Day three: Wednesday 8 February 2006
Programme for the day
The focus of the morning session was the communication procedure under an Optional Protocol: proceedings on the merits, friendly settlement of disputes, interim measures, views and follow up to views. The focus of the afternoon session was on inquiry procedures.
Themes from Statements
In general, states felt that communication procedures under the OP- ICESCR should conform with existing procedures under other complaints mechanisms. It was felt that it is not necessary to innovate. Some delegates, however, considered that individuals could be present to provide oral testimony.
With respect to friendly settlement, it was emphasized by most delegates that this is already a principle of international law and thus there is no need to establish the process in the optional process. Many states noted that caution would need to be exercised to ensure that settlements were in compliance with the Covenant.
With respect to interim measures there was less consensus. Some delegates agreed that interim measures were important in urgent cases, while others felt that there would need to be clear restrictions as to when such measures may be appropriate. Others felt that specific rules are needed for ESC rights. There was some debate about whether the authority to impose interim measures needs to be specified, given that other treaty monitoring bodies have adopted the practice without it being mentioned in the text of the complaints procedure.
In the afternoon, in discussions of inquiry and interstate procedures, there was considerable debate on the definition of “reliable information” on which the Committee would base its decision to initiate an inquiry procedure. It was also expressed that the concept of “grave and systematic violations” may not be clear enough to predict when the Committee might apply this procedure. Others felt that we should not try to reinvent the wheel and simply apply the same terms and model as is applied in the Optional Protocols of CAT and CEDAW. Some countries expressed concern about the expense of an inquiry procedure, while many others expressed support for this mechanism as it might serve to prevent ESCR violations (e.g. Mexico and Finland). Several views were expressed as to whether to include the possibility to op-in or opt-out of the procedure at any time. No agreement was reached about this issue.
In general, among the States which expressed their full support for an inquiry procedure were Azerbaijan, Finland, Chile, Portugal and Mexico. Some other States such as Argentina and Spain argued that the issue should be subject to further analysis in their countries although they are in principle supportive to the inclusion of such mechanism.
Some other States raises additional concerns about an inquiry procedure. For example, Belgium expressed some skepticism and stated that Belgium would prioritize a complaints procedure. The delegate from the United Kingdom stated that their position is still not definitive. However, they raised concern about the cost of the country visits established under the inquiry procedure. He asked if these visits will be paid by the Secretariat or by countries. He also stressed that they are not confident that a drafting process for the OP can be initiated. He considered that more discussion is needed on the element paper.
The Egyptian delegate raised several concerns about the procedure. He asked, for example, what it meant by “reliable information” and by “grave and systematic violations”. Angola and Nigeria also expressed their views against this mechanism
NGO Activities
The NGO coalition and other NGOs argued that an investigative procedure is an important component of an OP which allows the Committee to investigate grave and systematic violations while respecting the sovereignty of states.
There was no debate regarding inter-state complaints procedures as no one had comments to make on this issue.
