CHAPTER 10

How Does the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Monitor Implementation and Violations of the Covenant? How Can NGOs Enhance That Process?

Overview of the Chapter

Chapter 10 differs from the other chapters in the Handbook in several important respects. For one thing, it is the longest chapter. It is also the most detailed, providing step-by-step guidance on how NGOs can participate in and contribute to the work of the CESCR in monitoring States Parties’ compliance with their Covenant obligations.

The Committee’s mandate has both a specific and a general component. The Committee reviews and issues comments on the periodic reports submitted by States Parties. It also formulates and provides general guidance to States on how to understand and comply with their obligations under the Covenant.

The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights actively solicits NGO participation in monitoring States’ compliance with the provisions of the Covenant. NGOs in a given country have an in-depth knowledge of that country’s strengths and weaknesses in realising economic, social and cultural rights, which the Committee, based in Geneva and composed of part-time members, cannot hope to duplicate by relying solely on its own resources. Nor is it wise for the Committee to accept a State’s report at face value. The independent, outside perspective brought by NGOs is an invaluable resource for the Committee.*

There are two points in the CESCR’s review process where NGO input is especially helpful. The first is in formulating the List of Issues, which is finalised six to twelve months before review of the State Party’s report, during a session called the Pre-Sessional Working Group (PSWG). The List of Issues identifies areas of concern with respect to a State’s fulfilment of its Covenant obligations and serves to structure and guide the formal review session. The second point is the formal review itself.

In interacting with the CESCR, NGOs are free to choose the nature and level of their own involvement. This can range from an action as simple as submitting a newspaper clipping, all the way to researching and writing an alternative version of the State Party’s report and/or sending a representative to the session at which CESCR members question the State’s delegation about its report.

All of these opportunities for participation are described in this chapter. Chapter 10 interweaves two main themes. The first is a description of how the Committee functions. The second provides step-by-step guidance to NGOs on how they can participate in the review process. The chapter also includes examples of the material presented, in the form of case illustrations and excerpts from some of the documents that are discussed. In addition, several checklists providing guidance on actions NGOs can take to contribute to the work of the Committee can be found in Annex F.

10.1 Introductory Notes

10.1.1 A Few Words about the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

The central mandate of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights is to try to ensure for everyone the enjoyment of all human rights. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), located in Geneva, Switzerland, has replaced and absorbed the former UN Centre for Human Rights. The Office is headed by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. A full description of the functions and organisation of the OHCHR can be found on its website (http://www.unhchr.ch) or may be obtained by ordinary mail. Among the tasks of the OHCHR are a duty to:

• stimulate and coordinate action for human rights throughout the UN system;
• promote universal ratification and implementation of international human rights standards;
• prepare State Party reports for review by UN bodies that monitor compliance with human rights treaties;
• follow up on decisions and recommendations taken at meetings of treaty monitoring bodies;
• provide support to human rights fact-finding and investigatory mechanisms, such as special rapporteurs, special representatives, special experts and working groups, mandated by the UN to deal with specific country situations or with particular kinds of human rights violations;
• plan and co-ordinate meetings of the various UN commissions, committees and working groups that deal with human rights;
• develop educational and informational materials on UN human rights standards and programmes and provide them to member States of the UN, NGOs, the media and others;
• manage the information services of the human rights programme, including the documentation centre and library and the human rights computer databases;
• provide advisory services and technical assistance in the field of human rights to governments;
• promote the establishment of national human rights systems and institutions;
• process communications submitted to treaty bodies concerning complaints of human rights violations;
• take action to try to prevent human rights violations;
• assist in the analysis of the voluntary reports submitted by States on the progress and steps they have taken for the realisation of the right to development;
• prepare research reports on the right to development.

10.1.2 A Few Words about the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights monitors the extent to which States Parties comply with the Covenant and gives guidance on how to stop violations and improve implementation of economic, social and cultural rights. Within two years after a country ratifies the Covenant, that country is supposed to send a report to the CESCR describing its progress in improving the enjoyment of Covenant rights for its people. The State Party is required to send additional reports once every five years. To assess the performance of each State Party, the CESCR examines the State’s reports, as well as information obtained from NGOs and other UN agencies.

The 18 members of the CESCR are “independent experts”. Many are former diplomats, politicians, university professors or lawyers. These individuals are chosen partly for their expertise, and partly to ensure balanced representation on the CESCR from the different regions of the world. Experts on UN committees are expected to think independently of their own countries and are not supposed to be attached either to a government or to the UN. Some Committee members, however, are not as independent of their governments as others are; and the degree of expertise among members varies.

Generally, the CESCR has done an admirable job of trying to influence States to honour their Covenant obligations, partly by encouraging NGOs to add their knowledge to CESCR fact-finding and to help identify State Party violations. Because the UN allocates few resources to support the Committee’s work, and governments never provide a complete picture of their own failings, NGO contributions of knowledge and opinion are crucial. The CESCR actively encourages appropriate NGO participation. It is usually NGOs that discover human rights abuses, inform the CESCR about them, and push for remedies. NGOs provide most of the factual evidence of violations, many of the practical ideas for improving the promotion and defence of human rights, and continuous demands that infringements be treated seriously.

At its gatherings each year (currently in April-May and November-December) the CESCR reviews the progress of five to six States Parties in meeting their obligations under the Covenant, primarily by reviewing the State Party’s written report and questioning the State’s representatives about it in an open session. These meetings are open to NGOs. At the end of the three-week session, the CESCR issues comments on the countries it has just reviewed, called Concluding Observations (see 10.5 below). It also periodically releases interpretive documents called General Comments (see 10.8). At the beginning of the final week of a session, the CESCR hosts a Day of General Discussion (see 10.7) on one or two specific themes (for example, the right to housing). For the rest of that third week, the CESCR holds closed meetings at which it drafts its Concluding Observations for the countries it has reviewed. After the release of the Concluding Observations, which marks the end of the larger CESCR gathering, a small number of CESCR members meet as a Pre-Sessional Working Group (see 10.2), to prepare for the States Parties’ reviews that will take place six to twelve months later.

Committee members serve in a part-time capacity, and because the CESCR sessions last a total of only six weeks per year, they have little time to consider the situation in any one country. The review of each State Party is co-ordinated by one CESCR member, who gathers all the information and questions concerning the review of that State’s compliance with the Covenant. That assigned member is called the Rapporteur for that State Party. The Rapporteur usually writes the first draft of the List of Issues and the Concluding Observations for that State. During the rest of the year, the CESCR Secretariat assists in collecting, compiling, analysing and distributing information; organising meetings; keeping records; and drafting Committee documents.

