Progress at the front: The draft optional protocol to the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights

Human Rights Law Review

Volumn 8, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 617-646

  Mahon, Claire ^a,b  

^a Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights and affiliate of the Gender Centre at the Graduate Institute for International and Development Studies   (Switzerland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN LAW SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 56849116570     PISSN: 14617781     EISSN: 17441021     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/hrlr/ngn031     Document Type: Article

References (172)

1. de Schutter, 'Le Protocol facultatif an pacte international relatif aux droits économiques, sociaux et culturels', (2006) 1 Revue Belge de Droit International 8.
2. Human Rights Council Res. 8/2, 18 June 2008, A/HRC/8/L.2/Rev.1/Corr.1 Annex.
3. At the time of writing, the text of the OP-ICESCR had been transmitted to the Third Committee of the General Assembly where it is expected it will be considered in October 2008 and, following that, the plenary of the General Assembly for final adoption later in 2008.
4. Supra n. 2 at para. 2.
5. Statement by Ms Louise Arbour, High Commissioner for Human Rights to the Open-Ended
6. Working Group on OP-ICESCR, Fifth session, 31 March 2008.
7. Ngoy Lumbu, L'Instauration du mecanisme de communications individuelles devant le Comite des droits economiques, sociaux et culturels: Une contribution à l'etude des voies et moyens additionnels pour une mise en oeuvre efficiente du pacte international relatif à ces droits (Unpublished PhD thesis, Université catholique de Louvain Faculté de Droit, 2007).
8. Human Rights Council Res. 1/3, Open-Ended Working Group on OP-ICESCR, 29 June 2006, at para. 2.
9. Adopted by General Assembly Res. 54/4 6 October 1999, A/RES/54/4, and opened for signature on 10 December 1999, entry into force 22 December 2000.
10. Sullivan, 'Commentary on the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women' in Inter American Institute of Human Rights, Optional Protocol: Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (San José: IAIHR, 2000)
11. and International Womeris Rights Action Watch Asia Pacific, Our Rights Are Not Optional! Advocating for the implementation of the CEDAW Convention through its Optional Protocol: A Resource Guide (Kuala Lumpur: IWRAW Asia Pacific, 2005).
12. Adopted by General Assembly Res. A/61/611,13 December 2006, A/RES/61/ 106, and opened for signature on 30 March 2007, entry into force 3 May 2008.
13. Final report of the Ad Hoc Committee on a Comprehensive and Integral International Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities, A/61/611, 6 December 2006.
14. See further Kayess and French, 'Out of Darkness into Light? Introducing the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, (2008) 8 Human Rights Law Review 1.
15. See, for example, Fifth report of the Open-ended Working Group to consider options regarding the elaboration of an Optional Protocol, 6 May 2008, A/HRC/8/7 at para. 7 (Fifth Working Group Session Report).
16. Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, 12 July 1993, A/CONF.157/23.
17. UNTS 3.
18. The Committee on the Rights of the Child, which monitors implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989, 1577 UTS 3 (CRC), is the other body that does not, yet, have a mandate to receive individual communications from alleged victims.
19. Other individual complaints procedures are established by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1996, 999 UNTS 171 (ICCPR) through its first Optional Protocol (OPI-ICCPR); the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD - Article 14); the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1984, 1465 UNTS 85 (CAT - Article 22); the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women 1979, 1249 UNTS 13 (CEDAW) through its Optional Protocol; the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of all Migrant Workers and Members of their Families 1990, GA Res. 45/158, 18 December 1990, A/RES/45/158 (MWC - Article 76); and the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (OP-CRPD).
20. Draft OP-ICESCR, prepared by the Chairperson/Rapporteur, Catarina de Albuquerque, 23 April 2007, A/HRC/6/WG.4/2, at 2.
