positive impacts were observed in cases with specific actions. The representative recommended that the treaty bodies sustain attention and follow-up of cases by multiple actors within the United Nations system; conduct in-depth research on States with closed or restricted civic space; contact victims when the United Nations decided to take action; and improve and systemize the documentation of cases.

28.The Chairs agreed to increase efforts to raise awareness and provide public information, including by posting references to cases and communications on the respective treaty body’s web page. They also agreed to emphasize, at the opening of each session or at meetings with States parties, the policy of zero tolerance for reprisals and intimidation; include a section on reprisals in annual or biennial reports of the treaty bodies; continue induction sessions on reprisals for new experts; issue press releases or end-of-session announcements to prevent or address reprisals; and address individual cases. The Chairs agreed to exchange and receive information more regularly on reprisal-related developments. It was suggested that in order to further align treaty body working methods for addressing allegations of reprisals, a meeting of all treaty body focal points and rapporteurs on reprisals be held in the last quarter of 2022 or in early 2023.

29.For related decisions and recommendations, see section V of the present report.

D.Implementation by the treaty bodies of the guidelines on the independence and impartiality of members of the human rights treaty bodies (the Addis Ababa guidelines)

30.At their twenty-fourth annual meeting, held in June 2012, the Chairs endorsed the guidelines on the independence and impartiality of members of the human rights treaty bodies (the Addis Ababa guidelines), and strongly recommended their prompt adoption by the respective treaty bodies. In paragraphs 36 and 37 of its resolution 68/268, the General Assembly encouraged the treaty bodies to implement the guidelines in accordance with their mandates and invited the Chairs to keep States parties updated on their implementation.

31.At the second meeting of the thirty-fourth meeting of the Chairs, the Chairs, in a private meeting, discussed key challenges and further steps to operationalize the guidelines across the treaty bodies. The Chairs emphasized the importance of the nomination and election process by States parties to ensure that independent experts and candidates from diverse backgrounds were elected to the treaty bodies. They also discussed approaches and practices in the handling of perceived or actual conflicts of interest of their members in the implementation of the guidelines in their respective treaty bodies. They reiterated the importance of the guidelines and recommended the further alignment of their implementation, including by sharing good practices and seeking further opportunities for exchange. It was recalled that the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination had not endorsed or adopted the guidelines.

32.For related decisions and recommendations, see section V of the present report.

E.Modalities and organization of future meetings of Chairs and other intersessional activities

33.At the seventh meeting, on 3 June 2022, the Chairs agreed that it was necessary to meet in person more than once per year and to enhance intersessional activities through face-to-face contact or videoconference. They suggested that the meeting of Chairs not coincide with the plenary meetings of any of the treaty bodies in order to facilitate the full participation of all the Chairs.

34.Suggestions for intersessional activities included meeting with other international and regional mechanisms for the promotion and protection of human rights, including the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the European Court of Human Rights and the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights. It was suggested that the binding nature of treaty body recommendations, the importance of the ratification of international instruments and the periodic review schedule be reflected upon. It was also suggested that a common message of the human rights treaty bodies be prepared for Human Rights Day, 10 December 2022. The Chairs considered exploring synergies with national human rights institutions by holding a separate meeting of the treaty bodies with the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions and a separate meeting with NGOs. On cross-cutting thematic issues, it was suggested that treaty bodies elaborate joint general comments, while taking into consideration the particularities of each Committee.

35.For related decisions and recommendations, see section V of the present report.

IV.Meetings and consultations

A.Meetings with high-level United Nations officials

36.At the third meeting, on 1 June 2022, during a private meeting, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, addressed the Chairs via videoconference from Geneva, expressing her pleasure at the opportunity to engage with them. She recalled that, at the previous annual meeting, she had called on the Chairs to put forward proposals on follow-up to the 2020 treaty body review. She noted with satisfaction that they had agreed to put forward a proposal for the establishment of an eight-year review cycle for full reviews, with intermediary follow-up in between for Committees with periodic reviews, and that the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and the Committee on Enforced Disappearances would implement predictable schedules in accordance with their mandates and practices.

37.The High Commissioner stated that the next report of the Secretary-General would provide an opportunity to present a unified Chairs’ proposal, and that her Office would work out the financial implications in detail so that they could be taken into consideration in the preparation of the Secretary-General’s budget proposal for 2024. She reiterated her firm belief in the central role of the human rights mechanisms, including the treaty body system, which was also highlighted in the Secretary-General’s Call to Action for Human Rights and his report entitled “Our Common Agenda”.