10.1.3 A Few Words about Why an NGO Might Want to Participate in the UN Committee’s Review of Its Country’s Record on Human Rights

• There are not many methods available for trying to influence the economic and social policy of a country on behalf of less powerful groups. Moreover, the methods that may be at hand (for example, courts, human rights commissions, democratic political institutions, and civil society institutions) are not strong in every country. A serious NGO should consider every legitimate option that can be used, including contributing to the CESCR’s review of its country’s compliance with its obligations under the Covenant.
• Although governments do not always yield to international moral pressure, most States like to project a positive image, and questions raised by a world body might be the extra push they need to take their human rights treaty commitments more seriously.
• Since 1993 the CESCR has openly encouraged NGO input; this input is very valuable to the workings of the Committee.
• The time involved in contributing to the procedures of the CESCR can range from a few hours to many months, depending on how much involvement the NGO chooses to undertake. Participating in the process of planning, research, mobilising resources, calling on volunteers, and drafting documents can itself prove valuable by strengthening the group, as well as showing the capabilities of the NGO. And the NGO’s computer capabilities and library facilities might be improved during the process.
• When preparing input for the CESCR, NGOs normally contact national and international institutions and other NGOs. The networks established in this way help the NGO to be more effective in its future work.
• Reports submitted to the CESCR, plus information collected by an NGO but not included in its submission, can be useful within the country for years to come, perhaps as sources of evidence when communicating with politicians, the media or the general public about human rights progress or violations. A CESCR review of the country’s record is a good incentive for doing this research.
• Consultations carried out when drafting a submission or preparing to make an oral presentation to the CESCR include discussions among NGOs, with government officials, and with ordinary people who are harmed by violations of States’ obligations under the Covenant. Efforts to consult widely can educate groups about the existence and concerns of others.
• The step-by-step process of sending an NGO brief to the CESCR, making an oral presentation to its members in Geneva, and/or being present when government representatives are being questioned by the CESCR can be memorable. The experience is eye-opening, sometimes frustrating, and sometimes enjoyable.

10.1.4 A Few Words about NGO Preparations for the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

When discussing whether to participate in a CESCR review of its country, NGO decision-makers should consider their priorities and capabilities carefully. Several matters to evaluate are provided in the NGO checklists in Annex F of this Handbook. The NGO might first find out when the next CESCR review of its country is scheduled and whether the State has submitted the required report. NGO staff would learn such practical information by contacting the CESCR Secretariat, by viewing the OHCHR website at http://www.unhchr.ch (discussed more fully in Annex D), or by asking officials at the Foreign Ministry. Before deciding to enter into a campaign centred on the CESCR, an NGO should seek advice from others who have experience with UN human rights bodies. As the checklists suggest, the NGO ought to examine many questions, such as the following:

• Does the NGO have enough human and financial resources for the extra work needed to make an impact on the CESCR’s review? The answer is probably “yes” because any NGO can have some impact, just by sending a letter to the CESCR suggesting good questions to ask the government.
• If the NGO wants to make a more substantial contribution to the CESCR’s deliberations, how will it find the required resources? Are there allies who can and should share the burden? The most effective way for an NGO to submit information to the Committee about a specific country may be to prepare a comprehensive, but not overly long, document jointly with other NGOs. This has advantages with respect to the cost of preparing the report and sending representatives to Geneva. A joint statement from several small NGOs is likely to make a stronger impact on CESCR members than a number of separate statements that are not co-ordinated.
• Are there other efforts inside the country, to which those supporting the NGO would prefer to devote energy (rather than to the CESCR process), believing that these other efforts would have surer and larger impacts on the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights? Examples might include seeking enforceable court orders under national legislation, organising a citizens’ campaign, strengthening trade unions, or trying to elect a political party that supports human rights. Since most NGOs will pursue a combination of activities, the real question may be: “What portion of the NGO’s resources should be allocated to a focus on the CESCR, mixed in with other priorities?”
• Does the NGO feel that it would be wise and productive to criticise the country’s government openly through CESCR procedures? If not, can useful information and questions be discreetly channelled to the CESCR through an international NGO (for example, one based in Geneva, Paris, New York or London)?

Although NGOs are welcome to attend CESCR meetings, a practical problem is that Geneva is an expensive city. The CESCR does not have money to pay the travel costs for NGOs to attend its meetings. However, NGOs based in Geneva may be able to give tips on how to reduce costs. Although it is costly to send someone to Geneva, it is advisable for at least one NGO delegate to remain there for two weeks or more during the three-week session. The CESCR gives NGOs an opportunity to make oral presentations at the start of a session, but NGOs would probably also want representation when State delegates are being questioned. It is also helpful to have someone present in Geneva for one day at the close of the session, to obtain the Committee’s Concluding Observations as soon as they are released, but that could involve covering living costs for the entire third week. The goal of obtaining a copy of the Concluding Observations quickly can perhaps be accomplished by arranging for one individual representing a group of NGOs to remain in Geneva until they are released, or by arranging for a Geneva-based NGO to obtain the Concluding Observations and send copies to national NGOs.

Having focused on potential costs, NGOs should recall that such expenses would be incurred only once every five years, for an endeavour that could turn out to be an important stimulus for improvements in social justice in the NGO’s country. Moreover, it is quite possible for NGOs to contribute to the work of the CESCR without being physically present at the meeting.

Small NGOs do not usually have the resources needed to write a lengthy alternative report or to deliver a presentation in person to a UN Committee. To do so, most NGOs would need extra staff time and funds to gather evidence; to research, prepare, print and send a persuasive NGO report; to pay the cost of travel to Geneva for its representative(s); and to distribute information nationally concerning the UN process. Many NGOs would thus need to budget extra funds and staff time for the years when they prepare for, participate in, and report on a CESCR review. However, as we noted earlier, there are ways that even the smallest NGO (or one individual assisting an NGO) can contribute, by sending an informative letter or list of questions concerning a country to the CESCR Secretariat, or by co-ordinating its efforts with other NGOs.

10.1.5 How Difficult Is It for an NGO to Provide Information to the CESCR?

• When an NGO representative goes to Geneva to make a presentation in person, arranging to make that presentation may be easier than arranging to make a statement to a legislative committee or human rights commission in its own country, or even being a witness in court. It is also more feasible than making a speech to many other UN bodies. Neither the NGO nor the individual speaking on its behalf needs to have special status, just an invitation from the CESCR (obtained from its Secretariat). The oral presentations made by NGOs and the follow-up questions that are posed by Committee members are handled relatively informally.
• If the NGO does not feel that it has the time or the resources to send a representative to Geneva, it can submit information ranging from a simple one-page letter all the way to a complex report. The NGO does not need to go through a formal procedure to send the information. It can simply send it by regular mail or electronic mail to the Secretariat of the CESCR in Geneva.
• Some UN and regional bodies that monitor States’ compliance with human rights treaties have strict rules that individuals and groups must follow before they can lodge complaints about human rights violations. In most cases, the international body will require that an individual first attempt to obtain a remedy for a human rights violation through human rights commissions or court procedures within a country—a process that can take many years. In contrast, complaints about violations of the Covenant can be put in a letter or report to the CESCR without having to show that available national mechanisms have already been tried.
• It is not necessary for NGOs or anyone else to obtain permission from their country’s government before providing information to the CESCR. Often, letters or reports are sent to the CESCR without the government’s knowledge that this is being done. We recommend, however, that an NGO provide a copy of its report to its State’s officials prior to the CESCR session at which the country’s human rights record is reviewed. It is better if the CESCR has an opportunity to hear both sides of the story, rather than allowing the government simply to say that it did not have time to prepare an answer to questions raised by the NGO.

