On November 7, the last session of the UN Human Rights Committee in 2024 ended. Let us recall why we draw our attention to the activities of the HRC.
Despite the fact that Belarus denounced the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, its obligations under the Covenant itself (which is a separate international treaty) remain in force. These include the need to take measures to implement the rights listed in the Covenant. The proper implementation of human rights requires attention to how the Committee interprets individual provisions of the Covenant, detailing the standard of due in its General Comments, as well as considerations on individual cases. Despite the lack of opportunity to file complaints against the Belarusian state, we believe it is important to monitor the activities of the Committee, including for a deeper understanding of the existing standard.
In addition, one of Belarus's obligations includes good faith interaction with the Committee by regularly reporting on progress in the implementation of the provisions of the Covenant. Thus, the HRC considered the fifth periodic report of Belarus in 2018 and adopted concluding observations on it. In December 2022, the Committee received the Interim Alternative Report of Belarusian human rights defenders, dedicated to the implementation of Belarus' obligations under the Covenant in the difficult period from 2018 to 2022 inclusive.
Opening the new session, Dimitar Chalev, Head of the Rule of Law, Equality and Non-Discrimination Section of OHCHR, addressed the Committee's experts with a reminder of the important role of the HRC in the context of what is happening in the world - given the acute human rights problems, growing inequality, wars on various continents and an unprecedented electoral year, during which almost half of the world's population participates in elections in one way or another. In response to these difficult conditions, we increasingly see not a creative approach to problem solving, but a return to old mechanisms of suppression of freedom of expression, assembly and association, as well as freedom of the media - including in the electoral context. “Powerful economic and political actors take control of state institutions that should remain independent, such as the judiciary or electoral commissions. They suppress critical voices and plunder resources solely for their own political and financial gain…,” the OHCHR representative notes.
In his view, the existence of bodies such as the HRC is essential in such circumstances to challenge the “new normal” of indifference and repressive practices that threaten to erode the foundations of human rights. “The work of the Committee’s experts is crucial to ensure that the voices of marginalized groups are heard, rights violations are documented, and States parties are mindful of their obligations under the Covenant.”
Dimiter Chalev also drew the attention of the Committee to the documents considered during the recent session of the Human Rights Council (HRC)* (we have recently written about these and other human rights protection mechanisms) – some of which may be of particular interest to experts working in any of the mentioned areas – as well as to the general public interested in contemporary challenges for states and ordinary people and ways to effectively respond to such challenges without infringing on rights and freedoms. Among others, the following were mentioned:
During the 142nd session, the Committee members considered periodic reports on the implementation of obligations under the Covenant by Greece, Iceland, Pakistan, Turkey, France and Ecuador. We remind you that the HRC also undertakes the task of drawing up lists of specific questions that states should answer when preparing their next periodic report. Similar questions were formulated for Latvia. The Committee members also drew up preliminary lists of questions for Benin, Cameroon, Monaco, Poland, Slovenia and South Africa.
Despite the fact that Belarus denounced the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, its obligations under the Covenant itself (which is a separate international treaty) remain in force. These include the need to take measures to implement the rights listed in the Covenant. The proper implementation of human rights requires attention to how the Committee interprets individual provisions of the Covenant, detailing the standard of due in its General Comments, as well as considerations on individual cases. Despite the lack of opportunity to file complaints against the Belarusian state, we believe it is important to monitor the activities of the Committee, including for a deeper understanding of the existing standard.
In addition, one of Belarus's obligations includes good faith interaction with the Committee by regularly reporting on progress in the implementation of the provisions of the Covenant. Thus, the HRC considered the fifth periodic report of Belarus in 2018 and adopted concluding observations on it. In December 2022, the Committee received the Interim Alternative Report of Belarusian human rights defenders, dedicated to the implementation of Belarus' obligations under the Covenant in the difficult period from 2018 to 2022 inclusive.
