WUNRN
SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR DETAILS
CHALLENGES OF SPECIAL RAPPORTEURS & INDEPENDENT EXPERTS
TO GET MEMBER STATE FOLLOW UP ON THE
SR REPORTS AFTER COUNTRY VISITS/MISSIONS
"The
purpose of the present report is to provide a critical assessment of
developments in relation to the recommendations made in the context of country
visits, as well as to highlight the challenges confronted by special procedure
mandate holders preparing a follow-up report."
"109. Following up on recommendations
made in country mission reports is crucial in ensuring the impact of special
procedures’ work. In the present report, the Special Rapporteur also highlights
several challenges that make a follow-up assessment difficult to
undertake."
"110. The extent and depth of the follow-up assessment depended largely on the level of engagement of the States concerned; the degree to which NHRIs, United Nations agencies and NGOs were able to engage in the follow-up process; and the availability of up-to-date information and poverty data. In conducting her assessment, the Special Rapporteur found very different levels of engagement, responsiveness, availability of information and accuracy of data. "
|
United Nations |
A/HRC/20/25 |
|
General Assembly |
Distr.: General 5 April 2012 Original: English |
Human Rights Council
Twentieth session
|
Report of the Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Magdalena Sepúlveda Carmona |
|
During the first three years of her mandate, the Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights submitted reports on her country visits to Ecuador, Zambia, Bangladesh, Viet Nam and Ireland. In the present report, she provides a critical assessment of developments relevant to the recommendations she made in those reports, and also analyses the challenges confronted by special procedure mandate holders in follow-up efforts. |
Link to Full Special Rapporteur
Report:
VII. Conclusions and Recommendations
109. Following up on recommendations made in
country mission reports is crucial in ensuring the impact of special
procedures’ work. In the present report, the Special Rapporteur also highlights
several challenges that make a follow-up assessment difficult to undertake.
110. The extent and depth of the follow-up
assessment depended largely on the level of engagement of the States concerned;
the degree to which NHRIs, United Nations agencies and NGOs were able to engage
in the follow-up process; and the availability of up-to-date information and
poverty data. In conducting her assessment, the Special Rapporteur found very
different levels of engagement, responsiveness, availability of information and
accuracy of data.
111. Nevertheless, the Special Rapporteur
believes that the follow-up assessment has been a valuable exercise. In
particular, it shows that where there is sufficient political will, meaningful
progress in addressing poverty and fulfilling human rights can be made over a
short period of time. She acknowledges that in some of the reviewed States the
impact of the global economic downturn has affected the availability of
resources devoted to the progressive realization of the economic, social and
cultural rights of the population. However, in some cases, the measures taken
to address the crises have in fact further undermined the enjoyment of
economic, social and cultural rights, where it might have been possible to
consider less harmful alternatives.
112. The Special Rapporteur is hopeful that
this assessment will assist the States in question to take additional steps
necessary to ensure the protection and promotion of all human rights of persons
living in poverty. She hopes that the present follow-up report will also
benefit United Nations country teams and civil society organizations. The
Special Rapporteur anticipates that this exercise will contribute to the next
universal periodic review cycle and the ongoing efforts of the Human Rights
Council and the special procedures to improve procedures for following up on
recommendations of human rights mechanisms.
113. The preparation of the present report
highlighted some key issues that the Human Rights Council should consider:
(a) The need to establish an
institutionalized follow-up procedure. While several special procedures
have made systematic or sporadic efforts to follow up on recommendations, it is
clear to the Special Rapporteur that several of the challenges and limitations
confronted while preparing the present report would be better addressed through
the adoption of an institutionalized follow-up procedure on country visits by
all special procedures.34 Country visits are one of the most important and
effective methods of work of special procedures, but their contribution and
impact in the long term may be seriously hampered by the lack of a systematic
follow-up mechanism. The Special Rapporteur encourages States and other
stakeholders to adopt such a mechanism as a matter of priority;
34 A call for a more systematic follow-up
mechanism has been repeated by mandate holders at their annual meetings. See
also Ted Piccone, Catalysts for Rights: The Unique Contribution of the UN’s
Independent Experts on Human Rights (Washington, D.C., The Brookings
Institution, October 2010).
