E/CN.4/1997/105, annex
STATUS OF THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANTS ON HUMAN RIGHTS
Draft optional protocol to the International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights
Note by the Secretary General
1. At its fifty-second session, the Commission on Human Rights took note of
the measures taken by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
towards the elaboration of a draft optional protocol to the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights granting the right of
individuals or groups to submit communications concerning non-compliance with
the Covenant, as recommended by the World Conference on Human Rights, and
requested the Committee to submit a report on the matter to its fifty-third
session (resolution 1996/16, para.10).
2. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights continued and
concluded its consideration of a draft optional protocol at its fifteenth
session (E/C.12/1996/SR.44-49 and 54). The report of the Committee on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to the Commission on Human Rights on a
draft optional protocol for the consideration of communications in relation to
the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is annexed
to the present note.
GE.9614512
(E)
E/CN.4/1997/105
page 2
ANNEX
Report of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to the
Commission on Human Rights on a draft optional protocol for the
consideration of communications in relation to the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
Introduction
1. In the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action the World Conference
on Human Rights “encourage[d] the Commission on Human Rights, in cooperation
with the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, to continue the
examination of optional protocols to the International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights” (Part II), para. 75). Although the reference is
to “protocols” (in the plural) the only specific proposal before the
Conference related to an optional communications procedure. This commitment
was reiterated by the Commission on Human Rights which, in paragraph 6 of its
resolution 1994/20, took note of the “steps taken by the Committee ... for the
drafting of an optional protocol ... granting the right of individuals or
groups to submit communications concerning non-compliance with the Covenant,
and invite[d] the Committee to report thereon to the Commission ....” A brief
progress report (E/CN.4/1996/96) on these deliberations was submitted to the
Commission on Human Rights at its fifty-second session. The Commission, in
paragraph 5 of its resolution 1996/11, welcomed the information and took note
of the steps taken by the Committee.
2. The preparation of an optional protocol was first discussed in the
Committee in 1990 and the matter has been formally under consideration by the
Committee since its sixth session. 1/ In the following year the adoption of
such a protocol was expressly recommended by Mr. Danilo Türk, the Special
Rapporteur of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and
Protection of Minorities on the realization of economic, social and cultural
rights, in his final report (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1992/16, para. 211). Subsequently,
four separate reports were prepared at the Committee's request by
Mr. Philip Alston and provided the basis for extensive discussions within
the Committee. 2/
3. The present report reflects the outcome of the discussions held by the
Committee over the course of a number of sessions. In particular, the
Committee conducted in-depth discussions based on a specific set of draft
proposals from its eleventh to its fifteenth sessions. 3/ It adopted the
present report at its fifteenth session. In doing so the Committee decided
E/CN.4/1997/105
page 3
that while it would prefer wherever possible to adopt a consensus position in
relation to the issues under consideration, its report would also reflect
divergent viewpoints whenever these could not be brought together in a
consensus position. In the course of the Committee's discussions one of its
members - Mr. Grissa - indicated that he was opposed to the proposal to draft
an optional protocol. His views are reflected in the summary records, in
particular E/C.12/1996/SR.42.
4. The present report provides an analysis of the issues that will need
to be examined by the Commission on Human Rights in its consideration of the
proposed optional protocol. It takes account of the comments made by members
of the Committee in the course of its various discussions and, in particular,
reflects the outcome of the Committee's deliberations at its fifteenth
session. Careful note was taken in the course of those deliberations of very
helpful oral and written submissions by the International Labour Organization,
the United Nations Division for the Advancement of Women and the
representatives of various non-governmental organizations, as well as of the
report of an expert meeting convened in Utrecht by the Netherlands Institute
for Human Rights in January 1995 to discuss the draft protocol. 4/
5. Before considering the issues that arise in relation to the content of a
draft optional protocol to the Covenant, it is appropriate to consider briefly
the broader setting in relation to which such an examination must take place.
I. PARALLEL DEVELOPMENTS IN RELATION TO THE CONVENTION ON THE
ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN
6. The World Conference on Human Rights called upon the Commission on the
Status of Women and the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against
Women to “quickly examine the possibility of introducing the right of petition
through the preparation of an optional protocol to the Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women” (Part II, para. 40).
Subsequently, an expert meeting was convened under independent auspices at
the University of Maastricht in the Netherlands from 29 September to
1 October 1994 and which adopted a comprehensive draft optional protocol. The
general lines of this draft were subsequently endorsed by the Committee on the
Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) at its fourteenth
session. 5/
7. At its fortieth session, in March 1996, the Commission on the Status of
Women established an open-ended sessional working group to examine the issue.
E/CN.4/1997/105
page 4
The working group held a general exchange of views, followed by an in-depth
consideration of the major issues arising from the proposal. The Commission
recommended the renewal of the working group's mandate for 1997 and requested
the Secretary-General to prepare two reports dealing respectively with a
comparative survey of other comparable international procedures and a
synthesis of the views expressed on the issue by Governments and
intergovernmental
and non-governmental organizations. 6/
II. SIMILAR DEVELOPMENTS IN RELATION TO REGIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES
8. In the context of the Organization of American States, the Additional
Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights (the Protocol of San Salvador, of 1988), which
provides for a limited complaints procedure, has now been ratified or acceded
to by six States and will enter into force upon acceptance by five more.
