CYIL 2014

THE UN HUMAN RIGHTS TREATY BODY SYSTEM… communication to the treaty body. 7 The body, similarly to a court, considers the communication and decides whether the human right has been violated. Its decision, however, is not legally binding. 2.3 Strengths and Weaknesses of the System With regard to the human rights treaty bodies, several important assets of the system are to be mentioned. 8 First of all, it is a system created and open for all states in the world without regional restrictions, which is why it has the potential to create and promote a standard on human rights protection on the universal level, i.e. globally. Moreover, it is appropriate to stress the quality of the assessments and decisions by treaty bodies, because the majority of their members are international law or human rights experts focusing on different areas of the protection of fundamental rights. In addition, the form of a review where the committees directly discuss the issues with a state delegation creates a constructive interaction that can improve the quality of the subsequent implementation significantly, if the state is willing to do so. However, rather than praise its general virtues, it is more practical to focus on the possible deficiencies of the system. In this regard, the key criterion for assessing the significance of the system has to be to what extent the system contributes to the improvement of human rights situation on the ground in the particular states parties. The main weakness of the whole treaty body system lies in the insufficient level of cooperation (or, put simply, non-cooperation) of states parties. Although they ratified the treaties and are legally obliged to regularly submit reports, in fact only 16% of states parties submit them in time. Even if we regarded a report submitted up to one year after the deadline as being submitted in time, it would be only one third of the states. That means that two thirds of the reports are being submitted more than one year late. Moreover, approximately one fifth of the states parties do not report at all. 9 That unfortunately creates a double standard, because the cooperating states are reviewed more often than the ones who do not cooperate with the mechanism. The situation with implementing the decisions regarding individual communications is similar, because less than 20% of the decisions are in reality implemented by the states parties. 10 7 For the individual communication to be accepted, all domestic remedies have to be exhausted. 8 The strengths and weaknesses were also analyzed in the following monograph and a paper of the author: Lhotský, Jan. Ochrana lidských práv v mezinárodním právu: kontrolní mechanismy na regionální a univerzální úrovni a možnost vzniku Světového soudu pro lidská práva [Human Rights Protection in International Law: Control Mechanisms on the Regional and Universal Level and the Possibility of Creating a World Court of Human Rights] (Masaryk University, Brno, 2012), p. 168-178. Further in: Lhotský, Jan. The UNMechanisms for Human Rights Protection: Strengthening Treaty Bodies in Light of a Proposal to Create a World Court of Human Rights. Czech Yearbook of International Law. The Role of Governmental and Non-governmental Organizations in the 21st Century (Juris Publishing, Inc., New York, vol. 5, 2014), p. 271-288. 9 Report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights A/66/860 of June 2012, p. 21-22. 10 Baluarte, David C.; De Vos, Christian M. From Judgment to Justice: Implementing International and Regional Human Rights Decisions (Open Society Foundations, New York, 2010), p. 27.

259