35 See, for example, the report on the
eighteenth meeting of special procedures (A/HRC/18/41), para. 34.
(b) Enhancing the constructive dialogue
between States and special procedures. Although States have called for
improved follow-up to country visits,35 follow-up efforts by mandate holders are often
hampered by the lack of cooperation from States. Insufficient engagement by
States also limits the possibility of an ongoing interactive dialogue between
States and special procedures that may potentially contribute to the improvement
of both the human rights situation in the country and the work of mandate
holders. While acknowledging that States have multiple and sometimes coinciding
reporting and follow-up demands from different human rights mechanisms (the
universal periodic review, treaty bodies and other special procedures), the
experience of preparing the present report suggests that even with limited
resources, it is possible for States to respond in a timely and substantive
fashion to an enquiry about developments relevant to recommendations;
(c) Establishing a national mechanism to
follow up recommendations. In addition to engaging in an external
assessment of progress through special procedures, treaty bodies and the
universal periodic review, States should internally review the progress made in
the protection and promotion of human rights in the country through periodic
national consultations with the active participation of national human rights
institutions, civil society organizations, United Nations agencies and other
relevant actors. A/HRC/20/25
114. The Office of the United Nations High
Commissioner for Human Rights, as well as special procedures mandate holders,
may wish to consider:
(a) Strengthening partnerships with NHRIs.
Well-functioning and ongoing partnerships with NHRIs are crucial to ensure
constant and effective monitoring of developments relevant to recommendations,
particularly in cases in which official information and data are not available
or accessible outside the country. Contact with NHRIs should not be limited to
specific events (such as country visits or submission of country mission
reports to the Human Rights Council), but should be based on a mutually
reinforcing flow of information. The Special Rapporteur received considerable
support from some of the NRHIs in the countries concerned at the time of the
visit and preparation of the report. However, the Special Rapporteur also notes
the need to strengthen the ongoing cooperation between special procedures and
NHRIs, acknowledging the limited institutional capacity and resources of some
NHRIs;
(b) Enhancing cooperation with United
Nations country teams and other United Nations agencies. In the country
visits assessed here, the partnership with the United Nations country team and
human rights field presence, where present, began from the first stages of
mission preparations and was maintained throughout the entire process. The
level of engagement of the United Nations entities present at the country level
in the preparation and conduct of a country visit also influences the extent of
meaningful follow-up. While the Special Rapporteur is grateful to United
Nations partners for information provided for this report, she notes that the
depth and scope of available information varied considerably, and the
information received was most useful where specific human rights presences or
focal points existed in the countries and agencies concerned. The Special
Rapporteur acknowledges that additional efforts should be made to better
coordinate the follow-up of recommendations with United Nations country teams,
in terms of facilitating follow-up activities, incorporating the special
procedure mandate holders’ recommendations into work plans and providing
feedback to mandate holders on progress made towards implementing
recommendations;
(c) Strengthening coordination among
special procedures and between special procedures and treaty bodies. In her
mission reports the Special Rapporteur referred to recommendations made by
other mandate holders who had previously conducted visits to the respective
country, as well as to concluding observations by treaty bodies with regard to
the country. Treaty bodies and other special procedures mandate holders have in
turn referred to her findings and recommendations in their respective
discussions, considerations (see, for example, CERD/C/VNM/Q/10-14) and reports
(see, for example, A/HRC/17/26/Add.4, para. 7). These mutually reinforcing
practices, which serve as complementary follow-up tools, need to be better
coordinated and institutionalized through the support of the Office of the High
Commissioner for Human Rights so that cooperation and coordination among the
human rights mechanisms can be intensified (A/HRC/18/41, paras. 26-27).