SNAPSHOT – the SDGs at the Human Rights Council, March 2017

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) continued to be prominent in resolutions and debates on economic, social and cultural (ESC) rights at the 34th session of the Human Rights Council. At least six ESC rights resolutions adopted at this session, referred to the SDGs and the annual full Day Meeting on the rights of the child addressed the theme ‘Protection of the rights of the child in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’ lead by Uruguay and the EU. This was also the theme of a report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (A/HRC/34/27) and a resolution adopted by the Council (A/HRC/RES/34/16) which contained some interesting paragraphs such as this one noting the human rights foundations of the 2030 Agenda:

‘Recalling further that the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development is guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, grounded in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, international human rights treaties, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child and its Optional Protocols, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities ……and that the Agenda is to be implemented, followed-up and reviewed in a manner that is consistent with the obligations of States under international law.’[1]

And this paragraph linking climate change and the 2030 Agenda:

‘Welcoming the entry into force of the Paris Agreement, adopted under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, noting that climate change exacerbates risks to those in the most vulnerable situations, including children, and underlining that the effective implementation of the Agreement reinforces the 2030 Agenda.’[2]

The resolution also called for a child-rights based approach to the SDGs:

‘Encourages States to promote a child rights-based approach in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda, in accordance with their obligations under international law and underpinned by the principles of, inter alia, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, equality and non-discrimination, the best interests of the child, the child’s right to life, survival and development and participation, sustainability, transparency, international cooperation and accountability.’[3]

Echoing some concepts in the ESC rights omnibus resolution (see below), the Council:

‘encourages States to take into account in the national reviews of progress on the Sustainable Development Goals the reports and recommendations from the existing human rights review processes in which States already participate.’[4]

The resolution specifically requested the High Commissioner for Human Rights to engage in the SDGs follow-up processes:

‘contribute to the work of the high-level political forum on sustainable development, in consultation with relevant stakeholders, … particularly by providing inputs from a child rights perspective to the yearly thematic reviews of progress at the forum, focusing on achievements and challenges…’[5]

Finally, the Council requested the Special Rapporteur on the sale and sexual exploitation of children to participate in international forums and to advise on effective practices to realise the rights of child victims of sale and sexual exploitation in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda and to undertake thematic research on the effective implementation of Goals 5, 8 and 16.[6]

Portugal’s annual omnibus resolution on ESC rights (A/HRC/RES/34/4) also focused on the SDGs, recognising the strong links between ESC rights and the 2030 Agenda:

‘the commitments made by States in the 2030 Agenda to leave no one behind, and to reach the furthest behind first, founded on the dignity of the human person, and reflecting the principles of equality and non-discrimination ... .’[7]

Another important element of this resolution was its recognition of the important role of the human rights mechanisms in the implementation and monitoring of the SDGs:

‘Notes with appreciation the contributions of international human rights mechanisms, including the Human Rights Council and its subsidiary bodies, international human rights treaty bodies, the special procedures and the universal periodic review in promoting the implementation of the 2030 Agenda in accordance with States’ human rights obligations, encourages States to give due consideration to information, observations and recommendations from human rights mechanisms when implementing and monitoring progress of the 2030 Agenda, and to promote the cooperation of all stakeholders towards the full integration of human rights into the said processes.’[8]

Finally, the resolution requests the Secretary-General to submit to the Human Rights Council a report on ‘the role of economic, social and cultural rights in the transformation towards sustainable and resilient societies’. The topic was chosen to align with the theme for the 2018 High Level Political Forum of the Sustainable Development Agenda ‘transformation towards sustainable and resilient societies.’[9]

The report of the Secretary General on ESC rights (A/HRC/34/25) also provided a comprehensive discussion of the linkages between economic, social and cultural rights and the SDGs framework, highlighting that the two agendas are converging and that many of the SDGs targets mirror the human rights framework, the concept of indivisibility of rights and the normative content of ESC rights, such as the concepts of availability, accessibility, affordability, and quality. Further, it highlights that the central principles of the 2030 Agenda, such as leaving no one behind and reaching the furthest behind, reflect the human rights principles of equality and non-discrimination which cut across all of the SDGs[10] and that reducing inequality within and between countries is targeted in Goal 10 and is also crucial for achieving many of the other Goals.[11]