Pursuant to Article 19 (6):
“Any instance in which [the right to organize trade unions and the right
to education] are violated by action directly attributable to a State
Party to this Protocol may give rise, through participation of the
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and, when applicable, of the
Inter-American Court of Human Rights, to application of the system of
individual petitions governed by Articles 44 through 51 and 61 through
69 of the American Convention on Human Rights.”
9. Of even greater direct relevance is the adoption in June 1995 by the
Council of Europe of an Additional Protocol to the European Social Charter
Providing for a System of Collective Complaints. 7/ As with the proposed
optional protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights, the new procedure is viewed only as a supplement to the
reporting mechanism, which remains the primary means of supervising compliance
with the Charter. Complaints alleging “unsatisfactory application of the
Charter” cannot be submitted by individuals in their own right. Instead,
they must be submitted by one of the following groups: (1) designated
“international organizations of employers and trade unions”; (2) “other
international non-governmental organizations which have consultative status
with the Council of Europe and have been put on a list established for this
purpose” by a Governmental Committee; (3) “representative national
organizations of employers and trade unions” within the State against whom
the complaint is directed (art. 1); and (4) “any other representative
E/CN.4/1997/105
page 5
nongovernmental
organization” designated by the Government concerned to lodge
complaints against it (art. 2). Groups in categories (2) and (4) may only
submit complaints in respect of matters regarding which “they have been
recognized as having particular competence” (art. 3). The complainant is
required to indicate “in what respect the [Contracting Party] has not ensured
the satisfactory application” of a specified provision of the Charter
(art. 4).
10. The complaint is initially examined by the Committee of Independent
Experts, established under the Charter. Having determined that the complaint
is admissible, the Committee calls for observations from both sides as well as
from other Parties to the Protocol and category (1) organizations (art. 7).
It then reports on whether or not the State's application of the relevant
provision of the Charter has been “satisfactory” (art. 8). The report is sent
confidentially to the parties concerned, all Parties to the Charter and the
Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers. Within four months thereafter it
must be sent to the Parliamentary Assembly and made public. On the basis of
the report, the Committee of Ministers adopts a resolution and, if the
conclusions of the Committee of Independent Experts are negative, addresses a
recommendation to the State concerned (art. 9). The latter is required to
report “on the measures it has taken to give effect to the ... recommendation”
(art. 10). The Protocol will enter into force upon acceptance of 5 member
States of the Council of Europe, of which there are currently 40.
III. PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS
11. At its seventh session the Committee adopted a consolidated “analytical
paper” which it submitted to the World Conference on Human Rights
(A/CONF.157/PC/62/Add.5, annex II). In addition to that analysis, the
Committee made the following submission in its general statement to the
Conference:
“The Committee believes that there are strong reasons for adopting a
complaints procedure (in the form of an optional protocol to the
Covenant) in respect of the economic, social and cultural rights
recognized in the Covenant. Such a procedure would be entirely
noncompulsory
and would permit communications to be submitted by
individuals or groups alleging violations of the rights recognized in
the Covenant. It might also include an optional procedure for the
consideration of inter-State complaints. Various procedural safeguards
E/CN.4/1997/105
page 6
designed to guard against abuse of the procedure would be adopted. They
would be similar in nature to those applying under the first Optional
Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights”
(A/CONF.157/PC/62/Add.5, annex I, para. 18).
12. In its “analytical paper” the Committee emphasized the following aspects
of the proposed optional protocol:
(a) Any protocol to the Covenant will be strictly optional and will
thus only be applicable to those States parties which specifically agree to
it by way of ratification or accession;
(b) The general principle of permitting complaints to be submitted
under an international procedure in relation to economic, social and cultural
rights is in no way new or especially innovative, given the precedents that
exist within the International Labour Organization, United Nations Education
Scientific and Cultural Oganization, the resolution 1503 procedure of the
Economic and Social Council, the Additional Protocol to the American
Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
(the Protocol of San Salvador, of 1988), and proposals currently under
consideration within the Council of Europe;
(c) Experience to date with a wide range of existing international
petition procedures indicates that there is no basis for fears that an
optional protocol will result in a vast number of complaints;
(d) Under an optional protocol procedure the State party concerned
retains the final decision as to what will be done in response to any views
adopted by the Committee; and
(e) That if the principle of the indivisibility, interdependence and
interrelatedness of the two sets of rights is to be upheld in the work of the
United Nations, it is essential that a complaints procedure be established
under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,
thereby redressing the imbalance that presently exists.
IV. AN ANALYSIS OF THE POSSIBLE PROVISIONS OF AN OPTIONAL PROTOCOL
13. The following analysis is based primarily on the Committee's
deliberations at its fifteenth session while also drawing upon its earlier
discussions between 1991 and 1996. It also draws heavily on the approach
adopted in existing communications procedures under United Nations human
rights treaties, and particularly the first Optional Protocol to the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
E/CN.4/1997/105
page 7
14. After a lengthy discussion the Committee decided not to recommend the
inclusion of an inter-State complaints procedure within the proposed optional
protocol. It was noted that such a procedure is included in various of the
other core human rights treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights, the International Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Racial Discrimination and the Convention against Torture and Other
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. All such procedures
apply only between States which have mutually accepted the relevant procedure.
