Committee on ESC Rights adopts General Comment #22 on the Right to Sexual and Reproductive Health (Art 12)

Committee on ESC Rights adopts General Comment #22 on the Right to Sexual and Reproductive Health (Art 12) On 4 March, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights adopted its General Comment No. 22 on the Right to sexual and reproductive health, addressing State obligations under article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

The new General Comment recognizes that while the right to sexual and reproductive health is an integral part of the right to health, due to numerous legal, procedural, practical and social barriers, the full enjoyment of the right to sexual and reproductive health remains a distant goal for millions of people, particularly women and girls.

The General Comment specifically recognizes that the right to sexual and reproductive health entails a set of freedoms and entitlements. “The freedoms include the right to make free and responsible decisions and choices, free of violence, coercion and discrimination, over matters concerning one’s body and sexual and reproductive health. The entitlements include unhindered access to a whole range of health facilities, goods, services and information, which ensure all people full enjoyment of the right to sexual and reproductive health under article 12 of the Covenant.”

With this understanding, the General Comment addresses the social determinants of health, and the relationship between sexual and reproductive health with other human rights. It then goes on to specify the concrete elements making up the right to sexual and reproductive health, including:

• Availability of health care facilities, services, goods and programs; • Accessibility of health facilities, goods, information and services, including the dimensions of physical accessibility, affordability, and information accessibility; • Acceptability of all health facilities, goods, information and services; and, • Quality, so that facilities, goods, information and services related to sexual and reproductive health are evidence-based and scientifically and medically appropriate and up-to-date.

The General Comment also specifically addresses the themes of non-discrimination and equality, with emphasis on the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex persons (LGBTI) persons and persons with disabilities; equality between women and men; and intersectional and multiple discrimination. The General Comment then goes on to address general as well as specific State party obligations, including the observations to respect, protect and fulfill the right to sexual and reproductive health. The Committee also identifies what violations of each of these obligations look like in practice, noting that States parties can violate their obligations through acts of omission as well as through acts of commission. Beyond this, the General Comment also lays out the following specific core obligations of States parties:

• To repeal or eliminate laws, policies and practices that criminalize, obstruct or undermine individual’s or particular group’s access to sexual and reproductive health facilities, services, goods and information; • To adopt and implement a national strategy and action plan, with adequate budget allocation, on sexual and reproductive health, which is devised, periodically reviewed and monitored through a participatory and transparent process, disaggregated by the prohibited grounds of discrimination; • To guarantee universal and equitable access to affordable, acceptable and quality sexual and reproductive health services, goods and facilities, in particular for women and disadvantaged and marginalized groups; • To enact and enforce the legal prohibition of harmful practices and gender-based violence, including female genital mutilation, child and forced marriages and domestic and sexual violence including marital rape, while ensuring privacy, confidentiality and free, informed and responsible decision-making, without coercion, discrimination or fear of violence, on individual’s sexual and reproductive needs and behaviours; • To take measures to prevent unsafe abortions and to provide post-abortion care and counselling for those in need; • To ensure all individuals and groups have access to comprehensive education and information on sexual and reproductive health, that is non-discriminatory, non-biased, evidence-based and taking into account the evolving capacities of children and adolescents; • To provide medicines, equipment and technologies essential to sexual and reproductive health, including based on the WHO Essential Medicines List; and • To ensure access to effective and transparent remedies and redress, including administrative and judicial ones, for violations of the right to sexual and reproductive health. There are also obligations of States parties with respect to international cooperation and assistance. In particular, this requires that “[d]onor States and international actors have an obligation to comply with the human rights standards, which are also applicable to sexual and reproductive health. To this end, international assistance should not impose restrictions on information or services existing in donor States, draw trained reproductive health care workers away from recipient countries or push recipient countries to adopt models of privatization.”

Finally, the General Comment also emphasizes the importance of access to justice, highlight that “States must ensure that all individuals have access to justice and to a meaningful and effective remedy in instances where the right to sexual and reproductive health is violated.”

General Comment No. 22 can be found HERE.

6 April 2016

Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

• UN Updates

Committee on ESC Rights adopts General Comment #23 on Just and Favourable Conditions of Work (Art 7)

Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

General Comment #23 – Just and favourable conditions of work (Art 7)

30 March 2016

During its 57th session in March 2016, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, after a relatively swift gestation period, adopted its General Comment 23[1] on Article 7 of the Covenant, on just and favourable conditions of work.

The General Comment provides a comprehensive elaboration of the substantive content of Article 7 and States parties’ obligations under that Article. Whilst there are some issues that we might have expected to receive greater attention, such as the importance of unions/workers organisations, workers with disabilities and access to remedy, given the strict page limit, the document does a good job at highlighting all the key issues.

The General Comment begins by situating Article 7 within the context of the Covenant, emphasising the interrelatedness with other rights such as Articles 6 (right to work), 8 (trade union rights), 9 (social security), 3 (equality between men and women) and 11 (adequate standard of living, including housing, food etc). The importance and complementarity of the ILO Conventions and Recommendations are also underlined throughout the General Comment with continuous cross-referencing of relevant ILO standards.

By way of introduction the Committee also regrets the significant erosion of workers’ rights across the world, even in times of economic growth, the persistence of discrimination and inequalities in working conditions and the overall failure to realise this right. Further, the General Comment acknowledges that the concepts of ‘work’ and ‘workers’ are evolving and thus it includes consideration of issues perhaps not foreseen at the time of drafting of the Covenant, such as unpaid workers, the informal economy and migrant workers.