On accountability, the report calls for the 2030 Agenda accountability framework to be strengthened and linked with established human rights accountability mechanisms. It underlines the importance of international co-operation in this context and the need to address global inequalities and identifies participation of rights-holders in decisions that affect the enjoyment of their rights and accountability of multi-stakeholder partnerships, including business and private sector partners, as essential elements of effective accountability.[12]

One of the very interesting aspects of the report is the discussion of the contributions of international human rights mechanisms. The report notes that more than half of the SDGs targets are already being monitored by UN human rights mechanisms and that recommendations and concluding observations of those mechanisms can ‘play an important role in identifying key human rights issues at the country level and in prioritizing the most excluded and marginalized individuals and groups that will be relevant to the implementation of the Goals.’[13] A number of the human rights treaty bodies and many of the Special Procedures mandate holders are already engaged in work to highlight and exploit the linkages between the SDGs and human rights. The Human Rights Council has also explored this topic through resolutions, panel discussions and the UPR and inputs to the HLPF. The report urges that this engagement be deepened and become the norm.

Overall, in negotiations and discussions throughout the session, States continued to be interested in highlighting the 2030 Agenda and some were keen to underline the links with human rights (seen in the Child rights and ESC rights resolutions), but most remained reluctant to identify specific ways in which the human rights mechanisms could engage in the SDGs process. In addition, many States continued to insist on only referring to the SDGs by quoting the language of the Agenda or relevant GA resolutions and to insist that Geneva based mechanisms should not be discussing the SDGs as it was a matter for New York.

In an interesting and positive development, Chile, Denmark, Ecuador Luxembourg, Portugal, Rwanda and Uruguay made a Joint Statement on this topic under Item 8. The Statement announces a new initiative on Human Rights and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. It begins by noting that ‘many people have been left behind by globalization and excluded from the benefits of socio-economic development’ and highlighting acute and rising inequalities both within and between countries. It describes human rights and the 2030 Agenda as interdependent and mutually reinforcing and says that if the SDGs are to ‘leave no one behind’, ‘then human rights obligations and commitments must be applied, realised and protected by all UN member States’ and conversely, human rights can only be realised if the SDGs are implemented and poverty eradicated.

The sponsors of the Joint Statement therefore ‘believe that it is imperative for the Council to give careful consideration to the nature of our role: how can the UN’s human rights pillar – including this Council, the UN human rights mechanisms, OHCHR, NHRIs and civil society - best support and contribute to the realisation of the SDGs, leaving no one behind.’ The State sponsors eschew an abstract theoretical debate or more report writing, and instead call for an action-oriented and inclusive conversation on topics such as ‘how can the UN human rights system support States to realise the SDGs at country-level, including by delivering effective human rights capacity-building and technical support, and sharing best practice.’

Specifically, the new initiative proposes an informal open-ended meeting later in 2017, to discuss how the human rights pillar can best contribute to the realisation of, and follow-up to, the SDGs, with the ultimate aim of pursing ‘a practical programme of work premised on seizing every available opportunity provided to the UN Human Rights system to support States as they work to implement the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, leaving no one behind.’

This is a very welcome initiative, and whilst we might have hoped the Statement would attract a greater number of State sponsors, including more African and Asian States, it is an important first step which opens the space for a more focused dialogue on this important topic. The leadership of the State sponsors will be crucial in bringing together a broader cross-regional group of States to champion a rights-based approach to the SDGs, as will the continuing work of the OHCHR, Special Procedures and treaty bodies in producing research, analysis, recommendations and proactive initiatives that assist States to see concrete ways to embed human rights in their SDGs plans. As States are finalising and activating those plans, now is the time to reinforce the message that effective and sustainable achievement of the aims of the 2030 Agenda will not be possible without embracing human rights in the implementation, follow-up and review processes.

31 March 2017

Lucy McKernan Geneva Representative, Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

[1] A/HRC/RES/34/16, preambular paragraph 8.

[2] A/HRC/RES/34/16, preambular paragraph 9.

[3] A/HRC/RES/34/16, operative paragraph 6.

[4] A/HRC/RES/34/16, operative paragraph 17.

