What are human rights?

Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of
residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status.
We are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination. These rights are all
interrelated, interdependent and indivisible.

Universal human rights are often expressed and guaranteed by law, in the forms of
treaties, customary international law , general principles and other sources of
international law. International human rights law lays down obligations of Governments
to act in certain ways or to refrain from certain acts, in order to promote and protect
human rights and fundamental freedoms of individuals or groups.

Universal and inalienable

The principle of universality of human rights is the cornerstone of international human

rights law. This principle, as first emphasized in the Universal Declaration on Human
Rights in 1948, has been reiterated in numerous international human rights conventions,
declarations, and resolutions. The 1993 Vienna World Conference on Human Rights, for
example, noted that it is the duty of States to promote and protect all human rights and
fundamental freedoms, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems.

All States have ratified at least one, and 80% of States have ratified four or more, of the
core human rights treaties, reflecting consent of States which creates legal obligations for
them and giving concrete expression to universality. Some fundamental human rights
norms enjoy universal protection by customary international law across all boundaries
and civilizations.

Human rights are inalienable. They should not be taken away, except in specific
situations and according to due process. For example, the right to liberty may be
restricted if a person is found guilty of a crime by a court of law.

Interdependent and indivisible

All human rights are indivisible, whether they are civil and political rights, such as the
right to life, equality before the law and freedom of expression; economic, social and
cultural rights, such as the rights to work, social security and education , or collective
rights, such as the rights to development and self-determination, are indivisible,
interrelated and interdependent. The improvement of one right facilitates advancement of
the others. Likewise, the deprivation of one right adversely affects the others.

Equal and non-discriminatory

 Non-discrimination is a cross-
cutting principle in international human rights law. The principle is present in all the
major human rights treaties and provides the central theme of some of international
human rights conventions such as the International Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Racial Discrimination and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination against Women.

The principle applies to everyone in relation to all human rights and freedoms and it
prohibits discrimination on the basis of a list of non-exhaustive categories such as sex,
race, colour and so on. The principle of non-discrimination is complemented by the
principle of equality, as stated in Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.”

Both Rights and Obligations

Human rights entail both rights and obligations. States assume obligations and duties
under international law to respect, to protect and to fulfil human rights. The obligation to
respect means that States must refrain from interfering with or curtailing the enjoyment
of human rights. The obligation to protect requires States to protect individuals and
groups against human rights abuses. The obligation to fulfil means that States must take
positive action to facilitate the enjoyment of basic human rights. At the individual level,
while we are entitled our human rights, we should also respect the human rights of
others.

core United Nations human rights treaties that provide the foundation for international human
rights law and their related monitoring bodies (i.e. “treaty bodies”).

The UDHR established the general human rights principles and standards all States are
expected to respect, protect and fulfil.

Following creation of the ICCPR and ICESCR 7 other core United Nations human rights
treaties have been adopted and entered into force. Each treaty substantively expands upon
the particular rights guaranteed in the International Bill of Rights with a focus on specific
thematic concerns or the protection of vulnerable groups. These are:

 The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination

(1965)
 The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women
(1979)
 The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment
(1984)
 The Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989)
 The International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers
and Members of Their Families (1990)
 The International Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006)
 The International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced
Disappearance (2006)

Together, the 9 United Nations human rights treaties form the core of international human
rights law.

Treaty

There are 9 core international human rights treaties: binding, written agreements between
States, which create legal rights and duties governed by international law. A treaty is a
formal and binding agreement between States that outlines obligations which they have
chosen to accept.

They typically require a minimum number of signatories to come into force.

According to the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a reservation is (article
2.1d):
The United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) was a functional
commission within the overall framework of the United Nationsfrom 1946 until it was replaced
by the United Nations Human Rights Council in 2006. It was a subsidiary body of the UN
Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), and was also assisted in its work by the Office of
the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR). It was the UN's
principal mechanism and international forum concerned with the promotion and protection
of human rights.

On 15 March 2006, the UN General Assembly voted overwhelmingly to replace UNCHR with
the UN Human Rights Council.[1]

…a unilateral statement, however phrased or named, made by a State, when signing, ratifying,
accepting, approving or acceding to a treaty, whereby it purports to exclude or to modify the legal
effect of certain provisions of the treaty in their application to that State.”
Reservations are a way for States to limit their obligations under a treaty. In effect,
reservations allow a State to be a party to a treaty while simultaneously excluding the legal
effect of specific provisions that treaty contains. This happens when a State issues a formal
statement at the time of signing, ratifying, accepting, approving or acceding to a treaty,
indicating which particular provisions they are choosing not to be bound by.

