Transcript Title
SOUTH AFRICA
State of State Reporting under
International Human Rights Law
Seminar Presentation
22 September 2010
Introduction
State reporting
Mechanism
to monitor implementation of
treaties
Why?
Correct
deficiencies from laxity of states
to comply with obligations
Basis
Obligation
reports
of states to submit periodic
Objectives of state reporting
An ‘opportunity’ NOT a ‘formality’
To
reaffirm commitments
Take
stock of achievements & failures
Adopt
measures to remedy shortcomings
An opportunity for constructive
dialogue
Facilitates monitoring role of treaty
body
Objectives cont.
Initial review
Monitoring
Policy formulation
Public scrutiny
Evaluation
Acknowledging problems
Information exchange
Guidelines on state reporting
Why?
Facilitate
preparation of reports
Comprehensive
Uniform
reports
standard of reports
Harmonised guidelines
Treaty-specific guidelines
Guidelines cont
Proactive measures where reports are
overdue
Forms of state reports
Initial
& periodic
Structure of reports
Common
core document (CCD)
SA submitted on 4 December 1997
Treaty
specific documents (TSD)
Guidelines cont.
Length and format
CCD
– 40-60pages
TSD
– not exceed 60 pages
Periodic
reports – 40 pages
Concise & structured
Format of pages
Page
size, font size & type
Guidelines cont.
Information to be included
measures
progress
adopted
made in enjoyment of rights
empirical
information, including
disaggregated statistical data
problems
and difficulties
situation
in law & practice
Establish
appropriate institutional
framework for data collection
Information needed
Core document
Treaty-specific document
1. General information about the reporting State,
including:
Information relating to implementation of each
specific right and issue under the relevant treaty
Demographic, economic, social and cultural
characteristics of the state
Information requested by the relevant treaty-body
in the treaty-specific guidelines
Constitutional, political and legal structure
2. Information on the general framework for the
protection and promotion of rights, including:
Information on steps taken to address issues raised
by the treaty body on the State’s previous report
The status of main international human rights
treaties as well as other international norms related
to human rights (ratification, domestication,
reservations, derogations, restrictions and
limitations)
The legal framework for the protection of rights at
the national level
Framework within which rights are promoted (efforts
made and actions by government, legislatures,
national human rights institutions, among others).
Process by which both parts of the reports are
prepared, including participation of civil society and
the existence of national coordinating structures.
3. Information on non-discrimination and equality and
effective remedies
After submission of reports
List of issues
Consideration takes the form of
constructive dialogue
Report
Concluding
Outcome
observations (treaties)
report (UPR)
Self-assessment
report (APRM)
report & country review
Treaty: ICCPR
Signature: 3/10/1994
Ratification: 10/12/1998
Responsible department: DoJCD
Reporting requirement:
Within one year; thereafter, when the Human Rights Committee decides
Reports
Due
Initial
9/3/2000
Second
periodic
9/3/2005
Third
periodic
9/3/2010
Received
Not yet
submitted
(currently
being drafted)
Shadow reports
Considered
Treaty: CERD
Signature: 3/10/1994
Ratification: 10/12/1998
Responsible department: DoJCD
Reporting requirement:
Within one year; thereafter, every two years & whenever the CERD Committee requests
Reports
Due
Received
Shadow
Considered
reports
submitted
Initial
9/1/2000
Second
9/1/2002
2/12/2004
2
4/8/2006
periodic
Third periodic 9/1/2004
Additional
16/8/2007 Not yet
report
submitted
requested
Fourth
9/1/2010
periodic
Not yet
Fifth periodic 9/1/2010
submitted
Sixth periodic 9/1/2010
(currently
being drafted)
CERD: Initial to third PR
List of issues
Can
CERD be invoked in domestic system
Concluding observations
Noted five years delay; respect next deadline
Lack of disaggregated information
Recommendation
Consult CSOs & SAHRC in preparing next
report
CERD: Shadow reports on 1-3 PR
State report outdated (use of outdated
stats)
Considerable delay in complying with
obligations
Report fails to address impact of
measures
Treaty: CEDAW
Signature: 29/1/1993
Ratification: 15/12/1995
Responsible department: DWCPD
Reporting requirement:
Within one year; thereafter, every four years & whenever the CEDAW Committee
requests
Reports
Due
Received
Shadow reports Considered
submitted
Initial
14/1/1997
Second
periodic
14/1/2001
Third periodic 14/1/2005
Fourth
periodic
14/1/2009
Fifth periodic
14/1/2013
5/2/1998
2
24/6/1998
2/7/2009
5
Pending consideration
(list of issues
transmitted)
CEDAW: Initial report
State report
60pages
required BUT 122 pages
Based on information from gov’t sources
Delegation included representatives from
NGOs
Concluding observations
Lack
of disaggregated statistical data
Recommendation
Reinforce collaboration with CSOs
CEDAW: 2nd to 4th PR
173pages
Shadow report
Inadequate
consultation with CSOs
List of issues (August 2010)
Specify extent of consultation & participation of
NGOs
Was report submitted to parliament?