Assuming that an NGO or group of NGOs decides to participate in the CESCR’s monitoring process, they will find information in sections 10.2 to 10.12 of this Handbook, and in Annex F, to assist in planning. Starting with 10.2, each section describes a stage in the CESCR’s process, including comments on how NGOs can add significant value to the Committee’s work during that stage.

10.2 The Pre-Sessional Working Group

The CESCR’s review process begins when a State Party submits its periodic report, typically one to three years before the Committee’s formal hearing on the report. The Committee will generally consider five States’ reports during each of its semi-annual sessions. Approximately six months to a year in advance, the CESCR organises a Pre-Sessional Working Group (PSWG) to prepare for its formal review of these reports. The PSWG meets for a week immediately after the close of the regular three-week Committee session, to study the reports and decide on the additional information the CESCR should seek from each State. A Rapporteur is designated for each of the five States Parties from among the CESCR membership. The Rapporteur co-ordinates the various stages of the review process, from preparing for the PSWG, through drafting and adopting the Committee’s Concluding Observations.

The purpose of the Pre-Sessional Working Group is to ensure that the CESCR understands the main economic, social and cultural rights issues in the country, and to prepare for the formal review. The Rapporteur drafts a “List of Issues” for his or her assigned State Party, based on the State’s report and other information made available to the Committee, including information from NGOs. The PSWG discusses the draft List of Issues, may propose changes to it, and ultimately approves the final version. The List of Issues is then transmitted to the State. The State is expected to provide written answers to the questions well in advance of the formal review, to provide enough time for its replies to be translated into the Committee’s working languages (English, French, Spanish and Russian).

10.2.1 NGO Participation in the Pre-Sessional Working Group

NGOs are encouraged to participate in the Pre-Sessional Working Group and in drafting the List of Issues. NGO participation can take several forms. Possibilities include sending information to the Committee about a State Party’s implementation of the Covenant, submitting questions for the List of Issues, and making an oral presentation at the PSWG’s first meeting.

Written Submissions

An NGO wishing to submit information about a State’s implementation of ESC rights directly to the Country Rapporteur for possible inclusion in the List of Issues can obtain the name of that individual from the CESCR Secretariat. Written information should be in report form, following the outline of the Covenant on an article-by-article basis. Ideally, an NGO should include specific questions at the end of each section. Reports and suggested questions should be sent to the CESCR Secretariat well ahead of the relevant PSWG meeting. NGOs may contact the Secretariat for additional guidance on written submissions.

Oral Presentations

An oral presentation should follow the same sequence as the articles in the Covenant and should last no more than 15 minutes. An NGO wishing to make an oral presentation at the PSWG should contact the Secretariat in advance, to allow the Secretariat to schedule the NGO appropriately and to ensure that NGO representatives receive the proper authorisation and documentation to enter the UN buildings in Geneva.

The Pre-Sessional Working Group is important in determining the shape and direction of the formal State Party review. NGOs that have participated in the PSWG, whether in person or in writing, attest to the value of the experience.

10.3 Documents Prepared for the CESCR Review of a Country’s Record

10.3(A) Government and UN Documents

List of Issues

The CESCR has adopted the practice of sending the State a List of Issues which the Committee wants addressed when it meets with representatives of the State’s government. These Lists of Issues are sent to a State several months prior to the appearance of its delegation at the CESCR session. The State is expected to provide written answers to the items in the List of Issues in advance of the scheduled review. The List of Issues contains major headings, corresponding to the major divisions in the Covenant, with related questions grouped under each heading. If the State is a federation (for example, Canada) in which important powers are held by units like provinces or states, the List of Issues may request answers not just from the federal government, but also from the provincial or state governments. The CESCR recognises that apparent violations of economic, social and cultural rights might be partly the responsibility of a province or state, although under the Covenant the national government bears ultimate responsibility for complying with the treaty.

Excerpts from recent Lists of Issues are reproduced below. They offer examples of the Committee’s concerns with respect to the realisation of economic, social and cultural rights in various countries. As noted above, Lists of Issues are drafted after the State submits its report. Therefore, they primarily reflect concerns raised by the report. The concerns highlighted in the Lists of Issues also originate from a variety of other sources, including information and suggested questions submitted by NGOs.

10.3.1 Examples from the List of Issues

General Information

Please indicate whether the Covenant may be invoked before [State A’s] courts and whether there is any jurisprudence at the national or State level in this respect.

Please indicate if the Government of [State A] has acted on the Committee’s concluding observations on the second periodic report of [State A].

Please explain what the Government’s position is with respect to approval of an optional protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

To what extent have non-governmental organisations participated in the preparation of the report?

Issues Relating to the General Provisions of the Covenant (arts. 1-5)

Article 3. Equality of Men and Women

Please indicate whether, in conformity with . . . the Constitution, men and women have fully achieved equal rights under civil, family, commercial, labour and criminal law in [State B].

Please indicate the measures taken by the State party to ensure that there is no disparity between the minimum age for marriage of men and women.

Please inform if there are any differences in other provisions of the Law (administration of community property, exercise of parental authority, access to credit, etc. by married women without need for their husband’s consent) between men and women.

Please provide information on the proportion of women in positions of responsibility and decision-making positions in the public sector (for example, politics, national and provincial administration, Congress and the Senate, the judiciary, international representation) and the private sector (executive posts in firms, in scientific research, etc.) in the past five years, including appropriate statistics and indicators.

Issues Relating to Specific Provisions of the Covenant (arts. 6-15)

Article 8: Trade Union Rights

Please provide information on the number and types of labour unions in [State C].

The Committee would like to be provided with detailed information on the right of public employees to organise.

Please provide information on the number of legal and illegal strikes during the last five years. In addition, please indicate what steps have been taken by the Government of [State C] in response to the observations on ILO Labour Convention No. 105 on the Abolition of Forced Labour made in 1997 by the ILO Committee of Experts.

Article 10: Protection of the family, mothers and children

Does [State A] law recognise common-law marriage on the same terms as legal marriage, in particular with regard to the right of the woman and any children of the union?

Can the State Party indicate whether the recommendations, if any, of the National Human Rights Commission regarding improved protection of the rights of women and children have been implemented?

Apart from cultural patterns that militate against equal treatment for women, what are the chief causes of violence against women and children in the home? Please provide statistical information in this respect.

What are the corrective measures taken by the State party to tackle the problem of abandoned children, street children, children belonging to minorities and indigenous populations, children living in difficult circumstances, illegally employed children, and children who are denied protection under the Covenant and are prone to criminality, drug addiction and sexual exploitation?

What measures have been taken to control prostitution and to prevent forced prostitution and exploitation of women?

Article 12: The right to physical and mental health

Please indicate the latest percentage of GNP, as well as of the national budget, allocated to health care and the percentage of these resources allocated to primary health care over the past five years.

Insufficient reference is made in the report to sexually transmitted diseases, such as HIV/AIDS. Could the State kindly provide information on the actual situation of these diseases in [State D]?

Please provide information on the effective results of the efforts, mentioned in paragraph [x] of the report, to develop and implement projects on local community-based health care services, jointly financed by the State and the local community.

