United Nations Human Rights Committee

On June 17, 2022, the States parties to the ICCPR met in New York and elected nine members of the Committee, to replace those whose terms would expire at the end of 2022. There were seventeen candidates for the nine positions, including one whose nomination was late. Those elected were Yvonne Donders (The Netherlands), Hélène Tigroudja* (France), Bacre Waly Ndiaye (Senegal), Tijana Šurlan (Serbia), Koji Teraya (Japan), Farid Ahmadov (Azerbaijan), Laurence R. Helfer (United States), Rodrigo A. Carazo (Costa Rica), and Hernán Quezada Cabrera* (Chile). Asterisks denote sitting members who were re-elected.[8]

On September 17, 2020 (postponed from June 15, 2020), the States parties to the ICCPR met and elected nine members of the Committee, to replace those whose terms would expire at the end of 2020. There were fourteen candidates for the nine positions, not counting two who were withdrawn shortly before the election but counting one whose nomination was late (and who was elected). Those elected were Carlos Gómez Martínez (Spain), Changrok Soh (Republic of Korea), Imeru Tamerat Yigezu (Ethiopia), Mahjoub El Haiba (Morocco), José Manuel Santos Pais* (Portugal), Tania María Abdo Rocholl* (Paraguay), Wafaa Ashraf Moharram Bassim (Egypt), Kobauyah Tchamdja Kpatcha (Togo), and Marcia V.J. Kran* (Canada). Asterisks denote sitting members who were re-elected. David H. Moorre (United States) won an additional, contested "by-election" held on the same date, to elect a member to complete the term ending December 31, 2020, of Ilze Brands Kehris (Latvia), who had resigned effective December 31, 2019, upon her appointment as UN Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights.[9]

On August 28, 2018, Andreas B. Zimmermann (Germany) won an uncontested by-election to complete the term ending December 31, 2020, of Anja Seibert-Fohr (Germany), who had resigned effective March 1, 2018.[10]

On June 14, 2018, the States parties to the ICCPR met and elected nine members of the Committee, to replace those whose terms would expire at the end of 2018. There were sixteen candidates for the nine positions, not counting two who were withdrawn shortly before the election and one whose nomination was late. Those elected were Yadh Ben Achour* (Tunisia), Christopher Bulkan (Guyana), Photini Pazartzis* (Greece), Hélène Tigroudja (France), Hernán Quezada Cabrera (Chile), Gentian Zyberi (Albania), Vasilka Sancin (Slovenia), Shuichi Furuya (Japan), and Duncan Muhumuza Laki* (Uganda). Asterisks denote sitting members who were re-elected. Pierre-Richard Prosper of the United States was not elected, in reportedly "a first-ever defeat of a US candidate for the UN Human Rights Committee."[11][12]

Following the submission of a state's report, representatives of the state appear before the Committee in Geneva or New York to discuss the report, in an in-person constructive dialogue which is generally webcast live on UN Web TV. Following this dialogue, the Committee drafts and adopts its concluding observations, a document including positive aspects, subjects of concern, and suggestions and recommendations. Subsequently, under its follow-up procedure, the Committee assesses whether certain recommendations have been fulfilled within one year.[18]

In July 2010, the Committee proposed a new optional reporting procedure called the "List of Issues Prior to Reporting" (LOIPR) or "Simplified Reporting Procedure".[19] Under this system, instead of the state submitting a full report on its implementation of each article of the ICCPR, the Committee sends the state a list of issues to address, and the state's report must only answer the questions raised in that list of issues.[18] The Committee subsequently adopted the simplified reporting procedure on a pilot basis, although it remains an optional alternative to the "regular" procedure, i.e., submission of a full report. At its 124th session in 2018, the Committee decided to adopt the simplified reporting procedure on a permanent basis, and to encourage all states to switch to simplified reporting. It also decided to strive to limit the number of questions in each list of issues to 25.[20] In 2019, the Committee decided to make the simplified reporting procedure the default, changing a state's selection of it from an opt-in to an opt-out model.[21]

In July 2019 the Committee decided to move, beginning in 2020, to an eight-year "Predictable Review Cycle" (PRC), under which it would schedule one review for each state party (including those states that failed to report). This cycle involves a five-year review process, and a three-year interval before the next review process begins. All states parties were divided into 8 groups of 21-22 states each, with the reporting process to start for each group on a different year.[21][22]