[5] A/HRC/RES/34/16, operative paragraph 27.

[6] A/HRC/RES/34/16, operative paragraph 31.

[7] Human Rights Council resolution on economic, social and cultural rights, March 2017, A/HRC/RES/34/4, paragraph 7.

[8] A/HRC/RES/34/4, paragraph 8.

[9] See General Assembly resolution A/RES/70/299 on ‘Follow-up and review of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development at the global level’, paragraph 3.

[10] Report of the Secretary-General to the Human Rights Council, ‘Question of the realisation in all countries of economic, social and cultural rights’, 14 December 2016, A/HRC/34/25, paragraph 15.

[11] A/HRC/34/25, paragraph 17.

[12] A/HRC/34/25, paragraphs 22-25.

[13] A/HRC/34/25, paragraph 41.

• UN Updates

ESC Rights Update from Geneva: 60th session of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Right

March 2017

The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) held its 60th session from 20 to 24 February 2017. This Update provides a summary of the meetings and key developments.This session was unusual because it was only for one week and no State dialogues were scheduled.  Therefore, much of the Committee’s session was held in private in order to discuss thematic issues, working methods, non-reporting States, proposed General Comments and Communications under the OP-ICESCR. During its opening meeting, the Committee held a minute of silence in honour of the recently deceased Sir Nigel Rodley, former member and Chairperson of the Human Rights Committee and Arundhati Ghose, former member of CESCR.

Committee membership and office holders Three new members of the Committee commenced their terms this session: Ms Sandra Leibenberg (South Africa) Ms Laura-Maria Craciunean-Tatu (Romania) Mr Michael Windfuhr (Germany)

The Chairpersonship of Mr Waleed Sadi came to an end and the Committee elected Ms Virginia Bras Gomes (Portugal) to the Chair. A new Bureau was also elected, consisting of: Ms Heisoo Shin (Republic of Korea), Mr Zdzislaw Kedzia (Poland) and Mr Mohamed Ezzeldin Abdel-Moneim (Egypt) as Vice Chairs of the Committee, and Lydia Carmelita Ravenberg (Suriname) as the Rapporteur of the Committee. A new working group on communications was also determined.

State Reporting Procedure During the ‘pre-session’ (27 February - 3 March) the Committee considered Lists of Issues for the following States: Colombia, Mexico, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Russian Federation The Committee has published Lists of Issues for these States HERE. The dialogue for each of these States will be held at the 62nd Session (18 September – 6 October 2017).

Follow up At this session the Committee agreed to a new follow up procedure which will commence operation in the 61st session in June. Additional information about the new procedure will be made available in June.

Overdue and non-reporting States There are a large number of States Parties to the Covenant who are significantly overdue in submitting their State report, including many States Parties for whom it is their initial report. To address this issue the Committee held a private meeting with non-reporting States on 23 February 2017 and nine States participated in this meeting.

One outcome of the meeting was that where a State submits a long overdue initial report, it will be offered a dialogue as soon as possible after the report is submitted and without the need for a List of Issues or Replies. The Committee is conscious of ensuring that, in these circumstances, there is sufficient time for civil society to participate in the process.

The Secretariat has published a summary of the reporting status of all State Parties to the Covenant. It shows which States are overdue in reporting, including some States that have never reported. Civil society organisations may wish to use the report to identify when a State is due to submit its report, whether it is overdue and to encourage the State to engage in the reporting process.

Another useful resource which provides the reporting status for each State for all human rights treaties can be found HERE.

Thematic areas of work

ESC rights in the context of business activities. The Committee held its ‘Day of Discussion’ on ‘the Draft General Comment on State Obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the Context of Business Activities’ on 21 February 2017. The Day of Discussion was open to all stakeholders and the level of participation was very high with over 100 participants, including 19 States and the European Union, national human rights institutions, civil society organizations, trade unions, corporate lawyers, human rights lawyers, researchers and academics.

Our blog on the Day of Discussion can be found HERE. More information about the Day of Discussion is available HERE.

Refugees and Migrants The Committee adopted a Public Statement on ‘The Duties of States Towards Refugees and Migrants under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights’ (E/C.12/2017/1).