21. UNTS 302.
22. UNTS 171.
23. See instead, inter alia, Alston, 'No Right to Complain About Being Poor: The Need for an Optional Protocol to the Economic Rights Covenant' in Eide, Asbjørn and Elgesen (eds), The Future of Human Rights Protection in a Changing World: Essays in Honour of Torkel Opsahl (Oslo: Norwegian University Press, 1992) 79
24. Arambulo, 'Drafting an Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Can an Ideal Become a Reality?', (1996) 2 University of California Davis Journal of International Law and Policy 1 at 111-36
25. Dennis and Stewart, 'Justiciability of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Should There be an International Complaints Mechanism to Adjudicate the Right to Food, Water, Housing and Health?', (2004) 98 American Journal of International Law 462
26. Porter, 'The Right to be Heard: The Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights - What's at Stake, (2005) 11 Human Rights Tribune 3 at 40
27. de Schutter, 'Le Protocole Facultative au Pacte International Relatif aux Droits Économiques, Sociaux et Culturels', (2006) 1 Revue Belge de Droit International 1
28. Tomuschat, 'An Optional Protocol for the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights?' in Dicke et al. (eds), Weltinnenrecht - Liber amicorum Jost Delbrück (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot; Veröffentlichungen des Walther- Schücking-Instituts für Internationales Recht an der Universität Kiel, 2005) 815
29. and Vandenhole, 'Completing the UN Complaint Mechanisms for Human Rights Violations Step by Step: Towards a Complaints Procedure Complementing the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights', (2003) 21 Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights 423.
30. See further, Vandenhole, supra n. 20. The Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights became involved in the deliberations concerning the OP-ICESCR in 1992 when Mr Danilo Türk, the Special Rapporteur of the Sub-Commission on the realization of ESR rights, expressly recommended its elaboration: The Realization of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Final report submitted by Mr Danilo Türk, 3 July 1992, E/CN.4/Sub.2/1992/16, at para. 211. It continued to address the issue in its resolutions, for example, calling in 1996 for the elaboration of an OP-ICESCR (Res. 1996/13), in 2000 suggesting the establishment of an Open-ended Working Group (Res. 2000/ 9), and in 2001 and 2002 urging the Commission on Human Rights to mandate a working group to draft a text (Res. 2002/14 and 2003/19).
31. See E/1992/23 - E/C.12/1991/4, at paras 360-6 and E/CN.4/1997/105, at para. 2.
32. E/C.12/1991/WP.2 of 25 October 1991; E/C.12/1992/WP.9 of 27 November 1992; E/C.12/1994/12 of 9 November 1994; and E/C.12/1996/CRP.2/Add.1.
33. Contribution of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to the World Conference on Human Rights, 26 March 1993, A/CONF.157/PC/62/ Add.5, Annex I at para. 18 and Annex II.
34. Vienna Declaration and Program of Action, A/CONF.157/23, at para. 75.
35. Commission on Human Rights Res.1994/20 on the question of the realization in all countries of the ESR rights contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the ICESCR, and study of special problems which the developing countries face in their efforts to achieve these human rights, 1 March 1994, E/CN.4/RES/1994/20.
36. Draft Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Note by the Secretary-General, 5 February 1996, E/CN.4/1996/96.
37. This progress report was welcomed by the Commission on Human Rights in Res. 1996/11, 11 April 1996, E/CN.4/RES/1996/11, at para. 5.
38. E/C.12/1996/SR. 44-49 and 54.
39. Draft Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Note by the Secretary-General, 18 December 1996, E/CN.4/1997/105.
40. See, in particular, the comments of Mr Grissa in the Committee's summary records, for example, 2 December 1997, E/C.12/1996/SR.42.
41. See E/CN.4/RES/1997/104, E/CN.4/RES/1998/33 and E/CN.4/RES/1999/25.
42. Draft Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 14 January 2000, E/CN.4/2000/49, at para. 32(c).
43. Draft Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Report of the Secretary-General, 16 January 1998, E/CN.4/1998/84
44. Draft Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Report of the Secretary-General, 16 March 1998, E/CN.4/1998/84 Add.1
45. Draft Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Note by the Secretariat, 7 January 1999, E/ CN.4/1999/112
46. Draft Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Note by the Secretariat, 4 March 1999, E/ CN.4/1999/112 Add.1
47. and Draft Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 14 January 2000, E/CN.4/2000/49.