38.The High Commissioner emphasized that rights holders and victims must continue to be at the centre of all treaty body strengthening proposals. She also noted that, while the proposal for a predictable schedule would be a positive game-changer for State reviews, other critical aspects of treaty body work also needed careful, urgent attention, including the growing backlog of individual communications and urgent actions as well as the digital shift, highlighting that she would welcome comments from the Chairs.

39.The Chairs thanked the High Commissioner for her support and for having met with them several times over the previous year. They noted the challenges concerning the backlog of individual communications, as well as funding and human resources challenges in the secretariat, in addition to the global challenges to multilateralism, which affected the treaty bodies’ capacity to fulfil their mandates. It was highlighted that modernizing the Office would also require the inclusion of a policy on reasonable accommodation. The Chairs welcomed the High Commissioner’s continuous efforts to support the treaty bodies in their work, thanked the Office for the frequent updates provided to the Chairs during the pandemic and for the support the secretariat had provided to the meeting. The Chairs informed the High Commissioner that they were close to an agreement on treaty body strengthening that would benefit rights holders and all treaty bodies, while taking into account the different mandates and specificities.

40.In her concluding remarks, the High Commissioner stated that, in her interaction with Member States and senior United Nations officials, she constantly advocated for enhanced support to the treaty body system and that she would continue to do so. She highlighted that she looked forward to the finalized agreement on the further strengthening of the treaty body system.

B.Consultation with States parties

41.At their sixth meeting, on 2 June 2022, the Chairs held a public consultation with States parties attended by more than 100 delegates, representing Member States and regional groups.

42.The Chair of the thirty-fourth meeting introduced the 10 Chairs of the treaty bodies and explained that they had spent the previous year discussing, both within and between the Committees, the follow-up to the treaty body review and the ways in which to operationalize the recommendations of the co-facilitators. He stated that the process had been undertaken in accordance with the Chairs’ vision set out in June 2019, which was echoed in the co-facilitator’s report. He noted that the Chairs had held several informal conversations and meetings on the predictable schedule of reviews, the harmonized working methods and the digital uplift, and acknowledged the leadership role of the Chair of the Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, who had served as Chair of the thirty-third meeting, held online in June 2021. He stated that the main focus of the agreement of the Chairs was to move to a predictable schedule of reviews every eight years, with a less extensive review in between. He added that the predictable schedule of reviews needed to be accompanied by harmonized working methods as well as the digital uplift. He highlighted that the schedules for the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and the Committee on Enforced Disappearances were adapted to their mandates.

43.Interventions were made by 26 delegations: Algeria, Argentina, Bangladesh, Canada, China, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechia, Egypt, Ethiopia, Greece, Iceland, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Japan, Mexico, Morocco, Portugal, the Russian Federation, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, the Syrian Arab Republic, the United States of America, Uruguay, the Holy See and the European Union. Several delegations acknowledged the challenges faced by the treaty bodies in discharging their mandates remotely during the pandemic and raised concerns about the backlog of reports and individual communications pending review. Several speakers welcomed the announcement of a predictable schedule of reviews accompanied by substantive harmonized working methods and a case management system for individual communications. On the harmonized working methods, several delegations highlighted enhanced predictability and efficiency as well as the avoidance of duplication as positive aspects of the review. Delegations also raised the need to ensure the adequate allocation of resources to strengthen the treaty body system as well as the efficient use of resources. Some delegations raised concerns about the specific issues with reporting faced by developing countries, and suggested the prioritization of advisory and capacity-building support. Other issues raised included the independence of the treaty body experts and the handling of apparent or actual conflicts of interest, as well as the importance of the Chairs’ interactions with States parties, United Nations agencies, national institutions and civil society organizations during their annual meeting. On the issue of civil society participation, several delegations underlined the importance of improving safeguards against intimidation and reprisals.

44.The Chairs thanked the Member States for participating in the meeting in such numbers as well as for their engagement and constructive comments. In response to the questions and concerns raised, the Chairs urged all States parties to cooperate with the treaty bodies, especially regarding the eight-year predictable review schedule, and underlined the complementarity, interdependence and indivisibility of rights. They stressed that it was the States parties that nominated and elected treaty body experts and that they should ensure that the candidates satisfied the requirements of independence and impartiality. They emphasized the importance of ensuring reasonable accommodation and accessibility across the digital uplift, and that relevant protocols to determine reasonable accommodation needed to be established. They stressed the challenges regarding the individual complaints procedures and the need to fill the gap between the political commitment of States to human rights and adequate financing of the treaty body system.

