8th Meeting, 38th Session - Chairpersons of the Human Rights Treaty Bodies

Excellencies, fellow chairs and distinguished delegates.
Welcome to the meeting of the chairs of the human rights bodies with the member states.
Before we begin, I'd like to propose one thing.
Since the temperature in this room is so high, I'd suggest take off our jacket so that it can be relaxed and I will do so.
Oh, that's so hot.
It looks much better.
My name is Chang No.
I'm a chair of the Human Rights Committee and have the honor of chairing the 38th annual meeting of chairs.
First, allow me to introduce the chairs and vice chairs representing their respective committees who are joining us today.
First, Madam P Saran, chair of the committee on Economic social and cultural rights, and she's also vice chair of this meeting.
Madam Ban Kim, Chair of the Committee on Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
Mr.
Omar Fresheri, Vice Chair of the Committee on Migrant Workers.
Mr.
Gun K, chair of the committee on the elimination of racial discrimination.
And Mr.
Juan Pablo Aban Alan Castro, chair of the committee on enforced disappearances.
Madam Maria Luisa Romero, chair of the subcommittee on Prevention of torture.
Madame Na Haida, chair of the committee on the elimination of discrimination against women.
Madame Spio Caleta, chair of the committee on Rights of the Child, and Madame Ana Raku Vice Chair of the Committee Against Torture.
It is a real pleasure to be with you today, and I thank you for joining us at what is frankly a critical moment.
Your presence reflects a continued commitment that is essential to functioning of the treaty body system.
The treaty bodies are committees of independent experts that monitor the implementation of the core International Human Rights treaties, treaties that states have freely ratified.
Today, we are struggling to fulfill those mandates and we need your continued support to secure the future of the system.
Let us see where we stand today first.
Which HHR has so far received an advance allotment equivalent to 60% of its approved 2026 budget, which is $132.7 billion.
The uncertainty of the final level and timing of allotment continues to create serious risks for mandate delivery and staffing stability, as well as creating planning difficulties, just when I believe all of you are asking to increase predictability in our work.
As much as we would like to respond to you positively, this is not realistic in the present circumstances.
This year, this has meant a 40% reduction in treaty body meeting time.
State party reviews have been canceled, individual communications postponed, visits deferred, and other mandated activities delayed.
For them subcommittee on prevention of torture, only half of the visits planned for 2026 can currently be confirmed.
Staffing of the Human Rights Treaty branch has fallen by roughly 20%.
As a consequence, the existing backlogs which grew significantly during the pandemic have become serious.
In the case of some committees, state party reports may be four to 5-years-old by the time they were reviewed.
Individuals who bring communications may wait six years or more before their cases are heard.
Due to the efforts of the committee and the Secretariat, we are making progress on both procedures, but there is a limit to what can be done when the necessary resources are not provided.
We will continue to do our best to carry out our functions and to help states meet their treaty obligations.
But this situation is not sustainable.
Last year, faced with these reductions, exceptional measures were adopted, including canceling presion working groups, reducing plenary time, and expanding online adoption of lists of issues and other work intersectionally.
These measures have come at real cost to our work, to our engagement, and to our relationship with the civil society.
It must not be allowed to become the new normal.
At the same time, we should be clear, even before the liquidity crisis, the treaty body system was already facing structural challenges and they remain unresolved.
On the General Assembly Resolution 68 slash 268, meeting time is calculated on the basis of reports received over the previous four years.
Fewer reports received means less meeting time, which means fewer reviews and large backlogs of vicious cycle.
Chronic understaffing of petitions and urgent actions also predates the current crisis.
Today, only 27% of state parties report on time.
Even in better financial conditions, we would still need to ask how to make the system more effective and fit for purpose, including through digitalization and artificial intelligence.
For example, by developing a comprehensive case management tool for petitions and urgent actions.
But crisis management is not reform.
The exceptional measures we have taken are responses to a two year liquidity emergency.
Reform is a longer conversation about strengthening the system over time.
These two things must be confused must not be confused.
We will engage seriously with reform, but we cannot allow emergency measures adopted under the financial pressure to be quietly normalized as the future of the system.
Regarding office's working paper, this week in our trade meeting, we have been discussing this working paper on enhancing the effectiveness and efficiency of treatment system.
The proposals focus on three broad areas, clustering and regionalization with a predictable calendar, digitalization and online reporting, and greater transparency in nomination and election of experts.
We welcome the efforts to rethink how treaty body can be strengthened and we are discussing these ideas constructively and with an open mind.
At the same time, our responsibility is to ensure that any initiative genuinely reinforces our work and our impact without reducing the depth or quality of protection.
The proposals remain general in nature.
We look forward to working with the office on how they might be operationalized and on the essential question of costing.
For each proposal, we need to know what problem it solves, what problem it does not solve, and what new risks it will create.
Excellence is, independence lies at the heart of this system.
In the pact of the future, states committed to the sustainable financing of the human rights system, including treaty bodies.
Sustainability and independence are two sides of the same coin.
Our mandates flow from legally binding treaties.
The non political review of states obligations by independent experts is what gives this system its impartiality and credibility.
That independence must be protected on two fronts.
First is financial.
Reform cannot replace financing.
Efficiency is no substitute for resources.
We welcome the High commissioner's proposal for protected firework funding, and we ask that it to be made concrete, what it would protect, how it would relate to regular budget, and how it would be carried forward with relevant budgetary budgets, including ACBABQ and Fifth Committee of the General Assembly.
We need predictable and adequate regular budget financing, protected in a way that allows every state party to be rebuilt with the same vigor and allows us to engage in genuine dialogue with each of you.
The second front is independence and security of the experts themselves.
With the increasing frequency, three party members, like colleagues across the wider human rights system face harassment, intimidation, public attacks, and reprisals in connection with their mandates.
Scrutiny and criticism of our work is legitimate and even healthy.
Attacks on the person, reputations and safety of independent experts are not.
They undermine the independence, integrity, effectiveness, and credibility of the entire system.
We therefore ask all states to respect and protect the independence and security of treaty body members and of all those who cooperate with treaty bodies.
There are two distinct questions before us, our ability to fulfill our mandates in the short term and the survival of the system in the longer term.
On both, your support is decisive.
In the short term, we need predictability.
As things stand, we cannot yet say with confidence whether and when all our sessions will take place this next year.
This uncertainty makes planning extremely difficult for states, civil society, claimants, and the treaty bodies themselves.
Even a tentative calendar would make a real difference.
Knowing that you, the states, have also been requesting this, we ask that you mobilize all means necessary to enable us to be informed as soon as possible of the realistic scenario next year so that we can plan properly.
In the longer term, we would genuinely like to hear from you.
The architecture is yours.
You created it and you own it.
Reform has been on the table for decades.
So we would like to ask directly, what kind of treaty body do you want for the future? And how do you propose to resource it? Is there a broad agreement on the proposal of a high commissioner to move dialogues to the reasons? Alternatively, if there are other mechanisms that you believe could better serve the monitoring of the treaties, please tell us.
If not, then we ask with respect what alternative you would propose for independent and periodic scrutiny of the treaty obligations that states have undertaken.
Are there concrete actions being taken in this regard? Excellencies, we very much welcome this opportunity to exchange with you.
Above all, we want to hear your honest assessment of the strengths and difficulties of your engagement with the treaty body system and your ideas for the future of the system.
Ultimately, your support will determine whether this system endures, both in how it will function in the years ahead and in whether our work can return to normal in the months immediately before Earth.
Thank you very much.
I'll stop here.
I really wish to this dialogue to be interactive.
Maybe I'll just open the floor to the states parties, then we'll come back to our respective members, chairs.
We have interpretation.
We have interpretations in six languages, so feel free speak the UN official languages.
I will take Swiss first.
Thank you.
Madam President President.
Distinguished chairpersons, Switzerland thanks you warmly for this opportunity to have a direct discussion with the states parties during your 38th annual session.
For Switzerland, the treaty bodies are a key element in the universal human rights architecture, committing the legal obligations of states and conveying them in dialogue.
And transforming them into individual protection where necessary.
Distinguished chair of the 30th session, we share your analysis.
We believe this to be a critical moment.
The current difficulties facing the treaty bodies are not new.
But they overlap and they are particularly intense.
This crisis, as you have said, has repercussions on the schedule, predictability of reporting, accumulation of wait lists, delays, and an impact on trust where legal obligations of states are at stake.
It is crucial that trust be present given this urgency, Switzerland is convinced of the need to render secure and stable the system in the short term and the long term and to strengthen whether more ambitious reforms.
Switzerland in that connection has, together with the Geneva Human Rights Hub and with the support of Belgium and the European Union, organized a retreat at the start of June on the overhaul of the reporting procedure for parties to the human rights conventions.
This brought together chairs and members of each treaty body.
Staff of the OHCHR, states, national humans institutions, and representative of civil society and academia.
This was not a negotiation, but rather discreet, open discussions.
Where divergences persist, we sought convergence of views in three areas which are mutually reinforcing.
First, the need for a true digital progress.
This cannot be seen as an end in itself nor as a simple technical tool, but rather a multilingual single platform for reports submission would be an important tool to overcome an archaic model that depends on one time static reports.
It would give better access to follow up.
Second, a predictable calendar and a clustering system, bringing together the conventions where the obligations overlap.
Not to reduce the specific nature of committees or undermine their autonomy, but rather to render more cohesive their work and help with prioritization and follow up, avoiding redundancies.
Third, a cross cutting element also at the heart of the discussions.
This is the regional dimension, the decentralization of follow up.
Switzerland should be very clear on this.
This is not a question of moving the institutional center or creating a parallel regional mechanism, but rather progressively examining how certain follow up dialogues could be brought closer to the stakeholders responsible for implementation.
National institutions, Country teams, civil society rights holders.
What became clear from the retreat was that the treaty body system as it stands, needs to move towards a renewed system of reporting, whether the digitalization, proximity with people on the ground and mutually reinforcing work.
This is a basis for evolutative work for future considerations.
The goal is to determine what can rapidly be implemented, what needs more technical work, And what could require further political support from General Assembly.
If necessary, resolution following up, resolution 60 8268 for moderate adaptation of the reporting system, if the political will is there, give a clearer basis to set the elements including necessary resources.
In this context, we recall that leadership of the OHCHR and the High Commissioner himself is crucial.
We welcome the draft working paper on enhancing the effectiveness and efficiency of the Human Rights treaty bodies of 29th May this year, which you mentioned.
This provides proposals for specific reforms with transparency and the necessary resources.
The implementation of a digital report submission platform appears to be the most obvious way forward in the short to medium, medium term.
Switzerland would like now to know your view.
In terms of the essential elements, which are central, which are complementary and Switzerland is ready to continue working with you with OHHR with interested states and other stakeholders in order to build on the results of this retreat for a concise practical package with a roadmap which could be presented in Geneva and New York.
Our approach will continue to be guided by the respect for the independence of the treaty bodies, the strengthening of efficiency in the system.
And ensuring that reforms serve the populations of state parties, above all.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
And I'll give the floor to United Kingdom delegation.
Thank you, Chair and thank you to the other chairpersons for convening us today.
First of all, the UK would wish to reiterate its very strong support and commitment to treaty bodies and as our Swiss colleague has said, we really consider treaty bodies as a cornerstone of the whole human rights pillar and architecture more generally, and we also want to take this opportunity to really salute all your personal and individual commitments, as well as the commitments of all the other treaty body experts that you are representing today because we all, of course, recognize of your uh, sacrifices because these are obviously voluntary, non remunerated positions and it must be remembered.
In this context, we looked with interest and we welcome the working paper from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and we do find that the free proposals around regionalization clustering and most importantly, for us, specifically the fixed calendar, which I think is a point which has been repeatedly put forward across different proposals and retreats and we take this opportunity to also celebrate initiatives like the one which was mentioned by our Swiss colleague here and this last retreat, which we do think is the type of spaces and conversations which we hopefully will lead to concrete reform.