48. Draft Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 14 January 2000, E/CN.4/2000/49, at para. 32.
49. Commission on Human Rights Res. 2001/30, 20 April 2001, E/CN.4/RES/2001/ 30.
50. First report of the independent expert on the question of a draft Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 12 February 2002, E/CN.4/2002/57
51. second report of the independent expert on the question of a draft Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 13 January 2003, E/CN.4/2003/53
52. Corrigendum to the second report of the independent expert on the question of a draft Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 3 April 2003, E/CN.4/2003/53/ Corr.1
53. and second Corrigendum to the second report of the independent expert on the question of a draft Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 7 April 2003, E/CN.4/2003/53/ Corr.2.
54. Ibid.
55. Commission on Human Rights Res. 2002/24, 22 April 2002, E/CN.4/RES/2002/ 24 at para. 9(f).
56. Commission on Human Rights Res. 2003/18, 22 April 2003, E/CN.4/RES/2003/ 18.
57. See the first report of the Open-Ended Working Group to Consider Options Regarding the Elaboration of an OP-ICESCR on its First session, 15 March 2004, E/CN.4/2004/44.
58. Commission on Human Rights Res. 2004/29, 16 April 2004, E/CN.4/RES/2004/ 29.
59. Second report of the Open-Ended Working Group to Consider Options Regarding the Elaboration of an Optional Protocol, 10 February 2005, E/ CN.4.2005/52 welcomed by Commission on Human Rights Res. E/CN.4/RES/2005/ 22, 15 April 2005, at para. 14.
60. Elements for an optional protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Analytical paper by the Chairperson Rapporteur, Catarina de Albuquerque, 30 November 2005, E/ CN.4/2006/WG.23/2 (Elements Paper).
61. Third report of the Open-Ended Working Group to Consider Options Regarding the Elaboration of an Optional Protocol, 14 March 2006, E/CN.4/ 2006/47 (Third Working Group Session Report).
62. Ibid.
63. Elements Paper, supra n. 43 at para. 60(d).
64. The GRULAC States expressed a desire to start drafting an OP-ICESCR, along with Azerbaijan, Belgium, Croatia, Finland, Italy, Iran, Portugal, Slovenia, Timor Leste and Turkey: Third Working Group Session Report, supra n. 44.
65. Human Rights Council Res. 1/3, 29 June 2006, at para. 2.
66. Ibid. at para. 2.
67. Fourth report of the Open-Ended Working Group on an Optional Protocol, 30 August 2006, A/HRC/6/8 (Fourth Working Group Session Report)
68. Draft OP-ICESCR, prepared by the Chairperson/Rapporteur, Catarina de Albuquerque, 23 April 2007, A/HRC/6/WG.4/2 (containing the Explanatory Memorandum) (Chair's First Draft).
69. 'Chair's First Draft', ibid. at para. 2.
70. Fourth Working Group Session Report, supra n. 50.
71. Revised Draft OP-ICESCR, prepared by the Chairperson/Rapporteur, Catarina de Albuquerque, 24 December 2007, A/HRC/8/WG.4/2 (First Revised Draft).
72. Revised Draft OP-ICESCR, Letter from the Chairperson/Rapporteur, Catarina de Albuquerque, to the members of the Open-Ended Working Group on an OP-ICESCR, 28 February 2008, A/HRC/8/WG.4/3 (the second revised draft is contained in the annex to this letter) (Second Revised Draft).
73. Fifth Working Group Session Report, supra n. 12.
74. Drafting proposals for the OP-ICESCR by the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Open-Ended Working Group, 25 March 2008.
75. The final text of the OP-ICESCR is contained in Annex 1 to the Human Rights Council Res. A/HRC/8/2, 18 June 2008.
76. The United States, India, Denmark, the Netherlands, Japan, Canada, Poland, Norway, Sweden, New Zealand, German, Pakistan, the United Kingdom, China, Indonesia and Iran: Fifth Working Group Session Report, supra n. 12 at Part VI, paras 211-55.
77. In particular, this charge was led by Pakistan and Algeria, along with Palestine and Syria: International Service for Human Rights, 'Human Rights Council, 8th Session, Session Overview, 2-18 June 2008' in Human Rights Monitor Series (Geneva: ISHR, 2008) at 21.
78. Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and Denmark, ibid.