NGOs and other civil society organizations play a crucial role in the reporting process. Any NGO, regardless of accreditation, may submit its own reports (sometimes called "shadow reports") to the Committee, comment on state reports, and attend all Committee sessions as observers. Furthermore, the Committee often holds a closed meeting with interested NGOs as part of its review of a state's report.[18][23]

One set of weaknesses is inherent to a system of self-reporting. Though in theory, reports should be an honest appraisal, constructive criticism of perceived failures to adhere to Covenant principles is unlikely.[24] The Centre for Civil and Political Rights, an NGO, states that "State reports often . . . fail to describe the implementation of the Covenant in practice" and "frequently lack an honest evaluation of the difficulties the State faces in implementing the rights guaranteed under the Covenant."[25]

Late reporting and non-reporting by states is another problem. The Committee's annual report through March 2019 stated that fifteen states' "initial reports are overdue, of which 7 are overdue by between 5 and 10 years and 8 are overdue by 10 years or more." The report's Annex IV listed them; Equatorial Guinea's initial report was 30 years overdue. That Annex also listed thirteen states whose periodic reports were ten years or more overdue, with Afghanistan's overdue by 22 years, and Nigeria's overdue by 19; ten states whose periodic reports were five to ten years overdue; and 28 states whose periodic reports were overdue by less than five years.[26] CSW, a UK-based NGO, asserts that "there remains a relatively low level of engagement and implementation of recommendations" on the part of States, and that the level of States compliance with treaty body recommendations is only 19%.[27]

Other widely noted problems include the backlog of the Committee and the heavy burden on states, particularly small states.[28]

Before considering the merits (substance) of an individual communication, the Committee must be satisfied that it is admissible.[31] The Committee may review many factors in determining admissibility and may conclude that, for an individual communication to be admissible, it must:

• be submitted by an individual victim whose rights have been personally violated, or be submitted with sufficient authorization of such an individual, or otherwise justify the reasons for being submitted on behalf of another. The Communication cannot be anonymous;
• relate to a right actually protected under the ICCPR;
• relate to events that occurred after entry into force of the First Optional Protocol for the state in question (with some exceptions, developed by the Committee);
• be sufficiently substantiated;
• show that domestic remedies have been exhausted;
• not be under consideration by another international investigation or settlement procedure;
• not be precluded by a reservation to the ICCPR by the state in question; and
• not be frivolous, vexatious, or otherwise an abuse of process.[31][29]

Individual communications that contain the necessary prima facie elements are referred to the Committee’s Special Rapporteur on New Communications and Interim Measures, who decides whether the case should be registered. At that point, the case is transmitted to the State party, which is requested to submit its observations within six months, under Article 4 of the First Optional Protocol.[32] Once the State replies to the complaint, the complainant is offered an opportunity to comment, within a set time frame. If the Committee concludes that a violation of the ICCPR has taken place, in its follow-up procedure the Committee invites the State to provide information within 180 days on its steps to implement the Committee's recommendations. The State’s response is transmitted to the complainant for comments. If the State party fails to take appropriate action, the Committee keeps the case under consideration. Thus, the Committee maintains a dialogue with the State party and the case remains open until satisfactory measures are taken.[31]

The Committee considers individual communications in closed session, but its decisions ("Views") and any follow-up are public.[29] Given the large number of complaints, several years may elapse between submission of a complaint and the Committee’s decision on it.[31]

Information on the process and how to use it, including examples and guidelines for submitting complaints, is available from some NGOs[33][34][18][35] and the United Nations.[31][36]

All Committee decisions on individual complaints are available in online compilations published by UN,[37] NGO,[38] and academic[39] sources.

The Committee has received thousands of complaints since its inception.[40] A few of its decisions that are notable are listed below, in reverse chronological order. Among more recent decisions that attracted press and academic attention, in two October 2018 decisions the Committee concluded that France's ban on the niqab, the full-face Islamic veil, violated human rights guaranteed under the ICCPR, in particular the rights to manifest one's religion or beliefs and to protection against discrimination.[41][42][43]