CYIL vol. 14 (2023)

JAN LHOTSKÝ current treaties. 35 There is wide consensus, with which I fully agree, that for practical reasons amendments of current treaties should be avoided. In any case, the proposal was discussed by relevant stakeholders and rejected, as again a view prevailed that within one body the current focus on specific groups (e.g. women, children) or issues (torture, racial discrimination) could be lost and the committee might focus mainly on civil and political rights. 36 As it was clear that no major reform will be supported, a further initiative took place within a ‘treaty body strengthening process’. After several years of wide-range consultations with stakeholders, the High Commissioner Navi Pillay issued a report in 2012 with well-discussed proposals that the OHCHR supported. 37 These included measures such as introducing a comprehensive reporting calendar (also called master calendar, fixed calendar or predictable schedule of reviews), and using a simplified reporting procedure in order to lower the burden of states and to receive more focused and relevant information. It also included setting up a joint treaty body working group on communications, improving the independence and expertise of committee members, as well as introducing measures to enhance the visibility and accessibility of the treaty bodies. However, the implementation of the set of measures would require an increase in the costs of the system from 56.4 million to 108 million USD. 38 This would amount to a cost increase by 91%. In this regard, it should be stressed that the report provided for maximum improvements of the system. Before there was an opportunity to consider the measures, a group of states initiated an intergovernmental process on strengthening the treaty bodies which shifted the decision making to the UN General Assembly. 39 The final set of measures supported by the states in the General Assembly resolution 68/268 in 2014 contained mainly additional meeting time for the committees, support for capacity building activities, word limits to state reports and other measures. As introducing page limits on states and limiting translations created considerable savings, it allowed for supporting the other measures while maintaining the original budget level. Although the resolution contained a number of positive measures, it is necessary to stress that the outcome did not support introducing a comprehensive reporting calendar. We can therefore conclude that what started as ‘reform’ ideas later mitigated into ‘strengthening’ proposals. Moreover, as the final result did not deal with the lack of cooperation of states as the major problem of the system, it resulted in a postponement rather than a real outcome. 40 35 I discuss the legal issues in my former writing. See LHOTSKÝ, J., ‘Human Rights Treaty Body Review 2020: Towards an Integrated Treaty Body System’ (2017) EIUC, pp. 16–21. 36 See UNGA ‘Report from Malbun II’ UN Doc A/61/351. For a short overview, see O’FLAHERTY, M., ‘Reform of the UN Human Rights Treaty Body System: Locating the Dublin Statement’ (2010) 10 HRLR 316, 324–325. 37 See United Nations reform 2012 (n 8). For an overview of the proposals, see EGAN, Suzanne, ‘Strengthening the United Nations Human Rights Treaty Body System’ (2013) 13 HRLR 209. For a response of national human rights institutions, see Belfast statement (2013) 31 (1) NQHR. 38 See United Nations reform 2012 (n 8) paras 43, 97. 39 This was an initiative of the Russian Federation and like-minded states. See Egan (n 37), pp. 32–34. 40 I used those words in my earlier assessment of the 2014 measures supported. See LHOTSKÝ, J., ‘ The UN Human Rights Treaty Body System – Reform, Strengthening or Postponement?’ (2014) 5 CYIL . Also see Secretary-General report 2018 (n 14) paras 77, 89.

118