The report submitted to the Committee at its fifteenth session summarized the
different perspectives on this issue in the following terms:
“In principle, there are good reasons to include such a procedure within
the optional protocol. It would increase the options available for
dealing with economic, social and cultural rights and it would put those
rights on a par with those dealt with in the instruments listed above.
In practice, however, there are also strong reasons that militate
against the inclusion of such a procedure. Those that already exist
under comparable United Nations human rights treaties have never been
used and Governments have consistently been wary of what has been
referred to as 'a Pandora's Box, which all parties prefer to keep
shut'. 8/ Even in the ILO the two procedures for inter-State complaints
(under art. 26 of the Constitution and under the freedom of association
procedure) have only been used four times and once, respectively. This
explains why such a procedure has not been proposed in relation to the
draft optional protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Discrimination against Women.”
A. Preamble
15. The Preamble to the first Optional Protocol to the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights consists of a single paragraph. For
present purposes it would seem appropriate not to depart significantly from
the basic simplicity of this approach. However, since the proposed protocol
is not being adopted at the same time as the Covenant (as was the case in
relation to the first Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights), it is desirable to indicate some of the reasons for
establishing an additional procedure. These relate to the interdependence of
the two sets of rights, the contribution of the World Conference on Human
Rights, the role of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the
E/CN.4/1997/105
page 8
importance of recourse procedures in relation to these rights, the
relationship between this protocol and the international community's broader
economic and social development objectives, and the nature of the obligations
specified in article 2 (1) of the Covenant.
16. The proposed text of the Preamble is:
“The States Parties to the present Protocol ,
“[a] Emphasizing that social justice and development, including the
realization of economic, social and cultural rights, are essential
elements in the construction of a just and equitable national and
international order,
“[b] Recalling that the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action
recognized that 'all human rights are universal, indivisible and
interdependent and interrelated',
“[c] Emphasizing the role of the Economic and Social Council, and
through it the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
(hereinafter referred to as the Committee) in developing a better
understanding of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights (hereinafter referred to as the Covenant) and in
promoting the realization of the rights recognized therein,
“[d] Recalling the provision of article 2 (1) of the Covenant pursuant
to which 'Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take
steps, individually and through international assistance and
cooperation,
especially economic and technical, to the maximum of its
available resources, with a view to achieving progressively the full
realization of the rights recognized in the present Covenant by all
appropriate means, including particularly the adoption of legislative
measures',
“[e] Noting that the possibility for the subjects of economic, social
and cultural rights to submit complaints of alleged violations of those
rights is a necessary means of recourse to guarantee the full enjoyment
of the rights,
“[f] Considering that, in order further to achieve the purposes of the
Covenant and the implementation of its provisions, it is appropriate to
enable the Committee to receive and examine, in accordance with the
provisions of this Protocol, communications alleging violations of the
Covenant,
“Have agreed as follows: ....”
E/CN.4/1997/105
page 9
B. The scope of the Committee's competence
1. Questions of terminology
17. In communications procedures generally the first article contains the
undertaking pursuant to which a State party recognizes the competence of the
Committee to receive communications. It is traditional in such texts to
distinguish between the receipt of a communication (which does not necessarily
imply that it will subsequently be examined) and the consideration , or
examination , phase (which occurs once the various procedural requirements have
been met). The first Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights uses both the latter verbs - “consider” and “examine” -
without implying any clear distinction. Given the Human Rights Committee's
practice of referring to the “examination” of communications, that verb is
used in the following draft proposals.
18. The Committee recommends that the Protocol should refer to a “violation
... of ... the rights set forth in the International Covenant”, thereby
following the wording of article 1 of the first Optional Protocol to the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The report submitted to
the Committee at its fifteenth session also noted various other options which
had been put forward:
“[One option is to] refer to a failure by the State party to give effect
to its obligations under the Covenant (as proposed in the Maastricht
draft referred to in para. 4 above, and which amounts to a hybrid
version of the different forms of terminology used in article 41 of
the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in relation to inter-State
complaints). Other options are to follow the wording of the Additional
Protocol to the European Social Charter and refer to a failure to ensure
the satisfactory application of a provision or to adopt a formulation
proposed by the ILO which would refer to those 'who allege failure by
that State party to secure the observance of any of the rights'. In the
case of the Covenant, all but the first of these formulations might be
read as applying not only to the rights recognized in articles 1 to 15
but also to the procedural obligations contained in Part IV of the
Covenant relating to reporting, etc. It is not clear, however, that it
is desirable for individuals to be able to bring a communication against
a State party on the grounds that it has failed to report in a timely
E/CN.4/1997/105
page 10
fashion, or at all. While such behaviour clearly constitutes a violation of
the State's obligations, there are alternative means by which the Committee
has sought to address such problems.
“A requirement that a 'violation' be alleged would not have the effect
of exposing a State party to a successful complaint solely by virtue of
its failure to ensure to a specific complainant the full realization of
a given right. The obligation of the State under the Covenant, and thus
the question of whether a violation had occurred, would still depend
upon the facts of the case and a consideration of the implications of
the terminology used both in the substantive provision recognizing the
right and in article 2 (1) of the Covenant defining the nature of the
obligation. There would thus seem to be no reason not to follow the
approach used in the first Optional Protocol to the Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights of referring to a violation. The only
qualification would be to use the term 'recognized' rather than 'set
forth', in view of the different terminology used in each of the
Covenants.”