Could the Government please provide information on the actual situation of mental health, the estimated number of the mentally ill and how, and by whom, they are cared for?

Articles 13 and 14: The Right to education

Please provide further details on the situation in those regions referred to in paragraph [y] of the report where school attendance is low.

Please state the main reasons for the school drop-out rate.

Please describe the results of the Government’s campaign to overcome prejudices against the practice of certain occupations referred to in paragraph [z] of the report.

Please describe the importance attached to human rights teaching within the [State C] education system and, in this regard in the training of teachers, members of the armed forces, judges and other public servants.

The Committee would appreciate being provided with statistics on higher education, disaggregated by gender and by academic discipline.

Please state whether there is a plan of action for the implementation of the principle of compulsory and free education for all, as set forth in articles 13 and 14 of the Covenant.

The State Party’s Periodic Report

A new “periodic report” to the CESCR is due every five years, covering the period since the previous report. Ideally, the reports follow guidelines published by the CESCR in its General Comments (see 10.8 below). These guidelines require each State to describe progress achieved toward fulfilment of Covenant rights, such as new legislation and social programmes, elimination of discrimination, or successful court cases. The State is also supposed to reveal problems that have not been resolved, and how it plans to address them. A few States have been very conscientious about giving detailed data on developments since their last report was submitted, even mentioning their shortfalls in meeting obligations. Most, however, submit slim, vague documents. States may also submit thick documents that do not answer central questions, nor reveal evidence that Covenant violations may have occurred.

The tasks of preparing and reading reports are made easier by a requirement that each State file a Core Document containing general information about the country. The Core Document provides background information for the use of the UN human rights treaty bodies, but this information can be useful to any interested party. It contains data on the country’s population, legal and political systems, economic and social structure, income levels, and so on. Since this core information is on file for everyone’s use, it does not need to be repeated or summarised in every report to a UN body. When necessary, a State’s periodic report to the CESCR gives a cross-reference to paragraphs in its Core Document that contain pertinent data, perhaps indicating significant changes during the preceding five years.

In a few countries, governments consult with NGOs during the months that the State’s periodic report is being prepared. The government may officially launch its report, distribute it adequately so that the public and politicians can see it, and arrange public discussion of it, but this would be very rare. Such consultation is commendable, as it encourages public participation in discussion of Covenant rights and obligations. To fortify their independence from the State, NGOs should not offer to give advance approval to the report before it is sent to the UN. This approach leaves an NGO freer to question the facts or opinions in the government’s report when it prepares its own written submissions to the CESCR. Assessing contrasting points of view helps CESCR members to decide for themselves which version of the facts seems more accurate, and whether any data have been left out of a State’s report or written in a vague way to avoid revealing violations.

NGOs can distribute the government report more widely on their own, and accompany it with comments concerning what they think the report masks or leaves out.

Last-Minute Documents that Update the Periodic Report

The formal review by the CESCR of a State’s periodic report may occur a year or more after that State submits it to the UN. Closer to the time of its meeting with the CESCR, the State will often provide updated data in supplementary documents.

10.3(B) NGO Participation and Submission of Documents

Information for the Country Profile

Between submission of the State’s report and its review by the CESCR, NGOs are welcome to submit relevant information to the CESCR Secretariat from a wide variety of sources, including newspaper clippings, or newsletters and reports from the NGO or other organisations. The Secretariat includes this information in the country file it maintains for each State. The country file contains information about the country from all sources, not just NGOs. Based on information in the country file, the Secretariat prepares a Country Profile on the Committee for each State coming up for review, which complements the State’s report and provides a context for it.

The CESCR Secretariat will often take the initiative to contact NGOs located in the States scheduled for review, and invite them to contribute relevant information and suggestions. The CESCR and its Secretariat are short-staffed and cannot know the situation in a particular country as well as the NGOs based there. Supplying background information about the enjoyment of ESC rights in a particular country is a valuable contribution that NGOs can make to the review process.

The CESCR reviews NGO submissions closely, treating them with respect. An infraction committed by many States is failing to provide the kind of report to the UN that is required by the Covenant. When a State supplies no report, or one that is vague and uninformative, or does not respond well to a request for more data, the Committee will need to rely more than usual on information from NGOs to obtain a more accurate picture. Using NGO reports, along with data on the country obtained from UN agencies and other sources, the CESCR will form an opinion about a State’s human rights record, even if the State does not co-operate fully in the process.

An NGO does not need to report on a large number of issues. It is free to discuss one right (for example, the right to health) or even one aspect of a right (for example, the right of girls to obtain a primary school education). The NGO can choose both the degree and focus of its own involvement when it provides input to the CESCR. There may also be international NGOs with special knowledge concerning the right that the local NGO wishes to highlight, which can provide assistance. A list of NGOs active in various aspects of economic, social and cultural rights, along with contact information and descriptions of their work, is provided in Annex E.

NGOs and the List of Issues

An NGO can strongly influence the questions that the CESCR asks a country’s government about performance of Covenant obligations, merely by sending a well-prepared cluster of suggested issues and questions to the CESCR. National and community NGOs know more about the daily lives of people and the actions of their governments than members of the CESCR have time to learn. A group of NGOs and advisors are in a good position to prepare their own joint List of Issues and related questions.

As described earlier in this chapter, the NGO can propose issues and questions during the Pre-Sessional Working Group meeting that discusses the upcoming review of the State’s report. If this is not feasible, it can send a list of questions to the CESCR Secretariat after the PSWG meeting.

CESCR members are not under an obligation to adopt an issue or question proposed by an NGO, but they welcome ideas and concrete suggestions, based on reliable information, to help them examine reports more effectively. The Committee’s List of Issues and related questions for a State Party will often include questions suggested in NGO documents. To enable the CESCR to judge whether an issue or question is worth exploring with a State Party, the NGO should supply background data showing why the matters are important and reasonable to examine. Excerpts from recent lists of issues were presented earlier in this chapter. Lists of Issues can also be found on the UN human rights website.

Shorter NGO Input to the CESCR: Letters and Suggested Questions

Shorter NGO briefs that do not amount to a full report or reports from other sources still provide valuable insights to the CESCR, by pointing to gaps or misleading data in a State’s periodic report. As indicated above, an NGO’s response to a periodic report could be as uncomplicated as a letter to the Committee, proposing key questions that the government should answer to fill gaps in its report. Such a communication can be sent by regular mail, fax or e-mail to the CESCR Secretariat. It is essential for NGOs to provide accurate information to the CESCR. If certain data prove to be exaggerated or false, the error can be used to discredit other information that is accurate and presented fairly.

A slightly larger, but still non-complex package of evidence could be a letter enclosing photocopies of relevant newspaper articles, government press releases and NGO newsletters.

An NGO may submit a written statement to the CESCR about its State’s periodic report. It should be 2,000 words or less. It is translated into the Committee’s working languages and is published as an official UN document. The NGO should submit it to the CESCR Secretariat at least three months in advance of the CESCR session to provide time for translation. The written statement should be co-sponsored by at least one NGO having consultative status with ECOSOC.**

A relevant document sent by an NGO to the CESCR will usually be copied and distributed among CESCR members. When an NGO has special consultative status with ECOSOC, its alternative reports or other documents submitted to the CESCR can be distributed more widely, as if they were official UN documents. Several such NGO reports on countries are now posted on the OHCHR website.