We really want to insist on the point that we do think that the time has really come to set up this eight year review cycle and we do think that clustering and potentially regionalization are key aspects which would facilitate having this predictable calendar.
Because for us, I think mostly on the clustering element, it is very important that we address legitimate concerns that I think many delegations in the room would share around duplication between committees and most importantly, the need to improve coordination across committees.
That moves me to my next point is that we do believe and we fully recognize the dire situation as far as funding is concerned and the need for immediate action.
But in that context, there is room and space to really progress on the harmonization of working methods.
I know there is the need and request for political support, so at least you clearly have the support from the United Kingdom to really accelerate this harmonization of working methods because we do believe this is crucial and could address partly the current crisis that the system is going through.
Linked to the harmonization of working methods, we do think it's very important to improve and to have a standardized approach to follow up of reviews.
Of course, and we really salute that this has already been started to be actioned is the increased use of virtual meetings.
The UK, again, is committed on this and trying to push and really ensure that you do get, let's say, the conference servicing mandate to be able to have more of these virtual meetings.
We do believe that this is not only a short quick fix for the current crisis, but really also linked to modern methods of work and which would really be more cost effective.
And lastly, the UK wishes to really repeat and put on record, something we really recommended actually through universal periodic review a few cycles ago, is the key importance for us of having an open and transparent selection process for treaty body members.
That's really a call, not necessarily to you, but more to all delegates in the room and to really put a lot of effort as far as individual states to make sure that we have the best possible system, to ensure that we have the best possible independent experts in all your respective treaty bodies.
And we also would be interested in hearing more about your deliberations around these three proposals by the office.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
Now, I will give the floor to representative from El Salvador.
Thank you, Chairman.
I'll try and be as brief as possible.
El Salvador, thanks the chairs of the various different human rights treaty bodies for convening this strategic dialogue with member states this afternoon.
My delegation duly acknowledges the irreplaceable role played by the human rights treaty bodies in the promotion and protection of human rights at the global level.
In that understanding, we reiterate our unwavering commitment to the revitalization of the treaty bodies in the persuasion that you are the bedrock of the international human rights architecture Gm.
One decade on from the adoption of Resolution 60 8268 by the General Assembly, There can be no doubting that we have achieved significant milestones in terms of coordination, harmonization of working methods, and predictability and that we have expanded the use of the simplified reporting procedure, as well as the holding certain regional dialogues.
That's welcome progress.
That said, we cannot ignore the structural challenges that are still inherent in the system.
An exponentially increasing workload, a major backlog in the review of reports and of individual communications, the lack of accessibility and predictability, the lack of coherence in the system, and the ever growing resource gap, which weighs so heavily, both on the treaty bodies as well as on states parties in terms of their response capacity.
Given all the aforementioned, El Salvador is of the view that it's vital we move towards sustainable solutions, as you yourself pointed out, we firmly support the adoption of a coordinated and predictable reporting calendar, as well as the generalization of the simplified reporting procedure to all treaty bodies.
It is also a priority for El Salvador that we take steps to mitigate duplication in requests for information and strengthen synergies between the different treaty bodies and between the treaty body system as a whole and the UPR.
A streamlined and efficient system would not only alleviate the reporting burden, but it would also mean that at the end of the day, we had a more accessible tool, one that was closer to victims and to grassroots organizations and rights holders.
We need, of course, to tackle other challenges such as capacity building and resource gaps, particularly confronted by developing countries, which makes it difficult to live up fully to their treaty obligations, particularly when it comes to the submission of reports as well as participating in the review procedure.
We therefore reiterate a request contained in resolution 68 slash 268 in paragraph 16 thereof, a plea that the Secretary-General, via the OHCHR, support states parties in developing their capacity to be able to comply with their obligations under the treaties into which they've entered into, and that OHCHR provide advice, technical assistance, and capacity building to boost that reporting capacity.
This should be pursued in coordination between the OHCHR and interested member states with the full consent of said states parties.
We welcome the strategic use of digital tools and hybrid or virtual working methods.
These innovations have been catalysts for democratizing participation in the treaty body process.
They've allowed the direct intervention of sectoral experts and other relevant authorities from our capitals.
They have also, of course, served to optimize the use of financial resources.
That said, we do underscore that the digital transformation should always be guided by the principles of inclusion, universal access, and full and unfettered respect for the principle of multilingualism.
The digital divide should not be a barrier to constructive dialogue.
In the light of the processes spearheaded under resolution 79165, and in the wake of the Secretary-General report, my delegation would like to voice its concern at the financial crisis that is racking the entire UN system without independent resources, mandates, including the treaty body mandates are at risk.
The risk call for the entire system.
To conclude, Chair, we are fully willing to continue to participate actively and constructively in all the consultations intended to embed a more streamlined, agile, effective, efficient, legitimate, and financially sustainable treaty body system.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
Now, I will give the floor to representative of Iceland.
Thank you, Chair.
Iceland cares deeply about the future and sustainability of the treaty body system.
We have been championing the reform of the treaty body system for many years, and we were among those leading the intergovernmental process which led to the adoption of the 2014 resolution, including the formula for budgetary allocations.
We've also been in the lead for the follow up resolutions in 2020 and 2024.
It is clear that the treaty bodies are under severe strain, which has been exacerbated by the UN liquidity crisis on top of, of course, the COVID impact, increased ratifications and so on.
The treaty body system is critical to human rights protection, and we must find ways to safeguard it.
We wanted to thank Switzerland for organizing the recent retreat and bringing together a range of stakeholders to discuss proposals for reform and ways to revitalize the system.
We fully support proposals for reform which seek to harmonize working methods, including clustering and setting up a fixed reporting cycle and simplified reporting.
The treaty body system is by design decentralized and autonomous and there is a lot that the OHCHR and the treaty bodies can do within their mandates to lead the change that is needed.
We also emphasize the importance of voluntary contributions to the OHCHR.
In sum, we hope that ongoing discussions here Erie and A can bring new energy to the reform work of the treaty bodies and the OHCHR Secretariat and lead to real and effective changes.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Now I give the floor to Finland.
Thank you.
Thank you very much Chair.
I would like to begin by extending our thanks for organizing this meeting today and express our support and strong commitment to the treaty body system.
Finland would also like to thank and welcome the OHHR's timely working paper on enhancing the effectiveness and efficiency of the UN Human Rights treaty body system.
We strongly support the aim of making the treaty body system more predictable, coherent, accessible, and digitally enabled.
We firmly believe that revisiting traditional working methods is essential to strengthening the treaty body system that is a cornerstone of the UN human rights framework.
In our view, the key test for reform is whether it helps the treaty bodies use their limited time and resources where they have the greatest impact.
The current model with resource intensive plenary dialogues is increasingly difficult to sustain.
We therefore see a real promise in more focused and agile forms of state review, including clustered dialogues and the use of smaller expert groups.
Finland has had very positive experiences with the simplified reporting procedure, coordinated lists of issues and back to back reviews.
These approaches reduce duplication, focus the dialogue, and support more strategic implementation at national level.
We would encourage the chairs to continue moving towards shorter, better targeted dialogues, and more concrete concluding observations.
At the same time, reform of state reporting should not be seen in isolation.
The growing backlog in individual communications is for Finland, one of the most serious challenges for the credibility of the system.
Long delays weaken access to justice and create uncertainty for all parties.
Against this background, Finland would welcome the chair's reflections on two questions.
First, how do the chairs see the potential of smaller expert groups and clustered reviews to move state reporting away from heavy plenary formats while preserving quality, consistency, and collective ownership.
Second, what concrete steps can the treaty bodies take now to reduce the backlog of individual communications and make the procedure faster, more predictable, and more consistent? Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
Now, I give the floor to representative from Mexico.
Thank you very much Chair.
Thank you, first and foremost, for this opportunity to exchange with you and with each other.
Thank you for this dialogue.
We recognize the value of the treaty body system.
We see it as a critical mechanism for the effective implementation of international obligations in the field of human rights.
The constructive dialogue with treaty bodies, as well as follow up to their recommendations has contributed to the strengthening of legislative frameworks to public policies and to the institutional framework in Mexico.
As part of that process, we are of the view that it's vital to guarantee the participation of victims, affected communities, and civil society organizations in order to further bolster the legitimacy and impact of the treaty body system.
In that understanding, we share the concern that has been voiced, vis-à-vis the financial and budgetary crisis which the United Nations is currently impacted by and its knock on effect on the work of the treaty bodies.
With regard to compliance with treaty obligations, 2020-2025, Mexico submitted 11 reports to various different treaty bodies, including issues such as the protection of migrant workers, women's rights, and the prevention of torture.
The simplified reporting procedure has gone a long way to facilitating the report submission process.
With regard to coordination between mechanisms and committees, here we would underscore the importance of greater communication between the treaty bodies in order to avoid duplication in the recommendations, particularly the follow up recommendations or concluding observations that they issue in the wake of state parties reports.
That would also apply to regional mechanisms who have similar oversight and follow up responsibilities.
We also think it's relevant that any strengthening of the treaty body system take into account aspects of the UNA reform process and that the treaty bodies participate actively in the UN AT discussions.
We'd also like to address the issue of gender parity.
Mexico believes that it's vital that we move towards full parity in the composition of the membership of the treaty bodies.
In follow up to HRC resolution 416, we recall that on the 1st of May 2021, only three treaty bodies had gender parity with women making up 50% or more of the membership of the treaty body.
This means that there's an urgent need to strengthen the gender perspective in the work of the treaty bodies and to bolster those numbers.
With regard to the proposed reform of the system, the various proposals that you have asked us questions about, we have been keeping a very close eye on the ongoing discussions and we share the view that digitalization, regionalization, and clustering as well as the predictable reporting schedule are vital.
The genuine impact of the treaty body system on people's daily lives would be much strengthened if we were to adopt those steps.
We welcome the fact that the recent analysis that was carried out in the RG retreat that's been referred to concluded that all of those elements are mutually reinforcing.
Digitalization supports harmonization and follow up of implementation of recommendations.
Harmonization also makes it possible to pursue clustering.
Clustering in turn would pave the way for follow up and equitable interaction and would also facilitate regionalization, which would expand the possibility for interaction with key stakeholders and states.
We are of the view that any future model to be followed by the treaty bodies needs to achieve the following objectives, and that is whatever guys it takes.
One, A predictable, regionalized accessible periodic dialogue with treaty bodies.
Two, more robust cooperation and coordination between the treaty bodies and states.
Three, a reduction in the reporting Barden via harmonization and digitalization in order to ensure that efforts can then be focused on implementation, and fourth, follow up mechanisms that are integrated into the reporting cycle.
Chair, this year, the General Assembly is supposed to follow up on the recommendations contained in resolution 60 8268, which is intended to improve and strengthen the treaty body system.
Its impact is to be reviewed by the GA this year, as I say.
As part of that review process, we believe it would be relevant to establish a roadmap that would lead us towards the implementation of pending reforms and would enable us to design and sketch out the necessary reforms that would still need to be pursued.
Now, some of the suggested reforms require financial resources, others require political will and buy in from all stakeholders.
We will work together with you to achieve those necessary elements.
I take this opportunity to thank the High Commissioner for the working paper on treaty bodies.
We support the proposal of establishing decentralized clustered regional dialogues contained in the High Commissioner's working pater.
We agree that an integrated multilingual digital online platform for the submission of reports online would be a very welcome tool.
This would be a tool that could be used by government institutions as well as civil society.
It would also be historical repository that would preserve institutional memory.
We also welcome the proposals for online election of members of the treaty bodies, which we had greater transparency in reviewing the profiles of candidates.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
Now, I'll give the floor to the representative Otruky.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
It's a great pleasure to join the chairs of the human rights treaty bodies today and to take part in this discussion.