In discussing the ‘Normative Content’ of Article 7, the General Comment emphasises that it applies to ‘everyone’, meaning ‘all workers in all settings’ and that the list in Article 7 of fundamental elements to guarantee just and favourable conditions of work, is ‘non-exhaustive’ and will include other relevant factors including: prohibition of forced labour, exploitation of children, freedom from violence and harassment at work and paid parental leave.[2]

Particularly pleasing is the very strong gender-perspective throughout the General Comment and the emphasis on women’s substantive equality. The text repeatedly highlights both direct and indirect discrimination against women in the workplace, the de facto impact of laws and policies on women and the negative impact of stereotyped gender roles. For instance, in relation to rest, leisure, holiday and working hours, the Committee emphasises that policies should not reinforce stereotyped gender roles. In relation to flexible working arrangements, it treads carefully noting they ‘could contribute towards a better balance between work and family responsibilities’, but cautions that they should not be ‘used to undermine the right to just and favourable conditions of work’.[3]  States are also encouraged to be aware of inter-sectional discrimination against women, to take a life cycle approach to the needs of women workers, to ensure access to adequate sanitation facilities that meet women’s specific hygiene needs[4], to address occupational segregation by sex and the under-valuing of work traditionally performed by women and to take positive measures, including ‘special measures’ to address ‘structural obstacles that perpetuate gender inequality’.[5]

Significant attention is given to the issue of ‘remuneration’ and a ‘living wage’.  The General Comment emphasises that the minimum criteria for remuneration are: fair wages; equal remuneration for work of equal value; and provide a decent living for workers and their families.[6] It also stresses that the notion of a fair wage is not static and must be assessed against a range of factors and in the relevant context, including for instance: the position of women workers; the precariousness of contracts; and job insecurity. Whilst some may have hoped for a stronger statement on this, the Committee confirms that: ‘For the clear majority of workers, fair wages are above the minimum wage’.[7]

The General Comment helpfully unpacks the concept of ‘equal remuneration for work of equal value’ and provides guidance to States on how to objectively evaluate jobs to avoid indirect discrimination (including across sectors) and measures, including targets, to eliminate discrimination in this context.[8]

The concept of remuneration that provides a decent living is also discussed in detail and distinguished from ‘fair wages’ and ‘equal remuneration’ on the basis that the former is determined ‘by reference to outside factors such as the cost of living and other prevailing economic and social conditions’[9] and must be ‘sufficient to enable the worker and his or her family to enjoy other rights in the Covenant...’. In this respect the Committee explains that Article 7 requires States to adopt via legislation, in consultation with workers and employers, a periodically reviewed minimum wage, indexed to cost of living (and other factors) which is non-discriminatory applies ‘systematically’, is enforced, including via labour inspections and is subject to penalties and sanctions.[10]

Other subjects discussed under the heading of ‘Normative Content’ of Article 7 include: safe and healthy working conditions; rest, holidays and working hours; and equal opportunity in promotion.

The specific guidance to States on the legal obligations under Article 7 is also provided. States’ ‘General Obligations’ are described in detail, emphasising ‘core obligations’, the immediate obligation to take deliberate, concrete and targeted steps towards realisation of Article 7 and the obligation to ‘identify indicators and benchmarks to monitor the implementation of the right’.[11]  The Committee explains that States have a ‘Core Obligation’ ‘to ensure the satisfaction of, at the very least, minimum essential levels of the right’ and then outlines what this entails, including: a legislatively enshrined, non-discriminatory and non-derogable minimum wage; a comprehensive national policy on occupational safety and health; a national policy and laws prohibiting harassment at work, including sexual harassment; and legal guarantee of non-discrimination in respect of the exercise of the right.[12]  Finally, an outline of States’ ‘Specific legal obligations’ is provided using the ‘respect, protect, fulfil (facilitate, promote, provide)’ framework.[13] Importantly the General Comment underlines the State obligation to protect, by, inter alia, ensuring the private sector does not interfere with the enjoyment of the right and comply with their obligations.[14]

The General Comment identifies a number of ‘Special topics of broad application’ which highlight the unique issues relating to certain groups of workers. In addition to the usual groups such as women, workers with disabilities and young and older workers, the General Comment includes the categories: informal sector workers, migrant and refugee workers and domestic workers.[15] The inclusion of these categories is important as it acknowledges the work and situation of hundreds of millions of workers around the world who have frequently been excluded from national laws and policies on working conditions, are often not counted in labour statistics and are therefore highly vulnerable to exploitation, abusive labour practices and harassment and violence in the workplace.  The General Comment reminds States that these groups of workers have a right to just and favourable conditions of work on a basis of equality with other workers and the objective should be to formalise all work and in the meantime, to ensure these workers are afforded the same legal protections as all other workers.

Non-State actors are also addressed in the General Comment, specifically in relation to business enterprises, trade unions and international organisations.[16] The roles and responsibilities of business are elaborated, whilst emphasising that the Covenant obligations rest ultimately with States. The implications for workers and working conditions, of the cross-border nature of business is also recognised.  The General Comment notes a State’s obligations to realise Article 7 rights in respect of the overseas operations of enterprises where the State owns or controls the enterprise or provides substantial support or services to the enterprise.[17] In addition, States should take measures to require enterprises domiciled in their territory to respect the right throughout their operations extra-territorially and to ensure accountability and access to remedy for victims. States should provide guidance to employers and enterprises in this respect.[18]  The General Comment does not directly address the responsibility of business to ensure that Article 7 rights are respected throughout the supply chain. It does, however, require States to ‘refrain from procuring goods and services from individuals or enterprises who are abusing the right’.[19]

The General Comment also includes strong statements on international organisations, including international financial institutions and in relation to international agreements, such as bilateral, regional and multilateral trade and investment agreements, highlighting the importance of ensuring these actors and agreements do not negatively affect the enjoyment of Article 7. Specifically the General Comments says States should take Article 7 into account in lending policies and structural adjustment programs.[20]

Throughout the General Comment there is an important reiteration of the importance of consultation[21] with workers and workers’ organisations and of the role of such groups in monitoring working conditions ‘without fear of reprisals’.[22]  There is specific reference to human rights defenders, noting that ‘States parties should respect, protect and promote the work of human rights defenders and other civil society actors towards the realisation of the right’.[23] Importantly, the paragraph adds that this includes facilitating access to information and enabling the exercise of their rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly, and public participation’.

This General Comment is a very helpful addition to the Committee’s jurisprudence as it provides concrete guidance to States about their obligations under Article 7.  It also advances the human rights understanding of just and favourable conditions of work and of the issues and groups requiring particular attention to ensure the full realisation of Article 7.

PRINTABLE VERSION AVAILABLE HERE.