The NGO should send its government a copy of any discussion document that it gives to the CESCR. This step serves mainly as a courtesy; the CESCR Secretariat provides the State with copies of the written submissions it receives. It is also advisable to send evidence to the CESCR showing that the NGO has provided this information to the government (for example, a copy of the letter that accompanied the document sent to the State). This evidence would make it more difficult for a State’s spokesperson to avoid answering a question later by claiming that it had no opportunity to prepare an answer on a matter, or that the question was an unfair surprise.

We have mentioned that the review of each report is guided by one CESCR member—the Rapporteur for that State—who collects and organises information and suggested questions concerning that State’s periodic report. To convey information to the CESCR, a good approach is to send it to the CESCR Secretariat staff, with a copy to the Rapporteur.

Write a Summary!

It is not safe to assume that CESCR members will read all documents that NGOs send to the Committee. To increase the chances that CESCR members understand the key points, it is important to provide a short summary to accompany any long report from the NGO. If resources permit, the NGO should make sure the translation of the summary is available in English, Spanish and French.

More Complex NGO Submissions—Alternative Reports

An NGO or group of NGOs can send a detailed report that mirrors the State’s report—and shines new light on it. The formal review of a State’s periodic report may occur more than a year after the State submits it to the CESCR. That gives an NGO plenty of time to react to the contents (or gaps) in the report. In many cases, the periodic report from the State will be added to the UN’s human rights website. Anyone can then read it several months before the review takes place. The NGO also will want to examine older State Party reports and make comparisons.

Another source for NGO research is the CESCR’s List of Issues for a State. The List of Issues can be read by anyone with Internet access. An NGO can use the List as one guide for the information and opinions that it presents in its submission to the CESCR.

When governments take backward or “retrogressive” steps instead of working for progress in human rights, proof of retrogression may be present in earlier periodic reports from the same State. A government always wants to “put on a good face”. It is normal for a State’s periodic report to boast about laws, policies and programmes that are positive for human rights. If one of these is cancelled prior to the next Covenant review of the country, without establishing a suitable replacement, the NGO’s report can quote an earlier State report to show that the State once believed that the discarded law, policy or programme was worthwhile.

An alternative report (also called a “parallel” or “shadow” report) can to help educate the media, the public and politicians both before the CESCR session and after it. Greater public awareness might encourage other NGOs to provide input to the CESCR. Public debate might also influence the government to improve its level of compliance with the Covenant, in advance of the CESCR session.

Advice on the framework and style of periodic reports is found in the “Revised general guidelines regarding the form and contents of reports to be submitted by states parties” under the Covenant, published 17 June 1991 as UN document E/C.12/1991/1. Copies may be obtained from the CESC Secretariat.

Last-Minute Update Documents from NGOs

Shortly before the session at which its report is reviewed, a State will often provide updated information. If a long time has elapsed since the NGO’s submission went to the CESCR, or if new violations have come to light in the country, the NGO should submit a supplementary letter or brief just prior to the session.

Tips on Preparing and Submitting NGO Documents

Sending the NGO’s report to the CESCR Secretariat well in advance of the meeting increases the chance that more CESCR members will have time to read it before the session. If a document in only one language is sent to the CESCR at least three months before a session, UN staff may have time to translate it into the Committee’s four working languages (English, French, Spanish and Russian) and make copies available to the Committee. If it is feasible, it is more reliable for an NGO to arrange for its own translation of its principal documents, and submit the translated versions to the UN, either at the same time as the original version or some weeks later. Most people, including CESCR members, prefer to read in their first or second language. Therefore, it is preferable that any NGO brief or letter be in English (the most commonly used language in UN circles) and perhaps in French or Spanish, especially if either is the first language of the Rapporteur responsible for the review of the NGO’s country.

If possible, an NGO should submit its documents on a computer diskette or in CD-ROM, in a commonly used word processing package. This courteous step may make it easier for the CESCR Secretariat to share information with Committee members. Moreover, someone writing a draft document for the CESCR may decide to refer to certain statements or ideas from an NGO document; having the material in an electronic format would simplify the process. There could be a bonus for an NGO that prepares a report of high quality in an electronic version; a few NGO reports to the CESCR are posted on the UN’s human rights website.

Obtaining Documents Prepared for CESCR Sessions

An increasing number of relevant documents can be read or downloaded at the UN’s human rights website, or obtained from NGO sources by similar Internet means. Obtaining UN documents by mail may take more than one inquiry. It can take a long time, and sometimes the UN charges a fee. All participating governments and a few major libraries in many countries receive copies of the CESCR’s reports and annexed documents. Addresses for obtaining documents by mail from the UN are provided in Annex C. At CESCR sessions, printed versions of reports prepared by States parties, by the CESCR itself and by NGOs are on display in the Committee’s working languages and can be obtained free of charge.

10.4 Oral Questioning of Government Delegates at a CESCR Meeting

10.4.1 General Notes on CESCR Meetings

Most meetings during the first two weeks of a session are open to observers, although the conference space is relatively small. UN simultaneous interpreters are available to translate anything spoken into the four working languages of the Committee, English, French, Russian and Spanish.

10.4.2 Questioning of a State’s Delegation by CESCR Members

State representatives are required to meet with the CESCR face-to-face as part of the review of their country’s report. At the start of the formal meeting between the Committee and representatives of the government, the head of the delegation will often make a short presentation. This will generally express views about the importance of human rights and the good record that the State has. The main specific submissions of the State are its periodic report and perhaps a supplementary document conveyed shortly before the session. The State is usually represented by an ambassador or other high-level diplomat, who is supported by expert representatives from the relevant ministries, such as social affairs, justice, health, education and foreign affairs.

After a State’s delegation presents its opening speech, CESCR members may ask questions from the List of Issues prepared during the Pre-Sessional Working Group or any other questions. The verbal exchanges can lead to discomfort if the State’s delegation is not well prepared, if it seems that the country has submitted a misleading report, or if strong evidence is discovered pointing to violations of the Covenant. Most often, any detailed evidence of violations is supplied by NGOs, rather than in the government’s written or verbal reporting to the UN.

The CESCR will normally devote parts of three meetings to interacting with a State’s delegation during the three-week session. This practice enables the CESCR to ask government delegates to return, generally the next day, with fuller answers to questions, to reply to follow-up questions (some of which might be suggested by NGOs), or to respond to questions that the government has completely avoided answering. After that, if the CESCR is still not satisfied with the responses to its follow-up inquiries, it will often demand that the government contact it in the months following the session, with written replies to the unanswered queries.

10.4.3 NGO Participation in the CESCR Session

NGO Oral Presentations During a CESCR Session

The CESCR gives NGOs an opportunity to make oral presentations on the first day of the Committee’s session. The meeting is open and interpretation services are provided. An NGO representative may choose simply to summarise the information in its written submissions, but it is free to bring up any relevant issue. It is useful to suggest specific questions that CESCR members may want to ask during the formal review of a State’s report. Each speaker has approximately fifteen minutes to address the CESCR and answer questions. State representatives are not present for this discussion. NGOs wishing to make an oral statement at this session should notify the CESCR Secretariat in advance, so that the Secretariat can make the necessary arrangements.