Let me begin by recalling a basic point.
The United Nations Human Rights S ultimately serves the well being of the individuals, and it does so most effectively through constructive cooperation between the treaty bodies and the state parties.
Within this framework, the treaty body system has a recognized role in supporting state parties in the implementation of their international human rights obligations.
They acknowledge the work of the treaty body Secretariat, which continues to carry out its functions under the conditions of limited resources, growing backlogs, and expanding workload.
This context, discussions on strengthening the effective functioning of the systems are timely.
Strengthening, however, cannot rest on expectations alone.
It calls for genuine will and a shared sense of responsibility on the part of member states and the treaty bodies alike.
In particular, continued efforts towards the harmonized and efficient working methods, the avoidance of duplication and rationalization of procedures remain essential to the systems sustainability.
Equally important is the manner in which the bodies carry out their work.
We attached particular value to the continued exercise of utmost diligence in upholding impartiality, objectivity, and strict adherence to their respective mandates and agreed methods of work.
It's this approach that sustains the confidence of state parties and the legitimacy of the system as a whole.
We are all aware that broader discussions on reform, restructuring, and rationalization are taking place all across the United Nations system.
We remain ready to engage in constructively and to contribute to solutions that enhance the effectiveness, efficiency, and accessibility of the system, including through the rationalization of working methods and the avoidance of unnecessary duplications.
Proposals concerning clustering and regionalization within the trade de system requires particularly careful constration.
Any reform should be guided by comprehensive assessment and by the objective of improvement of the system's performance.
Cost effectiveness is highly important.
At the same time, reforms shouldn't create any layers of complexity or affect the accessibility and coherence of the system.
Let us therefore approach these discussions with openness, but also with clear understanding of what is at stake.
We look forward to continuing this dialogue and to working together as a treaty body system that is effective, credible, and equipped to serve its purpose well into the future.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Now, I give the floor to the representative from the Netherlands.
Mr.
President, the Netherlands highly values the treaty body system and its indispensable contribution to the implementation of human rights treaties.
While the Human Rights Council plays a crucial role in addressing current human rights situations, people around the world enjoy their day to day rights through the implementation of human rights treaties.
Treaty bodies are essential in ensuring that states uphold these rights, and when states do not, they provide an avenue of recourse for individuals.
Yet, as with many parts of the UN today, the system is facing serious liquidity constraints and operational challenges.
Some of these constraints can and should be addressed through adequate funding, and I appeal to all of you to continue supporting the system financially.
At the same time, this crisis also presents us with an opportunity.
Treaty body reform has been discussed for many years.
Now is the time to act and to make the system truly fit for purpose.
If we do not, we risk undermining the credibility and effectiveness of the system as a whole.
We need to find smart and practical ways to decrease reporting burdens, avoid overlap between treaty bodies, harmonize working methods, and reduce delays in processing individual communications.
We thank Switzerland for organizing the Rig retreat that will hopefully provide fresh impetus to much needed reforms.
Given the scale of the current crisis, we encourage the treaty body committees to be fully committed to these reforms as their role is key in preventing the system from collapsing.
OHCHR should take up a leading role in guiding treaty body committees and state parties through the reform process.
In this regard, we thank the High Commissioner and his office for the working paper on enhancing the effectiveness and efficiency of the UN Human Rights Ty system.
Now is the time to flesh out the proposals to see which ones would be most cost effective and feasible.
We also attach great importance to ensuring a safe environment for all stakeholders, including civil society who wish to engage with the treaty body system.
Any act of intimidation or reprisal against those who cooperate with the treaty bodies is unacceptable and must be firmly addressed.
Finally, the Netherlands will remain fully committed to strengthening the treaty body system.
Its effectiveness depends, of course, on dedicated and highly qualified members.
We were excited that earlier this week in New York, one of our members of the Human Rights Committee, miss Yvone Donders, was reelected.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
I give the floor to Representative of Sweden.
Yes.
Mr.
Chair, I would like to thank you and thank the OHCHR for convening this meeting, allowing us to exchange with the chairs of the treaty bodies.
It's an extremely busy week in the Human Rights Council, and I think you should really take the broad attendance here as a sign of the importance that we consider that the treaty bodies have as really the backbone of the human rights system.
Is certainly the case for Sweden.
We are part of the core group of the biannual resolution in New York on the treaty body system that is led by Iceland and that will be presented again later this year.
We know from our own national experience how your work can foster human rights progress, providing impetus and guidance, and we would like to sincerely thank the treaty body chairs for all the hard work that you are doing under very difficult conditions.
Clear that there is a severe pressure on the system and you chair, you explained it in detail.
You have outlined concerns in the short and the long term that we also share and it is clear that incremental adaptations will not be enough.
Switzerland referred to the RG retreat.
We thank Switzerland and the Geneva Human Rights Sub for convening that.
We do believe that there is a need to re energize reform discussions and we need also to have a clear understanding of each stakeholder's perspective.
Several colleagues have mentioned the indispensable role of the OHCHR.
Your leadership also in leading us and providing input to the reform is key, and we also as others, welcome the working paper, the concrete proposals and look forward to further discussions.
Of course, in the meantime, there are steps that US chairs can take.
We know you have worked on this in the past in 2022.
There was an agreement on a number of proposals to increase predictability, focus dialogues, and reduce overlap.
Of course, we see a need to redouble efforts also on that and to work further on the harmonization of working methods by treaty bodies.
And I actually wanted to ask because you've had several days of meetings already if you can share some of your preliminary conclusions on such discussions that you have had this week.
Of course, the challenges are really significant, but we do believe that with the renewed sense of urgency we can act together, we can re energize reforms, and we can realize the full potential of the treaty body systems.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
I will invite now the representative to China.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
Human rights treaty bodies are the cornerstone of the international human rights system and are crucial for promoting better implementation of core international human rights treaties.
For this reason, we need to squarely face the many difficulties confronting the treaty bodies such as insufficient attention to state parties, growing politicization, backlog of reports, inefficiency, and other matters.
We should constructively explore how to better advance the reform of the treaty bodies.
We welcome the efforts of the OHCHR and the treaty bodies for the reform process of the treaty bodies, and we have taken note of The working paper issued by the OHCHR recently on strengthening the effectiveness and efficiency of the treaty body system.
We recognize the role of the eight year predictable review calendar in enhancing the predictability of reviews and avoiding overlapping review timelines or excessively frequent reviews for states parties.
We have also made efforts to facilitate and support the smooth functioning of the treaty bodies.
However, we have to point out that the calendar cannot alter the reporting cycles prescribed by the treaties.
Regarding the three proposals in the working paper, namely the decentralized and clustered dialogue, the simplified reporting procedure and online elections.
At present, we hold a cautious view.
We would like to make three comments here.
First, the principle of full consultation with states parties and not exceeding the treaty mandates should be followed.
Neither meeting of chairs of the treaty bodies nor any other form of coordination mechanism can take unilateral actions.
Secondly, concerning whether to use simplified reporting procedures necessary to respect the views of state parties.
Although the degraded prices crisis is serious, but this cannot serve as an excuse to breach treaty provisions or impose obligations on three parties.
Thirdly, the treaty bodies are composed of independent experts who should carry out their functions objectively and impartially.
Reform should not impair the independence of the treaty bodies or their members.
The reform of the treaty bodies concerns the implementation of international human rights instruments and should proceed steadily and prudently.
China is ready to work with all parties to strengthen dialogue and cooperation so as to jointly promote more efficient functioning of the human rights treaty system.
Thank you, sir.
Thank you very much.
Now I give the floor to Lichtenstein.
Thank you very much.
We thank the chairs of the treaty bodies as well as the OCHR for convening us today and enabling this exchange, which is highly appreciated.
Moreover, we also thank the OHCHR for the working paper.
Liechtenstein is a strong supporter of the UN treaty body system and we thank the chairs and the other members of the committees for their continued efforts and service to the system.
We are saddened to hear about increasing numbers of attacks and harassment against members of the treaty bodies, and we stress the importance for the respect for the independence of the members.
The need for reform, the lack of predictable and sustainable funding, as well as the increasing workload for committees and states have negatively impacted the effectiveness of the system.
Nonetheless, the relevance of the treaties and the corresponding bodies remains as high as never before and it is in all our interests to find common solutions to address challenges.
We fully respect the independence of the treaty bodies and value them as essential partners in implementing human rights obligations.
At the same time, reporting obligations remain a significant burden, especially for small states.
Reform must therefore make the system more predictable, efficient, and usable.
This means more focused outputs, better aligned working methods, and practical digital tools that reduce duplication.
Reform must also be financially realistic, especially in the current financial situation of the UN, while also stressing that the funding for the treaty bodies must be sufficient and sustainable in order to ensure the predictability and the effectiveness.
For Lichtenstein, the focus should be on practical reforms that strengthen the system within existing constraints.
This will only succeed if we work together and all parts of the system contribute to the reform.
It also requires the consistent implementation of reform steps, including simplified reporting and a predictable calendar.
Like many others, we would also like to thank Switzerland for organizing the Rigi retreat, which has brought together many key stakeholders to discuss a possible way forward on the reform efforts.
Keeping the dialogue alive is crucial and the discussions offered an opportunity for progress as my colleague from Switzerland elaborated on and we are looking forward to see further steps in that direction.
We stand ready to continue supporting reform efforts.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Now I'll give the floor to France.
Thank you.
Chairpersons, thank you for this meeting today.
It's important.
I think as a number of delegations have said, we would recall that the treaty bodies are a key element, the backbone of the human rights protection system and we encourage all states to ratify conventions, not just conventions, but also optional protocols that comes under the mandate of the committees and looking at the anniversary of the CED, this is all the more important.
We welcome the commitment of the experts.
We welcome the opening statement by the Terps and we recognize the major difficulties facing the treaty bodies which threaten the heart of their action and their long term viability.
They're suffering from an increasing overload in examining reports and individual communications and as resources are being lost, France is making every effort to ensure that its contributions are paid to the United Nations.
It is important, as you have said, to reform and have a predictable calendar of reviews, which provides the necessary synergies among the treaty bodies to avoid redundancies.
It's important to digitalize the system to make it more efficient, transparent, and predictable without sacrificing multilingualism, of course, and procedures need to be harmonized.
Yes.
We welcome the major progress already made, but we believe that harmonization must continue and cover all aspects of work of the treaty bodies with a simplification of procedures, harmonization of format of reports, recommendations, treatment of individual communications, and terminology.
We look forward to the project on regionalization.
And we will need more information before we can take position on that.
We thank the OHCHR for the work of the Secretariat, which is the motor of our work.
It ensures that we have the working documents, it's responsible for efficient operation, and we look forward to continuing our work.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Now I give the floor to Costa Rica.
Thank you, Chairperson, and good afternoon, colleagues and members.
My country reiterates its commitment to the treaty bodies, and we welcome the important points that Switzerland and Mexico have raised.
This is truly a moment of crisis for the treaty bodies and for human rights.
The liquidity crisis has interrupted sessions and postponed reviews.
It's also led to structural vulnerabilities or exacerbated them in 2025 20 There were dialogues canceled and many communications suffered delays.
So we would like to make a fundamental recommendation, focus our conversation exclusively on the budget and on financing is not conducive to resolving the crisis or achieving the structural reforms as needed.
Of course, finances are crucial.
We support stable and predictable financing of the treaty bodies from the ordinary budget, but Issues of resources cannot substitute more profound structural issues.
If we allow financial limitations to become the threshold of ambition, then we will have a system that is simply less costly instead of being genuinely more effective.
Reforms need to address impact on human rights accessibility and implementation.
We take this opportunity to thank Switzerland and the Geneva Human Rights Hub for the rich discussion that we had in the retreat.
Most participants were willing to be flexible and make progress on a discussion of tangible options without sticking simply to the rhetoric of more resources.
