Geneva Updates
Our strategic presence in Geneva sets us apart as the sole NGO exclusively committed to economic, social, cultural, and environmental rights. This permits us to play a pivotal role in promoting and protecting these rights globally.
Honduras: Oppression against Economic, Social and Cultural Rights defenders must end
The specific and increasingly heightened risks facing defenders of economic, social and cultural rights in Honduras should be a priority issue during the country’s forthcoming examination by the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, ISHR has said in a joint NGO report.
.png)
While all human rights defenders in Honduras are exposed to a wide range of obstacles and risks, those working on economic, social and cultural rights (land and environmental defenders in particular) are among the most vulnerable, shows the report on the situation of human rights defenders in Honduras. The research has been published jointly by ISHR, the International Platform against Impunity and the Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (GI-ESCR).
Violence and pressure are used on a regular basis to impede their work and silence them, which includes:
-
Death threats and murders
-
Forced evictions
-
Arbitrary detention and fraudulent charges
-
Administrative restrictions against the right to assembly
-
Public stigmatisation and defamation
-
Enforced disappearances
These attacks carried out in a climate of complete impunity have severely damaged the space for civil society activism regularly deprived of its most vocal representatives and haunted by the fear of reprisals.
The 56th Pre-sessional Working Group of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural will consider the joint submission in developing a list of issues to be posed to Honduras at its next examination. The aim of the review will be to assess Honduras’ progress towards compliance with the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
Dangers escalate for economic, social and cultural rights defenders
Despite the development of some encouraging laws, policies and actions by the authorities towards better protection of defenders, much more is required to ensure their full implementation while ‘a series of laws still restrict the rights to freedoms of assembly and association,’ says Ben Leather, ISHR Advocacy and Communications Manager.
‘It is clear that this group represents some of the human rights defenders who are most vulnerable in Honduras, given that they face a broad range of threats from a broad range of actors,’ he says. ‘The government must take steps to recognise their important role in ensuring economic development benefits communities and respects human rights, whilst protecting them against any reprisals for their activism.’
The Pre-sessional Working Group of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights must ask Honduras to detail the legal and practical steps it intends to take in order to ensure effective protection of economic, social and cultural rights defenders and combat impunity.
Lucy McKernan, Geneva Representative for GI-ESCR said: 'We hope the Committee will emphasise that inherent in the economic, social and cultural rights of Honduran citizens are the rights to participate in decisions that affect them, to critique government policy and advocate for changes in relation to those rights, without fear of harassment or reprisals.’
For more information, contact Ben Leather at
- See more at: http://www.ishr.ch/news/honduras-oppression-against-economic-social-and-cultural-rights-defenders-must-end#sthash.TdbqihTZ.dpuf
Angola: Law should not be an instrument to stifle Economic, Social and Cultural Rights defenders
In a joint report sent to the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the GI-ESCR and ISHR shed light on the judicial pressure and other means used by the Angolan Government to silence defenders.
The report published by ISHR and the Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (GI-ESCR) on the situation of human rights defenders in Angola reveals the particularly fragile situation of economic, social and cultural rights defenders in Angola and the recurrent misuse of judicial instruments and procedures by Government authorities to hamper and even block their action.
An increasingly restrictive legal environment and arbitrary application of the law combine to make the working context for human rights defenders in general, and economic, social and cultural rights defenders in particular, both unsafe and disempowering. This includes:
-
Arbitrary arrests and detention
-
Judicial harassment, abusive lawsuits and sentences
-
Legal restrictions to freedom of association
-
Purposely long and complex registration process for NGOs
-
Intimidation and violence by police officers
-
Defamation and criminalisation of defenders
-
Ban threats for organisations and defenders setting up protests
Journalists reporting on economic, social and cultural rights and defenders demanding transparency and disclosing governmental corruption are among the most exposed to these violations.