We stress that, if possible, the NGO should arrive in Geneva with copies of its report, or at least a summary of the main points, in English, French and Spanish. Copies of the NGO’s speaking notes can be distributed on the day of the CESCR meeting to the interpreters in their booths beside the hearing room. It is recommended that copies be handed out well in advance on the day of the oral presentation. This makes the interpreters’ task easier.

An innovation in November 1998 was the showing of a video to the CESCR, on violations of the right to housing in Canada. NGOs had previously prepared videos for the UN’s Human Rights Committee, which monitors civil and political rights.

Magic Lantern, a group based in India, has prepared a 90-minute video on behalf of the International Human Rights Internship Program (IHRIP). The video highlights how NGOs promote economic, social and cultural rights in their own countries and at the CESCR. NGO activities were recorded in Argentina and Canada, which both came up for review before the Committee recently, and in Geneva during the CESCR meeting of November-December 1999. The producers’ purpose is to convey an understanding of the role, functions, limitations and potential of the CESCR, as well as to document what human rights activism can accomplish. The video, along with a manual on ESCR being developed by the IHRIP, will be used for NGO training. Magic Lantern’s web address is http://www.magic-lantern.org/.

Helping the CESCR to Get Answers to the Right Questions

Questions posed by the CESCR to the government will be based loosely on the List of Issues distributed months ahead of the session. But the exact oral questions are not known in advance, and CESCR members are free to ask what they wish. NGOs may be able to influence what the State delegation must explain to CESCR members, by supplying the Committee with suggested questions ahead of the session and in their oral presentations, along with background information on probable violations. NGO questions tend to focus on States’ failures to honour Covenant obligations—problems that the State would prefer to avoid talking about.

NGO representatives are not permitted to pose their own questions during a CESCR meeting with government representatives. However, they may remain in the Conference room during the review to observe the proceedings. NGO delegates often speak with CESCR members during breaks in the session or hand documents to them at appropriate times. NGO delegations should take complete notes of what government representatives say, and keep track of any questions that are not clearly answered. They can then politely point out any gaps or discrepancies to CESCR members during a break in the proceedings. In a brief chat with a CESCR member an NGO representative can clarify major concerns in a few words.

We have noted the wisdom of paying special attention to the CESCR member who is the assigned Rapporteur for the State being reviewed. By reading Summary Reports of past CESCR sessions and asking questions in UN corridors, an NGO representative can try to learn the particular interests of individual CESCR members. The representative can then prepare specific questions to give to individual members, according to their interests and expertise, at appropriate breaks in the formal session.

Interacting with Media Personnel During the Session

Unless national or grassroots NGOs make special efforts to publicise the CESCR event and its outcomes, people back home will not learn about opinions that the CESCR expresses on possible human rights violations. NGOs can give copies of parallel reports to journalists. It is clearly helpful if media staff are present when NGO speakers make their oral presentations to the CESCR.

Even more impact can be achieved, however, if NGOs can persuade journalists from their nation’s newspaper, radio, and television outlets to be present when the government’s representatives are being questioned by the CESCR. A journalist may observe directly whether the Committee members are happy with the country’s human rights record, or if the government delegation tries to avoid disclosing embarrassing facts. Such direct observation can be educational for the journalist, and it provides a better basis for a media story.

NGOs should start early to try to gain the interest of local journalists concerning the CESCR review of the State’s record. If possible, NGO representatives should get to know individual journalists who might be willing to follow the story through its various stages until after the CESCR has reviewed the report and published its Concluding Observations.

10.5 CESCR Concluding Observations

During the last week of a session, the CESCR releases its Concluding Observations to the State Party concerned. The Concluding Observations are drafted in closed meetings, which are not open to NGOs or States. The Committee’s Concluding Observations are translated and published in all six official UN languages: English, French, Spanish, Russian, Arabic and Chinese. The Concluding Observations are published in print versions and are also posted on the OHCHR website (refer to Annex D for information on how to navigate this website.) The core of the Concluding Observations is the opinion of the CESCR regarding the periodic report of the State Party and the State’s performance over the preceding five years.

If a State is not making appropriate efforts to ensure that a particular Covenant right is enjoyed by everyone, at least to a minimum degree, the State is committing a violation of the Covenant. The CESCR’s Concluding Observations will reflect this, although usually in polite terms. The CESCR does not normally use the word “violations”. Instead, it may refer to “concerns” that it has about particular situations in a country, or about how the State is dealing with them, and may then give recommendations on how to remedy these concerns.

When States do not respect and implement the Covenant voluntarily, the CESCR can employ only persuasive strategies. It does so in its Concluding Observations by praising States that appear to be making sincere efforts to comply with Covenant obligations. The CESCR generally finds something to compliment even when a State has an abysmal record. Indeed, the State takes a positive step just by going through the review process. The CESCR applies moral pressure by commenting in writing on apparent violations—causing embarrassment for representatives of non-compliant States during verbal exchanges at a session—by advising States on the changes they need to adopt at home, and by reporting on whether States follow that advice.

Reproduced below are samples of comments from Concluding Observations directed at various States Parties reviewed during recent sessions. These are excerpts from longer observations that the CESCR published concerning each State. The examples illustrate the range of approaches that the CESCR can take in its Concluding Observations.

10.5.1 Examples of Concluding Observations

State A

... The Committee takes note of the partial implementation of the Government’s plan to facilitate home ownership by tenants illegally occupying government property by giving them the opportunity to purchase the land they are occupying at preferential interest rates.

...[The Committee] is particularly concerned about the large number of workers who fall within the informal economic sectors. Approximately 37 percent of urban workers in the country are not registered, which, according to the Government’s own estimates, implies that 3 million workers have no social security coverage.

...The Committee urges the State party to review its policies on health, and in particular that it pay attention to the issues of mental health, maternal mortality, adolescent pregnancies and HIV/AIDS, and that it provide the Committee with comprehensive statistics in its next report.

State B

... The Committee notes that a lack of concrete and specific information, both in the written report and in the replies provided by the Government of the State party, and the absence of a core document prevented the Committee from making an effective evaluation of the actual situation concerning the enjoyment by the people of [State B] of the human rights provided for in the Covenant.

... The Committee notes that the repayment of external debt by [State B], which absorbs approximately two thirds of the country’s export earnings, negatively affects the ability of the Government to allocate sufficient resources to the social sector.

... The Committee deplores the lack of progress made by the Government in combatting the continuing discriminatory practices against women and girls which impede the enjoyment of their rights under the Covenant. Such practices include polygamy, the forced early marriage of girls and discriminatory laws which prevent women from inheriting land.

State C

... The Committee thanks the Government of [State C] for the presentation of its report, which was in keeping with the Committee’s guidelines, although it was nearly nine years late. The Committee also welcomed the written submission of full replies to its list of questions and expressed satisfaction at the open and constructive dialogue with the State party, which was represented by a delegation of experts. The Committee appreciates the high quality of the information contained in the core document.