The Statement provides clear and concise guidance to States on their duties under the ICESCR towards refugees, asylum seekers and migrants. It confirms that States’ obligations apply to ‘all persons under its jurisdiction’ which includes refugees, asylum seekers and migrants, including those in an irregular situation (ie. documented and undocumented migrants).

The Committee highlights that States have immediate obligations to ensure that their measures to realise Covenant rights do not discriminate on the grounds of nationality or legal status and that any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference or other differential treatment on those grounds must be in accordance with the law, pursue a legitimate aim and be proportionate to the aim pursued. A lack of available resources is not a sufficient justification for discriminatory treatment and the non-discrimination obligations require States to pay specific attention to the practical obstacles faced by vulnerable groups, such as asylum seekers and migrants.

The Committee notes the exception set out in Article 2(3) of the Covenant which permits developing countries to determine to what extent they will guarantee the economic rights recognised in the Covenant to non-nationals. This applies only to developing countries and only to ‘economic rights’ such as access to employment and does not relate, for example, to the right of each child to education, which should be recognised independently of nationality or the legal status of her or his parents.

The Committee explains also that the essential minimum content of each right must be ensured to all people under the ‘State’s effective control, without exception’ and, importantly, States ‘would not, in principle, be justified in restricting the enjoyment of the essential content of the Covenant rights on the basis of a lack of resources, even when confronted with a sudden and quantitatively significant flow of refugees.’ It stresses that ‘core obligations are non-derogable, they continue to exist in situations of conflict, emergency and natural disaster.’

The Committee also underlines the specific vulnerability of undocumented migrants, who often lack the documentation necessary to access social services and whose irregular legal status and the fear of being deported inhibits their access to services and willingness to complain, for instance, about mistreatment at work. The Statement then steps through the obligations and some of the common challenges with respect to health, work, housing and social security rights, emphasising that any restrictions on access to these services/rights should be reasonable and proportionate.

The importance of data collection regarding refugees, asylum seekers and migrants, to aid policy and strategy development and service provision, is also highlighted in the Statement. Finally, the Committee recalls the obligations of international co-operation and notes the importance of these obligations in the context of a sudden influx of refugees and migrants and states that it sees: ‘any measure that States parties adopt to support the realisation of the rights of the Covenant on the territory of other States as contributing to the aims of the Covenant.’

Proposed General Comments The Committee discussed in private a proposed General Comment on article 15 and one on economic, social and cultural rights, development and the environment. It also considered and accepted a proposal to commence the elaboration of a new General Comment related to land and economic, social and cultural rights.

Communications under the OP-ICESCR The Committee considered two Communications during this session and found both inadmissible. This continues the trend of a high number of inadmissible Communications. The decisions will be published in the coming weeks.

Practical matters During the May/June 2017 session there will be a change of practice in respect of the time for NGOs to brief the Committee.  The convention has been for this briefing to occur on the Monday morning of the week during which the relevant State dialogue is scheduled.  However, instead, the NGO briefings will be held:

Monday 29 May 15:00    - For NGO briefings on Australia, Uruguay & Netherlands Tuesday 6 June 15:00    - For NGO briefings on Liechtenstein & Sri Lanka Monday 12 June 10:00   - For NGO briefings on Pakistan

The deadline for NGO reports for the Pre-sessions has changed.  NGO reports will now be due 8 weeks (but preferably 10 weeks) before the start of the Pre-session. Therefore, for the next Pre-session (9 October – 12 October 2017 – Argentina, Germany & Turkmenistan) the deadline for NGO reports is 14 August 2017.

Next session

The sixty-first session of the Committee will be held from 29 May to 23 June 2017 during which the Committee will consider the reports of:

Australia (30 & 31 May) Liechtenstein (7 & 8 June) Netherlands (1 & 2 June) Pakistan (12, 13 & 14 June) Sri Lanka (8 & 9 June) Uruguay (31 May & 1 June)

The Programme of Work for the 61st session (including the schedule of Dialogues) is HERE.

The deadline for civil society reports/submissions in respect of the review of these countries is 18 April 2017 (preferable), but 5 May at the latest.

For those intending to attend the session, accreditation requests must be submitted to the CESCR Secretariat (This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.) at least 10 days prior to the start of the session.