C.Consultation with United Nations entities

45.At their fifth meeting, on 2 June 2022, the Chairs met privately with representatives of programmes or departments of the following United Nations entities: the Executive Office of the Secretary-General, the International Labour Organization, OHCHR, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the United Nations Children’s Fund, the United Nations Development Coordination Office, the United Nations Development Programme, the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN-Women) and the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA).

46.The Chair highlighted that the Secretary-General, in his report entitled “Our Common Agenda”, had called for the fuller use of the human rights treaty monitoring system, including the universal periodic review, recommendations of the treaty bodies and special procedures, to solve pressing social, economic and political challenges. He stated that, during the recently concluded consultations on Our Common Agenda, Member States had supported proposals to put human rights mechanisms on a more sustainable financial footing. He added that the Chairs believed that efforts to strengthen the treaty body system would facilitate linkages with the Sustainable Development Goals and the 2030 Agenda, including through bolstered engagement with the sustainable development cooperation framework at the country level.

47.The United Nations entities noted their close and frequent cooperation with specific treaty bodies, including by providing information on countries for State party reviews, coordinating reporting by the United Nations country teams to the treaty bodies, participating in mock sessions, providing confidential comments to the Committees and implementing treaty body guidance at the global level. The representative of the Development Coordination Office presented data on the use of treaty body recommendations by country teams. The entities highlighted that, in 2021, 70 per cent of country teams had reported on engagement with treaty bodies, including by supporting them on reporting or implementation. They noted that the country teams were increasingly drawing on treaty body outputs to inform programming, strategy and analysis, including for common country assessments, but that such practices needed further expansion. They stated that they were continually updating and strengthening guidance to the country teams on the human rights mechanisms, including the treaty bodies. They noted as a positive trend an increase in references to the Sustainable Development Goals by the treaty bodies in their concluding observations. The representative of UNFPA, on behalf of a group of agencies, had completed a review of the application of the human rights-based approach in 44 common country assessments and 40 cooperation frameworks. The review revealed a positive trend in the incorporation of pressing human rights issues, but those often did not transfer to the cooperation frameworks, which notably lacked information on human rights defenders, civic space and systemic or structural inequalities; only 27 per cent of cooperation frameworks made substantive and measurable reference to treaty body recommendations. However, the cooperation frameworks that did reflect a human rights-based approach had been the subject of broad consultations with stakeholders. Several representatives of the agencies noted global pushback on human rights and women’s rights, with one representative suggesting a more consistent distribution of general comments by the treaty bodies throughout the United Nations entities.

48.The Chairs acknowledged the important role and contributions of the United Nations agencies and programmes, expressing that, without them, the treaty bodies would not be effective in carrying out the important task of reviewing the human rights situations in different countries in accordance with their obligations under the international human rights treaties. The Chairs shared examples of their Committees’ collaboration and activities with United Nations entities, including during visits, and suggested that the common country assessments and cooperation frameworks reflect concrete actions that should be discussed as part of the Committees’ dialogues with States. The Chairs thanked the entities for the substantive reports submitted to the Committees, which had helped to inform the framing of their recommendations, and agreed to continue the dialogue.

D.Consultation with civil society organizations

49.At their fifth meeting, the Chairs met with representatives of civil society organizations and national human rights institutions via a hybrid format.

50.The Chair of the thirty-fourth meeting thanked the participants for their active engagement with the treaty bodies and their Chairs during the pandemic. He acknowledged that the pandemic had greatly affected the ability of the treaty bodies to carry out their work, as the sessions were by necessity moved online, including the meetings of the Chairs, negatively affecting communication and engagement with civil society organizations. He expressed the hope that any challenges would be smoothed over going forward as the treaty body system resumed in-person sessions and more frequent face-to-face meetings. He acknowledged the significant substantive contributions that the national human rights institutions and civil society organizations had shared prior to the meeting and announced that the contributions had been posted on the thirty-fourth meeting page of the human rights treaty bodies website.