... The Committee welcomes the Government’s intention to withdraw the reservation it entered in the Covenant concerning the right to strike.

... A third group which suffers from discrimination in the labour market is persons 55 to 65 years of age, whose unemployment rate is over 50 percent.

... The Committee wishes to express its concern at the consequences of the Tuition Fees Act which has led to a constant increase in the cost of education. Such increases are contrary to the principle of equality of opportunities between the children of rich families and the children of poor families.

State D

... The Committee notes the prevalence of certain traditions, customs and cultural practices in [State D] which continue to impede the full enjoyment by women of their rights under the Covenant.

... The Committee is concerned about the persisting plight of indigenous populations, ... who have limited access to, inter alia, health services, education, work, adequate nutrition and housing.

... The Committee urges the State party to take more effective measures to combat domestic violence, in particular domestic violence against women, and the serious problem of street children. The Committee also urges the State party to remedy the root causes of these problems.

Governments do not always comply with requests from the CESCR (or other UN human rights bodies) asking for follow-up information. Nor do they always act in response to CESCR advice. CESCR intervention through rapid communication with State authorities has occurred occasionally, often with respect to housing rights. It is difficult for the CESCR to go to a country to investigate continuing problems on site. The CESCR is required first to obtain an invitation from the government of that country, and that can take years. Nonetheless, the CESCR has been able to send representatives to some States, and a few of these missions appeared to result in positive changes regarding respect for rights. For example, the CESCR’s Concluding Observations regarding Panama in 1995 record one such instance (on housing rights), and there were several references in the 1990s to situations in Hong Kong that warranted a CESCR mission. A further illustration is provided below regarding the Dominican Republic.

10.5.2 NGO Activities Related to the Concluding Observations

When the CESCR is meeting to draft its Concluding Observations, there is no role for NGOs and no official contact with the CESCR. While awaiting the release of the document, however, NGO personnel can be preparing press releases, trying to arrange for media attention once the CESCR’s opinions are made public, and planning follow-up activities in the NGO’s homeland.

Interacting with Media Personnel to Publicise CESCR Observations

A critical moment for journalists to be present is when the Concluding Observations of the CESCR are finalised and released, usually on the last day of its session. A news conference may be held at that time by the CESCR, which may not be open to NGOs. For accuracy, NGO statements to the media should try to quote directly from the official Concluding Observations rather than from press releases that may be issued.

Follow-Up to the Concluding Observations

An important function of NGOs is to monitor how well the State complies with suggestions made by the CESCR in its Concluding Observations. This Handbook has advised NGOs trying to generate positive change in a country’s laws, policies or programmes to attempt to arrange an annual review of implementation of Covenant rights in the State, perhaps within the national parliament. Such a cycle of regular accountability by the government could begin shortly after the CESCR has concluded its review of the State.

A national NGO does not need to wait for the UN to send a team of experts to examine local situations that seem to violate the Covenant. In a few instances, international NGOs with expertise on housing rights have sent a “fact-finding mission” to a country. Because these international NGOs are well known and respected within the UN system, a report that they publish concerning rights violations would be taken seriously by UN authorities. These NGOs (Habitat International Coalition (HIC) and the Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions - COHRE) have been very active for many years, building up their knowledge and credibility in the process.

10.6 Summary Records

The Summary Records of CESCR sessions are more detailed than the Concluding Observations pertaining to the same meetings. The Summary Records summarise many of the oral questions and answers that occur in exchanges between government delegations and CESCR members.

Reading the Summary Records of past CESCR sessions can be valuable preparation for an NGO planning to submit an alternative report or wishing to make a presentation in person at a future CESCR session. The Summary Records with respect to the Committee’s review of an NGO’s own country can also be useful when an NGO is later trying to explain the process and the results to the public, legislators and the media at home. The Summary Records do not, however, record what NGOs say to the CESCR.

10.7 Days of General Discussion

The CESCR holds a Day of General Discussion in Geneva during each of its semi-annual sessions. The topics are made public months in advance. A few specialists on a subject, such as representatives of UN agencies, academic scholars, and other experts in the field (including NGO experts) are invited to discuss one or two issues and seek clarification and practical conclusions. Most times, these invited experts submit discussion papers explaining their points of view. The Days are “open”, so NGO representatives and other interested parties are welcome to observe and listen. The opportunity for observers to make statements or to ask questions depends on the goals and organisation of the session. Background papers submitted by academic and NGO experts for a Day of General Discussion are often made available as UN documents.

The following issues have been the focus of Days of General Discussion: the right to housing, economic and social indicators, the right to take part in cultural life, the rights of the ageing and elderly, the right to health, the role of social safety nets, human rights education, the interpretation and practical application of the obligations incumbent on States parties, a draft optional protocol to the Covenant (see section 10 of this chapter), revision of the general guidelines for reporting by States, the content of the right to food, globalisation and its impact on the enjoyment of ESC rights, and the right to education.

10.8 General Comments

The CESCR periodically publishes guidelines, usually called “General Comments”. General Comments explain in more detail what is encompassed in the Covenant rights, and tell all States how they can be more successful in complying with treaty obligations, how to avoid violations, and what kinds of information in a State’s report will help the CESCR. Several of the General Comments explain what is needed to fulfil a particular Covenant right (for example, housing), or describe violations that States must avoid (for example, forced evictions). Others give procedural or other practical advice useful for States and NGOs, or stress important general principles of the Covenant.

The Committee has adopted the following General Comments:

• General Comment No. 1 (1989) on reporting by States parties
• GC No. 2 (1990) on international technical assistance measures
• GC No. 3 (1990) on the nature of States parties’ obligations
• GC No. 4 (1991) on the right to adequate housing
• GC No. 5 (1994) on the rights of persons with disabilities
• GC No. 6 (1995) on the economic, social and cultural rights of older persons
• GC No. 7 (1997) on forced evictions
• GC No. 8 (1997) on the relationship between economic sanctions and respect for economic, social and cultural rights
• GC No. 9 (1998) on domestic application of the Covenant
• GC No. 10 (1998) on the role of national human rights institutions
• GC No. 11 (1999) on plans of action for primary education
• GC No. 12 (1999) on the right to adequate food • GC No. 13 (1999) on the right to education
• GC No. 14 (2000) on the right to health.

The General Comments are available in CESCR reports in many libraries, by mail from the UN, and on the OHCHR website.

Among the general advice issued by the CESCR has been the view that all States are obligated to ensure that individuals and groups have access to remedies (through courts, for example) to protect their rights when they are threatened. The CESCR has also noted that its job of monitoring whether a State complies with its obligations is aided by the requirement that each State report must identify the groups within the country that are particularly vulnerable because of discrimination.

Input for General Comments is sometimes drawn from the results of a Day of General Discussion, but there is not always a connection between the General Discussions and the General Comments. Although the CESCR may develop a General Comment in private before publishing it, there is a recent trend toward seeking wider input before drafting a General Comment. General Comments are circulated informally for reactions and are discussed and adopted in a public session. The General Comments adopted in recent sessions have been preceded by a period of several months during which the CESCR actively sought NGO and other input. An NGO could try to influence the content or development of a General Comment by asking the CESCR Secretariat about the subjects of upcoming General Comments, and submitting its own background or opinion paper to the CESCR.