The 56th Pre-sessional Working Group of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights will consider the joint submission by ISHR and the Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in developing a list of issues to be posed to Angola at its next examination. The aim of the review will be to assess Angola’s progress towards compliance with the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
Warning lights on for civil society freedoms
In a latest move to keep watch over civil society organisations, the Government recently used counter terrorism as a pretext to enact a presidential decree that made it almost impossible for NGOs to carry out a wide range of procedures such as receiving foreign funding or acquiring legal personality. As for activists, those ‘defending labour rights and the right to housing, health, development and public participation in the context of business operations, face both restrictions in terms of access to information and transparency, as well as attacks and criminalisation in response to their work’, underlines Ben Leather, ISHR Advocacy and Communications Manager.
Lucy McKernan, Geneva Representative for GI-ESCR explained that ‘the effective protection and realisation of economic, social and cultural rights relies upon the valuable contribution of civil society, by monitoring and evaluating State compliance with the Covenant, providing input into policy formulation and program design and holding decision-makers accountable. States must ensure that civil society can play this vital role, and can voice their critiques of government action without fear of reprisals.’
The Pre-sessional Working Group of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights must therefore ask Angola to indicate what legal and policy steps it intends to take in order to relax undue governmental oversight and de facto restrictions imposed on civil society action.
For more information, contact Ben Leather at
- See more at: http://www.ishr.ch/news/angola-law-should-not-be-instrument-stifle-economic-social-and-cultural-rights-defenders#sthash.YZljk26n.dpuf
Responding to The Economist’s articles in support of private education: 7 letters from academics and NGOs
The 1st August 2015 edition of British weekly newspaperThe Economist published two articles on the growth of private education in developing countries: “Learning Unleashed” and “The $1-a-week school”. The articles purport the alleged benefits of the low-fee private school model. Both pieces came strongly in favour of private education, calling on governments to either help private schools or “get out of their way”. The articles generated a number of responses from organisations and individuals across the globe. A selection of these was published in the 22nd August edition’s Letters section, both in print and online, but not all responses were included.
Together with other organisations, we put together a short document collating the brief responses submitted to The Economist, including several that were not published. The document is available here http://bit.ly/1VX9LuW
It includes contributions from David Archer (ActionAid), Mark Goldring (Oxfam), Hugh McLean (Open Society foundation), Angelo Gavrielatos (Education International), Prachi Srivastava (University of Ottawa), Steven Klees (University of Maryland), and Sylvain Aubry (Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights).
Land Rights: An Essential Global Indicator for the Post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals
Secure land rights for all are a critical component of a transformational agenda of the Post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and targets. Leveraging decades of extensive expertise, a broad coalition of global and national organizations, civil society, and experts, including the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), the Women’s Major Group (WMG), the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), and the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN), recommends the following Land Rights Indicator.
Universal and feasible, this recommended land rights indicator is vital to four of the sustainable development goals, including ending poverty (goal 1), ensuring food security (goal 2), achieving gender equality and empowering women (goal 5), and making cities and human settlements inclusive (goal 11).1 This indicator, best placed under Target 1.4, would capture gender equality and progress of all people’s on-the-ground rights to land, property, and natural resources. This land rights indicator further aligns with priority indicators issued by the Global Land Indicators Initiative, and supported by the Global Donor Working Group on Land.
Recommended Land Rights Indicator: Percentage of women, men, indigenous peoples, and local communities (IPLCs) with secure rights to land, property, and natural resources, measured by:
a. percentage with legally documented or recognized evidence of tenure, and
b. percentage who perceive their rights are recognized and protected
The recommended indicator focuses on the twin aims of tracking legal and administrative progress by governments in recognizing secure rights to land (documentation) and of people-defined progress on the quality of land rights (perceptions). In doing so, this indicator fully tracks the agenda’s land rights content developed through months of inclusive negotiation and consultation and satisfies the request in the recently finalized UN declaration that global indicators maintain the level of ambition of the agenda (Para. 75).
The land rights indicator must capture the full scope of land rights included in the Post-2015 SDGs
Sustainable Development Goal 1 aims to “End poverty in all its forms everywhere.” One of the pillar targets to that end, Target 1.4, calls for “By 2030, ensure that all men and women, in particular the poor and the vulnerable, have equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to basic services, ownership and control over land and other forms of property, inheritance, natural resources, appropriate new technology and financial services, including microfinance.” This target encompasses all people regardless of where they reside, their livelihood activities, or the assets they own. It covers both social and economic resources.
a) The land rights indicator must capture more than agricultural land: Secure rights to land are key to accessing income, food, status, housing, credit, government services, and greater household- and community-level decision-making.
