Day Six: Monday 13 February 2006
Programme for the day
The focus of the morning session was the Inter-American system. The focus of the afternoon session was the relationship of an Optional Protocol with existing mechanisms.
Themes from statements
In the morning, the Working Group heard a detailed presentation from an expert from the Inter-American system about the experiences of how that system operates, including experiences of ESCR cases before the Inter-American Commission and Court. Some of the issues raised in the presentation addressed issues relevant to the discussions last week regarding interim measures, follow up procedures etc. Delegates then had the opportunity to ask questions to the expert, on topics such as the way in which judgments of the Court have implications for resource expenditure, the added benefits of an international mechanism in light of the success of the Inter-American system, international cooperation & assistance, and how to reinforce regional systems such as this in light of an international mechanism (avenues for complementarity).
Monday afternoon’s session was devoted to the relationship of an OP with existing mechanisms. Experts from ILO, UNESCO & the European Social Charter system spoke about each of their systems, and comments were made regarding how although some ESC rights are dealt with by these other mechanisms, this would not interfere with the ability of an OP-ICESCR to deal with ESCR in a more comprehensive way. The existing relationship between the CESC and other bodies (such as ILO & UNESCO) and the way in which these bodies communicate and share information was highlighted. The expert present from the Council of Europe gave a detailed presentation on the European procedures.
Some states explained their view that the European system is not sufficient as it is not comprehensive (Finland, Portugal, France). Others explained that some criteria could be useful to avoid the duplications which do exist between existing mechanisms (Spain, Norway). The ILO reiterated the need to ‘keep in touch’ and have a good working relationship in order to ensure consistent interpretation of international obligations. Many states explained that an OP would not duplicate the work done by existing mechanisms (Mexico, Finland, Portugal, Spain, Argentina) and Brazil explained that there are many aspects of ESCR that are not covered by other bodies.
The representative from UNESCO supported other states talking about complementarity between the procedures, and highlighted the problems with the UNESCO system being confidential.
Canada explained that there are already procedures which render ESCR justiciable, especially discrimination and equality provisions regarding ESCR. Canada is not sure which instances of discrimination are not covered by other procedures and highlighted that regional mechanisms also provide procedures for complaints (although some gaps do exist here). In Canada’s opinion, duplication would be reduced with an ‘a la carte procedure’ – that way states that are not concerned about duplication could opt for a comprehensive approach, leaving others more free. Canada also questioned how would this fit in with Treaty Body reform.
NGO Activities
The NGO Coalition made a statement explaining our view as to why each of the regional, other UN & ILO & UNESCO systems are inadequate and the added benefits of an OP-ICESCR, including how non-duplication could be addressed.
NGO representatives also attended a reception hosted by the Portuguese Ambassador where we lobbied hard to ensure that many state delegates would attend the session on Tuesday afternoon and make strong statements calling for the drafting of a comprehensive Optional Protocol.