Reservations cannot be made to every provision in a treaty, however. All reservations must
be narrow, specific and consistent with the overall object and purpose of the treaty –
otherwise the reservation would make the ratification or accession to the treaty entirely
meaningless. For example, some States parties to the Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) have been allowed to launch reservations
so that the laws relating to male succession of royal or aristocratic titles are not subject to
CEDAW’s equality provisions. This kind of reservation has been broadly accepted without
comment. However, other States have tried to file reservations which broadly reject entire
articles within CEDAW, such as Article 16’s right to equality in the family. In this regard, the
CEDAW Committee has emphasised that, whether lodged for national, traditional, religious
or cultural reasons, reservations broadly rejecting Article 16 are incompatible with CEDAW’s
object and purpose, and therefore are impermissible.
UN Treaty Bodies (also referred to as a “committee” or “treaty-monitoring body”) are
committees created to monitor states parties’ implementation of a specific international
treaty. Under the UN human rights system, treaty bodies are established to monitor states
parties’ implementation of the 9 core human rights treaties. These human rights treaty bodies
consist of independent experts with recognised expertise in human rights. They are elected
for fixed renewable terms of four years by states parties to the relevant treaty. Treaty
bodies only have the power to address states that have ratified the treaty they are mandated
to monitor.

There are ten international human rights treaty bodies (9 committees, 1 subcommittee):

The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment-
Committee against Torture

 Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading

Treatment

Assistance is provided to the human rights treaty bodies by UN staff members and report on
their work are delivered to the leadership of the UN (for example, the UN Secretary-General)
or political bodies of the UN, for example, the General Assembly. These institutions within
the UN may then take further action on the issues raised by the treaty bodies.

In essence, Optional Protocols (“OPs”) are treaties in themselves. These are instruments
drafted and introduced for signature/ratification as supplements to treaties, but with their own
provisions. OPs can provide additional capabilities to the treaty body responsible for
overseeing states compliance with the relevant treaty (e.g. OP to the Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women gives the Committee the power to
conduct country inquiries). OPs can be agreed upon by some, or many of the states parties
to the core treaty.
Like the core human rights treaties, these typically require a minimum number of signatures
before they can enter into force.

Consideration of states parties’ reports

States that are party to any of the core treaties are obliged to regularly submit to the Treaty
Bodies substantial reports on their implementation and adherence to the treaties.

Given that each human rights treaty derives from the UDHR, there is overlap between
different treaty bodies’ provisions For example, all human rights treaties contain a provision
on equality and non-discrimination. As such, states parties’ reports prepared for each
relevant treaty also overlap To streamline the states parties’ reporting process, the UN has
developed a harmonised reporting procedure that allows states parties’ to consolidate the
required, overlapping reporting information into a single ‘Common Core Document’. This
Document is submitted to the UN Secretary General, who then transmits the reports to each
relevant treaty body.

In conjunction with the Common Core Document, states also prepare additional treaty-
specific reports to be submitted to the relevant Treaty Bodies for review.

Shadow Reports/Parallel Reports

Recognising that states do not always paint a complete picture of the human rights context in
their countries, Treaty Bodies may invite input from civil society to be used in their review of
the relevant states’ report. This input is submitted parallel to the concerned states’ report.
These reports are often referred to as “shadow reports” or “parallel reports”.

Parallel reports give practitioners and advocates the opportunity to include their perspective
on the human rights context in their country, regardless of whether this information
complements or opposes the official states report submitted to the Treaty Body. While state
reports tend to provide information on legislative framework, they may not always thoroughly
reflect the reality on the ground: for example, they may focus on domestic law, even though
the implementation of that law for rights-holders may not be effective in practice. Civil society
actors have the opportunity to conduct their own research, present alternative evidence,
views, findings and/or raise issues that not covered by the state reports.
NGOs, CSOs, and other women’s and human rights organisations play an important part in
creating parallel reports that more fully and comprehensively reflect women’s concerns on
the ground. Importantly, these reports highlight gaps in official reports and contribute to the
fight for women’s equality. The participation of civil society organizations is also important for
publicising the content of human rights treaties and the outcomes of the discussions in the
periodic reporting process: this is a state obligation, but often CSOs communicate very
effectively at the grass-roots level.

The requirements for submitting Parallel Reports vary significantly between treaty bodies.

General Comments/General Recommendation

Article 31 of the 1965 Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties recognises that treaties need
continuous contextual interpretation. This is to ensure the provisions within a treaty remain
relevant in modern contexts and continue to fulfil their object and purpose.