51.The Chair presented the proposal under discussion by the Chairs, notably to move to a predictable schedule of reviews every eight years, with follow-up reviews in between. The simplified reporting procedure would become the default (with a possibility for States to opt out) and working methods would be better harmonized. The digital uplift involved the provision of the necessary digital platforms and tools, especially to handle individual communications and urgent actions.

52.The following organizations made interventions on behalf of national human rights institutions, civil society organizations and academia: Amnesty International, Defensoría del Pueblo de la Nación Argentina, the Geneva Human Rights Platform, Human Rights in China, the Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights, the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims, the International Service for Human Rights and TB-Net. Concerns raised included the length of an eight-year schedule of reviews and whether the follow-up review would sufficiently assess (a) the implementation status of recommendations in a structured manner; (b) the multiplicity of working methods of the different treaty bodies; (c) the responsibility of Member States to adequately fund the treaty body system; and (d) the backlog of individual communications.

53.The Chairs thanked the representatives of the national human rights institutions, civil society organizations and academia for their participation in the meeting and for their contributions. The Chairs responded to the comments and recommendations made during the interventions and assured the representatives that they were working towards a more efficient, accessible and modern treaty body system.

V.Decisions and recommendations

54.At their eighth meeting, on 30 June 2022, the Chairs adopted the decisions and recommendations set out below.

A.General Assembly review of the human rights treaty body system in 2020: follow-up

55.The Chairs agreed unanimously to the conclusions set out below as the main outcome of the thirty-fourth meeting:

Conclusions of the Chairs of the treaty bodies at the thirty-fourth meeting of the Chairs

(a)The following conclusions are the outcome of the thirty-fourth meeting of the Chairs of the human rights treaty bodies and reflect the written contributions submitted by the 10 treaty bodies. The Chairs unanimously agreed on the need to operationalize the common position of the Chairs of 2019 and the recommendations of the co-facilitators of the 2020 treaty body review, based upon their wide consultations on the issues of the predictable schedule, harmonized working methods and the digital uplift;

(b)The conclusions were also inspired by and constitute a concrete contribution to the Secretary-General’s Call to Action for Human Rights and his report entitled “Our Common Agenda”, in which he urged the sustainable financing of the human rights mechanisms and of the treaty body system in particular. The fulfilment of human rights treaty obligations contributes significantly to the promotion of international peace and security and enhances the objectives and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. The findings and recommendations of the human rights treaty bodies cross-reference the relevant Sustainable Development Goals, making the work of the treaty bodies relevant to the sustainable development cooperation framework;

(c)The Chairs reached their conclusions after a thorough consultative process with all treaty body experts during their sessions held over the previous two years. The Chairs request OHCHR to cost their conclusions, which remain fully within the remits of the two International Covenants on Human Rights and the eight human rights treaties ratified by States. The costing should serve proposals for discussions within the established budgetary process of the United Nations, with the aim of ensuring that the monitoring functions of the human rights treaty body system are properly funded in accordance with United Nations budgetary processes and on the basis of landmark resolution 68/268;

(d)The present conclusions are aimed at strengthening the treaty body system in a sustainable manner, within the existing convention mandates, and are based upon the following principles:

(i)Strengthening the protection of rights holders, which is the main goal at the centre of the legal obligations of States;

(ii)Preserving the integrity of the treaty body system and the independence of treaty bodies and their experts;

(iii)Enhancing the implementation of treaty obligations and the related recommendations of treaty bodies;

(iv)The necessity of achieving greater rationalization, simplification and alignment of procedures, on the one hand, while taking into account the mandates and working methods of each treaty body, on the other;

(e)The written contributions submitted by each of the 10 treaty bodies, which formed the basis for the unanimously adopted conclusions of the treaty body Chairs, are available in full on the web page of the thirty-fourth meeting of the Chairs.

