CYIL vol. 14 (2023)

JAN LHOTSKÝ with the system according to their treaty obligations, this needs to be considered the most important point of the outcome. At present, treaty bodies are able to review state reports during their (mostly) three sessions a year basically because of the fact that most of the states are considerably delayed. In order to ensure that all states are treated equally, a predictable schedule needs to be established according to which state reviews will take place regardless of the level of states’ cooperation. Although UN member states did not express support for this measure, at the time of writing this article the OHCHR was drafting a plan for treaty bodies to work in line with the predictable calendar. 65 According to calculations, even if the review cycles double to 8 years, treaty bodies would still not have the capacity to review all states parties within their current meeting time. In 2015 the meeting time with respect to state reviews amounted to 69.3 weeks a year. After the introduction of the predictable schedule it would have to be 85.5 weeks. This represents a 23% increase in meeting time. 66 Such information has two consequences. Firstly, the committees are part-time bodies and they meet only for several sessions a year. At the same time, the treaty body experts, unless they are retired, have other employment. Therefore, any need to hold longer meetings is very problematic from the point of view of treaty body members as their capacity is limited. The other consequence is political. A need for more meeting time is connected with a need for an increased budget. However, the UN member states are very reluctant to provide the treaty bodies with any additional resources. We have witnessed this most recently at the end of 2022 when the General Assembly did not express any specific support for the measures presented by treaty body chairs. 67 At the time of writing this article, there was no concrete information on how many additional resources would be needed. In fact, in June 2022 the treaty body chairs requested the OHCHR to cost their conclusions, 68 but at the beginning of the following year an analysis had still not been issued. With regard to the fixed calendar, it seems unlikely that it would be possible to introduce it without the support of the states. Alternative ways could still be explored, such as voluntary contributions. However, reviewing state reports is a cornerstone of this global human rights mechanism and as such should be financed from the regular budget to maintain stability of the system. The inability of the states to support the predictable schedule of reviews should therefore be considered as the main reason to assess the treaty body review process as a failure. Third, as the numbers of individual communications received by the treaty bodies is steadily rising, 69 the work of the OHCHR petitions unit needs to modernise accordingly. The critique and recommendations by an internal audit should be taken seriously. 70 A number of valuable recommendations have been provided by several states 71 or organizations 72 in this regard. First of all, a digital case management system needs to be introduced and respective 65 Volker Türk’s address to the Committee on the Rights of the Child accessed 26 February 2023. 66 Secretary-General report 2022 (n 7) paras 71–73. 67 UNGA Res. 2022 (n 58). 68 Conclusions of the Chairs 2022 (n 56) para. 55(c). 69 There was an increase of 134% since 2014. See Secretary-General report 2022 (n 7) para. 21. 70 OIOS report (n 19), paras 23-25 and recommendation no. 6, p. 16. 71 Letter of 30 May 2022. 72 See CALLEJON, C., KEMILEVA, K. and KIRCHMEIER, F., ‘Treaty bodies’ individual communication procedures’ (2019) Geneva Academy.

122