CYIL vol. 14 (2023)

JAN LHOTSKÝ Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights with its activity. 96 Therefore, such a move would be possible by means of an ECOSOC resolution. 97 2. The ‘new’ Human Rights Committee becomes a permanent body The committee resulting from the merger of the two bodies (formally the current Human Rights Committee obtaining new competence to monitor economic, social and cultural rights) would be able to monitor the whole spectrum of human rights. 98 Considering this, as well as the review of states according to the fixed calendar, such tasks could not be covered within a part-time setting anymore. In addition, the growing number of communications that the system receives is by and large addressed predominantly to the two ‘covenant committees’. 99 Therefore, the new permanent Human Rights Committee would obtain additional capacity to deal with the growing number of communications. 3. Specialized committees stay part-time but work in chambers There is no need to merge all committees together as suggested by the High Commissioner for Human Rights in 2006. Firstly, it is not possible under the current treaties. Secondly, there is a great need to keep the separate committees that focus on specific human rights areas such as rights of women, children or torture, and to support their expertise and focus on these issues. However, in order to increase their capacity, they should be encouraged to work in parallel chambers. 4. Post-session meetings to strengthen cooperation and avoid duplication In order to prevent overlaps and duplication, or even divergent interpretation of same human rights issues by different treaty bodies, the cooperation of the new Human Rights Committee with specialized committees should be institutionalized. This would be achieved by regular post-session meetings which would take place after each session of a specialized committee. During this meeting, the respective committee and the Human Rights Committee would share the most important substantive and jurisprudential developments. 5. Assessing the quality of nominees by a new Panel of Experts The need to increase the qualification and independence of treaty body members is to be properly addressed. In this respect, suitable inspiration can be taken from the processes of selecting judges of the Court of Justice of the European Union, 100 as well as from the European Court of Human Rights. 101 In both cases the states’ nominees are assessed by a panel of seven experts chosen from among former judges of the respective court, members of the highest national courts or lawyers of recognized competence. Their assessments of candidates are made available to states before the elections. Such an objective assessment should be included into the process of nominations and elections of treaty body members. I suggest that a Panel 96 Article 16 para. 2 (a) of the ICESCR. Further see ECOSOC Res. 1985/17 (28 May 1985). 97 For this reason, support of the UN General Assembly would probably also be needed. I discussed the possible legal questions in this regard and their solutions in Lhotský 2017 (n 94), pp. 58–60. 98 This would reflect well that human rights are indivisible, interdependent and interrelated. See Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, 25 June 1993, para. 5. 99 See Secretary-General report 2018 (n 14) para. 24, and Secretary-General report 2020 (n 14) para. 16. 100 The ‘Article 255 panel’ according to the Article 255 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU. 101 See Resolution CM/Res (2010)26 on the establishment of an Advisory Panel of Experts on Candidates for Election as Judge to the European Court of Human Rights.

128