Other requests made
Provide information on recommendations
made on initial report
Treaty: CAT
Signature: 29/1/1993
Ratification: 10/12/1998
Responsible department: DoJ&CD
Reporting requirement:
Within one year; thereafter, every four years & whenever the CAT Committee requests
Reports
Due
Received
Shadow
Considered
reports
submitted
Initial
8/1/2000
28/6/2005
Additional
report
requested
11/2007
Not yet
submitted
Second
periodic
31/12/2009 Not yet
submitted
(currently being
drafted)
6
14/11/2006
CAT: Initial report
State report
3
parts instead of 2 parts
Concluding observations
Regret
Does
considerable delay in submission
not fully conform to guidelines
Limits
information to theory & not
practice
Recommendations
for next report
Provide disaggregated stats
Treaty: CRC
Signature: 29/1/1993
Protocol: OPSC
Protocol: OPCA
Accession: 30/6/2003
Signature: 8/2/2002
Ratification: 16/6/1995
Ratification: 24/9/2009
Responsible department: DoJ&CD
Reporting requirement: Within two years; thereafter, every five years
Shadow
Considered
Reports
Due
Received
reports
submitted
CRC
Initial
15/7/1997
4/12/1997
Second
periodic
Third
periodic
OPSC
15/7/2002
Not yet submitted
(has been drafted
pending cabinet
approval)
Initial
30/7/2005
15/7/2007
OPCA
Initial
24/10/2011
1
25/1/2000
CRC: Initial report
List of issues
Provide
information on indicators
developed & disaggregated data
Concluding observations
Commended
Ratify
for timely submission
ICESCR
Review
system of data collection
Widely
disseminate report, replies & COs
Treaty: CRPD
Signature: 30/3/2007
Ratification: 30/11/2007
Responsible department: DWCPD
Reporting requirement:
Within two years; thereafter, every four years & whenever the CRPD Committee
requests
Reports
Due
Received
Initial
3/5/2010
Not yet
submitted
Shadow
reports
submitted
Considered
UPR
Cooperative mechanism
Based on interactive dialogue
Complements work of treaty bodies
Applies universally and equally
National report
20
pages
Due
2-4 months
Objectives of UPR
Improve HRs situation on the ground
Push States to fulfil obligations & commitments, &
assess positive developments & challenges faced
Enhance capacity of States, including technical
assistance to them
Share best practices
Support cooperation in promotion and protection of
human rights; and
Encouraging full cooperation and engagement with
the HRC, other human rights bodies and the OHCHR
Information needed
Methodology & broad consultation process followed
Background on the country and framework i.r.t
promotion and protection of rights
Achievements, best practices, challenges and
constraints
Key national priorities, initiatives and commitments
to overcome the challenges & constraints
Expectations of the State in terms of capacitybuilding and requests for technical assistance
Follow up to the previous review
UPR reporting process
Periodic
review
Every four
years
Procedure
Supervisory body
Preparation of documents
interactive dialogue between a
State under review and UN
Member States development
of outcome document by UPR
working group adoption of
document by HRC follow up
to conclusions and
recommendations from the
review
HRC
(Note: Reviews are
conducted by the
UPR working group
consisting of 47
members of the
HRC)
Review of SA
Establishment: 15/3/2006
Responsible department: DoJ&CD
Reporting requirement: Every four years
Review
State State report
report received
due
Submissions
from other
stakeholders
Peer reviewed
First
review
1/2008 15/4/2008
18
15/4/2008
Second
review
1/2012
Review of SA cont.
