Submitted by crinadmin on
[GENEVA, 27 June 2006] - At 10 am, the Human Rights Council opened the discussion on the report of the open-ended Working Group established with a view to considering options regarding the elaboration of an Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). Ms Catarina de Albuquerque, chairperson of the Working Group, took the floor to present the report of the 3rd session of the Working Group, which took place in February 2006, on the consideration of options on the establishment of an Optional Protocol (OP) to the Covenant. Ms de Albuquerque updated the Council on the activities of the Working Group since the 61st session of the Commission on Human Rights in Spring 2005. She added that, during its 3rd session, the Working Group had discussed the following issues: analytical paper prepared on an Optional Protocol to provide a basis for discussions within the Working Group, a communications procedure, an enquiry procedure, inter-state procedures, international cooperation, the possible impact of an OP, etc. Ms Albuquerque added that the Working Group concluded its last debate with a discussion on the implication of an OP and how to draft it. It was decided that the chairperson would prepare a paper to serve as a basis for future negoptiations. She also asked the Council to decide on renewing the mandate of the Working Group, and reminded that the UN Secretary General expressed his support for such an OP. Discussion Uruguay, Austria/EU, UK, Argentina, Mexico, Russian Federation, Guatemala, Japan, India, Senegal, the Philippines, Peru, Brazil/GRULAC, South Africa, Switzerland, Morocco, Azerbaijan, Netherlands, and Indonesia, Portugal, Spain, Chile, Belgium, Australia. Many speakers expressed their concern that economic, social and cultural rights were given much less importance internationally than civil and political rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Indeed, Algeria/Africa and Brazil/GRULAC, among others, stressed that in disrespect of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, the ICESCR has no complaints mechanism, which reflects an imbalance compared with the ICCPR. Uruguay, the first speaker, pointed out that poverty remained the most flagrant violation of economic, social and cultural human rights, and reproduced those violations from generation to generation against the principles of the Vienna Declaration. Uruguay is in favour of the adoption of the OP to the ICESCR. Austria, on behalf of the EU, reaffirmed the EU's commitment to economic, social and cultural rights as stated in the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action. Full and equal emphasis must be given to the realisation economic, social and cultural rights. Austria urged Council members to take the process forward and consider all views to ensure a constructive cooperation with the work of the Working Group. Some countries (UK, Switzerland and Netherlands among others) still had doubts on the efficacy of such a complaints mechanism. Nevertheless, in the spirit of consensus, some States recognised that a significant body of States were moving the process forward and so accepted that the mandate of the Working Group should be extended in order for the text to be drafted. The UK and Switzerland, however, made it clear that it does not believe that a single text can reflect the differences of approach. The views exprressed at the last Working Group session being too varied. Non-Council member statements followed. The US expressed their view that the Council would be ill-advised to allow the Group to start elaborating a draft OP befiore consensus has been reached. The Working Group was ill-equipped for such an enterprise, said the US representative. NGO statements followed with: Center of Housing Rights and Evictions, Fédération Internationale des Ligues des Droits de l’Homme, Foodfirst Information and Action Network, Franciscans International, International Commission of Jurists, International Women’s Rights Action Watch, Centre Europe-Tiers Monde, Union de l'Action Feminine, Permanent Assembly for Human Rights. Ms Albuquerque took the floor again to respond to comments made in the above speeches. She first recommended that the mandate of the Working Group be renewed for at least two years and asked the Council to approve its mandate to allow the chair to conduct consultations on the drafting of the OP. Ms de Albuquerque explained that the process has taken momentum with regional initiatives taking place between Working Group sessions (regional meeting in Mexico for GRULAC, in Finland for EU, and a possible one in Africa). She also explained that the process of elaborating an OP is a continuum. The 4th session will follow up naturally from the 3rd session. It is an evolution, not a revolution. What was said in past sessions should constitute the basis for a possible future draft. A climate of trust and confidence was built in the Working Group and is precious and should be maintained. The chair concluded by saying that the Group should strive towards producing a final text and continue deliberations in the spirit of the widest possible consensus. If the Council extends its mandate and if a mandate is given to prepare a draft, consultations with delegations would take place as has been the case in the past. The process is on of continuum, not disruption. The meeting was adjourned at 11:45am.