2. Individuals and/or groups as complainants
19. The next question dealt with by the Committee was whether an individual
should be permitted to submit a communication. In this regard it was noted
that the Additional Protocol to the European Social Charter had excluded this
possibility and adopted a restrictive list of group-based complainants. In
the course of a full discussion of this option, all members of the Committee
who contributed to the debate agreed that the inclusion of an individual right
to petition was essential. It was also recalled in this regard that, already
at its seventh session, the Committee had indicated a “strong and clear
preference for an individual” focus (A/CONF.157/PC/62/Add.5, annex II,
para. 66).
20. A related issue was whether groups, one or more of whose members claimed
to be a victim of a violation, should also be permitted to submit complaints.
In this regard the Committee recalled the reference in Commission on Human
Rights resolution 1994/20 to “granting the right of individuals or groups to
submit communications” (para. 6), and noted that the Human Rights Committee
has, in practice, dealt with many communications submitted by individuals on
behalf of affected groups and vice versa. It was thus agreed that groups
should be included among those alleged victims entitled to submit complaints.
E/CN.4/1997/105
page 11
21. The proposed text of article 1, based on the decisions reflected in the
preceding analysis is:
“A State Party to the Covenant that becomes a Party to the present
Protocol recognizes the competence of the Committee to receive and
examine communications from any individuals or groups subject to its
jurisdiction in accordance with the provisions of this Protocol.”
C. Right to submit a communication
1. Third parties acting “on behalf of” alleged victims
22. The next issue is whether “standing” to submit a communication should be
extended to “third parties”, or, in other words, individuals and groups who,
although not themselves victims of a violation, have what is deemed “a
sufficient interest” in the matter (to use the phrase used in the CEDAW
draft). The report submitted to the Committee at its fifteenth session noted
in this regard that:
“This broad approach is not necessary merely in order to permit a
communication to be submitted by another person or group on behalf of
an individual claiming to be a victim of a violation. The Human Rights
Committee has consistently interpreted article 1 of the first Optional
Protocol [to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]
to accommodate that situation - an approach which is clearly reflected
in rule 90 (1)(b) of the Committee's rules of procedure. The broader
formulation would therefore seem to envisage a situation in which a
public interest group or some other type of non-governmental
organization might be authorized by the protocol to bring a complaint
without having to identify and act with, or on behalf of, an individual
or group claiming to be a victim of a violation. While this would have
the advantage of permitting complaints which sought to anticipate
violations, whether imminent or merely possible, it would also broaden
considerably the scope of the obligation assumed by States parties and
would potentially open the door to speculative complaints.
“During discussions in the Committee it has been argued that any 'NGOs
and other organizations' should be authorized to submit complaints.
This would eliminate all requirements such as 'consultative status',
links to the country concerned, or special knowledge or particular
competence in relation to the issues raised. It would thus make the
procedure much more easily accessible than is the case under the
E/CN.4/1997/105
page 12
European Social Charter and the ILO procedures. Even the
nontreatybased
procedure under resolution 1503 has some limits in
theory, although not in practice. The proposal would eliminate any need
for a nexus between the complainant and the alleged violation. While it
is clear that a 'wide open' approach to standing would increase the
capacity of the procedure to address every possible issue of relevance,
it would seem to come at the price of opening up the procedure to a vast
number of complaints which do not have to satisfy any minimum requirements
designed to filter out ill-informed or gratuitous complaints.
“... It should also be noted that the requirement to exhaust domestic
remedies before lodging a complaint with an international body, which
is a standard provision in relation to all comparable human rights
complaints procedures (except that of the ILO), would make it somewhat
illusory to eliminate the nexus between the complainant(s) and the State
party.”
23. In light of these considerations the Committee recommends that the right
to submit a complaint should be extended also to individuals or groups who act
on behalf of alleged victims. The Committee noted, however, that this
formulation should be interpreted only to embrace individuals and groups who,
in the view of the Committee, are acting with the knowledge and agreement of
the alleged victim(s).
2. The range of rights covered
24. The next issue is whether the procedure should apply to all of the
rights recognized in the Covenant or only to some of them. The report
submitted to the Committee at its fifteenth session noted in this regard that:
“After canvassing four different options, the Committee's analytical
paper submitted to the World Conference opted for an inclusive rather
than a restrictive approach. However, in order to exclude the reporting
obligations contained in part IV of the Covenant it is proposed to
restrict the coverage of the procedure to the rights recognized in
articles 1 to 15 of the Covenant. This approach has been supported
by the Committee in its deliberations to date, except in relation to
questions raised in relation to the right to self-determination
recognized in article 1 and in relation to the rights recognized in
article 15. It has been suggested that the inclusion of the former
E/CN.4/1997/105
page 13
could involve a grave danger of the procedure being misused. It may be
noted that the right to self-determination is recognized in exactly the
same terms in article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights and that it is subject to complaints under the first
Optional Protocol to that Covenant. In practice, however, the Human
Rights Committee has adopted a cautious or restrictive approach to its
application. In relation to article 15, it would seem difficult to
single it out for exclusion while retaining other formulations of
equivalent generality.”
