CYIL vol. 14 (2023)

CYIL 14 (2023)

STREAMLINING OR SURVIVAL? OUTCOMES OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS …

3.2 Treaty body review 2020 Although the result of the 2014 outcome did not address the biggest challenges, the resolution provided for a further ‘review’ of the system six years after the adoption of the resolution. 41 Therefore, the following process was called a ‘treaty body review 2020’. Nevertheless, as its results were postponed among other things due to the pandemic, it was concluded just at the time of writing this paper. 42 A number of important (often statistical) information about the functioning of the system is included in the biannual reports of the Secretary General on the status of the human rights treaty body system. 43 In order to identify new ways forward, an initiative known as ‘Academic Platform’ was launched by the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights to discuss the current state of the system with stakeholders and to formulate recommendations. In 2018, the Academic Platform published their outcomes, which mainly suggested two alternatives for state reviews. 44 Firstly, states would create a single report covering all issues and there would be a single review of a state by all treaty bodies within one week. The cycle of a review would extend to eight years, with consolidated (smaller and more focused) reviews in between. This would require all committees to sit at the same time. The second option is that states would be reviewed twice. A review of human rights obligations based on the two covenants would be followed in four years by the review of obligations based on the other human rights conventions. 45 Another source of ideas was a non-paper presented to the OHCHR and chairs of the treaty bodies by Costa Rica on behalf of another 43 states, which contained a set of 20 recommendations. 46 In 2019, the treaty body chairs held an annual meeting in which they supported a number of measures including an 8-year cycle for covenant-based committees and a 4-year cycle for convention-based committees. 47 During the following year, in which the pandemic significantly affected the work of the treaty bodies, 48 a report by the co facilitators from Switzerland and Morocco was elaborated. It summarized the discussions, proposed a number of recommendations and it was presented to the UN General Assembly for its consideration. 49 As several measures would have financial implications, including introducing the fixed calendar, the General Assembly would have to endorse it. However, at the end of the year the General Assembly only ‘took note’ of the report in one of its 41 GA Res. 2014 (n 9), para 41. 42 For an overview of the treaty body review process, see KLEINLEIN, T. and STEIGER, D., ‘The State of the International Human Rights System – Normativity and Compliance’ (2022) 14 JHRP 1, 1–7. 43 See Treaty body strengthening (n 10). 44 ‘Optimizing the UN treaty body system’ (2018) Geneva Academy. 45 Ibid., pp. 7, 17–24. 46 Costa Rica non-paper, 20 June 2019, MPCR-ONUG/2019-231. 47 UNGA ‘Implementation of human rights instruments’ (2019) UN Doc A/74/256, Annex III. ‘Position paper of the Chairs of the human rights treaty bodies on the future of the treaty body system’, pp. 19-21. This was followed by joint recommendations by 86 NGOs. See Towards a strengthened UN treaty body system: Civil Society Proposals accessed 26 February 2023. 48 See Secretary-General report 2022 (n 7) paras 31–36. 49 UNGA ‘Report on the process of the consideration of the state of the United Nations human rights treaty body system’ (2020) UN Doc A/75/601. The co-facilitators also recommended a follow-up process to face the challenges of the system, see para. 83.

119