CCPR - 1. You are the Special Rapporteur on follow-up to Concluding Observations within the Human Rights Committee. What does that role entail?

Marcia V. J. Kran - As Special Rapporteur on follow-up to Concluding Observations, I maintain communication with States with regard to the follow-up reports and lead the process during which the reports are adopted. After the constructive dialogues between State parties and the Committee in Geneva, the Committee adopts Concluding Observations which recommend action for the State party to  achieve compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. From among these recommendations, the Committee selects two to four concluding observations on which the State party is expected to report within one to two years. The Committee reviews the information submitted and, at its sessions, assesses the State parties’ progress in implementing them. I lead the preparation of the written report on progress made by State parties on follow-up, which I present and discuss with other Committee members during each session, before the Committee adopts it. These discussions are public, can be followed live on UN WebTV and are archived for future reference.

2. As Rapporteur on follow-up to Concluding Observations, can you share with us an example of a country that has received an A-grade, which was a good practice?

State parties receive an A for fully implementing the Committee's recommendation. Two State parties received A grades in 2020. Madagascar received an A for establishing a Paris Principles-compliant National Human Rights Institution: the Commission Nationale Indépendante des Droits de l’Homme. Slovenia received an A for passing the Protection against Discrimination Act and establishing the Advocate of the Principle of Equality, as the Committee had recommended.

However, in both cases the grade was divided, as the recommendation consisted of several subparagraphs. Progress on one subparagraph received an A, while others were graded with a B or C. This is done to recognize that the State party fully implemented one part of the recommendation, while acknowledging that work remained on other parts. The establishment of institutions and passing of legislation are examples of concrete steps taken to implement recommendations. We encourage State parties to share specific information on the action they have taken and when they took it – not only about process steps but especially about the demonstrated impact and tangible progress made in implementing our recommendations.

3. What can the Committee do if the State is not submitting a follow-up report?

The Committee can urge the country to submit a report by sending a letter. Occasionally the Special Rapporteur has in-person meetings with State party representatives in Geneva, alongside sessions of the Human Rights Committee, to encourage the submission of follow up reports. If a State party does not respond, they receive a D grade which is made public when the follow up report is released. 

4. From your experience as Special Rapporteur, are there thematic areas in which recommendations are more often implemented than in other areas?

Committee recommendations and State party responses to them vary depending on the context or circumstances prevailing in the country concerned. Areas of follow up that have come up frequently in recent years are: the prevention and elimination of discrimination; the treatment of refugees, asylum seekers and migrants; the prohibition, prevention and action taken on torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment including providing remedies to victims; and the protection of freedom of expression of human rights defenders and journalists.

5. In the years that you were follow-up Special Rapporteur, is there a follow-up evaluation that sticks with you? Why?  

In 2019, the Committee gave Argentina an A rating in reference to the decision by the Tucumán Supreme Court to release and acquit "Belén", a young woman accused of terminating her pregnancy. In December 2020, Argentina voted to legalize abortion nationwide and so the A rating in 2019 served as an clear indicator of positive change.

Also in 2019, Sweden received an A for actions to prevent and combat racism such as the establishment of a national point of contact on these issues by the National Police Commissioner and hate crimes units in the country's three largest cities. These steps represented important developments to advance human rights.

6. Is the follow-up procedure an effective mechanism to evaluate implementation of recommendations, according to you?

I believe  the importance of the follow-up procedure cannot be overstated. It is influential in ensuring the work of the Committee has its intended effect. It encourages State parties to demonstrate meaningful progress toward key human rights goals. After States parties report to the Committee and receive the Concluding Observations, they often make improvements by developing new laws and institutions, building capacity and reforming practice. The follow-up process is an opportunity for State parties to showcase the tangible progress they have made. The grades that have been awarded by the Committee since I assumed the role of Special Rapporteur in 2018 indicate that some State parties have made serious efforts to respond to the Committee's recommendations.  

7. If you are choosing priority recommendations, to bring them into the follow-up procedure, what are some of the aspects that you pay particular attention to?

The Committee identifies two to four specific recommendations in its concluding observations that can be implemented within one or two years. In fact, one of the criteria for the Committee in selecting the recommendations to be included in the follow-up procedure is that the recommendation should be implementable, at least in part, within a year or two after its adoption. The Committee gives priority to situations that we identified as urgent and requiring immediate attention.

8. What is the most important source that the Committee uses to evaluate implementation?

We rely on State party submissions as well as submissions from civil society or non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and national human rights institutions (NHRIs). NGO and NHRI submissions to the Human Rights Committee are useful supplements during the follow-up assessment process. They often provide up-to-date information on the actual implementation of human rights based on the lived experience of rights holders in the country concerned, identifying who is affected, the extent of the problems and the impact of the improvements made.

9. How does the Committee decide on grading?     

The Committee has adopted grading criteria. Grades are assigned to each area of concern in the Committee’s recommendations. These grades are: ‘A’ ‘largely satisfactory’; ‘B’ ‘partially satisfactory’; ‘C’ ‘not satisfactory’; ‘D’ ‘no cooperation with the committee or no follow-up report was received’; and ‘E’ ‘measures taken in response to the recommendation are contrary to or reflect a rejection of it’. Committee members consider the grading in depth to ensure that the criteria are being consistently applied to evaluate State party compliance with the recommendations. The report and my presentations to the Committee highlight specific submissions from the State party, NHRIs and NGOs to support a particular grade.

10. Civil society can also submit alternative follow-up reports. What kind of information is the Committee often missing in State reports that civil society can provide?

NGO submissions, both local and international, are very important to understand the practical impact of the follow-up measures taken by State parties. NGO information is particularly valuable when it responds to the information provided by the State party, confirming or providing an alternate view. Human rights groups are often close to the ground and the issues rights holders face, and have a comprehensive understanding of the gaps in human rights protection and the reasons for them. Thus, when NGOs provide relevant and reliable information concerning the situation in the country being evaluated, it is of practical value to the Committee. This information gives the Committee a better understanding of how our recommendations are being implemented, and allows us to identify areas of genuine progress and the remaining gaps or concerns in relation to the follow up recommendations.