25. The Committee recommends that the optional protocol should apply in
relation to all of the economic, social and cultural rights set forth in the
Covenant and that this would include all of the rights contained in articles 1
to 15. The Committee noted, however, that the right to self-determination
should be dealt with under this procedure only in so far as economic, social
and cultural rights dimensions of that right are involved. It considered that
the civil and political rights dimensions of the right should remain the
preserve of the Human Rights Committee in connection with article 1 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
26. Another issue, closely related to the previous one, is whether provision
should be made to enable States to accept the procedure provided for in the
optional protocol either in relation to all of the provisions of articles 1
to 15 (a "comprehensive" approach) or only in relation to particular elements
of the Covenant (a "selective" approach). The latter approach, sometimes
referred to as a smörgasbörd or à la carte approach, could take either of
two forms. The first would require States parties to indicate which
provisions of the Covenant would not be covered by the procedure they have
accepted by becoming a party to the optional protocol. Each State would thus
have to "opt out" in relation to specified provisions if it wished to avoid
the application of the optional protocol in relation to all of the rights
recognized in the Covenant. The second would require them to "opt in" to the
procedure in relation to provisions of the Covenant which they would specify
upon becoming a party to the protocol. A further distinction was also noted
in the report submitted to the Committee at its fifteenth session which
observed that each of these selective approaches:
“could apply either to articles of the Covenant or, in an even more
specific fashion, to specific rights. Thus, for example, under the
E/CN.4/1997/105
page 14
first approach, a State could identify article 11 as one in relation to
which it would accept the complaints procedure (thus covering all of the
elements - adequate standard of living, food, clothing, housing, etc. -
dealt with in that article). Under the second approach it could
identify a specific right such as the right to adequate food in relation
to which it would accept the procedure. It should be noted that the
adoption of a more restrictive coverage in the optional protocol would in no
way diminish or otherwise affect the full range of obligations already
applicable to every State party to the Covenant.”
27. The same report noted the following advantages and disadvantages of
permitting any type of selective approach:
“Its principal advantages are: (i) it enables States to tailor the
extent of the obligations that they accept to fit the situation within
the country, thus making it more feasible to accept the principle of a
complaints procedure; (ii) it would facilitate a progressive acceptance
of a wider range of rights over time; (iii) it would partly resolve the
question of which rights are justiciable and to what extent by enabling
States to resolve that issue for themselves and expanding their approach
as the content of individual rights evolves with greater clarity; and
(iv) it would make the procedure as a whole more manageable, and thus
more acceptable, to a broader range of States.
“This option also has some clear disadvantages: (i) the approach
might be perceived from a practical viewpoint, although not from a
theoretical perspective, to challenge the principle that all rights are
equally important; (ii) the approach would differ from the holistic one
reflected in the first Optional Protocol to the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights, although it would be consistent with the
options given to States to accept some provisions, but not others, when
ratifying the European Social Charter; and (iii) there is a risk States
might initially opt to accept the procedure only in relation to an
unduly narrow range of rights.
“Whatever approach is adopted in this regard, it would have to be
assumed, given the fundamental importance of articles 2-5 of the
Covenant, that they would always be fully applicable in relation to the
interpretation of the meaning of any of the specific rights recognized
in articles 6-15.”
E/CN.4/1997/105
page 15
28. After a long debate over this issue the majority of the members of the
Committee who participated expressed a clear preference for a comprehensive
approach which would require any State becoming a party to the optional
protocol to accept the relevant procedure in relation to all of the rights
recognized in the Covenant. On the other hand, a strong minority favoured
the adoption of a selective approach which would permit States to accept
obligations only in relation to a specified range of rights. The minority
considered that this could be achieved either through requiring States
expressly to "opt out" of provisions that they would need to identify at the
time of becoming a party to the protocol or through enabling them to "opt in"
in relation to provisions which they would specify.
3. Protecting access to the procedure
29. A related issue concerns protection of the right to submit a complaint.
The report submitted to the Committee at its fifteenth session put the issue
in the following terms:
“It is appropriate to include a provision which not only affirms the
right of an individual or group to submit a written communication
alleging a violation of the rights recognized in the Covenant, but also
obliges States parties to do whatever is necessary to enable potential
complainants to submit communications. The importance of this aspect
of a complaints procedure has consistently been highlighted by the
Commission on Human Rights in a series of resolutions since 1990. Based
on a report of the Secretary-General [E/CN.4/1994/42], the Commission,
in its resolution 1994/70, requested the treaty bodies to take urgent
steps, in conformity with their mandates, to help prevent the hampering
of access to United Nations human rights procedures in any way. The
Commission also urged Governments to refrain from all acts of
intimidation or reprisal against, inter alia , those who submit or have
submitted communications under procedures established by human rights
instruments. It therefore seems appropriate for a specific provision
of this nature to be included in the protocol.”
30. The Committee agreed that such a provision should be included.
31. The proposed text of article 2, based on the decisions reflected in the
preceding analysis, is:
“1. Any individual or group claiming to be a victim of a violation by
the State party concerned of any of the economic, social or cultural
E/CN.4/1997/105
page 16
rights recognized in the Covenant, or any individual or group acting on
behalf of such claimant(s), may submit a written communication to the
Committee for examination.