[1] Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 23 (2016) on the Right to just and favourable conditions of work (article 7 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights), UN Doc E/C.12/GC/23, 8 March 2016

[2] Paragraphs 5 & 6

[3] Paragraph 46

[4] Paragraph 30

[5] Paragraph 47, 61

[6] Paragraph 9

[7] Paragraph 10

[8] Paragraphs 11 - 17

[9] Paragraph 18

[10] Paragraphs 20-24

[11] Paragraph 55

[12] Paragraph 65

[13] Paragraphs 58 - 64

[14] Paragraph 59

[15] Paragraph 47

[16] Paragraphs 74 - 76

[17] Paragraph 69

[18] Paragraph 70

[19] Paragraph 59

[20] Paragraph 71

[21] See for instance paragraphs 20, 25, 26, 56

[22] Paragraph 26

[23] Paragraph 49

• UN Updates

Canada's extra-territorial human rights obligations scrutinized

The Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights welcomes the incorporation of extra-territorial human rights obligations (ETOs) in Canada's most recent periodic review by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The Committee, which monitors compliance with the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, reaffirmed that the ETO to protect requires States to:  (1) regulate its transnational corporations for activities abroad to ensure that they do not violate Covenant rights; and (2) to ensure access to accountability mechanisms and remedies in the event of such violations.  The Committee added that the ETO to protect also requires that those corporations "conduct human rights impact assessments prior to making investment decisions."

The Committee, however, went further with a welcomed focus on the ETO to fulfill.  There, the Committee expressed its concern "about the lack of impact assessments explicitly taking into account human rights prior to the negotiation of international trade and investments agreements" and for the first time stated that the Covenant requires "that trade and investment agreements negotiated by Canada recognize the primacy of Canada's international human rights over investors' interests, so that the introduction of investor-State dispute settlement procedures shall not create obstacles to the full realization of Covenant rights."

The relevant Concluding Observations reads:

"15.    The Committee is concerned that the conduct of corporations registered or domiciled in the State party and operating abroad are, on occasions, negatively impacting on the enjoyment of Covenant rights by local populations. The Committee is also concerned about the limited access to judicial remedies before courts in the State party by victims and that existing non-judicial remedial mechanisms, such as the Office of the Extractive Sector CSR Counsellor have not always been effective. The Committee is further concerned about the lack of impact assessments explicitly taking into account human rights prior to the negotiation of international trade and investments agreements.

16.      The Committee recommends that the State party strengthen its legislation governing the conduct of corporations registered or domiciled in the State party in their activities abroad, including by requiring these corporations to conduct human rights impact assessments prior to making investment decisions. It also recommends that the State party introduce effective mechanisms to investigate complaints filed against these corporations, and adopt the necessary legislative measures so as to facilitate access to justice before domestic courts by victims of these corporations’ conduct. The Committee further recommends that the State party ensure that trade and investment agreements negotiated by Canada recognize the primacy of Canada's international human rights obligations over investors' interests, so that the introduction of investor-State dispute settlement procedures shall not create obstacles to the full realization of Covenant rights."

The full Concluding Observations are available HERE.

• UN Updates

Respect rights of rural women, recognise their vital role in development and poverty reduction, UN experts urge

UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights Media Release

For International Women’s Day, Tuesday 8 March 2016

Respect rights of rural women, recognise their vital role in development and poverty reduction, UN experts urge

GENEVA (4 March 2016) – Ahead of International Women’s Day on Tuesday 8 March, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) is calling for a focus on rural women and girls, and effective implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), many of which reflect on the situation of rural women. The Committee, which monitors implementation by States Parties of the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, stresses the need to protect and promote the rights of rural women and girls in accordance with Article 14 of the Convention and in line with the General Recommendation No.34 it has just adopted on the Rights of Rural Women*:

“Rural women account for a quarter of the world’s population is rural women. Several UN Conferences recognised their significant contributions to rural development, food and nutrition, as well as poverty reduction. Nevertheless, they continue to face challenges including systemic and persistent barriers to the full enjoyment of their rights.  

In many countries, their specific needs are not adequately addressed in laws, national and local policies and budgets. They remain excluded from leadership and decision-making positions at all levels, are disproportionally affected by negative stereotypes, gender-based violence and insufficient access to basic social services and resources.

In light of the particular situation of rural women and girls, the Committee urges the international community, including Governments to ensure through their empowerment, inter alia:

-Adoption of non-discriminatory legal frameworks and easy and affordable access of rural women to justice;

-Elimination of all forms of discrimination against rural women focusing on the particular needs of disadvantaged and marginalised groups;

-Creation of an enabling environment through temporary special measures, including programmes and policies targeted at improving the social and economic conditions of rural women;

-Elimination of negative stereotypes and harmful customs and practices including child and forced marriage, female genital mutilation, and discriminatory and customary laws on inheritance;

-Prevention of all forms of violence against women, including domestic violence, trafficking and forced labour;

-Meaningful participation in political and public life at all levels;

-Adoption of relevant policies and institutional structures for the full development and advancement of rural women;

-Access to quality and affordable education, healthcare services and facilities, employment opportunities, adequate housing, safe drinking water and sanitation, access to land and credit, new technologies including ITC; -        Protection of rural women from the negative consequences of acquisition of land by national and transnational companies, and/or foreign countries, as well as due to extractive industries and megaprojects; and

-Protection and security of rural women and girls in the overall context of increased disasters linked to climate change, as well as other crises, including man-made disasters.

The Committee believes that addressing the situation of rural women will contribute to the development of societies, the strengthening of norms and standards of human rights, as well as the realisation of the Goals agreed upon by the international community.’