There will be no Pre-sessional Working Group meeting at this session.

• UN Updates

Updated Working Paper – Human Rights Law Sources: UN Pronouncements on Extra-Territorial Obligations

Extra-territorial obligations (ETOs) are increasingly recognized as essential to ensuring a global framework built on human rights.  As a consequence, civil society is demanding that ETOs be applied through human rights monitoring, enforcement, accountability and remedial mechanisms, resulting in a growing body of pronouncements enforcing ETOs in practice. This Working Paper, updated February 2017, outlines the application of extra-territorial obligations (ETOs) by United Nations mechanisms, including the Concluding Observations of Treaty Bodies, General Comments and Recommendations adopted by Treaty Bodies, and within the work of UN Special Procedures including Special Rapporteurs and Independent Experts appointed by the Human Rights Council.  As such, it provides a current understanding of how ETOs are monitored and enforced by UN human rights mechanisms.

The Working Paper is available HERE.

• UN Updates

New page - Human Rights Guiding Principles on private schools

In response to the need to clarify the existing legal human rights framework as it applies to the role of private actors in education, and in an effort to provide normative guiding principles against which to analyse privatisation in and of education from a human rights perspective, the Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (GI-ESCR), the Right to Education Project (RTE) and the Open Society Foundation – Education Support Program (OSF-ESP) have been working to establish the process for the development of Human Rights Guiding Principles on the obligations of States regarding private actors in education. 

Key information on the process and development of these Guiding Principles is available on this regularly updated webpage: http://bit.ly/GPprivatisation

• UN Updates

57 head of States signed a declaration without precedent against commercialisation of education

The 57 head of the member States of the Francophonie organisation published on the 27 of November the “Antananarivo Declaration” which concludes the 16th General Assembly of the International Organisation of La Francophonie (OIF). The Declaration contains a paragraph addressing the issue of commercialisation of education and supporting public schools. This declaration is the strongest declaration so far by States against commercialisation of education, in favour of public schools, and supporting the regulation of private actors in education. The declaration recognises in particular, the importance of civil society’s role in the work against commercialisation of education and requests the OIF to work in partnership with civil society on the issue.

Paragraphe 39 of the Antananarivo Declaration which can be found here http://bit.ly/2gMyRS5 [in French], follows the important mobilisation of the Francophone civil society through an Appeal of the Francophone civil society against commercialisation of education, and conveys some of its key demands. It reads:

“39. Noting the development of academic and educational establishments with a commercial purpose, and committed to public, free and of quality education for all, we ask the OIF and the Conference of the Ministers of Education of States and Governments of the Francophonie (Confémen), in collaboration with civil society, to continue the reflection raised during the Kinshasa Summit (2012), and to take measures to promote efficient institutional mechanisms for the regulation of private actors in education, in order to ensure quality and equity of education services;”

• For more information in French on privatisation of education and our work on the subject, you can visit http://bit.ly/privfr

• For more information in English, see http://bit.ly/educprivat

• To stay informed on all the latest developments concerning private actors in education and human rights, join our mailing list http://bit.ly/privatnews

• UN Updates

[updated 25/01] Court upholds Uganda's Ministry of Education's order to close BIA schools

On Friday 4th November, Bridge International Academies' (BIA) court case in Uganda relating to the closure of Bridge schools was dismissed with costs.  Bridge International Academies had previously secured a temporary court injunction against the Ministry of Education's order to close their schools until the ruling of the decision.  The Ministry had ordered for the closure of BIA schools on the ground that they are unlicensed and below minimum standards. The injunction was lifted on the 4th November and BIA's application dismissed with costs. Bridge International Academies will  have to close its schools in Uganda, if the government maintains their decision to have them closed. Following the judgement Bridge filed a notice of appeal,  the High Court has granted a stay of execution allowing all Bridge schools to remain open until 8th December.

The multinational company has other cases pending, notably in Busia county, Kenya, where the County Education board has issued an order to close all BIA schools in the county as they are unregistered and fail to meet the required minimum standards. The first hearing took place on Friday 4th November and a ruling has been scheduled for 30th November.

More information will be available soon concerning these cases, and the pages in this website will be regularly updated.

