User:Meh68/sandbox

State Reporting Under the ICCPR
The United Nations employ several mechanisms for the implementation of Covenants in ratified states. One such method is ‘State Reporting’, similar to the Universal Periodic Review (UPR), accept for the fact the process is between the state and the relevant treaty body, rather than a peer-reviewed system. The ICCPR itself requires each state to prepare reports on the progress and influence of Covenant principles in domestic law and/or general practice. The state meets the HRC in either Geneva or New York to discuss the report, making ‘concluding observations’ using the report and any other relevant information. These observations are used to commend the state for progress in the application and adherence to ICCPR principles and conversely make recommendations for improvement.

The Human Rights Committee
The United Nations Human Rights Committee is the body responsible for overseeing and advising ratified states on the implementation of ICCPR treaty principles, within that state. With 160 ratified member states as of April 2012 the workload of the committee is heavy and thus the committee relies on each state at the national level to implement ICCPR principles, while acting as a periodic monitoring system. The Committee itself is comprised of 18 members nominated for election for their specialised knowledge in human rights and ‘high moral character’.

The Process of State Reporting under the ICCPR
On ratifying the ICCPR, a state is then bound under Article 40 of the ICCPR, and has rights under Article 41, to make inter-state complaints for possible breaches of ICCPR principles. The Article requires that within one year an initial report is made and subsequently, periodic updates are made (every four years) or when specifically requested by the committee. The principal purpose of the report is to promote state compliance of treaty principles/international human rights obligations and should be an "honest appraisal of their conformity to the treaty obligations". Article 40(1) itself states the report must contain "...the measures they [the State] have adopted which give effect to the rights recognised herein and on the progress made in the enjoyment of those rights".

States are requested in the initial report to address in detail every Article in Parts I, II and III of the Covenant, particularly legal norms (the constitutional and legal framework for the implementation of Covenant Rights); and explain with examples, implementation of remedies for any violations of Covenant rights. Thus, the reports tend to be comprehensive in nature. In periodic reports however, the committee is concerned with the discussion of provisions identified in their concluding observations, progress on enjoyment of ICCPR rights and Articles of which there has been significant development since the last submission. The Covenant however, does not offer prescriptive guidelines on how to prepare a state report. The committee instead issued general guidelines on structure in UN Doc. CCPR/C/66/GUI/Rev.2 (2001).

Procedure
Once the report has been written by the state, the procedure for consultation is as follows:


 * 1) 	The State party submits its report to the Human Rights Committee;
 * 2) 	The Human Rights Committee presents the State party with a list of issues and questions based on the concerns raised by the report (at which point there is opportunity for input from the United Nations system - NHRIs and NGO reports also called 'shadow reports');
 * 3) 	The State party may submit written replies to a list of issues and questions;
 * 4) 	The use of constructive dialogue between the Committee and the State party delegation during session (another opportunity for input from the United Nations system, NHRIs and NGOs whom may utilise);
 * 5) 	The Human Rights Committee issues its concluding observations on the report, inclusive of further recommendations for the State to consider in future);
 * 6) 	Lastly, procedures are used to follow up on implementation of the Human Rights Committees' recommendations.

Aims and objectives of the State Reporting System
The aims and objectives of the state reporting system under the ICCPR were discussed in General Comment 1 of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR). CESCR concluded the State Reporting System was to be more than a procedural requirement, but additionally meet further aims and objectives.


 * "The process of reporting provides an opportunity for an individual State party to conduct a comprehensive review of the measures it has taken to bring its national law and policy into line with the provisions of the treaties to which it is a party."

NGO Reports
During the process of state reporting, NGOs may indicate their interest to the secretariat on a particular state's report and then prepare a submission to be considered alongside the state report. The input of non-governmental organisations allows for an assessment on the state of civil, social and political rights and takes into account such assessments in the view of organisation that may to be affected by ICCPR principles. The utility of NGO input has been noted by the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna 1993 in its concluding Declaration, in the protection of human rights and in humanitarian services. NGO reports also give the public an opportunity to assist in the assessment of the government's overall adherence to the covenant or on particular matters. These reports may be assessed prior to the meeting or in some circumstances an NGO may be admitted to the meeting. Consequentially, the NGO may take a record of the meeting, facilitating dissemination of information back to the state concerned.