ENDS

*Download General Recommendation No 34 on the Rights of Rural Women: http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CEDAW/Shared%20Documents/1_Global/INT_CEDAW_GEC_7933_E.pdf

For more information and media requests, please contact Liz Throssell +41 (0) 22 917 9466/+41 79 752 0488This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Background CEDAW is composed of 23 independent human rights experts drawn from around the world. They serve in their personal capacity and not as representatives of States parties. The Committee’s concluding observations are an independent assessment of States’ compliance with their human rights obligations under the treaty. More information: http://www.ohchr.org/en/hrbodies/cedaw/pages/cedawindex.aspx

• UN Updates

Committee on the Rights of the Child addresses privatization of education in Haiti and Kenya

The Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights welcomes the recent findings and recommendations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child regarding the human rights impact of privatization of education in Haiti and Kenya. Regarding Haiti, the Committee expressed concern that:

             "(d)          Educational infrastructure is poor, schools are poorly equipped, particularly in rural and remote areas, few teachers are adequately qualified, and salaries are not regularly paid, leading to frequent cancellation of classes;

               (e)          The education sector is dominated by private schools, which are often not officially authorized and monitored by the authorities and charge high fees exacerbating existing structural discrimination in the access to education, particularly affecting children in poverty;

               (f)           “Ghost schools” have mismanaged funds received in the context of PSUGO; [PSUGO is a large-scale Public Private Partnership (PPP) programme set up by the government, based on a similar program initiated before by the World Bank and GPE]

               (g)          The Office National pour le Partenariat en Education (ONAPE), which is supposed to improve the public-private partnership is not operative.

59.         The Committee reminds the State party its primary responsibility for guaranteeing and regulating education and urges the State party to provide for free access to primary education and to take all necessary measures to guarantee access to education for children in vulnerable situations. It also recommends that the State party:

…

(c)           Increase the budget allocated to education, rehabilitate the infrastructure of the educational system, including by building additional schools, ensuring that schools are adequately equipped;

               (d)          Ensure that teachers are adequately qualified, expand and improve both pre-service and in-service teacher training, and provide adequate salaries for teachers paid in a timely manner;

               (e)          Establish a comprehensive regulatory framework for and regularly monitor private education providers, to ensure that they comply with quality standards, regularly report on their financial operations to relevant authorities, including on school fees and salaries, and that they do not engage in for-profit education;

               (f)           Ensure that public-private partnerships do not impede access to quality education for all children and guarantee that they do not serve private interests or entail any form of commercialization of education."

 These pronouncements are significant as they address "structural discrimination" and that the Committee implies that the Convention on the Rights of the Child requires the State to provide for free access to primary education, which means it consider there’s an obligation to directly provide public education, which is an advance from previous statements.  Additionally, the criticism of the public private partnership scheme indirectly critiques the World Bank's PPP schemes after which it was modeled.

Most strikingly, the Committee makes two ground-breaking statements on the nature of education: they consider that States should regulate private schools sot that they do not engage in for-profit education, and consider that PPPs should not entail any form of commercialization of education.

Regarding Kenya, the Committee stated:

“56.       The Committee welcomes the increase in enrollment and completion rates at primary and secondary education. However, the Committee is concerned about:

…(d)              Low quality of education and rapid increase of private and informal schools, including those funded by foreign development aids, providing sub-standard education and deepening inequalities.

57.         With reference to the Committee’s general comment No. 1 (2001) on the aims of education, the Committee:

(b)  Guarantee the legal right to free mandatory education for all, without direct or hidden costs, including non-Kenyan citizens such as in particular refugee children. In doing so, prioritize free primary quality education at public schools over private schools and informal low cost schools and regulate and monitor the quality of education provided by private informal schools in line with the Convention;”

Significantly, this is the first time that foreign development aid has been discussed, thus bringing in the extra-territorial obligations of other States.  The fact that Kenya is asked to regulate and monitor private non-formal schools is also very important and timely at the time where there’s a big debate around that in Kenya.

Finally, according to Sylvain Aubry of the Global Initiative for ESCR, "The request to 'prioritize' public schools over private and low-cost schools in guaranteeing the legal right to free mandatory education for all is the furthest we’ve seen a Committee going in promoting public over private education. The best we had before was in the concluding observations  of Brazil, where the CRC was requesting to prioritise the public education sector 'in the distribution of public funds' only. "

***

The Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC) is the body of 18 Independent experts that monitors implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child by its State parties.

• UN Updates

GI-ESCR adopts 2016 - 2019 Strategic Plan

The Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (GI-ESCR) began in 2010, as an initiative to advance the realization of economic, social and cultural (ESC) rights globally, tackling the endemic problems of poverty, social injustice and inequality through a human rights lens. In the short time since its inception, GI-ESCR has provided world-class technical support and achieved groundbreaking outcomes that are respected within and beyond the human rights community. As a result, it has become increasingly recognized as a leader in the area of ESC rights advocacy. For example, in 2014, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights invited a select few non-governmental organizations to meet with him to discuss priorities. The large traditional players (organizations like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, etc.) were at the table, and it is an honor to be able to say that so was GI-ESCR. Even though we are undoubtedly smaller, and far newer as an organization, this recognition demonstrates that that GI-ESCR is valued for high quality advocacy work and the unique perspective provided to the Geneva human rights scene and beyond. We think it bodes well for the fact that we are a unique organization, playing an important role, and making a contribution which is not only significant, but urgently needed in today’s world. Our work has also been recognized by networks of peer organizations at both the international and national levels. For instance, GI-ESCR has been appointed to serve on the Steering Committee of the ESCR-Net Strategic Litigation Working Group, is part of the core leadership of the ESCR-Net Women and ESC Rights Working Group, and is an active member of the ESCR-Net Corporate Accountability Working Group. We have been elected, and subsequently twice reelected, to serve on the Steering Committee of the ETO Consortium (extraterritorial obligations). In recent years, we have also been sought out by UN agencies and partners to contribute expertise on specific projects advancing rights.

With growth in credibility, reputation, and expectations, the Co-Directors and Board of Directors of GI-ESCR agreed that the time is right for a transition from organizational “start up” to organizational “step up.” The launch phase had distinguishing characteristics: organizational agility, nimbleness, high quality technical insights, an eye for the strategic, partnering with and drawing upon other networks and advocates with expertise, and an appreciated respect for local actors and agency. These qualities and core values must be nurtured and sustained as growth and greater impact are pursued in this next phase. Organizations and institutions in both the private and non-profit sector do not always get this transition right and find the right balance between too much/too little ambition, structure, staff, change, vision, growth, and resources. The GI-ESCR is at a cross roads, and has the desire and ability to get it right.