Updates 

For press statements, see http://bit.ly/2aNxoZc

• 25 January: Government announces unregistered private schools will not be allowed to open for first term: http://bit.ly/2krm35d

• 16 November: In a press release Bridge has stated they been granted a stay of execution allowing for all 63 of their schools to remain open until 8th December, notice of appeal has been filed by the company : http://bit.ly/2fweaW1

• 16 November: Legal Brains Trust Ltd have taken legal action against Bridge, suing them at the High Court Civil Division with the accusation that managers deliberately disobeyed the general education policy and laws of Uganda: http://bit.ly/2fF8WrQ

• 15 November: The Minister of Education and Sports has issued a press release in the New Vision asking parents to put their children in other schools and for local authorities to find alternative schools of parents' choice : http://bit.ly/2fTPquz

• 14 November: Parents and children have been asking to be reimbursed their fees: http://bit.ly/2gcYfjy

• 11 November: the government closes two Bridge schools : http://bit.ly/2fGXhvj

• 9 November: the Government of Uganda announced that "this situation, following several reminders, led the Ministry to invoke section 33 (4) of the Education Act 2008, to close Bridge International Academy" and "The Chief Administrative Officers in the district’s where these “schools” are located, the IGP, the Director Education Standards, all town clerks, all Municipal Education Officers, all District inspectors of schools, all DEO’s and Parents are informed and requested to make arrangements to have these children from these schools absorbed into the nearest UPE schools."http://bit.ly/2eVg967

• 7th November: Following the decision there have been a few instances of Bridge organised protests against the closure, including by organising children: http://bit.ly/2fOcKuW

• 4th November: It appears that the Ugandan Ministry of Education has asked for Bridge schools to be closed on Monday 7th November: https://twitter.com/cathkemi/status/794449903091060737.

• 4th November: In a press release Bridge announced that it would appeal the Court decision: http://bit.ly/2eeyBul

More information 

• The High Court ruling upholding the order for closure of BIA schools in Uganda can be accessed here

• For background information on the known court cases where Bridge Academies is a party, see the following information brief: http://bit.ly/2naXJ6b

• Human rights bodies statements related to States’ obligations with regards to Bridge International Academies: http://bit.ly/2fXvM11

• For media coverage of BIA's closure in Uganda, see: http://bit.ly/2aNxoZc

• For our monitoring page on commercial schools and the right to education, see: http://bit.ly/commerceduc

• To remain informed about key developments on private actors and the right to education, sign up to our mailing list: http://bit.ly/privatnews

• UN Updates

Information statement on going cases involving Bridge International Academies LTD

Recently the Government of Uganda and the Government of Kenya have sought to suspend the expansion of BIA. In Uganda and Busia County in Kenya, authorities have expressed intentions to close BIA schools under their jurisdiction over allegations of BIA failing to meet required standards of operation for institutions of basic education and failing to register legally. In response BIA has resorted to court action to challenge the government action against them.

Ahead of Friday, where progress will be made on two of these cases, the Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Initiative for Social and Economic Rights and East African Centre for Human Rights have prepared a brief providing an update on known pending legal proceedings involving Bridge International Academies in Uganda and Kenya with the intention of bringing increased transparency to these cases and the issues they seek to address.

Read the full statement here

• UN Updates

ESC Rights Update from Geneva: 59th session of Committee on Economic, Social & Cultural Rights (19 September to 7 October 2016)

The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) held its 59th session from 19 September to 7 October 2016. Immediately following the session, a Working Group of the Committee held the ‘pre-session’ from 10 – 14 October. This Update provides a summary of the meetings and key developments:

• Sustainable development goals

• State reporting procedure

• Overdue and non-reporting States

• Communications under the OP-ICESCR

• ESC rights and business activities

• Human rights defenders of ESC rights

• Committee membership

• Practical matters

• Next session

Sustainable Development Goals

During the opening of the session on 19 September, Ms Peggy Hicks, Director of the ‘Thematic Engagement, Special Procedures and Right to Development Division’ of OHCHR gave an address focusing on the sustainable development agenda and goals (SDGs). Ms Hicks acknowledged input by the treaty body Chairs into the High Level Political Forum and encouraged the Committee to continue to consider ways to engage with the SDGs process. She underlined the importance of ensuring that the collection and analysis of data on the implementation of the SDGs, respects human rights principles and drew attention to the OHCHR Guidance Note on the topic. She noted the many links between the SDGs and the Covenant and said:

