Fourth Inter-Committee Meeting
of the Human Rights Treaty Bodies
Geneva, Switzerland, 21-22 June 2005
Submission by International Women’ s Rights Action Watch (Asia Pacific)
21 June 2005
Thank you Mr. Chairperson.
I speak on behalf of the International Women’s Rights Action Watch Asia Pacific, an international organisation based in Malaysia and working towards the progressive interpretation and realisation of the human rights of women through the lens of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and other international human rights treaties.
Today we’d like to make a number of comments on the proposed revised guidelines to the common core document.
We believe that the proposal for an expanded core document presents us with some potential benefits if it were to achieve the following outcomes: (1) encourage a consistent and holistic approach to human rights promotion, protection and monitoring; (2) enhance the mainstreaming of women’s human rights in the work of all the treaty committees; (3) avoid duplication; and (4) create more entry points for advocacy on women’s rights.
Throughout this process we have presented our views about the expanded core document that would achieve these outcomes. However we feel that they have not been adequately reflected in the revised guidelines. We’d like to make three points for your consideration.
1) Splitting the reporting of a State party’s implementation of obligations to equality and non-discrimination into two, so that some of it appears in a core document and the rest of it in a later to be defined treaty specific document, needs some further consideration. For example, would it mean reporting on de jure implementation in the common core document, and de facto implementation in the treaty specific document? Alternatively, does this mean that State parties are to report only on negative measures in the common core document and positive measures in the treaty specific document? Or does this mean that States would be reporting on the implementation of minimum core obligations in the core document and full implementation in the treaty specific document? If any of these alternatives are the result of the reform proposals, it would be a step backwards for women’s human rights and human rights in general. In the absence of clarity on this fundamental point, the proposed reforms will not achieve the goal of simplifying and improving the reporting process.
2) The implications for the CEDAW Committee of treating all of the CEDAW’s substantive provisions as common to all or several treaties, again, needs some further consideration. How will the CEDAW Committee continue to play a central role in the development of progressive jurisprudence about women’s human rights? What are State parties to report on in the CEDAW treaty specific document if they are not to repeat the same information as in the common core document? Can the CEDAW Committee raise concerns about measures that a State party has reported on in the common core document in its concluding observations? What if another treaty body has previously praised the State party for adopting this very same measure? These are questions that need answering before women’s human rights organisations can support the current reforms.
3) We are also concerned about the implications for women’s human rights NGOs. Without clarity on the points just raised, shadow reporting could become more complex and confusing for grassroots human rights advocates. For example, should they concern themselves with the common core report or the treaty specific report, or both? Will they need to address concerns arising out of the common core report to all of the treaty committees, which could mean producing up to seven shadow reports? While NGOs are typically creative and resourceful they too will need technical assistance and training to work with any new reporting system. This issue too needs further consideration.
We appreciate all of the time and effort that has gone into this reform process and would like to thank the UN OHCHR for its recognition that input from all parties, including NGOs, is essential if we want to make this reform as effective as can be.
Thank you for this opportunity to present the views of IWRAW Asia Pacific.
Janine Moussa (Program Officer, IWRAW Asia Pacific)
Dianne Otto (Faculty of Law, University of Melbourne; IWRAW Asia Pacific network member)