1.Predictable schedule

(a)All the treaty bodies agreed to establish a predictable schedule of reviews. The Committees that have periodic reviews (Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Human Rights Committee, Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, Committee against Torture, Committee on the Rights of the Child, Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Committee on Migrant Workers) will establish an eight-year review cycle for full reviews, with follow-up reviews in between;

(b)The Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and the Committee on Enforced Disappearances, which do not have a system of periodic reports in their respective conventions, will implement predictable schedules in accordance with their mandates and practices (see paras. (h) and (i), below);

(c)The review schedule will be implemented with a degree of flexibility in order to address special requests for the postponement of a country review due to exceptional circumstances. The schedule will take into consideration the calendar of the universal periodic review;

(d)While the simplified reporting procedure will be the default procedure for all Committees, except the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and the Committee on Enforced Disappearances, which do not have this process, the States parties can choose to opt for the traditional reporting procedure;

(e)Whereas the full review will consist of a review of all State obligations under the treaty in question, the follow-up review will cover up to four specific priority issues identified in the full review or that have since emerged. The modalities of follow-up reviews, including sufficient resources, will enable greater focus on a smaller number of critical issues, aligning the procedures utilized by some Committees for follow-up;

(f)The predictable schedule will address the existing backlog of reports pending review and long-overdue reports or additional information pending in State reviews by prioritizing those States with pending reports for review and long-overdue reports;

(g)The predictable review cycle is expected to increase the State party’s compliance with its reporting obligations. However, in cases in which a report has not been submitted within the timeline, the review will be carried out as scheduled based on available information and dialogue with the State party, except in cases in which the treaty body in question has accepted, within a reasonable timeline, the State party’s exceptional request for the postponement of the review;

(h)In the case of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances, there is no fixed periodicity of the reporting procedure. Under article 29 (4) of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, the request for additional information is made only if the Committee deems it necessary, depending upon the level of implementation of the Committee’s recommendations and conventional obligations by the State party and the evolution of the situation relating to enforced disappearance in that country. Those elements are also taken into account by the Committee to determine the delay within which it will request additional information, which can be of two, four or eight years;

(i)The Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture will integrate the predictable schedule of an eight-year cycle and carry out 91 visits within an eight-year period under that proposal, considering the current 91 States parties. In addition to its visiting mandate, the Subcommittee also has a mandate to advise States parties and national preventive mechanisms. Under the proposal, this would be done by holding cyclic dialogues four years after each visit;

(j)The adoption of a predictable schedule of reviews by all treaty bodies can be properly implemented with an increased operational allocation of meeting time, where necessary, and with the necessary human resources. It must therefore be coupled with an adjustment of the formula contained in resolution 68/268 that also takes into account the specificities of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances and the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture, as contained in their respective treaties.

2.Individual communications

(a)Account needs to be taken of the current number of individual communications under consideration and pending review, as this, together with the pre-registration phase, was not considered at the time that resolution 68/268 was adopted;

(b)Eight of the ten treaty bodies have a mandated individual communications procedure. In past years, there has been a steady and incremental increase of individual communications received by the Petitions Unit. The historic petitions backlog needs to be addressed as a matter of priority so as to avoid the risk of denial of justice to victims. In view of the overall figures, workload targets have to be both inclusive of the current backlog and forward-looking, namely accompanied by a formula adjusted to the increase in communications and including improving the follow-up of the implementation of views and providing an equitable allocation of financial and human resources corresponding to the workload across the treaty bodies. This will enable the treaty bodies to process individual communications in a more timely and efficient way and to enhance the effectiveness of the petitions mechanisms. For transparency and accountability purposes, statistical data of all registered cases should be made available publicly and kept up to date.

3.Committee on Enforced Disappearances urgent action procedure and Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination early warning and urgent action procedure

(a)Account also needs to be taken of the current number of Committee on Enforced Disappearances urgent actions under consideration and pending review, as that procedure was only beginning to be utilized when resolution 68/268 was adopted;

(b)Through the urgent action procedure, the Committee on Enforced Disappearances can request that a State party take immediate action to search for and locate a disappeared person. At the time of adoption of resolution 68/268, only a handful of urgent action requests had been registered. Since then, the number of new requests has increased exponentially. The early warning and urgent action procedure of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination also needs to be adequately supported and financed. It is critical that the urgent action procedures are considered in the formula applied to determine the secretariat’s resources.

4.Inquiries and country visits

(a)Account also needs to be taken of the current number of inquiries and country visits under consideration, as that procedure was only beginning to be utilized when resolution 68/268 was adopted;

(b)Five treaty bodies have a mandated inquiry procedure (Committee against Torture, Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, Committee on the Rights of the Child and Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) and two treaty bodies may undertake mandated country visits (Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and Committee on Enforced Disappearances). Inquiries and country visits are important mandated activities of the treaty bodies to respond to systematic and/or grave violations or serious violations. Effective conduct of inquiries and country visits requires appropriate resourcing in terms of meeting time and financial and human resources.