‘Human rights mechanisms, including treaty bodies, offer the opportunity of promoting accountability of those responsible for implementing the agenda, and ensuring that they do so in full conformity with human rights law. Building strong links between the Agenda, the Covenant and the High Level Political Forum and your monitoring work will be crucial to this, and to helping ensure the voices of the most marginalized are heard.’ ___________________________ It is interesting to note also that the Committee appears to have added to its Concluding Observations a standard paragraph addressing the SDGs:

‘The Committee recommends that the State party take fully into account its obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and ensure the full enjoyment of these rights in the implementation of the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda at national level, with the support of international assistance and cooperation when needed. Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals shall be significantly facilitated by the State party establishing independent mechanisms to monitor progress, and by treating beneficiaries of public programs as rights-holders who can claim entitlements. Building the implementation of the SDGs on participation, accountability and non-discrimination shall ensure that no one is left behind in the process.’ (note this is the advance unedited version)

This is a welcome development and hopefully the beginning of a deeper engagement by the Committee with the SDGs process. This paragraph highlights the importance of ensuring that implementation of the SDGs occurs in a manner compliant with ICESCR and that it has as its foundation the human rights principles of participation, accountability and non-discrimination. Given the strong resistance by States to independent monitoring and any true accountability mechanism within the 2030 Agenda, CESCR can play a significant role in emphasising the importance and benefits of these elements. It might also be interesting for CESCR to develop some more specific guidance to States on how to do these things, including perhaps through States aligning or integrating their SDGs and CESCR reporting processes.

State Reporting Procedure

The following States were reviewed during the session:

Costa Rica, Cyprus, Dominican Republic, Lebanon, Philippines, Poland, Tunisia

The Committee has published its Concluding Observations for these countries HERE.

During the ‘pre-session’ the Committee considered Lists of Issues for the following States: Australia, Liechtenstein, Netherlands, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Uruguay

The Committee has published Lists of Issues for these States HERE.  The State dialogue for each of these States will be held in May/June 2017.

Overdue and non-reporting States

The Secretariat has published a

summary

 of the reporting status of all State Parties to the Covenant. It shows which States are overdue in reporting, including some States that have never reported. Civil society organisations may wish to use the report to identify when a State is due to submit its report, whether it is overdue and to encourage the State to engage in the reporting process.

Another useful resource which provides the reporting status for each State for all treaties can be found HERE.

Communications under the OP-ICESCR

The Committee considered 1 Communication during this session and found it

inadmissible

.  The documentation is being finalised and the decision will be published

HERE

in approximately 3 weeks.

Guidance for third party interventions The Committee also discussed and adopted ‘guidance on third-party interventions, which would regulate the intervention of individuals and entities which might wish to file an amicus brief in an individual communication procedure’ (Guidance).  The Guidance is a welcome clarification of the Committee’s practice with respect to third party interventions.  It confirms that the Committee can ‘accept relevant information and documentation submitted by third-parties when necessary for the proper determination of the case’ and that it can also request such third party information. Intervenors must observe the requirements set out in the Guidance, including for instance:

• Interventions can only be submitted after making a written request to intervene and receiving the Committee’s authorization;

• The authorization will indicate the dead-line, word limit, the issues which the intervention is permitted to address and any confidentiality requirements;

• All third party interventions will be provided to the parties for comment; and

• Third parties will not be considered parties to the Communication and will not have access to the case file or documentation.

The Guidance is available HERE.

Thematic areas of work

ESC Rights in the context of Business Activities

The Committee will hold a ‘Day of Discussion’ on ‘the Draft General Comment on State Obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the Context of Business Activities’ on 21 February 2017, during its next session.

The Day of Discussion will be open to all stakeholders and written submissions in advance of the Day of Discussion are invited.  More information about the Day of Discussion is available HERE, including:

• the draft of the proposed General Comment (only in English at this stage, but French and Spanish versions to be available before the Day of Discussion);

• details on how to make written submissions; and

• details on how to register to attend the Day of Discussion.