Indicators limited to agricultural land ignore the millions of women, men, indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs) who live in the forest, practice nomadic or semi nomadic pastoralism, rely on plots too small to be considered agricultural holdings, live in rural areas but are not engaged in agricultural production, reside on communal land not designated for agricultural purposes, or rely on land for small businesses, as well as the urban and peri-urban poor.
b) The land rights indicator must extend beyond ownership: The indicator should use “tenure security,” a widely accepted concept that encompasses more than ownership and is in line with FAO’s Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure. Using “tenure security” (or “secure land rights”) terminology would protect the rights of those who access land through a number of group- or individually-held tenure arrangements. Indicators limited to those who “own” land ignore the millions:
• who live in countries, such as China and Vietnam, where the State owns all the land, and individuals have use rights. • who reside in regions across the world on communally-held land not individually-owned, such as areas under customary tenure in Sub-Saharan Africa, indigenous territories in Latin America, and Tribal communities in India. • who are unable to afford to own land but require secure use rights.
c) The land rights indicator must track both gender ratio and overall progress: Indicators limited to tracking the gender gap among those who have secure rights fail to consider the millions of women, men and IPLCs who do not have secure rights to land. The recommended land rights indicator would track both absolute improvement and reduced gender inequality.
A transformational agenda should seek new data and not be constrained by already available data
While critical to inform policy and to track progress, there is no globally available, nationally representative, sex-disaggregated data on land rights. Thus, any indicator on land rights will require new data collection efforts. The post-2015 agenda presents a historic opportunity to push the data and evidence base forward, rather than having the available data control the framing of priorities.
The recommended land rights indicator is feasible, even in the short term. For a description of how the data void can be addressed through global polls and household surveys click here.
For more information on the coalition’s proposal, click here. For questions or suggestions, please contact us at
1 The cross-cutting nature of the recommended indicator, which can also track progress towards targets 2.3, 5.a and 11.1, makes it a powerful option if there is pressure to settle for a manageable set of indicators without sacrificing key components of the agenda.
The full statement along with sponsoring and endorsing organizations can be found HERE.
Where's your rigour? A short response to The Economist's articles on private education
On 1st August 2015, The Economist published in its printed edition two articles supposed to analyse the growth of private education in developing countries: "Learning Unleashed" and "The $1-a-week school". Unsurprisingly, the articles come strongly in favour of private education, in particular low-fee private schools. More regrettably however, the articles were based on wrong facts, were self-contradictory, and appeared highly ideological. We made a short response, and sent it to the editor. It was not published by The Economist (others were) - but here it is:
Dear Sir/Madam,
The question of the role to give to private schools within education systems, in particular in developing countries, is a complex debate that necessarily requires a nuanced reflection.
Yet, your articles from 1st August on low-cost private schools and for-profit education exactly lack the nuance that would make them useful and credible. The articles – rightly – describe some of the challenges faced by State schools, but ignore the evidence showing equally poor quality or little innovation in private schools – as for instance well summed up in the last Global Monitoring Report (p. 216). They are full of self-contradictions: just by way of example, on one hand “governments that are too disorganised or corrupt” and “should get out of the way”; while you recommend these same incapable governments “subsidise private schools”, “regulate schools to ensure quality”, and “run public exams” – seemingly ignoring education companies’ own scandals. And so on – with many other oversights revealing a profound conceptual bias of the paper in support of private schools.
In this context, most regrettable perhaps is the claim that those who disagree are “ideological” – I quote: “NGOs tend to be ideologically opposed to the private sector”. This is such a misnomer, whereas together with dozens of international, national, and community-based civil society partners around the world – including teachers’ unions – we have been working hard in the last 12 months gathering evidence on the ground, engaging in dialogues with all parties, and researching what the basic legal human rights requirements within which private schools can and should be allowed to operate are. Far from opposing private schools, far from ignoring the complex reality – which we live every day – of schooling in developing countries, we’re looking for practical solutions which uphold human rights principles. Not misinformed solutions, like the simplistic suggestion to provide vouchers, which “parents top up” when it has been proven in Chile to create high and unbearable inequalities, but solutions that guarantee human dignity as legally protected under international law, ensuring that education is primarily focused on the best interest of the child.