Treaty bodies have the power to issue General Comments/General Recommendations as

continual contextual interpretations of their relevant treaties. These can be used to clarify
states’ report obligations (e.g. requiring information on a specific issue must be included in
reports) or to suggest approaches to implementing treaty provisions. They can also be
written as interpretations and updates of the human rights treaty, often clarifying the
meaning of specific provisions or highlighting thematic issues relevant to the treaty. In other
words, they provide orientation for the practical implementation of human rights and form a
set of criteria for evaluating the progress of states in their implementation of these rights. For
example, the Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination has made 33
General Recommendations to clarify and expand various thematic issues related to women’s
rights and gender equality. These include:

 Violence against women (General Recommendation 19)

 Temporary special measures, including quotas (General Recommendation 25)
 Women’s access to justice (General Recommendation 33).

General Comments are not treaties and do not need ratification by states parties.
Strictly speaking they are not legally binding, however they are considered authoritative
statements on the content of legal duties assumed by states parties.

Individual Communications
Any individual who believes her rights under a treaty have been violated by a states party (to
the relevant human rights treaty) may be able to bring a communication before the
related Treaty Body. In fact, thousands of people from around the world do so every year,
provided that their state has ratified/acceded to the relevant treaty and recognized the
competence of the Treaty Body through a formal declaration. It is through individual
complaints that human rights are given concrete meaning. In the adjudication of individual
cases, international norms that may otherwise seem general and abstract are put into
practical effect. When applied to a person’s real-life situation, the standards contained in
international human rights treaties find their most direct application. The resulting body of
decisions issued by Treaty Bodies may guide States, NGOs/CSOs and individuals in
interpreting the contemporary meaning of the treaties concerned.

With written consent from victims, complaints may also be brought by third parties on behalf
of individual. In certain cases, there is also the possibility that a third party may bring a case
without such consent, for example, where a person is in prison without access to the outside
world or is a victim of an enforced disappearance.

Some Committees may, at any stage before the case is considered, issue a request to the
states party for “interim measures” in order to prevent any irreparable harm to the author or
alleged victim in the particular case. Typically, such requests are issued to prevent actions
that cannot later be undone, for example the deportation of a woman facing a risk of torture,
including facing “honour killing” by family members, or if a child faces a risk of FGM if she is
returned to her native country. A decision to issue a request for interim measures does not
imply a determination on the admissibility or the merits of the communication but it must
have a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits for it to be concluded that the alleged
victim would suffer irreparable harm. If the complainant wishes the Committee to consider a
request for interim measures, he/she should state it explicitly, and explain in detail the
reasons why such action is necessary.

Country Inquiries

Some treaty bodies may, under certain conditions, initiate country inquiries if they receive
reliable information containing well-founded indications of serious, grave or systematic
violations of the conventions in a state party. For example, two recent CEDAW inquiries were
brought based on reports supplied by local NGO/CSOs:
  The inquiry concerning “systematic and grave violations” violations of Sexual
and Reproductive Health Rights in Philippines in 2008

 The inquiry concerning violations of the treaty by Canada with respect to

“Murder and Disappearances of Aboriginal women and girls.”

Early Warning Measures

Early Warning Measures can be taken by certain Treaty Bodies to prevent existing problems
from escalating into conflicts. These can also include confidence-building measures to
identify and support any action that improves the livelihood of the concerned group and
prevents a resurgence of conflict where it has previously occurred.

Criteria for early warning measures could, for example, include the following situations:

 Lack of an adequate legislative basis for defining and prohibiting all forms of racial
discrimination, as provided for in the Convention
 Inadequate implementation of enforcement mechanisms, including the lack of
recourse procedures
 The presence of a pattern of escalating racial hatred and violence, or racist
propaganda or appeals to racial intolerance by persons, groups or organisations,
notably by elected or other officials
 A significant pattern of discrimination evidenced in social and economic indicators
 Significant flows of refugees or displaced persons resulting from a pattern of racial
discrimination or encroachment on the lands of minority communities

Urgent Action Procedures

Urgent Action Procedures allow certain Treaty Bodies to respond to problems requiring
immediate attention to prevent or limit the scale or number of serious violations of the
Convention.

Criteria for initiating an urgent procedure could include, for example (see the Convention on
the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination):

 The presence of a serious, massive or persistent pattern of racial discrimination

 A serious situation where there is a risk of further racial discrimination
International Convention for the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance :2010
Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights :2013
Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a communications procedure :2014
Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities :2008