“2. States Parties to this Protocol undertake not to hinder in any way
the effective exercise of the right to submit a communication and to
take all steps necessary to prevent any persecution or sanctioning of
any person or group submitting or seeking to submit a communication
under this Protocol.”
D. Receivability and admissibility
32. Bringing together the various provisions relating to receivability and
admissibility within a single article of the draft protocol would seem to be
the most convenient approach. For the most part, these various procedural
rules are based directly upon the formulations used in the first Optional
Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. For the
purposes of this draft they have been reorganized slightly but the wording
remains almost identical in its key provisions.
33. The proposed text of article 3 is:
“1. No communication shall be received by the Committee if it is
anonymous or is directed at a State which is not a party to this
Protocol.
“2. The Committee shall declare a communication inadmissible if it:
“(a) does not contain allegations which, if substantiated, would
constitute a violation of rights recognized in the Covenant;
“(b) constitutes an abuse of the right to submit a communication;
or
“(c) relates to acts and omissions which occurred before the
entry into force of this Protocol for the State Party concerned, unless
those acts or omissions:
“(i) continue to constitute a violation of the Covenant
after the entry into force of the Protocol for that
State party; or
“(ii) have effects which continue beyond the entry into
force of this Protocol and those effects themselves
appear to constitute a violation of a right recognized
in the Covenant.
E/CN.4/1997/105
page 17
“3. The Committee shall not declare a communication admissible unless
it has ascertained:
“(a) that all available domestic remedies have been exhausted;
and
“(b) that a communication submitted by or on behalf of the
alleged victim which raises essentially the same issues of fact and law
is not being examined under another procedure of international
investigation or settlement. The Committee may, however, examine such a
communication where the procedure of international investigation or
settlement is unreasonably prolonged.”
E. Substantiation of complaints
34. In any complaints procedure there is an onus placed upon the complainant
to provide information which gives substance to the allegations that have
been made. Moreover, it is appropriate to provide the Committee with the
opportunity to re-examine a communication if new information is provided
to it after it has already taken a decision to declare the communication
inadmissible on the basis of its first examination.
35. The proposed text of article 4 is:
“1. The Committee may decline to continue to examine a communication
if the author, after being given a reasonable opportunity to do so,
fails to provide information which would sufficiently substantiate the
allegations contained in the communication.
“2. The Committee may, upon the request of the author of the
complaint, recommence examination of a communication which it has
declared inadmissible under article 3 if the circumstances which led to
its decision have changed.”
F. Interim measures
36. Although the first Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights does not contain a specific provision dealing with
interim measures, procedures which have been adopted subsequently by the Human
Rights Committee have addressed this important issue. While the Committee
does not consider it necessary or desirable to adopt a blanket provision which
would apply in all cases, it considers it should be given the discretion, to
be used in potentially serious cases involving the possibility of irreparable
harm, to request that interim measures be taken.
E/CN.4/1997/105
page 18
37. The proposed text of article 5 is:
“If at any time after the receipt of a communication, and before a
determination on the merits has been reached, a preliminary study gives
rise to a reasonable apprehension that the allegations, if
substantiated, could lead to irreparable harm, the Committee may request
the State Party concerned to take such interim measures as may be
necessary to avoid such irreparable harm.”
G. Reference to State party and friendly settlement
38. The great majority of communications procedures provide for the
possibility of reaching a friendly settlement with the State party concerned.
Particularly in view of the nature of economic, social and cultural rights,
it would seem especially appropriate to provide for a procedure of friendly
settlement in the draft protocol. For this purpose the Committee would
specifically indicate its preparedness to facilitate such a settlement,
provided only that the resulting arrangement is based upon respect for the
rights and obligations contained in the Covenant.
39. Another matter is whether to include a provision comparable to that
contained in the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Racial Discrimination (art. 14 (6) (a)) according to which “the identity of
the individual or groups of individuals concerned shall not be revealed
without his or their express consent”. In the view of the Committee the
possible need to protect the identity of the alleged victim(s) is a matter
best taken care of in the relevant rules of procedure.
40. The other matter in this regard is the setting of a time-limit within
which a State must respond to information received from the Committee. The
first Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights provides for a period of six months. Consideration was given in the
Committee's earlier deliberations to setting a time-limit of three months. It
was suggested that that would be conducive to achieving a prompt and equitable
solution. The ILO and other sources made it clear, however, that three months
would, in their experience, be too short a time for Governments to respond.
The Committee therefore recommends that six months be retained.
41. The proposed text of article 6 is:
“1. Unless the Committee considers that a communication should be
declared inadmissible without reference to the State party concerned,
E/CN.4/1997/105
page 19
the Committee shall confidentially bring to the attention of the
State party any communication referred to it under this Protocol.
“2. Within six months, the receiving State shall submit to the
Committee explanations or statements and the remedy, if any, that
may have been afforded by that State.
“3. During its examination of a communication, the Committee shall
place itself at the disposal of the parties concerned with a view to
facilitating settlement of the matter on the basis of respect for the
rights and obligations set forth in the Covenant.
“4. If a settlement is reached, the Committee shall prepare a report
containing a statement of the facts and of the solution reached.”