The 2016 - 2019 Strategic Plan, therefore, is less a rigid, defined plan with given metrics, and more a living document and guiding framework, vision, values and principles for making intelligent choices and actions. Often strategic plans are already outdated by the time they are approved and implemented. Effective organizations in today’s world must be strategic in real time, and continuously thinking, acting, and learning from their work and their rapidly changing and challenging contexts. Getting it right and stepping up mean building on:

• strengths and accomplishments;

• partnerships and actions based on credibility and respect;

• the on-going reading and understanding of global trends and the global context of human rights -- and understanding issues that can be leveraged;

• the thoughtful and rigorous selection of strategic program priorities; and

• developing organizational capacity, and resources to pursue them.

Therefore, the Strategic Plan seeks to build upon GI-ESCR’s innate strengths and distinct placement in the field. Within a consultative process of strategic planning and organizational development, GI-ESCR seeks to clarify its organizational narrative, refine its organizational methodology, identify strategic pathways for future growth, and address some of the institutional challenges that have arisen as a consequence of growth and increasing expectation. The aims of the Strategic Plan and corresponding organizational development plan are to ensure that GI-ESCR is well placed within its field to make meaningful contributions; to ensure that organizational, administrative and support capacities are developed to implement the plan; and that organizational values, funding and sustainability are progressively aligned and enhanced over the 2016-2019 period and beyond. Another intention of the process is to build an organizational environment and culture that is agile, nimble, and has systems for continuous learning for effectiveness and impact.

• UN Updates

ESC rights related resolutions from the 70th session of the UN General Assembly’s Third Committee

ESC rights related resolutions from the 70th General Assembly’s Third Committee  

There were several positive economic, social and cultural (ESC) rights initiatives during the 70th session of the UN General Assembly’s Third Committee’s meetings in October/ November 2015, including important developments on the rights to water and sanitation, the rights of rural women, and human rights defenders.

Two sepatate but interconnected rights: Water and sanitation

In a historic resolution, a resolution on water and sanitation was passed which for the first time recognized two separate rights: a right to safe drinking water, and a right to sanitation. This was a very positive step forwards in the development of the rights, particularly as the resolution was again passed by consensus with 52 co-sponsors. This annual resolution sponsored by Spain and Germany has been on a positive trajectory since the General Assembly’s 2010 resolution[1] which formally declared the right to safe drinking water and sanitation a stand-alone right[2], deriving from the right to an adequate standard of living in Article 11 of the ICESCR. Progress was achieved in the 2014 Human Rights Council resolution (A/HRC/27/7) which contained the full definition of the right[3] (it was still recognised as one right at that stage) which comes from General Comment No 15. of the UN Committee on Economic, Social Rights (CESCR) on the right to water.

The case for the recognition of two separate rights was made by the former Special Rapporteur on water and sanitation in her 2009 Report to the Human Rights Council on access to sanitation[4] and supported by a Statement of the CESCR in 2010.[5] Strong civil society advocacy efforts have also been an important and driving force in achieving the separate recognition of the two rights.

Whilst the GA resolution still refers to the ‘human right to safe drinking water’ which seems to ignore the importance of water for other non-drinking uses, it describes the content of the right as for ‘personal and domestic use’. This language recognises that the right extends beyond ‘drinking water,’

The resolution also includes a welcome emphasis on women, their leadership and participation in decision-making on water and sanitation management and efforts to address the unequal burden of household water collection on women and girls which impacts access to education and exposes women and girls to violence.

There is also an important call on States to eliminate inequalities in access to water. This is significant in the context of the SDGs and to avoid the problems faced by the MDGs which often ignored inequalities and discrimination in access to water and sanitation services. The paragraph specifically commits to eliminate inequalities with respect to race, gender, age, disability, ethnicity, culture and religion. However it is noteworthy that the commitment with respect to inequalities in a second category, rural-urban disparities, slum residence and income levels, is only to ‘progressively eliminate inequalities’.[6] In this respect para 5(d) is also important as it asks States to ‘identify patterns of failure to respect, protect or fulfil’ the rights and ‘address their structural causes in policymaking and budgeting’. This clause attempts to tackle the discrimination and inequality built into systems and structures that prevents those living in poverty from realising their rights.

Improving the lives of rural women

The ‘improvement of the situation of women and girls in rural areas’ was the subject of a comprehensive resolution[7] adopted by the General Assembly without a vote in November 2015. The resolution was a follow-up to a similar resolution 2 years ago (A/RES/68/139 (18 December 2013)) which had asked the Secretary General to prepare a report on implementation of that resolution. The 2015 resolution takes note of the Secretary General’s report and makes recommendations to States.

The report of the Secretary-General (A/70/204) sets out efforts by States to address the obstacles and challenges that impede progress towards the economic empowerment of rural women, especially the poorest and most marginalized, and to enable them to improve their lives and livelihoods. It discusses advances and continuing challenges in: sustainable and gender-responsive agricultural and rural development; recognizing and redistributing rural women’s unpaid care work; employment, decent work and social protection; access to land and productive resources; and food security and nutrition.

There were several important recommendations offered to States, including:

• supporting rural women’s full and equal participation in decision-making at all levels, including through affirmative action;

• integrating a gender perspective into the design, implementation and evaluation …. development policies, plans, programmes, … budgets …. the governance of natural resources, leveraging the participation and influence of women in managing the sustainable use of natural resources[8];

• increasing knowledge, awareness and support for the elimination of harmful practices[9] and ensuring universal access to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights;

• valuing and supporting the critical role of rural women … in the conservation and sustainable use of traditional crops and biodiversity for present and future generations…[10];

• ensuring women’s and girls’ unpaid work is recognised and promoting shared and equitable responsibility for unpaid work and care responsibilities within the household;[11] and

• implementing laws to ensure that rural women have equal rights to own and lease land and other property, including inheritance rights and access to capital and financial services.[12]

Other topics covered include: older women, women with disabilities, violence against women, the right to water, food security, developing women’s economic skills, equal access to decent work, access to labour saving technologies, climate change,[13] education and training and access to social protection for female-headed rural households.

On the whole, the recommendations in the resolution are very similar to those posed in the 2013 resolution, although some changes to reflect the expiry of the MDGs and move to the SDGs and some amendments to language around sexual and reproductive health and rights[14], and to refer to climate change.[15]

The resolution also asks the UN Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) and other UN bodies to give consideration to these issues and the Secretary-General to present a further report on its implementation at the General Assembly in 2017.