And we want to point to a number of suggestions that arose from the discussions among states, civil society, and others, not just at the retreat, but over the last two or three years and even further back.
We want to welcome the working document from Elena and the team.
And we believe that this can serve as a roadmap.
The first suggestion is on hybrid meetings, the possibility of hybrid participation has been put forward repeatedly in numerous discussions as a practical and low cost measures that could be implemented in the short term.
The hybrid modalities make it possible for states, national human rights institutions, civil society and mandate and rights holders to participate where they would other face barriers, cost or distance.
Without wishing to undermine the quality of the dialogue, we feel that hybrid meetings have enriched the number of voices heard and we would encourage the chairs and members of the treaty bodies and the high commissioners to be flexible and demonstrate commitment to the system, seriously looking at systematic hybrid participation as a systematic part of future meetings rather than exception.
Two, As reiterated by a number of colleagues, a digital presentation for report implementation submissions is something that needs to be multilingual.
Supporting the submission of reports and follow up with implementation of recommendations.
It needs to be interoperational with the existing national systems for Costa Rica digitalization is not just a technical adaptation, but it is an enabling reform that reduces duplications and creates infrastructure for a more linked up and accessible system.
This platform needs to use assisted AI translation and workflow management tools to improve accessibility in all languages.
And the third is group dialogues that we would decisively support as a way to reduce duplication and ensure comprehensive participation by states with a review cycle that's more predictable.
The pilot initiatives carried out within the ordinary budget Committee provides the necessary empirical basis to adapt this model as necessary.
We encourage the treaty bodies and the OHCHR to move forward in parallel with these pilot projects in parallel to the broader consultations.
Four, regionalized dialogues.
This brings treaty bodies closer to states, to NHRIs and to other stakeholders and civil society.
This can increase accessibility, ownership, and implementation.
There is already evidence of regional initiatives of treaty bodies that show commitment.
What regional commitment can lead to more solid implementation and greater systemic consciousness.
We emphasize that regionalization should not be creating separate regional systems or independence of the treaty bodies.
The regional dialogues have legitimacy and coherence within the system and can complement and at some point, occasionally substitute in plenary sessions in Geneva.
And finally, transparency in the selection of treaty body members.
For us a reform process focused only on the institutional structure, leaving intact the procedures for elections to the committees would not be sufficient and we need tangible measures to strengthen transparency, independence, and quality of members of treaty bodies.
Which could include gender parity, as already mentioned by the Mexican colleague, limits on the number of mandates that members can have in a particular committee, prohibitions, or at least a significant period to prevent members moving directly from one treaty body to another and reinforce criteria for practical experience in human rights.
These are not innovatory in international institutional design, this would strengthen the creibility and efficiency of the treaty body system.
For Costa Rica, there's work to be done and we need to move forward on the theoretical and the practical in tandem.
It is crucial to do this.
It is urgent.
We are committed to constructive participation in the processes and to working with all interested parties to have a treaty bodies that is more accessible and geared to implementation and sustainability.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Now I'll invite representative Francia Leon.
Thank you, Chair.
Let me start by, first and foremost, acknowledging the profound significance of the work of the Ty bodies.
And therefore, I would like to say thank you so much for all that you continue to do even in the face of the current liquidity crisis.
We acknowledge the level of sacrifice and commitment and dedication that all of you exhibit in the discharge of your mandates.
We pay particular reference to those of you who are serving as chairs.
And given my government's preference and much of our policies centered on human capital development, I want to pay homage to the chair of the CIC, Misfi alti.
Chair Salon welcomes this opportunity to discuss proposals to strengthen the Ty body system.
We acknowledge the High Commissioner's working paper for advancing concrete proposals to strengthen the Ty body system.
We commend the focus on an online reporting platform and on clustered decentralized dialogues, innovations that respond directly to longstanding concerns of member states.
The reality is that states, including mine C Leon, are struggling to fulfill our reporting obligations.
Persistent backlogs, structural challenges, fewer reportings being reviewed and reduced meeting time all pose serious risk to the system's ability to deliver on its core mandates.
These pressures undermine both the short term predictability and long term sustainability and independence of the treaty bodies.
We therefore, in our opinion, see the high commissioner's proposal as timely and necessary.
It offers a path towards a more effective, coherent and fit for purpose system, one that reduces reporting burdens, harmonizes working methods, and strengthens accessibility for all states.
At the same time, we must confront the broader question of the future architecture of the treaty body system.
If we are to ensure the survival and full functioning of these mandates, we need both immediate practical reforms and a long term vision of what kind of antibody system we want, including consideration of viable alternatives.
At the recently concluded re it, these proposals received strong support, particularly the idea of piloting decentralized clustered dialogues.
Ceylon agrees that the urgency of reform cannot be overstated.
A more coherent, predictable and accessible treaty body system is essential to enabling states to effectively meet their obligations and ensuring that the rights holders fully benefits from the protections the system is designed to provide.
Given the indispensable role of the treaty body system within the global human rights ecosystem, Ceylon reiterates its call for the establishment of a dedicated trust fund.
What's the purpose of this trust fund? This mechanism would provide stable, sustainable, and predictable financing to support these reforms, strengthen capacity building, and ensure that all states, particularly developing countries can meaningfully and consistently engage with the system.
Chair, I'll conclude by stating very clearly that my government and indeed my delegation supports moving forward with these proposals in a constructive and inclusive manner.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Now, I'll give the floor to representative in Nepal.
Thank you, Chair.
Nepal extends its sincere appreciation to the chairs of the treaty bodies for convening this joint meeting with the state parties.
It is timely for us to exchange views and share perspectives on the treaty body mechanisms.
This posters dialogue and cooperation between state parties and treaty bodies.
We welcome the adoption of the simplified reporting procedure, which we believe will lead us to a greater efficiency of the treaty bodies.
We see opportunities for the further simplification of the reporting procedures.
User friendly, efficient, and accessible reporting mechanisms enhance the participation and greater compliance of the state parties.
Mr.
Chair, Nepal reiterates its steadfast commitment to the protection and promotion of human rights.
The Constitution of Nepal guarantees Nepali people of the human rights and fundamental freedoms.
We are a state party to seven out of ten treaty body mechanisms.
After serving two terms consecutively 2018-202020 21 to 2023, as a member of the Human Rights Council, we look forward to serving again and we have presented our candidacy for the 2027 2029 term.
Including, Mr.
Chair, we are committed to constructively engage with UN human rights mechanisms and strengthen cooperation and dialogue with the treaty bodies.
I thank you, Chair.
Thank you very much.
Now, I will invite representative from Republic of Korea.
Yes.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
The treaty body system has long been the cornerstone of the international human rights architecture.
As a staunched advocate of human rights treaty system, the Republic of Korea shares the deep concerns about the mountain challenges it faces, including the growing backlogs of state reports and individual communications as various resource constraints.
In this vein, we welcome to this meeting as a time opportunity to revisit the current system and work towards a more effective and efficient treatment system.
With the rapid development of new and emerging digital technologies such as the AI, we believe that leveraging digital technologies offers significant potential to improve efficiency, transparency, and accessibility of the T part system.
The shift from paper based processing to digital platforms would increase efficiency in the review of the states report as well as in the individual communications procedures.
We therefore welcome the OHHR proposal for online report submissions.
Moreover, online and hybrid meetings can broaden participation by states and other stakeholders while saving resources.
Greater coordination in the treat party system is also essential.
While we fully respect each committee's independence, mandate, and practices, we believe that coordinated state review could improve participation, enhance predictability of review cycles, and reduce duplication of effort.
We look forward to the continued consideration of various approaches and options, including decentralized or clustered dialogues and phased or parallel implementation where appropriate.
We believe that the effective and efficient trap system is essential to ensure substantial improvement in human rights situation on the ground.
In this regard, the reability of Korea will continue to support the trade parties, including making voluntary contributions and remains committed to working together towards a further strengthening trap system.
I thank you.
Thank you very much.
Now, I invite representative from India.
Thank you, Chair for the detailed presentation earlier.
We also take this opportunity to thank all the chairs and members of various treaty bodies for their selfless service.
India attaches great importance to the treaty body system as the principal multilateral mechanism for monitoring state parties implementation of their human rights obligations.
We also appreciate the efforts made by the UN Secretary-General, the state parties to their respective covenants and treaty bodies towards implementation of the human rights obligations under the Human Rights treaty body system.
Mr.
Chair, At the outset, we are of the view that any discussion on reform must be state party led, who are the ultimate owners and beneficiaries of the treaty body system.
State parties should also be consulted and co opted in any major reforms that impact the existing reporting system.
No new conditionalities or obligations should be imposed upon state parties beyond their treaty obligations.
While we support efficiency measures, any move towards structural reforms with profound implications for the integrity, independence, and specific nature of each treaty body should have a clear mandate from the state parties with a comprehensive impact assessment.
Any reforms to strengthen the treaty body system should not result in weakening it.
Given the current budgetary crisis in the OHCHR, a cost benefit analysis is necessary before any reform process is undertaken.
Nothing should entitle re revising the treaties.
In this regard, Mr.
Chair, we would like to offer the following additional comments.
We note the suggestions of OHCHR to move toward digitalizing process.
In our view, use of AI could be explored to ease the burden.
It may be an efficient way to bring in cost effectiveness and other benefits.
A feasibility study of such project must be undertaken before taking any action.
We note OHCHR has circulated proposals on radical reforms to the treaty body system, including decentralization, rationalization, and clustering.
This proposal merits intense scrutiny and attention.
More details of these implications, especially on the provisions of the covenant, must be provided to the states.
Moreover, such reform proposals should be discussed in the appropriate UN forums such as COP, UNGA, EcoSoc and so on.
Moreover, there is a larger reforms of the UN system underway, which is UN 80.
We are of the view that such forums are more appropriate forums to discuss the present topic.
We would like to re emphasize harmonizing methods to the extent possible through common minimum standards as suggested in the GA resolution A slash 68 slash 268.
Similarly, states should not be made to report on cross cutting issues that fall under instruments to which they are not a party or already reported in detail under some other treaty to which state is a party.
Although we agree that human rights are interrelated, interconnected and interdependent, duplication needs to be avoided.
Synchronization with the universal periodic review to prevent repetition and to promote efficient use of state resources could be considered.
While we support the simplified reporting procedure applied consistently across the treaty bodies and we had opted for it, we find that this option is now not available in certain treaty bodies.
The rationale of withdrawal is not clear to us.
The genesis of the problem is linked to liquidity crisis and we support treaty body funding through UN regular budget.
In our view, treaty bodies being offshoot of legally binding treaties, they should be given priority in the budget as opposed to other non treaty related activities.
We also encourage maximizing use of digital tools.
In line with the aforesaid UNGA resolution, we re emphasize treaty bodies to Respect balanced geographical and gender representation, taking into account different cultural, linguistic, religious, and legal traditions and diversities states represent in their reporting and review.
Finally, Mr.
Chair, my delegation is open to constructive dialogue and discussion towards strengthening treaty body system.
I thank you.
Thank you very much.
Now, I'll give the floor to State of Palestine.
Thank you, Chair.
Good afternoon, Excellency colleagues.
The treaty body system remains one of the most important pillars of the international human rights architecture.
Its effectiveness depends not only on adequate and predictable resources, but also on coherence, coordination, and the timely implementation of its recommendations.
In this regard, Palestine encourages further harmonization of working methods among treaty bodies, including through greater coordination in addressing cross cutting and systematic human rights violations.
Enhanced cooperation among treaty bodies can help ensure consistency of recommendations, reduce duplication and strengthen the overall impact of the system, as many other states have recalled.
We also encourage treaty bodies to continue making full use of their existing mandates, including early warning and preventive functions where applicable.
Timely public statements and coordinated engagement by treaty bodies can play an impact role in preventing serious or escalating violations of human rights and in drawing attention of situations requiring urgent international action.