Are Human Rights Council resolutions, UN expert bodies’ opinions, and international law “ideological”? We will be under no illusion. Your lack of rigour in dealing with such a serious issue is not only highly disappointing, but it also calls us to reflect on which side ideology lies – and on the true influence of the warning you made yourselves: “Pearson, which owns 50% of The Economist, has stakes in both Bridge and Omega”.
Best regards
The Economist frontpage of 1st August 2015 (c) The Economist
Human Rights Council: States should act to end enforced disappearances of ESC rights defenders
(Geneva) – Human rights defenders advocating in relation to land-grabbing, corporate accountability, indigenous rights, labour rights, and other economic, social and cultural rights issues are at increased risk of enforced disappearance, according to a new report.
The report by the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances will be discussed by the UN Human Rights Council when it convenes for its 30th session in Geneva in September and ISHR and the Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights are urging States to use the opportunity to highlight and press for accountability in cases of enforced disappearances of ESC rights defenders.
‘We are deeply concerned at the worsening incidence of enforced disappearances and other attacks against corporate accountability activists, trade unionists, and land and environment rights defenders, particularly those advocating or protesting against major business projects and investments,’ said ISHR's Michael Ineichen.
‘Enforced disappearances, together with related violations such as arbitrary arrest, are increasingly used not only to punish protest and dissent, but also to intimidate and deter others from engaging in human rights advocacy,’ Mr Ineichen said.
‘By way of example, the enforced disappearance and ultimate death of Chinese human rights lawyer and housing rights activist Cao Shunli was intended both to silence her and send a chilling message to others,’ Mr Ineichen said. ‘So too the more recent enforced disappearance or arbitrary detention of Chinese economic, social and cultural rights defenders such as Mi Chongbiao, Guo Yushan, Su Changlan’.
In addition to highlighting other cases of enforced disappearance of economic, social and cultural rights activists, such as Sombath Somphone in Laos, the report highlights the increased labelling of such activists as ‘rebels, insurgents, terrorists or as being against development’; terms which are used to ‘justify, condone or minimise human rights violations committed against them’.
‘It is imperative that high-level government officials not only refrain from using and condemn such labels when used by others, but also publicly recognise the vital and legitimate role of human rights defenders in promoting economic, social and cultural rights and sustainable development,’ Mr Ineichen said.
Significantly, the report also found that ‘when an individual becomes a victim of enforced disappearance as a result of exercising or promoting economic, social and cultural rights, the enjoyment of those rights is also violated.’
‘Enforced disappearances of human rights defenders are grave human rights violations in and of themselves but also amount to violations of the rights for which they are advocating,’ said Lucy McKernan of the Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (GI-ESCR), which participated in consultations for the report.
‘In many cases, the effective protection of economic, social and cultural rights relies upon the work of human rights defenders. The enforced disappearance of a housing rights lawyer, for example, may leave a community who relies on that defender much more vulnerable to arbitrary eviction and deter other community members from claiming their housing rights’ Ms McKernan said.
‘Seen this way, enforced disappearances of human rights defenders violate not only the Declaration on Enforced Disappearance and the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, but the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights itself’.
In line with recommendations made in the report and previously advocated by both ISHR and GI-ESCR, States should enact specific laws and policies, and establish dedicated protection mechanisms, to ensure that human rights defenders are able to operate freely and safely and without fear and restriction. States also have an obligation to prevent and eradicate enforced disappearances, whether perpetrated by State or non-State actors, and ensure that any enforced disappearance of a human rights defender is subject to prompt and thorough investigation, with perpetrators prosecuted and punished and victims and their families provided with adequate and effective remedy.
With the report to be considered by the Human Rights Council on 15 September during an ‘Interactive Dialogue’ with the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, ISHR and the GI-ESCR call on States to use the opportunity to highlight and push for accountability in relation to cases of enforced disappearances of ESC rights defenders and to outline the steps and measures that they will take to prevent, punish and remedy any such acts.
