CYIL vol. 14 (2023)

CYIL 14 (2023)

STREAMLINING OR SURVIVAL? OUTCOMES OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS …

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Convention on the Rights of the Child International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and their Families Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance

Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women

CEDAW 1979

1981

CAT

1984

1987

Committee against Torture

Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture

SPT

2002

2006

Committee on the Rights of the Child

CRC

1989

1990

Committee on Migrant Workers

CMW 1990

2003

Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

CRPD 2006

2008

Committee on Enforced Disappearances

CED 2006

2010

The committees were created one after another by different treaties with slightly different rules. Instead of operating as one cohesive system of human rights protection, they give the impression of working as individual fragments. There are many deficiencies that will be dealt with further in the text but let me point out one example right at this place by comparing it to another system. The Universal Periodic Review (UPR), which takes place in the UN Human Rights Council, provides for a human rights review of all members of the UN. Within four-and a-half year cycles, every UN member state is reviewed by the diplomats representing the other states. 5 The deadlines for the submissions of the national reports are known well in advance for the upcoming cycle, as is the date of the review. Although in reality there are vast differences in how seriously states approach their human rights challenges, the UPR faces full cooperation of all states. 6 On the other hand human rights treaty bodies never had such a fixed calendar of reviews. They traditionally set a deadline for a next state report but if the state submits it later – even years later – the committee starts preparing the review only then. Therefore, the states are effectively able to postpone their reviews simply through their lack of cooperation. In this respect, it should be stressed that 86% of states are not in full compliance

5 For more about the Universal Periodic Review and its cycles, see Universal Periodic Review, OHCHR accessed 26 February 2023. The political nature of the UPR creates strong premises to exert peer and public pressure on states. On the other hand, the expert nature of the treaty bodies provides for a better overview of the human rights situation in the given country and for more accurate recommendations. See CARRARO, Valentina ‘Promoting Compliance with Human Rights: The Performance of the United Nations’ Universal Periodic Review and Treaty bodies’ (2019) 63 ISQ 1079, 1084–1091. 6 See Universal Periodic Review (n 5), in particular the notes on the 100% participation of states.

113