CYIL 2014

JAN LHOTSKÝ CYIL 5 ȍ2014Ȏ improvement of human rights situation in the particular states parties. Moreover, as the number of treaty bodies increases and so does the number of ratifications of each treaty, the negative impact of the weaknesses rises with the growth of the mechanism. Pointing to the fact that the majority of states parties do not report to the treaty bodies properly and even in spite of this the committees are unable to process their workloads, the High Commissioner stated: “The treaty body system is surviving because of the dedication of the experts, who are unpaid volunteers, the support of staff in OHCHR 30 and States’ non-compliance with reporting obligations.” Further she adds: “ It is unacceptable that the system can only function because of non-compliance ”. 31 To make the mechanism function it is necessary to implement far-reaching measures that would eliminate or significantly reduce the weaknesses discussed in section 2.3. Among these it is crucial to increase the cooperation of states. Moreover, the mechanism needs to be simplified and to start functioning as a system. In this regard, the reform proposal of 2006 to create a Unified Standing Treaty Body, a full-time committee of human rights experts that could work also in chambers, is to be reviewed. Although many aspects would still need to be properly discussed, this proposal combined with the utilization of the comprehensive reporting calendar provides for a solution that should be supported in the long-term. Nevertheless, in the past this reform proposal was replaced by a strengthening proposal . Within the treaty body strengthening process in 2012 the High Commissioner published a set of measures to be implemented, with the leading proposal being to introduce a comprehensive reporting calendar. However, within the intergovernmental process further discussions on possible improvements were relocated to the UN General Assembly, so that the states gained more influence in the negotiations. As a result, the comprehensive reporting calendar did not make its way into the outcome and the approved measures are in general cost-neutral. The final General Assembly Resolution 68/268 of April 2014 includes important measures that will partially improve the current functioning of the treaty bodies. However, it does not respond to the real deficiencies of the system. According to the outcome, based on the functioning of the system a new review should take place no later than six years after adopting the present resolution. Therefore, I suggest using the first half of this period to analyse the functioning according to new rules and the second half to properly discuss the more ambitious reform proposals, including implementing the comprehensive reporting calendar and creating the Unified Standing Treaty Body. Hopefully more courage and interest for an effectively functioning human rights mechanism on the universal level will be present among the states parties and other stakeholders in this respect when 2020 draws nearer.

30 Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. 31 Report of the High Commissioner A/66/860, p. 9.

266