Opening the new session, Dimitar Chalev, Head of the Rule of Law, Equality and Non-Discrimination Section of OHCHR, addressed the Committee's experts with a reminder of the important role of the HRC in the context of what is happening in the world - given the acute human rights problems, growing inequality, wars on various continents and an unprecedented electoral year, during which almost half of the world's population participates in elections in one way or another. In response to these difficult conditions, we increasingly see not a creative approach to problem solving, but a return to old mechanisms of suppression of freedom of expression, assembly and association, as well as freedom of the media - including in the electoral context. “Powerful economic and political actors take control of state institutions that should remain independent, such as the judiciary or electoral commissions. They suppress critical voices and plunder resources solely for their own political and financial gain…,” the OHCHR representative notes.
In his view, the existence of bodies such as the HRC is essential in such circumstances to challenge the “new normal” of indifference and repressive practices that threaten to erode the foundations of human rights. “The work of the Committee’s experts is crucial to ensure that the voices of marginalized groups are heard, rights violations are documented, and States parties are mindful of their obligations under the Covenant.”
Dimiter Chalev also drew the attention of the Committee to the documents considered during the recent session of the Human Rights Council (HRC)* (we have recently written about these and other human rights protection mechanisms) – some of which may be of particular interest to experts working in any of the mentioned areas – as well as to the general public interested in contemporary challenges for states and ordinary people and ways to effectively respond to such challenges without infringing on rights and freedoms. Among others, the following were mentioned:
- Report of the High Commissioner on terrorism and human rights (A/HRC/57/29): is devoted to the increasingly widespread use of administrative measures to combat terrorism. More and more states are adopting such practices as administrative detention, house arrest, travel bans, mass surveillance. The main cause for concern is that such measures are applied outside the criminal justice system. Some states also resort to broader measures, such as deprivation of citizenship and inclusion of individuals or legal entities in so-called watch lists. The report notes that such measures, even when attributed to the administrative system, change the approach from preventive to punitive, essentially resemble criminal sanctions and are accompanied by serious restrictions on human rights, effectively creating a “parallel justice system” in the absence of due process guarantees. The problems described in the report are particularly relevant for the modern Belarusian system, which actively fights dissent, and therefore we plan to devote a separate material to it.
- Another document deserving special attention in our context is the OHCHR study on the role of the rule of law and accountability at the national and international levels (A/HRC/57/27): emphasizes the critical role of the rule of law and accountability in preventing human rights violations and abuses. The researchers address the essence of the concept of the rule of law and its connection with the accountability of state bodies, as well as the need to bring violators to justice accountability. The report’s authors provide recommendations to strengthen accountability mechanisms and establish new or strengthen existing mechanisms to hold perpetrators accountable, including at the regional and international levels.
- The Expert Mechanism to Advance Racial Justice and Equality in Law Enforcement (EMLER) presented its report on justice, accountability and reparations for human rights violations committed by law enforcement officials against Africans and people of African descent. The report identifies three minimum steps that States must take to combat impunity, namely: establishing effective reporting, review and investigation procedures; establishing civilian oversight bodies for law enforcement; and establishing independent mechanisms to support victims and communities.
- The first report of the UN Secretary-General on the impact of digital technologies and artificial intelligence on human rights in the administration of justice (A/79/296). It highlights gaps in human rights protection, including in relation to the use of AI in law enforcement, the judiciary, the legal community and judicial administration. Gaps in human rights protection are noted, among other things, in the practices of holding online meetings, using neurotechnologies, etc.
During the 142nd session, the Committee members considered periodic reports on the implementation of obligations under the Covenant by Greece, Iceland, Pakistan, Turkey, France and Ecuador. We remind you that the HRC also undertakes the task of drawing up lists of specific questions that states should answer when preparing their next periodic report. Similar questions were formulated for Latvia. The Committee members also drew up preliminary lists of questions for Benin, Cameroon, Monaco, Poland, Slovenia and South Africa.