5.Harmonized working methods

(a)The implementation of the predictable schedule of reviews requires coordination and will be facilitated through the further harmonization of working methods across treaty bodies, including as regards follow-up reviews, deadlines for stakeholders’ submissions, reduction of duplication and other issues;

(b)Coordination and harmonization of working methods will be enhanced though focal points appointed by each Committee to facilitate interaction between Committees and make recommendations to the Chairs;

(c)The secretariats of the treaty bodies will continue to support harmonization and coordination among the treaty bodies, including in implementing the predictable review cycle;

(d)In the case of the Committee on Enforced Disappearances, the Committee will also strive to achieve coordination and complementarity with other treaty bodies to decide whether and when to request additional information.

6.Reasonable accommodation

An OHCHR reasonable accommodation policy should be an integral part of the harmonized working methods of treaty bodies. OHCHR should develop the reasonable accommodation policy underpinned by the United Nations Disability Inclusion Strategy to enable treaty body experts with disabilities to fully participate in the work of their respective treaty bodies. The OHCHR reasonable accommodation policy would enable the Office to implement protocols to identify and provide the individualized modifications, adjustments and supports required by treaty body experts with disabilities to be able to participate and be included on an equal basis with others. The policy should include a review mechanism to ensure that the legal standard of non-discrimination on the basis of disability is met and that the denial of reasonable accommodation as a ground of discrimination is recognized.

7.Digital uplift

(a)While State party reviews should always be held in person, there are areas of treaty body work that could benefit from using advanced, integrated digital platforms, including hybrid meetings with States parties in exceptional circumstances. The platforms need to be efficient, transparent, accessible and secure, ensure confidentiality and secure any proprietary rights of the United Nations;

(b)A digital case file management system for individual communications and Committee on Enforced Disappearances urgent actions must be completed to allow for uploading communications and tracking the process, including the status of the case. The submission process is to be streamlined, and allow the option of videoconferencing, oral evidence and States parties’ responses in real time. The digital tools required for this process will need to be secure and accessible;

(c)The digital option could also be offered to those small island developing States and least developed countries that request it either as a cost-saving measure, based on the high cost of appearing in person in Geneva, or as a result of temporary exceptional circumstances (e.g., natural disasters, pandemics). That option may offer the possibility of reducing the backlog in those States parties;

(d)Greater engagement with civil society organizations and other non‑State actors would be enhanced by the undertaking of such online outreach activities as regional webinars and regional consultations, which have already been successfully undertaken by treaty bodies with support from OHCHR. It could also be achieved by transferring, as appropriate, some treaty body practice to online modes, such as holding regional online consultations for days of general discussion. Working groups and joint treaty body working groups could also benefit from digital tools. Online activities should be conducted with simultaneous interpretation;

(e)The platforms and tools for the digital uplift are critical and will require a modernized file management and document-sharing platform. These should support stakeholder engagement or joint work as may be undertaken by the treaty bodies. A video conferencing/webcasting platform that is accessible and sustainable across the digital divide will be required;

(f)The implementation of such platforms by the Office will require dedicated resources and significant engagement with treaty body experts and all stakeholders to ensure they can be customized to meet the needs of all treaty bodies.

56.The Chairs request OHCHR to formulate an action plan for the implementation of the conclusions.

B.Progress made on the alignment of working methods and practices of the treaty bodies, including with regard to the periodic review schedule

57.For their thirty-fifth meeting, the Chairs requested the secretariat to update the information on the reporting obligations of and compliance by States, in an online format only, through the treaty body database, available on the OHCHR website. The Chairs welcomed the documents prepared by the secretariat, which they found very helpful in further aligning working methods and practices. The Chairs suggested that the issue of how to reduce unnecessary duplication and how to reinforce helpful repetition should be further considered by the focal points appointed by each Committee.

C.Implementation by the treaty bodies of the Guidelines against Intimidation or Reprisals (San José guidelines)

58.For their thirty-fifth meeting, the Chairs requested the secretariat to compile the cases and trends that have been brought to the attention of the treaty bodies by mapping the practices of treaty bodies on reprisals and having each Committee’s rapporteur or focal point update the recommendations arising from the workshop on reprisals. The secretariat was requested to organize a meeting of the focal points on reprisals, who would meet or exchange regularly to identify the issues that need further action by the Chairs by the first quarter of 2023.

