CYIL vol. 14 (2023)

JAN LHOTSKÝ of a regular budget and voluntary contributions from particular states (plan B). In the case of wider political unwillingness to support the measure financially, the work of committees in parallel chambers could be considered in order to reduce the meeting time and keep the levels of the current budget (plan C). With respect to communications, a good amount of inspiration on how to simplify the process can be drawn from the European Court of Human Rights. Both these proposals were supported by the treaty body chairs 87 and they were already sufficiently described during the process. Apart from these two main measures, a number of others need to be supported that are part of the chairs’ position. These relate to the use of a simplified reporting procedure as a more focused way of reporting, smaller follow-up reviews after four years with respect to state reports, and improving follow-up of the implementation of views with respect to individual communications. Last but not least, the chairs support a digital uplift, which includes the case management system, videoconferencing and webcasting. As all treaty body chairs agreed with these measures, states should not pose any obstacles to their implementation. Furthermore, it should be pointed out that perhaps the most comprehensive set of measures was presented and thoroughly reasoned by the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, in her 2012 report. 88 A number of her recommendations have already been implemented, but unfortunately not all of them, and the rest are still relevant. Apart from the comprehensive reporting calendar, such ideas include for example strengthening the independence and expertise of treaty body members by creating an open public space for all states parties to present their potential candidates or nominees for treaty bodies in order to develop a more transparent process. 89 Such a space would be moderated by a group of former treaty body members and it would enhance the quality of information available to states before the elections of new treaty body members. Another such proposal was to establish a functional and user-friendly jurisprudence database on individual cases including information on their follow-up. 90 A number of great ideas can still be found in this report, as well as in the more or less related outcomes leading up to the last position of the treaty body chairs. In fact, it would be just a little exaggeration to say that everything needed was in Navi Pillay’s report of 2012, which makes the following 10 years of discussions and lack of implementation look like a lost decade. As the outcome of the treaty body review needs to be assessed negatively, there is a need to fix a date for a future review, or better, a reform. When the General Assembly agreed on a set of measures in 2014, it set a date of the review six years from the adoption of its resolution. 91 I suggest that the next General Assembly resolution on human rights treaty body system, which is biennial and therefore due at the end of 2024, 92 should include a similar decision specifying that after six years the effectiveness of the system should be reconsidered. This would mean that in 2030, the functioning of the system would be again thoroughly

87 Conclusion of the Chairs 2022 (n 56). 88 United Nations reform 2012 (n 8). Also see thoughts of Manfred Nowak, ‘Comments on the UN High Commissioner’s proposals aimed at strengthening the UN human rights treaty body system’ (2013) 31 NQHR . 89 United Nations reform 2012 (n 8) pp. 79–80. 90 Ibid., pp. 71–72.

91 UNGA Res. 2014 (n 9), para. 41. 92 UNGA Res. 2022 (n 58), para. 10.

126