H. Examination of communications
42. The first Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights specifies that the Committee shall base itself upon “all
written information made available to it by the individual and by the State
Party concerned” (art. 5 (1)). In practice this is a generous provision since
it does not exclude information from any source provided only that it is
specifically submitted by one party or the other. Nevertheless, it seems
unduly restrictive and counterproductive for the Committee not to be able to
take into account information which it has obtained for itself from other
sources. The Committee recommends the inclusion of authorization for such
action to be undertaken by it, on condition that any such information would
also be provided to the parties concerned for comment.
43. Article 5 of the first Optional Protocol to the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights does not specify the procedures to be used by
the Committee in examining communications, other than to state that its
consideration shall take place in closed meetings. It is unnecessary for the
draft protocol to be any more detailed and it would seem to be sufficient to
indicate that the Committee is empowered to adopt its own procedures for the
consideration of communications and that such consideration should take place
in private session. The only significant additional element recommended by
the Committee concerns including the possibility of a visit to the territory
of a State party as part of the Committee's examination of a communication.
By providing such an option, to be employed only if the State party concerned
E/CN.4/1997/105
page 20
wishes to exercise it, the procedure would have the flexibility required to
enable the Committee, in cooperation with the State party, to tailor the best
approach under the circumstances.
44. It is also proposed to indicate that the final views of the Committee
will be made public at the same time as they are communicated to the parties
directly involved. This is consistent with the existing practice of the Human
Rights Committee.
45. The proposed text of article 7 is:
“1. The Committee shall examine communications received under this
Protocol in the light of all information made available to it by or on
behalf of the author in accordance with paragraph 2, and by the State
party concerned. The Committee may also take into account information
obtained from other sources, provided that this information is
transmitted to the parties concerned for comment.
“2. The Committee may adopt such procedures as will enable it to
ascertain the facts and to assess the extent to which the State party
concerned has fulfilled its obligations under the Covenant.
“3. As part of its examination of a communication, the Committee may,
with the agreement of the State Party concerned, visit the territory of
that State Party.
“4. The Committee shall hold closed meetings when examining
communications under this Protocol.
“5. After examining a communication, the Committee shall adopt its
views on the claims made in the communication and shall transmit these
to the State party and to the author, together with any recommendations
it considers appropriate. The views shall be made public at the same
time.”
I. Results of examination
46. While the first Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights provides only that the Committee shall forward its views
to the two concerned parties, the practice of the Human Rights Committee,
as well as of other comparable complaints procedures, has developed very
significantly in recent years in relation to the various follow-up procedures.
It would therefore seem appropriate in drafting a protocol in the late 1990s
to be more specific as to the recommendations that the Committee might make
with a view to remedying any violation which it has identified. This approach
E/CN.4/1997/105
page 21
would be entirely consistent with the importance attached by the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to the provision of an appropriate
remedy for violations, and with the approach proposed in the study prepared
for the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of
Minorities concerning “the right to restitution, compensation and
rehabilitation for victims of gross violations of human rights and fundamental
freedoms” (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1993/8).
47. Following the Committee's discussions, it is not recommended, however,
to include a provision which would expressly obligate the State party
concerned to implement the Committee's recommendations, to provide an
appropriate remedy or to ensure the provision of adequate compensation where
appropriate. While there is much to be said in policy terms for such
measures, it is correct, as pointed out during the debates, that making such
measures legally mandatory would transform the nature of the procedure from a
quasi-judicial to a judicial one. In the latter case, more complex procedures
in general would be necessary, including a greater variety of procedural
safeguards for the parties concerned.
48. In paragraph 2 it is proposed to extend the relevant time-limit to
six months for the same reasons cited in relation to article 6 (2) in
paragraph 40 above.
49. The proposed text of article 8 is:
“1. Where the Committee is of the view that a State Party has violated
its obligations under the Covenant, the Committee may recommend that the
State Party take specific measures to remedy the violation and to
prevent its recurrence.
“2. The State Party concerned shall, within six months of receiving
notice of the decision of the Committee under paragraph 1, or such
longer period as may be specified by the Committee, provide the
Committee with details of the measures which it has taken in accordance
with paragraph 1 above.”
J. Follow-up procedures
50. Once again, while the first Optional Protocol to the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights does not spell out the procedures
which will be used in relation to following up on the adoption of views in
particular cases, the Human Rights Committee has developed an extensive
E/CN.4/1997/105
page 22
procedure for this purpose. The Committee therefore recommends that such
a procedure be reflected in the provisions contained in the proposed draft
protocol.
51. The proposed text of article 9 is:
“1. The Committee may invite a State Party to discuss with it, at a
mutually convenient time, the measures which the State Party has taken
to give effect to the views or recommendations of the Committee.
“2. The Committee may invite the State Party concerned to include in
its reports under article 17 of the Covenant details of any measures
taken in response to the Committee's views and recommendations.
“3. The Committee shall include in its annual report an account of the
substance of the communication and its examination of the matter, a
summary of the explanations and statements of the State Party concerned,
of its own views and recommendations, and the response of the State
Party concerned to those views and recommendations.”
K. Rules of procedure, servicing, etc.
52. In view of the fact that the text of the Covenant itself does not
contain specific provisions relating to the adoption of rules of procedure,
the meetings of the Committee or the responsibility of the Secretary-General
for the servicing of the Committee, it is recommended that this lack be
remedied in relation to the communications procedure provided for in the draft
protocol. The Committee therefore proposes provisions comparable to those
contained in other major human rights treaties.