79. Article 2, OP-ICESCR.
80. Supra n. 2.
81. The United Kingdom.
82. In November 2006, members of the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly rejected the strongly drafted Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, although this instrument had previously been approved by the Human Rights Council on 29 June 2006. Those involved in blocking the adoption of the draft Declaration at the 60th Session of the General Assembly were Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United States of America, Botswana and Namibia. The draft Declaration was finally adopted a year later, on 13 September 2007.
83. Coomans and van Hoof (eds), The Right to Complain about Economic, Social and Cultural Rights - SIM Special No. 18: Proceedings of the Expert Meeting on the Adoption of an Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Utrecht: The Netherlands Institute of Human Rights, 1995).
84. See further the comprehensive analysis of the Committee's draft and the Utrecht draft in: Arambulo, supra n. 20.
85. See, http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/escrwkshop.htm [last accessed 27 September 2008].
86. See also, further expert seminars convened by the ICJ: Report of the Roundtable on the Draft Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, hosted by the International Commission of Jurists, 30 November 2001, available at: http://www.icj.org/IMG/pdf/doc-55.pdf [last accessed 27 September 2008]
87. Report of the Expert's Roundtable Concerning Issues Central to the Proposed OP-ICESCR, hosted by the International Commission of Jurists, 26 and 27 September 2002, available at: http://www.icj.org/IMG/pdf/ doc-61.pdf [last accessed 27 September 2008].
88. Report of the International Conference on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, hosted by the Republic of Croatia and the International Commission of Jurists, 3 February 2004, E/CN.4/2004/WG.23/CRP.2.
89. Report of the European Roundtable on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, hosted by the Government of Portugal and the International Commission of Jurists, 4 January 2005, E/CN.4/2005/WG.23/CRP.3.
90. 'Ministére français des Affaires étrangères', The Spirit of Nantes: Economic, Social and Cultural Rights for All Citizens, (Paris: Charles Léopold Mayer Foundation, 2005).
91. See supra n. 20.
92. During the Working Group sessions and other meetings, consideration was given to whether the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is indeed the appropriate body, especially given its legal status as an ECOSOC mandated body and not a true treaty body. References to these discussions can be found in all the reports of the Working Group sessions, and in Scheinin, 'The Proposed Optional Protocol to the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: A Blueprint for UN Human Rights Treaty Body Reform - Without Amending the Existing Treaties', (2006) 6 Human Rights Law Review 131.
93. Article 2, OP-CEDAW.
94. Article 5(1), OP-CEDAW.
95. The rules of procedure and practice of the Human Rights Committee, the Committee against Torture, and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, also all allow for interim measures.
96. The First Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (OP1-ICCPR), the ICERD, the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 1984, 1465 UNTS 85 (CAT) and the Convention on the Protection of the Rights of all Migrant Workers and Members of their Families 1990, GA Res. 45/158, 18 December 1990, A/RES/45/158 (MWC) all include inter-State procedures.
97. Article 2(1), ICESCR reads: 'Each state party...undertakes to take steps, individually and through international assistance and co-operation, especially economic and technical, to the maximum of its available resources, with a view to achieving progressively the full realisation of the (Covenant rights)....'
98. See further, Elements Paper, supra n. 43 at paras 20 and 1.
99. Article 48(1)(f), American Convention on Human Rights.
100. Article 38(1)(b), European Convention on Human Rights.
101. NGOs had insisted upon this as one of the 'minimum criteria' for an OP-ICESCR: See statements by, inter alia, the NGO Coalition for an Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (the NGO Coalition), the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), Amnesty International, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), the FoodFirst Information and Action Network (FIAN) and the International Network for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ESCR-Net), available at: www.opicescr-coalition.org. [last accessed 27 September 2008].
102. Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Chile, Ecuador, Egypt (on behalf of the African Group), Ethiopia, Finland, France, Guatemala, Italy, Liechtenstein, Mexico, Nigeria, Norway, Peru, Portugal, Senegal, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Uruguay and Venezuela were amongst those States to express support for the comprehensive approach: Fourth Working Group Session Report, supra n. 50 at para. 33.
103. Fourth Working Group Session Report, supra n. 50 at para. 33.
104. The United Kingdom, Australia, Greece, India, Morocco, Russia and the United States: Fourth Working Group Session Report, supra n. 50 at para. 36.