Therefore, Pakistan further encourages treaty bodies and their dialogues with state parties and in their concluding observations to continue addressing the international obligations of states to combat racial discrimination, apartheid, segregation, and other serious violations of international law.
In this regard, treaty bodies may further encourage states parties to take all appropriate measures consistent with their obligations under the relevant human rights treaties to prevent, refrain from contributing to and address such violations wherever they occur.
We also support continued efforts to strengthen follow up procedure and implementation mechanisms as the value of the treaty body system ultimately lies not only on the adoption of recommendations, but in their effective implementation.
Finally, Palestine reiterates its support for a strong, independent, adequately resourced and accessible treaty body system capable of responding effectively to contemporary human rights challenges and ensuring equal protection for human rights for all.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Now I will give the floor to Ecuador.
Thank you.
Thank you very much indeed.
Similar gratitude to the OHHR for convening this afternoon's meeting and for the presentation of their report, working paper rather.
We also add our thanks to the different chairs of the various treaty bodies who are here present in this room and some of whom I recognize as familiar faces because we studied together in Ecuador.
But thanks to all of them for the work that they put in as chairs.
In particular, as it has been understco, they do this on a voluntary basis and they're not remunerated, therefore, which is all the more impressive.
Now, we agree with what has been said by many that the treaty body system is one of the key pillars of the overall human rights, the universal human rights system that's in place to promote and protect human rights.
Yeah.
We also acknowledge the urgent need and opportunities for reform, which should be pursued on an independent basis, shouldn't be purely tailored to trying to respond to the budgetary crisis.
Now, of course, one needs resources to implement some of the reforms, but this reform, I think, needs to be led more by the recognition of the need for deep region change rather than an ad hoc or response to financial challenges.
Of course, the reform should lead to greater coordination in the system between the different partners, stakeholders, et cetera We support the pillars of the proposal, including that on regionalization, clustering, and a fixed calendar for reporting.
We are also of the view that the simplified reporting procedure should be further entrenched and expanded indeed to each and every one of the treaty bodies.
I know that this is a major undertaking, but it makes things a lot easier for states parties, particularly states parties with limited resources.
Ecuador, despite being a country with limited resources, is, I'm proud to say, a state that has no pending report to submit this despite the fact that we are a party to all of the treaties of the human rights treaties.
But part of that is explained by the fact that we've been able to make use of the simplified reporting procedure to streamline our work for some of the treaty bodies, which is why we think it should be extended to all treaty bodies.
Now, on the harmonization of working methods, which is another part of the proposal, I've been working with the system for years and it's difficult to convey to authorities in Capitol on the eve of a dialogue in which they will be defending a national report and to explain to them that this given treaty body follows this methodology when a few months beforehand or a few months later they were dealing with a different treaty body with a different methodology.
This leads to confusion and trying to explain the difference leads to difficulties in our interaction with our colleagues in Capitol.
They often just don't get it why you have these different working methods.
This perhaps leads me rather neatly to the uptake of digital tools and the use of hybrid meetings.
It's always an advantage to be able to count on a mixed approach, a hybrid approach, for example, having technical experts online and national authorities here in person.
We have a broad team in capital, for example, who can be busy compiling the information to respond to the questions asked and passing that on to the principal members of the dialogue.
Given that we only have 15 to 20 minutes to respond to a given set of questions, that makes it easier.
That is a major advantage in terms of time efficiency gains as well.
Of course, we also need to factor in the time zone differences.
We have always appreciated the efforts made by the Secretariat in order to ensure that reviews of countries such as Ecuador and I imagine other Latin American countries take place in the afternoon, which means that we can take advantage of the hybrid or video conferencing tool to have technical experts in capital connected.
But that's not always the case.
Sometimes the review goes into the morning of the next day in Geneva, Geneva's morning and of course, that causes us major problems.
It means we're trying to convene the technical experts who are joining online vi video conferencing at the equivalent of 3:00 A.M.
In the morning, which means perhaps they're not fully up to hear to be able to respond to your questions.
Another thing to factor in if we move towards hybrid meetings is when they are scheduled to make sure that they happen in the afternoon or the morning depending on the time zone of the country in question.
Now, with regard to clustering, We're not sure that this would be entirely beneficial, particularly if it meant that states would receive unmanageable quantity of questions to which to respond.
Because I mentioned each treaty body would still have questions to ask under each article.
So we would be faced with this avalanche of questions, reduced time to go into the responses thereto, more information being asked of us and reduced time to respond to it.
That said, I would like once again to underscore our willingness to contribute to the reform process to boost the effectiveness and efficiency of the treaty body system.
We welcome the fact that we've been invited to participate in the reflection process.
That reflection process needs to be open, of course, to the world of academia and to other stakeholders, and they need to be open to all states.
We need to be able to participate in the brainstorming process on an equal basis, which I hope will be the case going forward.
And you can rest assured of Ecuador's full willingness to continue to engage in these discussions and the steps that we can take to better implement GA resolution 68268 and other relevant year resolutions.
Thanks very much.
Thank you very much.
The last intervention from the states is going to be Romania.
Thank you, Mr.
Chairperson.
Romania warmly welcomes this opportunity to exchange views with the representatives of the human rights treaty bodies.
As others, we particularly appreciate the organization of these regular exchanges, which provide a valuable space for an open and constructive dialogue between states and yourselves.
We fully concur with your statement, Mr.
Chairperson, the system is facing significant challenges and such discussions are more important than ever to identify practical solutions together.
Allow me to convey Romania's strong support to the UN treaty body system as we underline its unique contribution to the implementation of international human rights law and the important role it plays in translating international human rights commitments into concrete improvements for persons on the ground.
At the same time, we cannot ignore the difficulties the system is currently facing.
Growing backlogs, funding shortages, increasing workloads, and delays in the examination of reports and individual communications are creating considerable pressure on the committees, and the sense of urgency has been heavily underlined in this room today.
I wish to express our appreciation for the dedication and professionalism of treaty body members who continue to deliver on their mandates despite increasingly difficult circumstances.
We therefore support ongoing efforts to strengthen the effectiveness, accessibility, and sustainability of the treaty body system while fully preserving the independence of the committees and the integrity of their mandates.
Also, we know implementation deserves greater attention as recommendations can only achieve their full impact if they're effectively followed up at national level.
We also share the concern regarding the current financial situation of the treaty bodies.
The current resource constraints are not just budgetary challenges, but they are fundamentally affecting the ability of the treaty bodies to remain fully fit for purpose in carrying out their mandates.
With this in mind, we welcome the reflections contained in the recent OECHR working paper on enhancing the effectiveness and efficiency of the treaty body system and the fact that the current discussion is not only limited to questions of resources alone, but also looks at more updated, more modern methods and at how innovation, digitalization, more hybrid meetings, as well as improved coordination, more efficiently structured reviews, and lack of duplication could help make the treaty body system more accessible, efficient, and responsive.
The paper offers useful thoughts on how to improve the system while ensuring that reform efforts continue to respect the independence and unique contribution of each treaty body.
Today's discussion has also highlighted the number of thoughtful proposals which merit careful consideration and reflection.
We remain fully committed to working alongside all stakeholders in improving the effectiveness of the system.
We appreciate the contribution of the discussion, and we look forward to further dialogue that could lead to concrete results in this respect.
In this sense, we would be interested in hearing your views distinguished chairs as to what you see as the most urgent changes or initiatives that could make the greater difference, the greatest difference and impact on the treaty body system now.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
I'd like to make a few comments before I give the floor to our respective chairs and vice chairs.
First of all, thank you very much for your participation and your input, your comments.
During the lunch, our chairs discussed that, what if no states coming out at 3:00 in the afternoon? But it turned out to be a great number of 45 states parties.
Four states came and you made a very important constructive comments.
So I really want to appreciate it.
And I I've been here last year and this year and also in our committee, Human Rights Committee, have the third party dialogue every year.
Whenever I come here, I hear that all of participants say treaty body is backbone of international human law, Cornerstone, crown j, what kind of expression you say? It seems like there's some agreement that treaty bodies are very important and is key to the international human rights law.
But in reality, it is quite different from what we say.
The last two years, what you have been experiencing is unbearable.
This is unsustainable.
This is really at risk.
I don't know how much you feel it, but this is really dangerous.
And I heard a lot of words.
I mean, keywords here, harmonization, less duplication, predictable cycles, digitalization.
This treaty body strengthening reform process have been here for a long time, ten to 15 years.
You remember that each treaty body is independent.
Each has its own conventions.
They are all independent.
We only have once a year this chairs meeting.
Other than that, we operate separately.
But nonetheless, over ten years, Our former chairs and members worked hard to harmonize the working method.
We have achieved a great deal, and also eight years predictable cycle was on track.
But what prevented us is not lack of our efforts, but because of first, pandemic pandemic disrupted.
We didn't have any meetings during the pandemic.
And secondly, following liquidity crisis.
That ruined every effort.
In other words, this is an emergency situation.
If we get over this emergency situation, we can go back to normal.
You shouldn't mix this emergency situation with the reform.
I mean, reform is necessary.
I'm not objecting it.
Reform is important.
Every institution needs reform.
Environment changes, we have to adjust to the new environment.
But when we discuss the reform, most important thing for TPy is strengthening treaty bodies.
The fundamental goal of treaty Py is to protect and promote human rights, not weakening of those.
That should be always reminded.
We discussed predicts clustering, regionalization.
There's good ideas, I think because there are some good elements of it, but you have to carefully assess whether or not these plans will strengthen our treaty bodies.
So that's really I want to emphasize that.
One last comment about the ultimately state responsibility, states will have to do it.
I agree with 100%.
This system is created by the state and state will have to make a decision, whatever it is, But remember that states are 193 states and they are all different.
It's very difficult to make a consensus.
And we have OHSHR, we have a treaty body members.
They are all collaborating each other to make this system better.
So it is ultimately state decision, but we will continue to collaborate with each other.
I will stop here and I'll give the floor.
First, Mian, miss Kim from CIPD and it's good.
Thank you, Chair, Distinguished delegate, Excellencies, representative of state party and colleagues.
I speak today as chair of the committee on the rights of persons with disabilities and women with disability, one of the 1.3 billion persons with disability around the world, with deep respect for the lower of the state parties as primary partner in making the CLPD a reality.
Ten years ago, the CLPD changed the direction of human rights history.
It affirmed that persons with disabilities are equal member of humanity, right holders, leaders, and decision makers.
It also create a shared framework through which state parties, persons with disabilities, civil society, National Human Rights institution, and the United Nations can work together toward a more inclusive world.
Above all, the convention transformed the way the world understands disability.
Persons with disability not as of sympathy, nor burdens on families over society.
They are human beings with inherent dignity, autonomy and agency, and they contribute to the life, strengths, and future of every society.
Today, I would like to invite the state party to see the CIPD committee not only as a monitoring body, but also as a partner in implementation of the Convention on the lives of persons with disabilities.
The committees dialogue with state party are not merely formal leads.
They are opportunity for constructive exchange, murtual learning, and practical guidance.
Through this dialogue, we can identify progress, understand the challenges, and work together to find realistic and right based solutions.
Many state parties are making sincere effort to implement this convention often under difficult circumstances.
The committee relined these efforts.
At the same time, implementation requires continued support, technical cooperation, capacity building, assessment system, adequate research, and strong participation of a person with disabilities and their representative organizations.
This is why strengthening the CLPD committee matter to state party as well.
With 193 state party, the committee face a heavy backlog of, limited meeting time, insufficienc lists, and continuing accessibility challenges.
These constraint affect not only the community, but they also affect state party, which need timely reviews, clear guidance, and predictable engagement with the treaty body system.
In the current discussion on treaty body reform, the CLPD committee wishes to engage constructively and proactively.