This Sunday, 30 August marks the International Day of the Victims of Enforced Disappearances.
Contacts:
International Service for Human Rights – Michael Ineichen on
Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights – Lucy McKernan on
Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights – Annual Report 2014
Annual Report 2014 Message from the Co-Executive Directors
The Global Initiative began in 2010, as an initiative to advance the realization of economic, social and cultural (ESC) rights globally, tackling the endemic problem of poverty and social injustice through a human rights lens. Our vision is of a world where ESC rights are fully respected, protected and fulfilled and on equal footing with civil and political rights, so that all people are able to live in dignity. To realize this vision, our role is one of catalyzing social change through strategic leveraging of international spaces. This is work that we undertake in close partnership with local partners and advocates from around the world; what we like to call “making the UN work for the poor.” To this aim, the Global Initiative is registered as a 501(c)(3) non-profit in the USA with offices there and Geneva, Switzerland. It enjoys Consultative Status with the UN, as well as Observer Status with the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR).
The Global Initiative works to advance three strategic priority areas:
-
Strategic litigation and legal advocacy;
-
Advancing women’s and ESC rights; and
-
Human rights and development.
Through these strategic areas, we contribute to the advancement of substantive ESC rights while at the same time tackling cutting edge and emerging issues that dramatically impact people’s lives. Issues like land, water, sanitation, housing, education and health, among others. The achievements we made in these three areas in 2014 are highlighted in this annual report.
There is, however, an important thread which ties this work together and it lies at the heart of the work we do, and our approach to human rights advocacy. All of the work in our three strategic priorities has benefited from a similar methodology that has increasingly been recognized as our unique contribution to the field of ESC rights advocacy. Namely, working with local and national groups to use international human rights law and access international human rights mechanisms to achieve impact at the domestic level. This methodology not only amplifies the voices of local advocates and activists by leveraging the power of international law and mechanisms, but also informs the content, meaning and interpretation of international human rights law from the perspective of marginalized individuals, groups and communities. As such, this two-way exchange of information and advocacy results both in specific change at the local level and structural change within the international human rights normative framework.
In Geneva, we often serve as a bridge for local partners seeking to engage with UN human rights mechanisms, offering support, advice and connections. Many of these partnerships you can read about in this report. We are also uniquely placed to advocate on ESC rights issues in our own capacity and our ongoing presence in Geneva has allowed us to deepen our engagement across UN human rights mechanisms - providing a clear and consistent voice for ESC rights. This ongoing engagement has enabled us to step into new spaces and engage in exciting new ways. As examples, in 2014 we were able to provide periodic ‘Advocacy Updates’ and ‘Updates from Geneva’ which highlight important advancements, events and discussions related to ESC rights, as well as though pieces such as one on Legal accountability of non-State actors for human rights violations abroad. We were also able to engage with UN experts on a range of ESC rights issues, for example by emphasizing the extra-territorial human rights obligations and their critical role in formulating an effective and relevant human rights response to climate change with the Independent Expert on Human Rights and the Environment, and by hosting an NGO Consultation with Special Rapporteur on the Right to Adequate Housing to address recent and emerging themes related to the right to housing worldwide.
These and other activities have resulted in our becoming a visible leader, and this in turn has led to our being regularly invited to provide our own substantive expertise as an organization working globally on ESC issues. For example, in 2014 the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights invited a select few non-governmental organizations to meet with him to discuss priorities. The large traditional players (organizations like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, etc.) were at the table, and we are honored to be able to say that so was the Global Initiative. Even though we are undoubtedly much smaller, and far newer as an organization, we believe that this recognition demonstrates that we are valued for the high quality of our advocacy work and the unique perspective that we provide to the Geneva human rights scene and beyond. We think it bodes well for the fact that we are a unique organization, playing an important role, and making a contribution which is not only significant, but urgently needed in today’s world.
We are happy to report that we have ended 2014 on a sound financial footing which lays the foundation for organizational growth in 2015 and beyond. We are extremely grateful to our donors for the financial support we receive, and for their shared vision.