D.Implementation by the treaty bodies of the guidelines on the independence and impartiality of members of the human rights treaty bodies (the Addis Ababa guidelines)

59.For their thirty-fifth meeting, the Chairs requested the secretariat to organize more frequent exchanges between the Chairs on ongoing key challenges, with a view to further operationalizing the guidelines across treaty bodies and harmonizing practices across treaty bodies.

E.Modalities and organization of future meetings of Chairs and other intersessional activities

60.The Chairs recommended that, in order to facilitate their participation, the annual meeting of the Chairs should not take place at the same time as the plenary meetings of any of the 10 treaty bodies. It was also suggested that intersessional activities of the Chairs include reflection on the binding nature of treaty body recommendations, the importance of the ratification of international instruments and the periodic review schedule.

F.Agenda and location of the thirty-fifth meeting of Chairs of the human rights treaty bodies

61.The Chairs recalled that, in the light of resolution 68/268, they had decided, at their twenty-eighth meeting, to hold their annual meetings leading up to 2020 in New York. They reiterated their wish to continue to strengthen their interaction with senior United Nations officials, including the Secretary-General and Deputy Secretary-General, and representatives of Member States in New York, United Nations agencies and programmes and civil society organizations, and would therefore consider holding their thirty-fifth meeting in New York.

Annex

Provisional agenda and programme of work, as revised

Provisional agenda, as revised

1.Election of officers.

2.Adoption of the agenda and organization of work.

3.General Assembly review of the treaty body system in 2020: follow-up:

3.1Urgent action procedure

3.2Inquiries and visit procedures

3.3Backlog of State party report reviews

4.Individual communications procedures.

5.Progress made on the alignment of working methods and practices of the treaty bodies.

6.Implementation by the treaty bodies of the Guidelines against Intimidation or Reprisals (San José Guidelines), with a particular focus on trends and cases of reprisals in the treaty bodies.

7.Implementation by the treaty bodies of the guidelines on the independence and impartiality of members of the human rights treaty bodies (the Addis Ababa guidelines).

8.Modalities and organization of future meetings of Chairs and other intersessional activities.

9.Any other business.

10.Adoption of the report on the thirty-fourth meeting.

Programme of work ( HRI/MC/2022/1 )

The numbering and full titles of items follow the provisional agenda, as revised.

Monday, 30 May 2022 (Informal meeting held outside Headquarters due to United Nations official holiday)

10.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. (private)

3.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. (private)

Tuesday, 31 May 2022

10.00 a.m. to 10.30 a.m. (public)

Opening of the meeting by a representative of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

1.Election of officers

2.Adoption of the agenda and organization of work

10.30 to 12.00 p.m. (public)

3.General Assembly review of the treaty body system in 2020: follow-up, including presentations by stakeholders:

3.1Urgent action procedure

3.2Inquiries and visit procedures

3.3Backlog of State party report reviews

4.Individual communications procedures

12.00 p.m. to 1.00 p.m. (public)

6.Implementation by the treaty bodies of the Guidelines against Intimidation or Reprisals (San José Guidelines), with a particular focus on trends and cases of reprisals in the treaty bodies (HRI/MC/2022/4)

3.00 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. (public)

5.Progress made on the alignment of working methods and practices of the treaty bodies (HRI/MC/2022/2, HRI/MC/2022/3, HRI/MC/2022/CRP.1, HRI/MC/2022/CRP.2, HRI/MC/2022/CRP.3)

5.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. (private)

7.Implementation by the treaty bodies of the guidelines on the independence and impartiality of members of the human rights treaty bodies (the Addis Ababa guidelines).

Wednesday, 1 June 2022

10.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. (private)

3.General Assembly review of the treaty body system in 2020: follow-up

3.00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. (private)

3.General Assembly review of the treaty body system in 2020: follow-up

Thursday, 2 June 2022

10.00 a.m. to 11.30 p.m. (private)

Consultation with national human rights institutions and civil society (hybrid meeting)

11.30 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. (private)

Consultation with United Nations agencies

3.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. (public)

Consultation with States parties

Friday, 3 June 2022

10.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. (private)

8.Modalities and organization of future meetings of Chairs and other intersessional activities

9.Any other business

3.00 p.m. to 5.30 p.m. (private)

10.Review of the draft report prepared by the secretariat and adoption ad referendum

5.30 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. (public)

10.Adoption of the report on the thirty-fourth meeting

Closing of the meeting