We recognize the need to strengthen the treaty body system, improve efficiency, reduce delays, enhance coherence, and make the system more accessible and responsive to state party, right holders and civil society.
At the same time, LPL must not weaken the mandate independence or treaty specific expertise of each committee.
For the CFPD committee, reform must be guided by the convention itself, accessibility, reasonable accommodation, universal design, cross consultation, and active involvement of persons with disabilities, and the participation of organization of persons with disability must be built into every stage of the reform process.
Reform should not be understood only as a way to reduce cost or a certain procedure.
It should be an opportunity to make the treaty body system more effective, more inclusive, more predictable, and more impactful.
For the CLPD committee, this means addressing the backlog of Lord, ensuring adequate meeting time, providing accessible working method, and guarantee the accessibility services required for the equal participation of committee members and stakeholder with disabilities.
A regionalization, digitalization, clustering of review or simply the reporting procedure must feaster the specificity of the CIPD and the quality of the dialogue with third party.
It must also ensure the person with this can participate in safely and meaningfully, including those in al area institutions, complex the situation, and marginalized communities.
For the CLPD committee, accessibility is not an addition arrangement.
It is the foundation of our work.
International sign language interpretation, captioning, accessible information, reasonable accommodation, and meaningful participation are essential for the committee that monitors the bar convention built on accessibility and participation.
The suspension of accessibility services affecting the committee in January 2026 this year, remember the accessibility must be protected as a core condition of the tri body system.
I deeply appreciate the collective effort of the High Commissioner and the committee, IDA, the wide Federation of the Deaf, Civil Society organization, and state parties, which have listoral international sign language interpretation and captioning.
As we move forward, I hope we can work with the state party to ensure that persons with disabilities, including deaf community can follow public treaty body reviews limitedly without additional financial barriers.
Public human rights process should be accessible to the public.
I would also like to emphasize the importance of accessible universal design in all digital tools developed or used within the B system.
Digital innovation can greatly improve the efficiency and accessibility of our work.
However, if accessibility in from the beginning, digital tool might create new barriers for persons with disabilities.
The delegates, the CLPD committee will sit to work with state party in spirit of the cooperation, respect and shared responsibility.
Our common goal is not simply to completely for it.
Our common goal is to ensure that the convention changes daily life in school, workplace, court, hospital, transport system, distal space, emergency response, and in the daily lives of persons with disability in each of your country.
Through probably dialogue with state parties, the committee has repeatedly seen that persons with disability are often the first to be left behind and among the first to lose their lives in situation of war, hunger, primary crisis, and humanitarian emergency.
We have also learned that war and crisis do not only affect persons with disabilities, they create new disabilities, destroy the system, and leave entire community with long term physical, psychological and social consequences.
Therefore, disability inclusion must be at the center of the humanitarian response recovery, construction and peace building.
Therefore, I invite state party to join us in strengthening the implementation system of the CRPD.
This includes adequate meeting time, predictable resource, accessible partnership, accessible digital transforming, and stronger support to national implementation.
As we approach the 20th anniversary of the CLD, let us use this moment not to repeat the old promise but build a stronger partnership for the future.
The committee is ready to work with you.
We ask the state party to work with us, not as observer of the convention, but as co leaders of its implementation.
L should bring the system closer to the people it solves.
Innovation should not only make the system faster, it should make the system more accessible, inclusible, variable, and usable for everyone.
La Indonesian was only the beginning.
Now is the time to work together so that CLPD move from rice on paper to leave the justice for persons with disabilities.
Thank you so much.
Thank you very much, miss Kim.
I'll give the floor to Mr.
Coo from third.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
Mr.
Chair, Um, we have carefully listened to the eminent representatives of the state parties, and we benefited a lot.
I have carefully noted a number of common concerns that constitute a common denominator, if I may say so.
The first one, of course, is that there is tremendous support for our work.
Is appreciation for our work and we are thankful for that.
Then there are a number of concerns also constituting a common denominator.
About the lack of predictable calendar, about delays in the state party reviews, backlogs in every sense of the term, but particularly on individual communications, the harmonization of working methods, the application issues, simplified reporting procedure.
These are all things that the committees, each and every one of them are constantly working on.
But when do we work on these? When we meet in Geneva.
Only when we have enough meeting time, we can consider them.
We have seen our meeting time to reduce and reduce and become more and more unpredictable.
We do not know when we are going to How long we are going to meet? Which states parties are we going to be able to consider? Which individual communications are we going to be able to consider? A whether we will have enough time to discuss harmonization, non duplication, et cetera why is this happening? Because of the so called liquidity crisis.
Dear representatives, liquidity crisis is not an exogenous factor.
It did not fall from the sky.
COVID did.
COVID was an exogenous factor.
Liquidity crisis is not something that happened to you.
You are responsible for it.
You have to ask which state party pays its contribution in time or pays it at all, and what are the consequences of this for the human rights treaty body system that you cherish so much? Please, we share our responsibility.
We are ready to do to take into consideration fully your concerns.
But for that, we are not a constant fixture in the UN.
We come here from time to time and we have limited time.
The more time you will give us, the more we will address your concerns.
For that, states parties should pay their dues.
Pay their dues on time, report on time, take heed of our recommendations, and conduct a truthful, candid, frank discussion on issues pertaining to treaties and conventions that you have signed and through which you have created us.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you very much, Mr.
Coo.
Adding to what he mentioned, I want to say that as some state representative mentioned, give a priority funding to treaty bodies if you think it is really cherishable I mean, that's the only way.
We cannot wait anytime more.
We can think of reform.
It's for the future.
We break down before we achieve the reform.
Just next year, following year, please give us a priority funding.
There's a regular budget that reduce regular budgets, but there's still funding available in the United Nations.
That's something states can do, nobody else can do.
I give the floor to Mr.
An Custer.
President.
Thank you, Chairman.
Good afternoon, Excellencies.
It's a pleasure to be holding this conversation with you this afternoon and for the first time in this session using my language.
This is a good opportunity, as some delegations mentioned, to call on states that are not parties to the Convention Against Enforced Disappearance to consider ratifying or joining This is a special year.
It's the 20th anniversary.
It would be an important thing to expand the membership before the end of the year and as members have said, it's an important opportunity to invite members to present candidates following the presentation by Mexico and ensure parity and a regional balance Because the membership of the treaty bodies needs to have appropriate rotation and diversity.
Going beyond that, those initial considerations, I want to thank.
Those who have made comments, they're going to help us to focus the discussions for the rest of the session.
But there are two questions that I want to ask and invite you to consider them.
Considering you to be designers and indeed masters of the treaty body system and those who take the decisions.
That's you in the end, despite the proposals from the Office of the High Commission, the conclusions by the members and the analysis that can be made from outside of the system as well.
But in the debates that we're hearing about possible special measures or a reform process for the system, we're clear that there's constant confusion of the reform under resolution 68 and the liquidity crisis.
But as I was saying, it's important to ensure better efficiency, predictability, coordination among the various elements in the system.
Making progress on that must take place without losing the specific strengths of the different mandates because in a treaty body system where we have the CED and we've heard from Maria Luis, from the Convention Against Torture.
This goes beyond reviewing reports.
In our convention, there aren't any periodic reports.
We have complimentary information and our work is largely preventive.
It's a protection mandate, particularly through urgent actions which are an essential part and I believe bring added value within this United Nations Human Rights system.
It is crucial in the context of any discussion on special measures or reform that these specific features are preserved and properly reflected in the documents that are being discussed.
It's not a question of choosing between efficiency and protection.
We need to strengthen both of those efficiency and protection.
Likewise, Excellent Caesar.
This is going to be my concluding comment.
A methodological question that's already been asked by colleagues over these days independently of the various proposals on special measures or potential report that table, reforms on the table.
We need to be able to answer basic questions before moving to significant transportation.
What? Means that the measures proposed will lead to improvement.
How can we be sure of that? How are we going to define what is successful and what isn't and what are we going to measure in terms of success in implementation? What indicators are we going to use to measure the true impact of the reform of the special measures? How are we going to distinguish administrative efficiency and real improvements in implementation of the treaties and protection of human rights? We need to be more efficient, but we also need to be more effective in protecting rights.
Above all, P decisions? Will they be reversible? Can they be revised, are they permanent? Because if we make a mistake and we realize that we haven't obtained an improvement, is it going to be possible to go back to what was working or decide on other measures? Beyond the specific content of the measures, we need to have verifiability to see how the reforms are actually going to contribute to strengthening the system rather than weakening it? Because I think that is also what you expect to design a system that meets the needs of victims.
I'll leave it to that.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
I'll give the floor to Madam Haida from Cedar.
Thank you, chair very much and good afternoon to all the representative.
I am really impressed.
It's probably one of the best meeting with state party that I have attended.
Because I feel the energy in the room, the concern, even if we don't have all the solution.
But I want to say that and especially the acknowledgment of how much we are going out of our way to continue to maintain the system for the benefit of the older stakeholders.
I really appreciate what I have heard around the table.
We are all in agreement that we are not passing through temporary difficulty, but because of the liquidity crisis, but that the system is really facing a structural stress test.
That's clear.
All of you have alluded to that.
I would like to come back to some of the issue that came back and say, harmonization, et cetera predictable calendar, et cetera, digitalization.
Fine, the harmonization issue has been with us for quite some time and we came to a conclusion that we need to create a working group of the focal point on working methods, and this was never supported financially to be able to do the work, which everyone was doing in his CO in his committee to bring everybody together and see how we can go about going a step further.
So there is a problem there because somebody must put the money where the mouth is.
If we want harmonization, we need a minimum of resources for our focal point and they can come back with better proposal.
Predictable calendar, there was also the same.
It went to the DA and we were ready and the office was ready, but the office needed some resources because you can't just create the predictable calendar from nowhere.
And this was not granted.
We have to address these failure that keep us coming back to the same issue and not being able to advance.
Because in terms of working methods, there is an effort, there have been some harmonization, but really full fledged harmonization, we are short off because we were not able to bring all the committee together and move forward.
This morning, we had a very interesting presentation on digitalization.
The work of the office in thinking, in intellectually projecting what it could be is amazing.
But who can guarantee there will be resources for this to be developed? Are we going to start consider these recommendation as they are there, but they will not see the life because there will be again a shortage of resources.
This would worry me because this is very much disempowering at the end.
The issue also related to regionalization and clustering.
We heard several views and some states are not looking at this as a panacea.
I can understand because we don't see how it is going to happen.
We have not enough distance to analyze whether it will be strengthening, weakening.
We need much more reflection and more engagement from all state party, not only from a group of state party who had the chance to discuss it in Riga and I'm happy about that.
Include more because we need to hear everyone in the room north, south, east, west, thinking that this is the way to go and has assessed.
We need an assessment of its implication.
I'm building on Juan because I was listening to him.
We need a depth analysis of if this is going to lead and how.
Then we could also consider piloting.
I really think that we cannot continue to talk about harmonization as something expected from the treaty body if there is not a minimum of commitment to help us complete the task because we started it, and the same for the predictable calendar.
But aside from that, I want to thank each and everyone because I felt, and I would like to convey this to my committee, the respect for the work and the appreciation and this means a lot to all of us.
Thank you again.
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you very much, Madam Haida.
I'll give the floor to Sophie Quilt.
Thank you, Chair.
Excellencies and distinguished representatives of state parties.
I would like to join my colleagues and thank all of you for this very strong support towards treaty bodies.
It means really a lot.
It's very important because the state parties are those who created the treaty bodies to support you to advance different fields of children's rights.
Of course, we are here to support, to recommend what spheres of human rights in specific fields you could advance.
Our concluding observation and all our work has recommendy character.
But now, as we are all aware, we are in a very difficult crisis.
Just let me bring the perspective of the CRC what I have witnessed, but I'm sure all the treaty bodies are in the same situation and each and every treaty body chair would say the same Our members during the last three years maybe, are going through unimaginable suffer.