Given all we know about the links between realising the human rights of rural women and poverty alleviation, including achievement of many of the Sustainable Development Goal, it is encouraging to see the General Assembly’s giving attention to this important topic. The GA’s consideration of the human rights of rural women coincides with a number of other processes focused on this, which hopefully will continue to build momentum and political will around prioritising rural women’s rights. The CEDAW Committee’s forth-coming General Recommendation on Rural Women which will elaborate on the content of the rights in Article 14 of the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women. Further, the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights is considering adopting a General Comment on Article 7(d) of the Maputo Protocol, focussing on women’s rights to land and property within the context of marriage and divorce.

Human rights defenders and ESC rights

Whilst the human rights defender resolution has traditionally focused on freedom of expression and association, amongst other rights, more recently there has been growing recognition and interest in the increasing link to ESC rights. We have known for some time that human rights defenders working on economic and social rights issues are at particular risk of harassment and violence from powerful State and non-State actors against whose policies and projects they protest. However, more recently there has been a proliferation of civil society reports confirming the growing number of defenders working on land and environment issues being killed, attacked, disappeared or harassed for their work. This trend is now being reflected in the resolution on human rights defenders in the General Assembly[16] which is sponsored by Norway. Whilst the resolution attracted some controversy when a vote was called for the first time in its 16 year history[17], its inclusion of elements focusing on the link with ESC rights was a welcome advance.

The resolution recognised the vital work of ESC rights defenders and raised concerns about threats and attacks against them and their work. Further, it highlighted the need to ‘respect, protect, facilitate and promote the work of those promoting and defending economic, social and cultural rights, as a vital factor contributing towards the realization of those rights, including as they relate to environmental and land issues as well as development’.[18] The other paragraph that bears on the situation of human rights defenders working on ESC rights, deals with consultations and dialogue.[19] Lack of (or inadequate) consultation or ability to participate in decision-making is a common complaint of those protesting violations of the right to adequate housing, water and sanitation, the right to health, the right to food and human rights issues relating to land and natural resources. Many of the Special Procedures mandate holders working on these issues and the CESCR (as well as other treaty bodies) have stressed the importance of the right to participation in the context of land and environment conflicts and economic development, including as an element in preventing conflict with local communities and avoiding human rights violations.[20]

The resolution ‘Reaffirms the utility and benefit of consultations and dialogue with human rights defenders related to public policies and programmes’. Whilst this an important concept to capture in the resolution, broader language which highlights the right to participation, not only of ‘human rights defenders’ but of ‘affected communities’, would strengthen it.

This is significant new language and we hope this focus will continue through the work of the Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders and the 2016 resolution in the Human Rights Council.

Contact:

Lucy McKernan

Geneva Representative

Global Initiative for Economic, Social & Cultural Rights

www.globalinitiative-escr.org

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

+41 (0)79 103 7719

[1] A/64/292, July 2010

[2] Closely followed by the September 2010 Human Rights Council resolution which affirmed that the right to water and sanitation was a legally binding right in international law, and adopted without a vote (unlike the July 2010 General Assembly resolution). For further information see: ‘Recognition of the Human Rights to Water and Sanitation by UN Member States at the International Level’ by Amnesty International & WASH United, https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/ior40/1380/2015/en/

[3] Preambular Paragraph 21: Reaffirming that the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation entitles everyone, without discrimination, to have access to sufficient, safe, acceptable, physically accessible and affordable water for personal and domestic use and to have physical and affordable access to sanitation, in all spheres of life, that is safe, hygienic, secure, socially and culturally acceptable and that provides privacy and ensures dignity.

[4] A/HRC/12/24, 2009.

[5] UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, ›Statement on the Right to Sanitation‹ on 19 November 2010, UN Doc E/C.12/2010/1)

[6] OP 5(a)

[7] A/C.3/70/L.24/Rev.1, adopted without a vote on 23 November 2015, see http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/C.3/70/L.24/Rev.1&referer=/english/&Lang=E

[8] 2(e) & (f)

[9] paragraph 2(g)

[10] paragraph 2(l),

[11] paragraph 2(s), (u)

[12] paragraph 2(z)

[13] paragraph 2(v)

[14] eg: paragraphs 2(g),(i),

[15] paragraph 2(v)

[16] A/C.3/70/L.46/Rev.1, 18 November 2015

[17] See http://www.ishr.ch/news/general-assembly-adopts-important-resolution-human-rights-defenders-face-opposition-china-and

[18] A/C.3/70/L.46/Rev.1 OP 9

[19] A/C.3/70/L.46/Rev.1 OP 12

[20] Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Water and Sanitation: A/69/213, presented to the General Assembly in October 2014, see http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N14/490/08/PDF/N1449008.pdf?OpenElement

• UN Updates

Take action during December to advance OP-ICESCR ratification!

Reminder-Action Circular Update

Key anniversary:

• December 10 – Adoption of the OP-ICESCR and Human Rights Day

Whether you are a member, ally or new to this struggle for access to justice, the NGO Coalition for the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (OP-ICESCR) invites you to engage in the global campaign:

Justice Now! Ratify to Protect all Human Rights.

The OP-ICESCR entered into force on May 2013, allowing individuals and groups to bring complaints to the UN Committee on ESCR for violations of their economic, social and cultural rights. As of today, 21 countries have become party to the OP-ICESCR, securing access to justice for their people at the international level. Visit here for more information on the OP-ICESCR.

December 10th, the Human Rights Day, is the 7th anniversary of the adoption of the OP-ICESCR.Many countries have signed the OP-ICESCR expressing their willingness to move forward and ratify/access it.

This anniversary provides an opportunity to call on all States to ensure the respect, protection and fulfillment of all human rights by becoming party to the OP-ICESCR.

Has your country ratified the OP-ICESCR? Check the status of your country here .

If not, explore important opportunities to push your country to ratify the OP-ICESCR:

• Your country may have signed the treaty (but not ratified); check here. Their signature demonstrates an intention to ratify the OP-ICESCR.

• If your country is a member of or candidate for the Human Rights Council, ratifying the OP-ICESCR would be an important demonstration of human rights leadership.

• If your country is being reviewed by the Committee on ESCR or approaching a Universal Periodic Review (UPR) before the Human Rights Council Countries, this is another important moment for advocacy. Some states make commitments to ratify the OP-ICESCR during these processes, so you might also look at recent commitments by your State.