Finally, while 2014 was a year of growth and achievement, it was also one of loss. We met Opiata Odindo many years before founding the Global Initiative, and his tireless dedication to fighting for the rights of the poor in Kenya has been an ongoing inspiration to us personally. In 2013, we were thrilled when he agreed to join our Board, and as a Board member he helped to chart the course of this organization with thoughtfulness and a deep seated commitment to the cause. Our friend passed away in Nairobi, Kenya on 16 August 2014 after a battle with cancer, but we will remain ever grateful to him for his encouragement, warmth and leadership.
We look forward to the Global Initiative’s continued work and engagement with our partners worldwide to ensure that all of the gains we have achieved so far continue to move us toward the transformative impact we seek. To that end, in 2015 the Global Initiative will engage in a strategic planning and organizational development planning process to culminate in a consolidation and focused strategy aimed at building upon our strengths with the aim of contributing to even more meaningful change in the years to come.
Mayra Gomez and Bret Thiele
Co-Executive Directors
Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
Access a full copy of the Annual Report HERE.
ESC Rights Update from Geneva: 29th session of the UN Human Rights Council, Summer 2015
The 29th session of the Human Rights Council dealt with ESC and related rights issues such as: education, extreme poverty and human rights, women’s economic and social rights, cultural rights, climate change, health and business and human rights, with a particularly strong emphasis on women's human rights.
For a detailed report on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights at the 29th session of the Human Rights Council see HERE.
Human Rights Committee addresses ETOs and Indivisibility with ESC Rights
The Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (GI-ESCR) welcomes the Human Rights Committee addressing issues of extra-territorial human rights obligations and the indivisibility of human rights, particularly the economic, social and cultural rights aspects of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Informed in part by a Parallel Report submitted by the GI-ESCR and the International Human Rights Clinic at the Western New England School of Law, the Committee recently questioned Canada on its extra-territorial obligations (ETOs), including the ETO to protect rights abroad by regulating Canadian corporations and by providing accountability and remedial mechanisms when rights are violated abroad.
The Committee commented that "A country could not just provide corporate identity to a company and then be unperturbed by whatever the company could do around the world." When Canada challenged the extra-territorial jurisdiction of the Covenant, the Committee reminded the Canadian delegation that "The final arbiter for the interpreting the Covenant was the Committee, not individual States."
In its Concluding Observations, the Committee expressed its concern "about allegations of human rights abuses by Canadian companies operating abroad ... and about the inaccessibility to remedies by victims of such violations." The Committee also regretted "the absence of an effective independent mechanism with powers to investigate complaints alleging abuses by such corporations that adversely affect the enjoyment of the human rights of victims, and of a legal framework that would facilitate such complaints." The Committee went on to recommend that Canada "a) enhance the effectiveness of existing mechanisms to ensure that all Canadian corporations, in particular mining corporations, under its jurisdiction respect human rights standards when operating abroad; b) consider establishing an independent mechanism with powers to investigate human rights abuses by such corporations abroad; c) and develop a legal framework that affords legal remedies to people who have been victims of activities of such corporations operating abroad. "
On the issue of indivisibility of human rights, and in particular the economic and social rights aspects of the Covenant, the Committee questioned Canada on homelessness and denial of access to health care for migrants, pointing out that both may rise to the violation of the right to life guaranteed in Article 6 of the Covenant. In its Concluding Observations the Committee reminded Canada that it "should ensure that all refugee claimants and irregular migrants have access to essential health care services irrespective of their status."
Canadian media soon reported on these important developments, with two articles appearing HERE and HERE.
The Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Parallel Report is available HERE.
The Concluding Observations are available HERE.
The issue of indivisibility continued during a Half Day of Discussion related to drafting General Comment No. 36 on the content of Article 6 of the Covenant. There the Committee again looked at the economic, social and cultural rights aspects of the Covenant, including considering a Written Submission by the GI-ESCR submitted jointly with the Social Rights Advocacy Centre and ESCR-Net as well as an oral intervention by Bruce Porter of SRAC. The Committee looked as issues ranging from homelessness to denial of access to health care, water, sanitation and food as rising to potential violations of the right to life and was urged to continue to interpret the Covenant, including Article 6 as requiring both negative and positive legal obligations and remedies.
The Joint Written Intervention is available HERE.
A report on the Half Day of Discussion are forthcoming.