They are all dedicating their personal resources in order to ensure that the treaty bodies work.
Also intersectionally, it's very important that these people are working throughout the years in order to ensure that we deliver these concluding observations and other work, which is very important.
But not everyone is in the same situation.
They all have families, they all have their children, they all have their jobs back home.
And they have to work to provide help to their families.
It's not easy.
I think we reached the point where there is no way to do more.
This is not possible anymore.
This is very important thing, what I would like to bring from our side.
The committee members worked intersectionally, adopted online, the list of issues prior to reporting, had a lot of meetings with different stakeholders.
But this does not work like this because everyone reached the limits and also not everyone in all regions of the world are in the same position because some of our colleagues even do not have Internet access.
This is very basic to work online.
Just to give you understanding in what situation we are.
Another issue is the reform and once again, thank you very much, first of all, to OHCHR colleagues, the High Commissioner himself, but all the colleagues who are involved in this work because this needs a lot of efforts, a lot of work and we appreciate this work really very much.
I think we all share this view that we need to reform the system.
But how to reform? What will be the outcome of this reform? This is the main question.
I can say from my committee that we remain open for any discussion, for engaging and we dedicate a lot of our time to this discussion also intersationally, because I have shared the proposal to my colleagues once I got it from the OCHR.
You need to see how much people were asking questions and engaging and showing interest But we could not come to a conclusion.
You know why? Because there were a lot of questions which are very important to make the final decision.
I came here in Geneva and we are discussing together with our colleagues from OHCHR during these three or four days all the time and we also do not have answers on the question because the details are decisive in order to make the careful assessment as some of the state parties have expressed today here.
This needs to be looked very carefully because if we make a reform, It's very important digitalization.
Those who know me, they know I'm a big proponent of digitalization and promotion and AI and all these things.
However, let me bring you one very small example from recent years, what I have experienced at the committee.
After COVID, you are very well aware some states were not able to come to Geneva and we took this initiative very enthusiastically to review states online.
However, we saw that some states had huge interruptions.
We could not have the dialogue.
This is something that needs to be taken into account.
I mean, I'm saying this in order to show you the details.
Details make huge difference.
We need to assess.
We are open once again for reform and for advancement.
But as many of you have reiterated, we need to think about it very carefully.
First, we need to see in details how all these issues are going to work.
Thank you so much and we remain constructively engaged with you and really rely on your support because at the end of the day, you are those who make decisions, who create system and can change the system as well.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
I'll give the floor to Anna Raku from Cat.
Thank you, Chair.
On my turn, let me also welcome and thank the distinguished representative of Permanent Mission for joining us today.
I must confess, I was delighted to hear so many ideas for moving forward and only a limited amount of criticism, which is not always guaranteed in our line of work.
Allow me to share some reflections from the perspective of our committee, Committee against torture.
We are meeting at the crucial moment not only for the human rights treaty body system, but also for human rights more broadly.
Across many regions, we continue to witness armed conflict, political instability, and worrying reports of torture ill treatment, extrajudicial killings, and other forms of violence, including gender based violence, incidents of sexual violence, including on children.
In such circumstances, our responsibility is not simply to witness or to observe these developments, but to continue working together to improve prevention and protection when they are needed most.
The current constraints also invite us to think carefully about how we can make the treaty body system more effective and more focused on implementation.
One area where CAT has had positive experience is the simplified reporting procedures, as you probably know and CAT experience with the simplified reporting procedures suggests that focused reporting can also support predictability in a more efficient use of resources for all parties involved, including for our Secretariat for treaty body members.
As well as for NGOs, academia, human rights defenders, activists and so on.
At the same time, reporting is not an end in itself.
In many respects, the real value of a dialogue begins after the dialogue.
What ultimately matters is implementation and whether recommendations lead to tangible improvements in law or policy in practice, institutional administrative arrangements.
I'm referring also to positive changes at local level at the grassroot level.
One of the real benefits of the treaty body system is precisely the opportunity to engage in an open and constructive dialogue with state parties.
We hear the challenges and practical realities that states face, and you mentioned this, the report fatigue, the overlapping and many other things, and We know the challenges that you face.
As you as a state party here the concerns and recommendations of treaty bodies.
The purpose of this dialogue is not simply to identify problems, it is also to find practical solutions and to support progress.
From my perspective, three elements are particularly important As I mentioned, focused reporting, stronger implementation of recommendations, and making better use of the expertise and partnerships and tools that already exist within human rights treaty body system.
We as treaty body experts, we remain open to sharing our experience, explaining our working methods, and of course, supporting constructive engagement with the system.
Let me conclude with one final remark.
As we discuss reforms, I hope we will keep their ultimate purpose in mind.
For our committee for the committee against Torture, this is about prevention.
This is about accountability and ensuring that human dignity is protected in practice.
Of course, there are no doubt the challenges before us are real and there may not be agreement on every aspect of the way that we are moving forward.
But what gives me confidence is the willingness to continue talking, listening, and working together.
That is precisely why the dialogue, the cornerstone of the treaty body matters.
The expectation of those who look to the United Nations and to the treaty body system for protection and justice remain high.
Whatever reforms we may consider, the question we should continue asking ourselves is a simple one.
Will they help improve implementation and protection in practice? If the answer is yes, then we are moving into the right direction.
Thank you very much once again.
Thank you very much.
I'll give the floor to Madame Maria Luisa Romero from Sp.
Thank you, Chairperson, Excellencies warmly thank you for being here today for the dialogue and for all of the issues that you have raised which will feed our ongoing discussions.
As chair of the committee.
As my colleague has mentioned, we have a specific mandate in our committee against torture based on prevention.
It's important that any proposed reform take into account not only obligations regarding reporting, but also prevention.
As mentioned today, follow up and implementation of recommendations as my colleague Anna has mentioned, and the things that lead to effective protection.
On Monday, we celebrate the 20 20th anniversary of the optional protocol for the Convention Against Torture.
So This is a good opportunity to call on those states that have not yet ratified it to consider doing that as a strong step towards preventing torture and ill treatment in their countries.
I want to echo what Juan Pablo has said, recalling that an important way that states parties contribute to strengthen a treaty bodies is through presenting candidates Persons with recognized experience and commitment in human rights.
The election of 13 members of the committee Against Torture will take place on 1st of October and I'm confident that my colleagues will be encouraging states parties to consider presenting highly qualified candidates for the various treaty bodies that contributes to ensuring experience diversity and independence in these bodies.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
I'll give the floor Madame Pretty San from Csa.
Thank you, Chair and good afternoon, distinguished delegates, state party representatives.
It's such a pleasure to see you here this afternoon.
I'm aware that the Human Rights Council is on and that you are all very preoccupied since you do the same subject.
In spite of your busy commitment and schedule, the fact that you have come here to interact with us is something that's very heartening and so I want to thank you for that.
I have been serving in the committee on Economics social and cultural rights for the last 7.5 years.
And therefore attended several meetings in which the state party representatives have been present.
But never have I seen such an overwhelming response just by sheer presence in numbers of state parties that are here today.
That itself is very heartening and never have I seen such a coordinated response that has come out from the floor.
That too is very heartening.
I think most heartening for me personally is the voice I heard from, I think almost all of you that you're all committed to the treaty body system.
The second most heartening thing that I heard today was that you all appreciate the work of us experts in the treaty body system.
For both, I really thank you all for these words of appreciation for our work.
I just want to make a couple of points to supplement, maybe to duplicate, I hope not, what our distinguished chair and other colleagues from the treaty body chairs have said.
The first and foremost is the treaty body system, including each of the individual covenants or treaties were created by state parties.
So you are the masters, you are the owners.
You want to strengthen it by financing it appropriately with the adequate reforms, that's your prerogative.
You want to merge them all together.
Well, you could consider it, but not all of you are party to all ten state party governances, right? So you want to have combined meetings of all of them.
Again, you're not all parties to the same covenants, how do you do that clustering or regionalization? That's your prerogative.
You want to demolish the entire treaty body system by not financing it at all, that too is your prerogative.
We can merely serve the committee and our core mandate is to administer the state parties adherence to the commitments they have taken against each covenant.
That is about all we can do.
We can certainly evolve our own working methods.
That is a mandate that we get from other covenant.
Beyond that, if you are proposing structural reforms of the kind that we've heard, that definitely requires you to sit together, conference of state parties, the UNGA or whatever other appropriate UN forum where you must have this discussion about these structural reforms.
When we talk about the liquidity crisis or the financial crisis and projected as an existential one, I think that deserves some careful scrutiny on your part.
Budgetary pressure is real and you're aware of it.
If you are so concerned about it, I would say, as my other colleagues have said, please pay up your contributions so that the treaty body system works on.
But it should not justify structural changes that would fundamentally alter the nature of the treaty body system, whether it entails merging the treaties, clustering them, regional reviews.
These are not what come out of the existing literature of the treaty body system.
You want to do all of these, what is legally tenable, then you need to sit down together and change it.
Combined multi party reviews is nothing that is part of our working methods.
It's again something which is the prerogative of the state parties.
These are not efficiency measures.
These are architectural reforms with profound implications for the integrity, independence, and specificity of each treaty body.
That's for you to decide how you want to proceed further.
And for that, I would strongly recommend that please take it to the Conference of State parties, take it to the Human Rights Council, take it to EcoSc.
In the case of my committee, take it to EcoSc or take it to the third committee, when it comes to budgeting ACABQ.
Those are the forums where these should be addressed.
I just want to share just one more experience of mine in the economic, social, cultural rights Committee.
I heard a lot of you talk about harmonization of working methods, simplification of reporting procedures, reporting burdens, all of these issues.
Of course, these are very genuine concerns.
We were asked several years back, actually ten years back to sit and simplify our reporting procedures.
We took out precious time from our core mandate.
When there is a liquidity crisis, when there's a resource crunch, we actually had to forego two state party reviews.
We cut down our pre session working group.
We were originally scheduled to meet three times a year.
We reduced it to two times a year.
From four weeks it came down to three weeks.
From three weeks it came down to two weeks.
We were told pre session working group will be removed, and then we will have a four week session take care of the backlog.
Now, instead of taking care of the backlog, we've been expending a lot of our precious time in our committee to try to work out simplified reporting procedures, harmonization of work.
We even offered list of issues prior to reporting in a simplified format.
When we offered that to the state parties, we were informed that there's no money to implement it.
Go back to the traditional reporting procedure.
Now, these are structural issues which individual treaty bodies cannot address.
Instead, what we are doing is we are actually taking up a lot of our time from the core mandate to address these issues, which really should be dealt with elsewhere.
I thought I gave that as an example for you to be mindful of how much the treaty bodies can do and what really the state parties should be doing together collectively.
I conclusion, I would merely say no matter what reforms you undertake for the treaty bodies, if you want to strengthen it, support it with finances.
If you don't want to do that, please ensure that if you want to strengthen it, don't do anything that will in the long term end up weakening the treaty body system.
That is my submission for your consideration.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
I will give you the floor to Mr.
Gutktt.
Thank you, Chair.
Sorry for asking the floor again.
I needed one more occasion for clarification because I opened up this subject of lacking meeting time.
In our case, sir, the committee on the elimination of racial discrimination, we used to have ten weeks a year.
Now we have 5.4 weeks three weeks plus two weeks plus two days.
But for a moment, Imagine we have the ten weeks back.
It still doesn't solve our problem because the OHCHR does not have the staff to fill the needs of the committee get it done with its mandate because of staff shortages.
Why do they have staff shortages? Because of the financial crisis, the liquidity crisis, et cetera This whole monetary issue is at the root of everything.
We, the committees, deeply depend on the secretarial support that is provided to us through the OHCHR.
States parties, if you want to genuinely support the treaty bodies, you have to start by supporting the OHCHR Secretariat.
Please, I mean, I cannot put enough stress on this.