Advantages
The process is not intended to be entirely negative, with States able to highlight in their reports progress which has been made examples of good practices. The process also allows for evaluation of internal structures of implementation and identification of further assistance the state may require. The mechanism provides an opportunity for constructive dialogue between the state and the committee rather than acting as adversarial proceedings.

Disadvantages
As a consent-based process, ensuring rights under the ICCPR internationally is fraught with difficulty. The mechanism relies on member states to implement standards by way of incorporation of ICCPR principles into municipal law or implementation through conduct. Where implementing ICCPR principles into domestic law would conflict existing policy or law, a state may ignore such a principle. New Zealand for example, has been considered slow in incorporating ICCPR principles for the reason of Parliamentary Supremacy; it may not restrict future Parliaments by strictly adopting all principles into law. A further issue is in delay between making reports and consideration by the HRC. There have been many attempts for this reason, to reform the treaty body system and make systems more effective, coherent and coordinated.

Commentators have stated that one motivation to submit these reports may be to avoid identification by other states as having failed to implement ICCPR principles, or risk the embarrassment of being blacklisted. The publication of State Reports on the internet allows for individual access to a country's progress as well as the response from the HRC. Public accessibility to reports has been further aided with a General Assembly resolution (57/300) to make available in the UN information centre of each state, copies of recent state reports, summary records and concluding observations. This stigma that may result from non-compliance does not prevent some reports being excessively late, and in some cases, erroneous. The non-invasive nature of the process means the committee is precluded from enforce recommendations made during the reporting process, therefore the power lies with the state in deciding whether the observe these observations.

Effectiveness of the State Reporting System
The effectiveness of the use of state reporting has been questioned and as a result, a further mechanism for review was created in 2007; the UPR. The review was introduced to "complement" existing older mechanisms; particularly the State Reporting System. The Reports system has been regarded as weak for the fact it its success depends on the willingness of states to cooperate. Though in theory, reports should be an honest appraisal, constructive criticism of perceived failures to adhere to Covenant principles is unlikely. Further criticisms exist towards the length of the reports required as well as the onerous requirements, duplication of subject matter between various treaty reports and the lack of resources of the committee to process reports timely.

Solutions
In the reporting process, challenges typically arise in delays of reporting or consideration, non-reporting. In its 2006 Annual Report, the committee listed a number of countries overdue in reporting, for example Gambia (21 years overdue) and Equatorial Guinea (17 years overdue] and the aforementioned duplication of report requirements among treaty bodies. In his September 2002 report the former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan on 'Strengthening the United Nations; an agenda for further change' suggests one solution to the duplication issue may be to streamline reports. As "the content and timeliness of reports affects the quality of decision-making throughout the system" delays are critical and therefore, standardisation of reporting requirements will provide an efficient system and improve the state reporting process overall. A further suggestion of Annan was for "an integrated treatment of interrelated issues" through a single document to address adherence to ratified treaties.

In attempting to address issues around the state reporting process, a number of undertakings have been attempted. One such example is of the World Conference on Human Rights in its Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, which sort to implement a system whereby Human Rights officers are assigned to states, working at the regional level, for the purpose of disseminating information, training and aiding implementation on a technical level.

Future Alternatives
In response to state frustration over the workload in preparing these reports, the HRC in July 2010 proposed a new optional reporting procedure called the ‘List of Issues Prior to Reporting’ (LOIPR). The LOIPR system implements a new procedure whereby the committee sends the state a list of issues to address and the resulting report satisfies the requirements of Article 40 of the ICCPR. This system remains in the pilot stage until 2015 where the procedure will be reviewed “in terms of its practicality, effectiveness and capacity to improve the examination of the human rights situation in the State parties”. It is intended LOIPR will allow for time to be used more efficiently and provide focus to the report. A further advantage of the procedure will be that a state will not have to submit both a periodic report and LOIPR report (though initial reports will be required). LOIPR remains an optional report and states may elect to continue with the periodic reports system or may be required by the committee to prepare a full report.

State Reporting on the ICCPR in New Zealand
Since ratification of the ICCPR in December 1978, New Zealand has submitted five reports. The central criticism given by the treaty body is due to only partial incorporation of the ICCPR into domestic law with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (NZBORA). Some rights under the Covenant have not been recognised in the legislation, for example Article 1 'right of self determination' and Article 20 prohibition on propaganda. Further, on ratification NZ made several reservations on Articles 10 (2)(b), 10 (3), 14 (6), 20 and 22.