A programme of the Day of Discussion will be made available on the same webpage in the coming months.

Human Rights Defenders of Economic, Social & Cultural Rights

On 7 October 2016 the Committee adopted a STATEMENT on ‘human rights defenders of economic, social and cultural rights’ (E/C.12/2016/2).

The statement was made by the Committee following a briefing and discussion paper prepared jointly by GIESCR, the International Service for Human Rights and the International Platform Against Impunity. A coalition of over 300 civil society organisations coordinated by these NGOs also wrote to the Committee in May 2016 urging it to take action.

This is the first comprehensive public Statement by a UN human rights treaty body specifically addressing human rights defenders.  It provides a clear articulation of the Committee’s views on this topic and strong guidance to States on the protection of defenders of ESC rights. Importantly, the Statement commences by recognising the essential contribution of civil society to the effective promotion, protection and realization of ESC rights, especially in monitoring and evaluating States’ compliance with the Covenant and dissemination of information about the ICESCR and the Committee’s work.

The Committee notes its ‘alarm’ at ‘past and present incidences .... regarding the situation of human rights defenders working in the field of economic, social and cultural rights’ and underlines the importance of human rights defenders ‘being able to work freely without any threat or fear’.  It ‘reminds States parties of their responsibility to ensure that human rights defenders are effectively protected against any and all forms of abuse, violence and reprisal which they might experience while carrying out their work to promote the realization of these rights’ and urges compliance with the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders. It also outlines specific measures that States should adopt to safeguard defenders of ESC rights.

A key advance in the Statement is the confirmation that it considers ‘any threat or violence against human rights defenders to constitute violations of States’ obligations towards the realization of Covenant rights’.

Committee membership

This was the final Committee session for 3 members of the Committee who will be stepping down from 31 December 2016: Mr Ariranga Pillay (Mauritius); Mr Nicolaas Schrijver (Netherlands); and Mr Sergei Martynov (Belarus). The chairmanship of Mr Waleed Sadi will also come to an end on the first day of the next session. The Committee will elect a new Chair at the beginning of its first session in 2017.

At the first session in 2017, three new Committee members will commence their terms on the Committee:

• Ms Laura-Maria Craciunean Romania

• Ms Sandra Leibenberg South Africa

• Mr Michael Windfuhr Germany

Practical matters

• The process for accreditation for CESCR sessions is likely to change. We recommend you consult the CESCR website for further information when preparing for accreditation.

• During the June 2017 session there will be a change of practice in respect of the time for NGOs to brief the Committee. The convention has been for this briefing to occur on the Monday morning of the week during which the relevant State dialogue is scheduled. However, instead, the NGO briefings will be distributed differently over the first three weeks of the session. Check the website for details of the program and the time and date for the NGO briefings.

• It is expected that both the February and June sessions in 2017 will be at Palais Wilson.

Next session

The next session will be held from

20 – 24 February 2017

.  Unusually, no States will be reviewed at the next session.

The Committee intends to use the session time for General Comment development, addressing Communications and addressing the issue of non-reporting States and long overdue State reports.

Immediately after the February session, a Working Group of the Committee will hold a ‘pre-session’ (27 February – 3 March) during which it will consider the Lists of Issues for:

Colombia, Mexico, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Russian Federation

The deadline for civil society reports/submissions in respect of the List of Issues for these countries is 13 January 2017 (preferable), but 30 January at the latest.

The State review for each of these States will be held in September/October 2017.  The Committee also plans to review the first two reports to be submitted under the simplified reporting procedure (Spain and New Zealand) at the September/October 2017 session.

The sixty-first session of the Committee will be held from 29 May to 23 June2017 during which the Committee will consider the reports of:

Australia, Liechtenstein, Netherlands, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Uruguay

The deadline for civil society reports/submissions in respect of the review of these countries is 18 April 2017 (preferable), but 5 May at the latest.

• UN Updates

New page on private actors in education services of Francophone countries

A number of countries grouped in the Francophonie are confronted with the non-respect of the right to education with the growth of private actors in the education sector, supported by certain donors and international institutions. The aim of this page is to gather information produced by the Francophonie on the questions of commercialization and privatization of education [in French].

• UN Updates