Suggested Actions:

• Send a letter encouraging ratification of the OP-ICESCR to your Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA) or other relevant officials involved in considering international commitments and treaties. If possible, get support from several organizations as co-signatories to the letter. Please download model letter here.

• Request a meeting with your MoFA or other relevant authorities: In your request, you might cite upcoming anniversaries and International Human Rights Day. For suggestions, please see Booklet 4of the Toolkit on the OP-ICESCR. Booklet 3 outlines arguments for why countries should ratify the OP-ICESCR.

• Write a blog, op-ed or press release highlighting these anniversaries and the reasons for ratification, if your country has not ratified, or celebrating access to justice at the international level, if it has ratified. This Q and A may be helpful.

• Build a national coalition for ratification, including other human rights and social justice organizations, unions, social movements, artists and other concerned people. You might start with an online petition or a public action/demonstration. Or invite others to join any of the actions above. For more information and ideas, please contact the NGO Coalition for the OP-ICESCR at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

• Raise public awareness through social media, posting Facebook messages and tweets about the OP-ICESCR. You can share our Commitment Stamp with followers and ask them to use it for a period of time in their Facebook and Twitter profiles. Suggested messages for December:

Status

Facebook

Twitter

Signed

Well done #[country]. You are one step closer to make access to justice for violations of ESCR a reality for all. Ratify the OP-ICESCR and show leadership in the realization of these rights [link to Statement/press release/petition or/Booklet 3-Why States should Ratify]

Move forward #[country] and #RatifyOPICESCR to grant access to justice for all [link to Statement/press release or petition/Booklet 3 –Why States should Ratify]

More than 300 million of people can turn to the UN if their economic, social and cultural rights are violated. They live in one of the 21 countries that have ratified the OP-ICESCR [link to Map].

To mark the 7th anniversary of the adoption of the OP-ICESCR, we urge that the government of [country] to take the next step and ratify the OP-ICESCR. [link to Statement/press release/petition or Booklet 3 on Why States should Ratify].

We call on #[country] @governmentAccount to join others and ensure access to justice for human rights #RATIFYOPICESCR (link to Booklet3-Why States Should Ratify)

Not yet signed or ratified

Many countries— Argentina, Mongolia, Cabo Verde and France—have ratified the OP-ICESCR and secured a new way for their people to access justice if their human rights are violated. Don’t let the government leave us out! We call on #Country to ratify[link to Statement/press release/petition/Booklet 3]

Great news! Victims of rights abuses in 21 countries can turn to UN for justice. What about people in #[country]? [Link to map with ratifications/signatures] 

New protection for economic, social and cultural rights a reality for 21 countries. We call on #[country] to #RatifyOPICESCR [link to Statement/press release/petition/Booklet3]

All

Imagine you have been forcibly evicted from your home, but the law in your country offers you no protection and no compensation. What do you do? Who do you turn to?

If you live in one of these 21 countries that have ratified the OP-ICESCR [link to map], you can now turn to the UN for justice! But what if you live in Germany, Brazil or South Africa?  [link to Statement/press release/petition/Booklet 3]

21 countries have now strengthened access to justice for rights! #RatifyOPICESCR [link to map]

Ratified

These countries[LINK TO MAP]  have ratified the OP-ICESCR. We call on States to follow their example and grant access to justice for all. [link to Booklet3]

We call on #[ratifyingcountry] to encourage its peer[#country]  to move forward and #RatifyOPICESCR [link to Booklet3]

Please let ESCR-Net know if you are planning actions. They are happy to support. Together we can amplify our impact! Please share your plans with Ivahanna Larrosa, NGO Coalition Campaign Coordinator at: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

• UN Updates

Economic, social and cultural rights: exploding myths and building consensus

by Lucy McKernan, Geneva Representative of the Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights November 19, 2015 Blog, Contemporary and emerging human rights issues, International human rights institutions, mechanisms and processes

Beyond matters touching upon religion or belief, or on so-called ‘traditional values,’ it is difficult to think of an issue that divides members of the Human Rights Council (the Council) as much as the perceived disconnect between the importance placed on civil and political rights on the one hand, and economic, social and cultural rights (ESCRs) on the other. Twenty years after the Vienna Declaration declared all human rights to be ‘indivisible and interdependent and interrelated’ and called on ‘the international community (to) treat human rights globally in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing, and with the same emphasis,’[1] leading ESCR advocates continue to express concern that ESCRs ‘enjoy only second-rank status.’[2]

In June this year, the Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Professor Philip Alston, admonished States for what he alleged was their continued failure to place equal emphasis on all human rights. He asserted:

‘There are many contexts in which [ESCRs] are absent, marginalised or only half-heartedly taken on board. In circumstances in which [ESCRs] are not a fundamental part of the overall approach, there are no obvious limits to inequality.’[3]

Professor Alston also critiqued international NGOs for what he sees as their over-emphasis on civil and political rights at the expense of efforts to question the societal structures that create and maintain inequality and extreme poverty.[4] Recently, during meetings of the ‘Glion Process,’ a number of ambassadors likewise expressed their frustration at this perceived imbalance.

These critiques are not without merit. Member States of the UN tend to expend less energy and political capital on ESCRs[5] there are fewer ESCR resolutions and Special Procedures mandates;[6] generally ESCR Special Procedures mandates are not perceived as ‘heavy hitters’ and so do not receive the same political and financial support as their peers; ESCR resolutions do not attract the same level of scrutiny or negotiation;[7] States are less likely to make statements on ESCR issues of concern; and recommendations on ESCRs are significantly under-represented during sessions of the UPR Working Group.

So why does this imbalance persist?

One reason is perhaps linked to the common misconception that ESCRs are solely subject to ‘progressive realisation,’ meaning they are not immediately enforceable and States can implement them when they find the resources to do so. Whilst it is true that the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) recognises that the realisation of some rights will take time (for instance, a State cannot implement universal, free primary education overnight), and thus does allow for ‘progressive realisation,’ it also contains obligations with an immediate effect. For example, Parties to the CESCR retain a positive obligation to regulate third parties with respect to the pollution of water sources, and a negative obligation not to forcibly evict persons in violation of their right to adequate housing. There are also immediate non-discrimination obligations such as the obligation to refrain from providing public health services in a discriminatory manner. Importantly, States have an immediate obligation to take concrete and reasonable steps towards fulfilling ESCRs, for instance by adopting a reasonable plan of action (through a participatory process) to implement universal, free, primary education, and by devoting reasonable resources towards the implementation of that plan.