53. The proposed text of article 10 is:
“The Committee may make rules of procedure prescribing the
procedure to be followed when it is exercising the functions conferred
on it by this Protocol.”
54. The proposed text of article 11 is:
“1. The Committee shall meet for such period as is necessary to carry
out its functions under this Protocol.
“2. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall provide the
Committee with the necessary staff, facilities and finances for the
performance of its functions under this Protocol, and in particular
shall ensure that expert legal advice is available to the Committee for
this purpose.”
E/CN.4/1997/105
page 23
L. Final articles
55. For the most part, the final articles recommended for inclusion in the
present draft protocol follow closely those already contained in the first
Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Changes have been made only where this would seem necessary or appropriate for
an instrument which may be adopted in the late 1990s rather than in 1966. In
particular, the provisions requiring the Secretary-General to circulate the
various documents and other information would seem to be superfluous today in
view of the regular notification of States parties of all such developments.
56. The proposed text of the final articles is reproduced below. No
commentary is offered at this stage in view of the fact that they are
reasonably self-explanatory and that the Commission will need to resolve the
more substantive matters dealt with in the earlier articles before finalizing
these provisions.
57. The Committee discussed at some length the question of whether
reservations to the optional protocol should be permitted or excluded, or
whether the protocol should be silent in relation to that matter. The
Committee agreed to recommend that it would be appropriate for the Commission
to consider providing for the lodging of reservations if it opts for a
comprehensive approach in relation to the range of rights, as described in
paragraph 28 above.
58. The proposed text of the final articles is:
“Article 12
“1. This Protocol is open for signature by any State Party to the
Covenant.
“2. This Protocol is subject to ratification or accession by any State
Party to the Covenant. Instruments of ratification or accession shall
be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
“Article 13
“1. This Protocol shall enter into force three months after the date
of the deposit with the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the
fifth instrument of ratification or accession.
“2. For each State ratifying this Protocol or acceding to it after
its entry into force, this Protocol shall enter into force three months
after the date of the deposit of its own instrument of ratification or
accession.
E/CN.4/1997/105
page 24
“Article 14
“1. This Protocol will be binding upon each State Party in respect of
all territories subject to its jurisdiction.
“2. The provisions of this Protocol shall extend to all parts of
federal States without any limitations or exceptions.
“Article 15
“1. Any State Party to this Protocol may propose an amendment and
file it with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The
SecretaryGeneral
shall thereupon communicate any proposed amendments to
the States Parties to this Protocol with the request that they notify
him or her whether they favour a conference of State Parties for the
purpose of considering and voting upon the proposal. If within four
months from the date of such communication at least one third of the
States Parties favour such a conference, the Secretary-General shall
convene such a conference under the auspices of the United Nations. Any
amendment adopted by majority of the State parties present and voting at
the conference shall be submitted to the General Assembly of the
United Nations for approval.
“2. Amendments shall come into force when they have been approved by
the General Assembly of the United Nations and accepted by a twothirds
majority of the States Parties to this Protocol in accordance with their
respective constitutional processes.
“3. When amendments come into force, they shall be binding on those
States Parties which have accepted them, other States Parties still
being bound by the provisions of this Protocol and any earlier amendment
which they have accepted.
“Article 16
“1. Any State Party may denounce this Protocol at any time by written
notification addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
Denunciation shall take effect one year after the date of receipt of the
notification by the Secretary-General.
“2. Denunciations shall be without prejudice to the continued
application of the provisions of this Protocol to any communication
submitted before the effective date of denunciation.
E/CN.4/1997/105
page 25
1.See E/1992/23 E/
C.12/1991/4, paras. 360366.
2.E/C.12/1991/WP.2, E/C.12/1992/WP.9, E/C.12/1994/12, and
E/C.12/1996/CRP.2/Add.1.
3.See E/C.12/1994/SR.42, 45 and 56; E/C.12/1995/SR.5 and 50; E/C.12/1996/SR.19
and 20; and E/C.12/1996/SR.4247.
4.F. Coomans and G.J.H. van Hoof (eds.), Right to Complain About Economic and
Social Rights (Utrecht, Netherlands Institute for Human Rights, 1995).
5.Official Records of the General Assembly, Fiftieth Session, Supplement
No. 38 (A/50/38), chap. I Sect. B, suggestion 7. For a comprehensive analysis
see A. Byrnes and J. Connors, “Enforcing the Human Rights of Women: A
complaints Procedure for the Women's Convention”, 21 Brooklyn Journal of
International Law (1996) 679797.
6.See Official Records of the Economic and Social Council, 1996, Supplement
No. 6 (E/1996/26) E/
CN.6/1996/15), annex III.
7.See Council of Europe document H (95) 8 of 5 July 1995.
8.Rosalyn Higgins, “Encouraging Human Rights”, 2 London School of Economics
Quarterly (1988) 249.
“
3. Following the date at which the denunciation of a State Party
becomes effective, the Committee shall not commence consideration of
any new matters regarding that State.
“Article 17
“This Protocol, of which the Arabic, Chinese, English, French,
Russian and Spanish texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited in
the archives of the United Nations.”
Notes