CYIL vol. 14 (2023)

JAN LHOTSKÝ preambular paragraphs. 50 In other words, when the process was due to be completed in 2020, it was met with discreet silence. 4. Outcome of the review At the point when the review should have been finalized, it was clear that the state of the treaty body system had not improved. Ratifications of the treaties were steadily growing and only 19% of states reported in time. The only visible improvement was a one-fifth decrease in the backlog in state reports. On the other hand, there was a significant increase in the number of received individual communications, as well as in the backlog with respect to communications. 51 As the treaty bodies are independent, they can of course introduce new measures on their own. Some committees, for example, already reviewed states in the absence of a report. 52 Some also started to use interesting grading systems in order to evaluate to what extent a particular state fulfilled a given recommendation. 53 Nevertheless, where the treaty bodies require additional resources, the General Assembly needs to be involved. 4.1 The final efforts When the pandemic has eased, some attention to the functioning of the treaty bodies has returned. In June 2021, a group of 42 states wrote a letter to the treaty body chairs, recommending the introduction of the predictable calendar, as well as better use of modern technology. 54 Furthermore, in May 2022, a similar group of states addressed the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, and urged the OHCHR to improve the effectiveness of how it deals with communications. 55 In June 2022 the treaty body chairs met for their annual meeting and issued a set of recommendations on behalf of all treaty bodies. 56 Two major areas should be mentioned. First, they supported a predictable schedule of reviews, which would operate in 8-year review cycles for all of the committees, with follow-up reviews in between that would focus on up to four specific priority issues. Second, they also supported a digital uplift, which would primarily mean a new digital case management system for individual communications instead of the current paper-based procedure and support of videoconferencing and webcasting. In 50 UNGA Res. A/C.3/75/L.39 (30 October 2020). In this respect, see Working Papers ‘The United Nations Treaty Bodies in a Transition Period – Progress Review March-December 2020 Chronicle’ (2021) Geneva Academy, p. 14. 51 Secretary-General report 2020 (n 14) paras 10–18. 52 This relates for example to the Human Rights Committee that reviewed e.g. Belize or Eritrea in absence of a report. 53 Human Rights Committee and the Committee against Torture. See PLOTON, V., ‘The Implementation of UN Treaty Body Recommendations’ (2017) 25 IJHR . Grading systems are important in order to monitor the lack of implementation with regard to both recommendations as well as views in individual cases. For an example of lack of implementation, see LIPOVSKÝ, M., ‘Restitution of Property Jurisprudence of the HRC against the Czech Republic’ in ŠTURMA, P. and LIPOVSKÝ, M., (eds) 70th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (RWW 2019) 141. 54 Letter of 2 June 2021. 55 Letter of 30 May 2022. In fact, Michelle Bachelet was later criticized for her lack of activity towards supporting the treaty body system. See PLOTON, V., ‘A word of advice to the next High Commissioner for Human Rights: engage with UN human rights experts’, OpenGlobalRights accessed 26 February 2023. 56 Conclusions of the Chairs of the treaty bodies at the thirty-fourth meeting of the Chairs, UNGA ‘Implementation of human rights instruments’ (2022) UN Doc. A/77/228, pp. 15–20.

120