Failed to consult CSOs
List of questions
Failure to meet reporting obligations
What are the obstacles; Have time frames been set
Does SA require technical assistance to obligation?
SA response
no political obstacle but rather that it consumed
a considerable effort, and SA was seeking ways
to optimize the preparation of such reports
Follow-up on recommendations made by CERD
& CAT Committees
Treaty: African Charter
Signature: 9/7/1996
Protocol: African Women’s Protocol
Signature: 16/3/2004
Responsible department: DoJ&CD
Reporting requirement: Every two years
Reports
Due
Received
Initial
9/10/1998
Second
periodic
Third
periodic
Fourth
periodic
Fifth
periodic
Sixth
periodic
Seventh
periodic
9/10/2000
9/10/2002
5/2005
9/10/2006
9/10/2010
Shadow
reports
submitted
10/1998
9/10/2004
9/10/2008
Ratification: 9/7/1996
Not yet
submitted
(currently being
drafted)
Ratification: 17/12/2004
Considered
5/1999
1
12/2005
Treaty: African Children’s Charter
Signature: 10/10/1997
Ratification: 7/1/2000
Responsible department: DWCPD
Reporting requirement: Within two years; thereafter, every three years
Reports Due
Received
Shadow
Considered
reports
submitted
Initial
7/1/20 Not yet
02
submitted
APRM process
Base
(initial)
review
Within 18
months
from
accession
to APRM
Periodic review
Review process
Supervisory
body
Every two to four years
Establishment of structures
to manage the review
process collection and
study of information by
APRM secretariat country
visit by APRM team
preparation of country
report and discussion with
state under review
submission to, consideration
and adoption of report by
participating Heads of State
and Government lodging
of report with key regional
and sub-regional institutions
Participating
Heads of States
and Government
of the African
(APR Forum)
APRM: Review of SA
Accession: 9/3/2004
Responsible department: DPSA
Reporting requirement: Within 18 months, and thereafter every two-four years
Review
Review
due
Country Review Submissions
Report received from other
(by APRM
stakeholders
Secretariat)
Peer reviewed
First
review
9/2005
30/6/2006
1 July 2007 (peer
review by APR Forum)
27 (civil
society)
27 (parliament)
Second
review
9/2010
Milestones in the review process
Milestones
Acceded to APRM process
Date
9/3/2004
Nomination of the focal point
11/2004
Public launch of the process
13/9/2005
First national consultative conference to officially launch the process
28-29/9/2005
Inauguration of National Governing Body
29/9/2005
First visit of APRM Secretariat Country Support Mission
9-11/11/2005
Signed memorandum of understanding with APRM Secretariat on the procedures for 11/11/2005
undertaking the review at national level
Second visit of APRM Secretariat Country Support Mission
4-7/12/2005
National Governing Body selected four research institutes to be involved in the preparation of 16/2/2006
the Country Self-Assessment Report
First draft Country Self-Assessment Report and draft Programme of Action completed
31/3/2006
Workshops held to review the draft reports
4-7/4/2006
Second national consultative conference to validate the draft reports
4-5/5/2006
Draft Country Self-Assessment Report adopted by cabinet
9/6/2006
Country Self-Assessment Report and Programme of Action submitted to APRM Secretariat
30/6/2006
Visit of APRM Secretariat Country Review
11-25/7/2006
Programme of Action finalised
8/2006
Country Review Report submitted to APR Forum
12/2006
Country Review Report reviewed by APR Forum
1/7/2007
First implementation report of the Programme of Action presented to APR Forum
4/2/2009