This is very important because we are, in fact, individually, members of the committees.
We are experts, we are professionals in our own realms.
But here, we're doing an amateur work to help you live up to your commitments to human rights.
Without the secretarial help, we are nothing.
We're a bunch of people know each other, who enjoy the company of each other.
Yes, we are well intentioned people after all, and we are servicing you.
But without the secretarial help we won't be able to do that even if we have the time to meet.
So please keep this into consideration.
Thank you very much for your attention.
Thank you very much.
Secretary, I want to add something, some questions like that.
I'll give the floor to Anti Core.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair and good afternoon, distinguished delegates and treaty body experts.
I would also like to just recognize and express our appreciation for your presence in this very, very hectic period and it's been really, I think, a great demonstration of your support for the treaty bodies and that is so essential for the work of treaty bodies and the supportive role that the office plays in that regard.
And really appreciated so many comments recognizing the work of treaty parties and also the office.
And thank you thank you for that.
Just very short comment on the working paper.
As has been said, the working paper is a relatively short paper with a number of what we consider innovative ideas to strengthen the treaty party system, and and it is very clear, as you've heard in this conversation, both from treaty parties and for state party representatives, that there's a lot of work to be done in terms of unpacking those ideas.
And in that respect, it is an initial round of discussions around those proposals, and I know that there are some elements that might be more averse to possible staggered implementation of different elements in that paper.
This week, we have heard very good comments and questions and requests for additional information from treaty party experts, but also from NGOs and NHRIs and of course today from treaty party experts.
It's a beginning of a conversation.
That we definitely as an office want to encourage and it is clear that state's role in this process is essential.
These are not ideas that the office can implement by itself without strong support from states parties and from treaty bodies.
So we look forward to developing these ideas further and considering other ideas that you and others will no doubt bring to the discussion.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Is there any state representatives or other stakeholders wish to take the floor? Yes, please.
Mexico.
Thank you very much, Chair.
I sought the floor once again in order to promote the interactive nature of this dialogue because what we're looking for is, of course, a dialogue between the committees and the member states, not just talking at one another, but to one another.
In that understanding, I would like to express my thanks for the comments that we've just heard from the representatives of the various treaty bodies who are, of course, deeply involved with us in the dialogue on the crisis, its impact on the treaty body system, and the reforms that we could or should pursue to said system.
I wanted to share our hope that in dialogues of this nature, we would talk more proactively about what we could do or options that we could explore as a joint path forward and focus less on what cannot be done or what should not be done.
I heard that more negative approach in many of the interventions.
Many seemed to be saying, this isn't possible, this would be dangerous, this would be risky, this would have negative impact.
Now, of course, we understand that people harbor concerns.
We have concerns as well as states.
We want to make sure that any reform doesn't limit the impact or reach of a convention, does not adversely impact right holders or victims, et cetera, that's a genuine concern which I'm sure we all share.
But we do feel on the flip side, that there is an urgent need to collectively reflect on how to resolve the inherent challenges in the treaty body system, including the resource issue.
You can't sweep resources under the carpet.
We have to talk about resources, though I accept that we have to talk about other elements as well, the willingness to pursue change.
The resolution 60 8268 was adopted in 2014, and before COVID and the budgetary and liquidity crisis, it was unequally applied.
So that means that we have to work to improve implementation, to make sure an equal implementation 68268 and to do so positively, seeing how we can preserve the strengths of the system, as you quite correctly and meticulously pointed out, but balancing that with the need for change, and recognizing there are things that aren't working.
I think that we would benefit more from dialogues with states in either formal or informal settings, more exchanges between the treaty bodies and states that we can open up more such opportunities because states have perhaps a more global perspective, a more holistic perspective, particularly states such as Mexico, which has signed all the treaty bodies has ratified all the same and so we have a better overview of how all the different treaty bodies function because we've seen it and experienced it firsthand and we've been able to identify how the working methods of committee X and Committee Y are very different.
Now, of course, we understand that some of those differences, as some treaty body chairs have pointed out, lie in the fact that they have different mandates and different purposes as treaty bodies, but in other instances, we do not, to be perfectly blunt, understand the differences in working methods between different treaty bodies.
We don't understand why one follows procedure A and the other follows procedure Y.
We don't understand why, for example, in some committees, we have half a day or a day in order to prepare our replies in another treaty, but it's not the dialogue takes place in one day, for example.
They might seem like small differences, but it does complicate the preparation work of states when we're submitting our reports, but all the more so engaging in the dialogues.
Particularly for countries such as my own Mexico, which take this whole process very seriously and want to properly prepare our authorities, our representatives for the dialogues.
So I would welcome any positive feedback from the treaty body chairs indicating that you're willing to enter in a good faith exchange with us on working methods and how this can be harmonized and aligned.
Perhaps I'm thinking out loud.
Perhaps, for example, you could set aside time at the end of your upcoming dialogues over your next sessions to ask the state parties with whom you've just engaged in dialog, what worked for you, what didn't, what we could improve for the future, immediate feedback, if you will, an interaction with the expert suggestions then from the state party as to what suggestions we would or improvements we would suggest from our side, the way that you could realign how questions are clustered, et cetera, but a proactive, positive interaction, and if not in the dialogues, in exchanges such as this one, if we could set up similar such exchanges going forward and ensure that we focus on the positive and not purely on the negative because I feel like I've heard a lot of negativity.
Now, I do understand the prevailing circumstances which are challenging, they're challenging for you, but they're challenging for us as well.
You have been particularly negative, I think, and I understand why on the resource issue.
There are very clear responsibilities as to what is underpinning the current liquidity and financial crisis.
We're well aware of what they are.
We're not all on the same page.
We're not all in the dock when it comes to the payment of our assessed contributions.
Many of us have given I've shown the necessary political determination to pay RSS contributions and provide voluntary contributions to the Human Rights pillar because we believe in this pillar, but we believe in this pillar and we think it needs improving as well as protecting.
It would be I would welcome hearing from the chairs of the treaty bodies or their representatives more about their positivity, their openness to reform and not just sounding the alarm bell in a negative way about the risk perceived or otherwise of this reform process.
I would like to voice my support for a proposal that was made by the distinguished representative of Costa Rica vis-à-vis the elections of members to the committees.
I think that was interesting.
His idea of factoring in the issue of rotation of the committee members.
I think that one committee member also pointed this out that it's important that we had rotation in order to ensure greater equitable geographical distribution.
We also avoid committee members remaining members for too long or from committee hopping from one committee to another because that would allow us to renew the committee membership.
New blood, et cetera, would open the doors for greater gender and geographical parity.
I'd also like to express my support for the point made by the representative of Ct, vis-à-vis the need for constructive dialogue and cooperation with the states vis-à-vis follow up on recommendations.
I think that's absolutely essential that there be greater cooperation and collaboration on the issue of follow up.
I think that's crucial.
Our interaction shouldn't stop at the dialogue, that shouldn't be the end of our exchanges, but there needs to be ongoing cooperation between the given committee and the state party with regard to implementation.
I think that's what makes the difference on the ground, which is what should really be of utmost importance to all of us in the view of Mexico that your recommendations are actually implemented and followed.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
I will give the floor to Madam Haida.
Thank you very much.
Chair and indeed, thank you very much to the representative of Mexico.
I feel that maybe some of us were misunderstood because I don't think at all that there is a negative.
We all agree that business as usual is not possible anymore.
That's the starting point.
The issue for us is that some of the proposal not seem to have all states adherence to them.
We don't know about because we heard some states even here doubting some of them and we didn't have enough visibility on where we did lead us.
We're asking for more assessment, analysis, and more concrete for some of them.
When I intervened and spoke about working methods, et cetera, you had the feeling I was being negative All what I want to say, we've done a lot and we can do better, but with a little of resources to bring the focal points of working methods because as was mentioned by my colleague from CRC, all of us are working tremendously intersectionally.
You can't even imagine how much we are able to be productive.
You just look at what we are, our output, our general recommendation, our analysis, in addition to the dialogue.
With this in mind and the work that we do online for list of issues now and the work that we do online for individual communication, et cetera, impossible to do more harmonization if we don't have a dedicated body that can really make the rubber hit the road, if I can say, we have done some harmonization, we have done on the simplified reporting procedure.
We can do much more on scheduling the dialogue.
I take a lot of the comments about the time zone, the hybrid, but this has to be brought together for all treaty bodies so that we issue a revised working method that brings us closer to each other gradually.
The same applies to the predictable calendar.
The Secretariat had done a lot of work to prepare for it, but needed slightly some resources to be able to formalize it.
By sharing this with you, we are not trying to be negative.
We're trying to say where we have lost our way because from today, it has been ten years we're looking at these things.
We're appealing to you to support these two processes because they can impact tremendously and to provide resources for digitalization.
It will not happen on its own.
And to provide also resources if we go to the root of thinking about clustering.
What does it mean? How would affect each treaty independently, et cetera I don't think there is no openness.
We are really open, but we are here only as chairs and constantly, we have to double check with our respective committee, which we do on daily basis, I can assure you.
I hope you'll go with a slightly more positive impression of what we're trying to convey.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much, Madam Haida.
This is exactly what I wish to say.
I will give the floor to Marlea.
Yeah.
Thank you very much.
Thank you for your comment.
It's good that we clarify here and I absolutely agree with Madam Haida.
What I want to add is that the proposal itself is not clear.
There are so many details.
As I mentioned previously in my speech.
There are so many details.
There are no answers on them and we cannot make any decision based on what we do not know because these details make great change.
These details make the difference.
This is our everyday life, exactly.
Also intersectionally, we're 247 working also for the committee.
It means that these details, how we are organized, how this clustering is organized, how this regional regionalization is organized makes a huge difference.
I can begin to ask these questions, but it will take very long.
We do not have much time, but we could continue this conversation.
I could in details tell you what questions we have asked many of us, but there are no answers because this proposal needs to be elaborated further in order for us to assess the situation.
As many of colleagues mentioned, this is up to you to decide.
But if you ask our opinion, we can't give opinion because we do not know how it looks like in concrete ways.
But in general, of course, we all agree that we need reform, we need better system to work for our case for children, but for greater treaty bodies for human rights.
So this is very much uncertain.
That's why we reserve ourselves to make any assessment because how it will look like if we say, Oh, this is wonderful and we will go this way and after two or three years, you come to us and say, why didn't you tell us these issues are not working? This is total collapse and you will be right.
If you ask our opinion, we answer that we need more clarity on this.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Maybe I will make a final few words before we close.
Thank you again.
I appreciate all your participation, and it's almost 6:00.
There are a lot of state representatives still here in this room that indicates that your interest and your belief about this system.
I really want to appreciate and I think we will have a very good conversation.
But one thing I want to re emphasize is that, you know, last two years is exceptional.
We have faced serious liquidity and financial crisis.
So we have adopted many exceptional measures, shortened the sessions, you know, less meeting times, more online working, everything.
So exceptional measures are exceptions.
It is not going to be normal.
Well, I feel like, you know, some stakeholders believe that that is okay.
You know, the treaty body members, chairs, and members, I've been experts of UN human rights mechanism for 13 years.
I'm always amazed by my fellow experts who devoted to this system.
Their passion, their devotion is unbelievable.
You should be very proud of those experts, free experts, their pro bono workers.
They are exceptional measures.
They are working at home, online.
That is exception.
I mean, if you are in emergency, you can work on Sundays, but you cannot work on Sundays every time.
So I just want to, you know, while I'm listening to it, it seems to me you take it for granted that experts has to do those things they are doing in exceptional cases.
So everything comes down to resources.
Eventually, we know that UN facing fundamental crisis, everybody lack of resources.
But if you believe in the treaties.
If you think treat body is backbone of international human rights law, you should provide resources to this system.
This is the last thing I want to mention to you, I will stop here and thank you very much.
I close the meeting today.
Thank you.
Thank you.