The perception that ESCRs involve only positive obligations requiring the expenditure of resources also makes them less palatable to States. This point, especially in the context of scarcity and the unequal distribution of resources within and between countries, is notoriously difficult to navigate in international fora, and often places a strain on inter-governmental negotiations amidst calls for ‘international co-operation.’ Often, the question of resources within countries is considered a matter of national policy, and the question of resources between countries, is considered a matter for the WTO and other economic or commercial institutions. Yet, if ESCR are to be enjoyed and inequalities addressed, these issues must be dealt with in a meaningful and holistic manner. As the Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty explains:

‘Questions of the availability of resources and equality of access to those resources were largely eliminated from the most vibrant parts of the international human rights system, and relegated instead to the minor league discussions about economic, social and cultural rights.’[8]

Another reason for the continued ‘second class’ status afforded to ESCRs is the perpetuation of misinformation and thus misunderstanding about the ‘justiciability’ of such rights. The myth that ESCRs cannot be adjudicated before courts of law, and therefore cannot be enforced, continues to persist in international fora. This is partly due to the lack, prior to 2013, of an international adjudication body for the CESCR. There was therefore no UN treaty mechanism in place to rule on violations and produce jurisprudence.

Notwithstanding, even prior to 2013, the myth that ESCRs are not justiciable had been dispelled by a growing body of ESCR case law from domestic and regional courts around the world. To offer but a few examples: in 2002, the South African Constitutional Court adjudicated the right to health in relation to access to anti-retroviral medicines;[9] in 2001, the Indian Supreme Court, in response to a petition demanding the immediate utilisation of the country’s food stocks for drought relief and the prevention of hunger, upheld the Constitutional right to food and ordered the State to undertake specific measures such as implementing ‘food for work’ and school meals programmes;[10] and in 2010, the Colombian Constitutional Court found that a law imposing fees for State (public) primary schools was incompatible with the Constitutional right to education.[11]

Taken together, these misconceptions have lead to a sense, in some quarters, that ESCRs are too imprecise or abstract for a Human Rights Council that was primarily designed to deal with the violation of civil and political rights. The Council’s modus operandi seems to intuitively respond to urgent situations involving violence and the deprivation of liberty, rather than to on-going structural violations and macro-economic questions of redistribution that characterise ESCR debates. This situation has been further acerbated by the tendency of some Western States, most notably the US, to prioritise civil and political rights and side-line ESCRs, and the mirror-image tendency of some leading developing countries, especially from the NAM and LMG groupings, to point to poverty alleviation and socio-economic development (often summed up as ‘the right to development’) as a bigger priority than ‘Western’ obsessions over civil and political (i.e. liberal democratic) rights.

Meanwhile, the suffering and daily indignities faced by billions of people around the world – people for whom the full enjoyment of ESCRs is but a distant prospect – continue unnoticed.

So what is the answer? How can the UN human rights system be reformed to finally fulfil the promise offered by the Vienna Declaration?

One answer is that the international community must place a renewed and reinvigorated emphasis on the indivisibility and interdependence of all human rights. The Commission of Inquiry (COI) on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) is a good example of such an ‘indivisibility approach.’ The report of the COI on DPRK explicitly stated that, under specific circumstances, violations of the right to adequate food and starvation amount to crimes against humanity and violations of the right to life.[12] Similarly, a recent report by the Working Group on enforced disappearances recognised that ESCRs violations are both a cause and a consequence of enforced disappearances and that people who are active in promoting ESCRs are in many cases at greater risk of enforced disappearance than those advocating for civil and political rights.

Another area where improvements are necessary is human rights ‘mainstreaming.’ As Professor Paul Hunt explained in a recent blog, mainstreaming should be, according to General Assembly resolution 60/251, one of the core competences of the Council. And yet, effective human rights mainstreaming across other UN policies and institutions, so crucial for the promotion of ESCRs, is largely absent from the Council’s list of achievements as it approaches its 10th anniversary in 2016. Professor Hunt rightly called for a radical rethink of how the Council delivers on its core mainstreaming mandate.

As well as being the 10th anniversary of the Council, next year will also see the 50th anniversary of both the CESCR and the ICCPR. As well as offering an opportune moment to consider the overall strengthening of the UN’s human rights pillar, 2016 should also therefore offer an important moment to recall and reinvigorate the call, made in Vienna in 1993, to ‘treat human rights globally in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing, and with the same emphasis.’

Lucy McKernan (@LucMcK) is the Geneva Representative of the Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

Notes

[1] Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, 1993, operative paragraph 5;

[2] Report of the Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, HRC/29/31, paragraph 50;

[3] Ibid

[4] SR report, paragraph 56(c)

[5] Notably, the US still has not ratified the ICESCR and continues to disassociate from parts of some ESCR resolutions and to attempt to water down many ESCR resolutions during negotiations.

[6] There are approximately 17 C&P rights mandates and 10 ESCR mandates and the country specific mandates tend to focus on C & P rights. For resolutions it is more difficult to calculate. In 2015, in terms of ESCR and C&P rights thematic resolutions, the numbers are relatively even. However, the 29 country specific resolutions in 2015 mostly focused on C & P rights violations.

[7] Other than in relation to ‘traditional values’ issues.

[8] SR report HRC/27/31, paragraph 56

[9] South African Minister of Health v. Treatment Action Campaign, 2002 (5) SA 721, July 5, 2002

[10] People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India & Ors, In the Supreme Court of India, Civil Original Jurisdiction, Writ Petition (Civil) No.196 of 2001

[11] Decision C-376/10 of the Colombian Constitutional Court

[12] DPRK COI Findings Report (A/HRC/25/CRP.1): Violations of the right to food and related aspects of the right to life – paragraphs 493 to 692; Starvation as a crime against humanity – paragraphs 1115-1137.

• UN Updates