CYIL Vol. 7, 2016

CYIL 7 ȍ2016Ȏ TOWARDS A NEW CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTON OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS take place through periodic reporting. The text is ready and the question now seems to be when (rather than whether) it will be adopted. At first sight, it would seem that the legal framework applicable to older persons under current international human rights law is quite extensive and comprehensive, encompassing universal and regional hard law and soft law instruments. Does it mean that Mégret is wrong when he claims that existing instruments do not sufficiently take into account the needs of older persons? 70 Not necessarily, because as the overview of sources reveals, the international legal framework exhibit several flaws. First, the provisions are scattered in many different instruments. Not a single State is bound by all of these instruments; the extent of obligations relating to older persons that individual States have is therefore quite diverse and usually also quite limited. Secondly, most instruments approach older persons from a “single-issue” perspective. This perspective is either that of non-discrimination or, even more typically, that of economic, social and cultural rights, especially the right to social security. 71 This obviously does not do justice to the complexity of situations in which older persons might face age-related violations of their human rights, as is well documented, for instance, in the 2012 report of the UN High Commission for Human Rights on the human rights of older persons. 72 Thirdly, the most comprehensive universal instruments, such as the UN Principles for Older Persons, are non-binding in nature. Their content is, moreover, vague, setting general principles rather than concrete rules. The situation is somewhat better in certain regions, namely the Americans (and soon, hopefully, Africa), where binding instruments have been adopted or drafted focused on the human rights of older persons. These instruments, however, are limited to their regions and neither of them has entered into force as yet. Fourthly, although international human rights bodies have not been oblivious to older persons, their case-law could not make up for the missing provisions. At the same time, the way in which States report to these bodies, especially through their periodic reports on the implementation of human rights treaties, reveals that they do not see older persons as individuals to whom special attention should be paid. The 2009 report by the UN Secretary General established that out of the 124 reports submitted to the UN Human Rights Committee in 2000–2008, only three mentioned age discrimination and one highlighted the vulnerability of older people in long-term care homes. In the same period, in the 122 reports relating to the ICESCR, 24 references were made to older persons and their rights. For the CEDAW, the number is 32 in 190 reports. The UN Secretary General rightly observes that “many States are “age-blind” in their human rights reporting”. 73 70 MÉGRET, Frédéric, supra note 34, pp. 41-42. 71 See also DE HERT, Paul, MANTOVANI, Eugenio, Specific Human Rights for Older Persons?, European Human Rights Law Review, Issue 4, 2011, pp. 398-418. 72 UN Doc. E/2012/51, Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 20 April 2012. 73 UN Doc. A/64/127, supra note 23, par. 19-20.

189