10.9 Notes Concerning the OHCHR Website

A great deal of information useful for NGOs can be found by exploring the many links from the OHCHR home page at http://www.unhchr.ch. It is not always easy to find what you are looking for, however, so a good span of time should be set aside for any search. By navigating the OHCHR site one can find all of the following:

• A list of countries that have ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (as well as lists showing ratifications of other human rights treaties).
• The names of States Parties whose reports will be reviewed at CESCR meetings during the next two years, as well as other items on the Committee’s agenda.
• Information on whether a State’s periodic report is available at the website, including whether versions are available in English, French or Spanish.
• Fact sheets that interpret the meaning of specific rights and describe how to implement them.

The website also contains “click-on” links to extensive information about the UN’s entire range of human rights principles and activities.

Instructions on how to navigate the OHCHR website are provided in Annex D.

Can We Still Learn About CESCR Activities Without Using a Computer?

One does not need to rely on computer communication to learn what is on the agenda for the next several CESCR sessions. NGOs and others can contact officials in the CESCR Secretariat by ordinary mail, telephone or fax. Addresses and other contact information are provided in Annex C.

10.10 Does the CESCR Review Complaints from Individuals about Violations of the Covenant?

The CESCR usually considers violations of the Covenant only when a State’s regular report is reviewed. There is no procedure to permit an individual or a group to file a complaint about a violation, or for the CESCR to consider the problem on short notice. In contrast, the CEDAW Committee has approved such a provision for CEDAW. Refer to Chapter 11 for additional information.

Many NGOs and others are trying to persuade the UN to adopt an “Optional Protocol” to the ICESCR that would permit individuals to submit complaints of Covenant violations. Under the provisions of this Optional Protocol, any State that ratified the Covenant would have the option of taking on extra duties by ratifying the proposed Optional Protocol as well. By doing this, a country would be agreeing that its people have the right to make individual complaints to the UN about human rights violations for which that State Party is responsible. These complaints, known as “petitions”, would be reviewed by the CESCR on a case-by-case basis.

As with most UN human rights procedures, a recommendation made to a State by the CESCR under the Optional Protocol would not have much effect unless the State voluntarily took the recommended action to improve human rights. There is a good chance, however, that countries would pay serious attention to decisions made on the basis of an individual complaint. That is partly because the procedure for an international body to review an individual complaint resembles the procedures followed in some courts. The media of the country that is the subject of the complaint are likely to become interested in the story. If so, they might publicise the announcement of a complaint, the arguments against the State, and the decision released by the CESCR concerning the case.

An Optional Protocol permitting individual complaints of Covenant violations has been drafted, but not approved. It is therefore not yet open for ratification by States Parties. The United Nations operates on an intergovernmental basis, and States appear reluctant to broaden the review process by permitting complaints from individuals. There has been little progress toward adoption of the Optional Protocol in recent years. However, a number of NGOs active in promotion of economic, social and cultural rights continue to campaign for adoption of the Optional Protocol.

On a more informal basis, the CESCR is free to consider a letter from an individual, but it is unlikely to review such a letter formally, except as part of the documents it reviews when gathering evidence about ESC rights in a particular State. If serious and widespread abuses of Covenant rights are occurring in a particular country, an NGO may want to inform the CESCR immediately. The NGO can send a fax, letter, or e-mail message to the CESCR Secretariat. In rare cases the CESCR or its Chair may decide to contact an offending State without waiting for its next periodic review. An NGO is more likely to receive a rapid response to an emergency appeal if it contacts multiple individuals and organisations. Possibilities include the following:

• Resources inside the country where the violations are occurring:

Ministers responsible for the subject areas in which possible violations are arising (for example, the Minister of Housing or Minister of Health); the Attorney General/Minister of Justice; the Foreign Minister; friendly politicians and relevant parliamentary committees; supportive NGO coalitions; the courts (to seek an injunction or other order halting harmful activity); embassies of countries known to champion relevant human rights; print, broadcast and media journalists.

• Resources outside the country:

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights; international human rights NGOs, especially NGOs such as Amnesty International, AAAS or FIAN, which operate Urgent Action networks or services; human rights supervisory bodies of regional organisations; the foreign ministries of countries known to champion the relevant human rights; and international print, broadcast and media journalists.

10.11 Reviewing a State Out of Turn

In rare cases, the CESCR may decide to continue monitoring a State or arrange to re-examine that State’s record sooner than it normally would. This could occur if a State Party has failed to comply with CESCR requests for information, or with its recommendations on how to avoid or cease violating Covenant rights. (The illustrations referring to Canada and the Dominican Republic earlier in this chapter are examples.) If an NGO thinks that such an exceptional examination is desirable because of continuing violations, it can send a letter or report to the CESCR Secretariat. It should also send a copy of the correspondence to any CESCR member who has shown special expertise or interest regarding the apparent violations in the past. Before doing so, the NGO may wish to seek advice from NGOs that have more experience with CESCR procedures.

If the CESCR always waited to receive a full report—or any report—from a State, it would be easy for a country to avoid scrutiny, simply by not submitting a report. A State should not be able to escape review by violating its Covenant obligation to submit periodic reports to the CESCR. The Committee may continue monitoring a country because of an ongoing problem. In such instances, NGOs normally do much to persuade the CESCR to maintain its watch.

10.12 Can the CESCR Review the Record of a State that Has Ratified the Covenant But Has Not Submitted a Report?

The CESCR has resolved to consider implementation of the Covenant in States Parties whose reports are long overdue, including those that have not filed even an initial report under the Covenant. The Committee notifies each such State Party of its intention to consider the situation in that country at a specified future session. In the absence of any report, it considers the status of ESC rights in light of all available information. For instance, in 1999 the Committee reviewed the record of the Solomon Islands, which had not submitted its first required report. In May 2000, it examined the record of the Congo (Brazzaville), despite the absence of a report.

The CESCR is not obliged to wait for the next scheduled review of a State (which could mean a delay of five years) before commenting on whether the State is complying with the Covenant. For example, in its Concluding Observations concerning Israel in 1998, the CESCR asked the State’s representatives to report back within 18 months on certain issues. The Committee can monitor a State on almost a continuing basis, as it has done with several countries, on the expectation that a State’s government will modify the way it operates as a result of the continuing scrutiny.

* To explain and facilitate NGO interaction with the work of the Committee, the CESCR Secretariat has drafted an informal paper entitled “NGO Participation in the Activities of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights”. The paper is expected to come before the CESCR for discussion and possible adoption at its November 2000 session. Some of the information in this chapter came from a draft of this informal paper.

** The 54 members of the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) are elected by the General Assembly from among the official State delegations to the UN. Through its Committee on NGOs, ECOSOC accredits non-governmental organisations, giving them “consultative status”. Consultative status gives NGOs the right to participate in certain UN activities, for example, attending meetings or submitting documents for UN consideration.