CYIL vol. 12 (2021)

CYIL 12 (2021) States ’ reports under UN hr treaties: how to read overdue reports? Combining both the observed characteristics (share of overdue reports and structure of delays) enables us to divide all eleven reporting regimes into three groups. Well-working reporting regimes, when the share of late reports is below the average, and at the same time the structure of delays is acceptable (percentage of reports overdue for less than five years is higher than the percentage of reports overdue for longer than five). The CCPR, CRC, CMW, CRPD, and the CED belong to this group. In the case of the CMW, CRPD, and CED regimes, caution with this evaluation is needed because our experience with reporting on the three “youngest “conventions is limited. Weak-working reporting regimes, when the share of late reports is above the average, and at the same time, the structure of delays is unhealthy (most reports are overdue for more than 5 years). The CERD and the CESCR are regimes fulfilling these criteria. By non-reporting, numerous groups of State Parties are showing their back to these treaties and express unwillingness to make positive steps for improving their compliance. Reporting regimes with the unclear trend – either the share is above the average, but the structure of delays is unhealthy at the same time, or the structure of delays is acceptable, but the share is below the average. The CEDAW, CAT, OP-CRC-SC, and the OP-CRC-AC must be classified as regimes whose intelligibility in terms of compliance is not clear. Only the observation of future approaches of State Parties may help us understand them better. Conclusion The self-reporting obligation anchored in universal human rights treaties is perceived as one of the ways of monitoring and implementing states’ behavior and progress towards human rights application and its improvement. For many decades, data collected published by UN organs show that State Parties response to these obligations varies; a minority of states submit their reports on time, a much larger group of states delay. The delay may last months, years, and sometimes even more than 10 years. However, in a situation when almost every state has more reporting obligations, the closer look at these late and overdue reports suggests that particular states treat different human rights treaties in different ways – the approach to all human rights treaties is not consistent. An analysis of the number of delayed reports and their structure illustrates different approaches of State Parties to different human rights treaties. The analysis uses the optics of treaty bodies and compares how serious and deep the reporting issue for a particular treaty body is. The group of eleven reporting obligations shows that the overdue reporting burden does not unequivocally worsen over time. Most of human rights treaties concluded in the 1960s are associated with a higher absolute number of missing reports, however, a clear link between the age of the treaty and reporting issue was not proved; several deviations must be stated (e.g., very good responsiveness of State Parties to “old” CCPR regime on one side and the relatively large numbers of overdue reports in case of two newer regimes – the CRC-OP-SC and the CRPD). The share of State Parties with reporting issues also indicates the diminishing burden of reporting debt over time, however, deviations from the trend (the CCPR, CRC-OP-SC, CMW, and the CRPD) suggest that time can be only one factor that relates to the reporting issue and in listed cases, it is the topic of the regulation, what determines the willingness of State Parties to submit their report on time. Further, the share of State Parties with reporting issues clearly shows that there is no link between the popularity

99