105. Egypt, ibid. at para. 35.
106. The President of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Philipe Texier, supported this view that the exclusion of Part I and reference solely to Parts II and III would breach the notion of indivisibility of all human rights: Letter from Philip Texier to Catarina de Albequerque (in French only), 19 May 2008, available at: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/escr/docs/LetterCatarina190508.pdf [last accessed 25 August 2008].
107. Statement by the representative of the United Kingdom to the Human Rights Council during the 'explanation after the vote' on Res. 8/2, 18 June 2008, available on the Human Rights Council extranet, at http://portal.ohchr.org/portal/page/Portal/HRCExtranet [last accessed 27 September 2008].
108. International Service for Human Rights, supra n. 59.
109. The United Kingdom, Turkey, Canada, Australia and Switzerland, ibid.
110. See, for example, Ominayak (Lubicon Lake Band) v Canada (167/ 1984), CCPR/C/38/D/167/1984 (1990) at para. 32.1
111. E.P. et al. v Colombia (318/1988), CCPR/C/39/D/318/1988 (1990) at para. 8.2
112. and A.B. et al. v Italy (413/1990), CCPR/C/40/D/413/1990 (1991) at para. 3.2.
113. See, for example, Diergaardt et al. v. Namibia (760/1997), CCPR/C/ 69/D/760/1996 (2000)
114. IHRR 46 (2001) at para. 10.3.
115. Collective complaints were provided for in Article 3 of the Chair's First Draft, supra n. 50.
116. See further the analysis of this in the Elements Paper, supra n. 43 at para. 10.
117. Belgium, Mexico, Norway, Spain and the NGO Coalition: Fourth Working Group Session Report, supra n. 44 at paras 44 and 54.
118. Fourth Working Group Session Report, supra n. 44 at para. 54.
119. Optional Protocol to the European Social Charter 1995.
120. In the lead-up to the third session, the following States had expressed interest in collective communications: Ethiopia (on behalf of the African Group), the Netherlands, Canada, Finland, Mexico and Portugal. Later, it was also supported by the ICJ and FIDH: Fourth Working Group Session Report, supra n. 50 at para. 56.
121. Algeria, Australia, Belarus, Burkina Faso, China, Colombia, Ecuador, Egypt (on behalf of the African Group), Greece, India, Japan, Morocco, Nigeria, Norway, the Republic of Korea, Russia, Senegal, Tanzania, the United Kingdom, Ukraine, the United States and Venezuela.
122. Article 8(1)(b) and (c) of ICESCR.
123. Proposed as Article 1 bis. See further, Fifth Working Group Session Report, supra n. 12 at para. 42.
124. See further, Fourth Working Group Session Report, supra n. 50 at para. 41.
125. Ibid.
126. Originally raised by Egypt, later taken up as a suggestion by the United Kingdom, and dropped before being included in any drafting: Fourth Working Group Session Report, supra n. 50 at para. 62.
127. Fourth Working Group Session Report, supra n. 50 at para. 59 and Fifth Working Group Session Report, supra n. 12 at para. 49.
128. Fifth Working Group Session Report, supra n. 12 at para. 49.
129. Ibid.
130. Fifth Working Group Session Report, supra n. 12 at para. 59.
131. See the admissibility requirement proposed by Article 12, Protocol 14 to the European Convention on Human Rights.
132. Firth Working Group Session Report, supra n. 12 at para. 59.
133. In particular, Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia.
134. Supported by Belgium, Chile, Finland, Germany, Mexico, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain at the Fourth Working Group Session and Australia, Austria, Germany, Greece, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Slovenia and Sweden at the Fifth session: Fourth Working Group Session Report, supra n. 50 at para. 94 and Fifth Working Group Session Report, supra n. 12 at para. 88.
135. The removal of the words 'margin of appreciation' was requested by Argentina, Bangladesh, Belgium, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Finland, France, Germany, India, Liechtenstein, Mexico, Portugal, the Russian Federation, Sri Lanka and the NGO Coalition for an OP-ICESCR: Fifth Working Group Session Report, supra n. 12 at paras 11, 91, 169 and 171.
136. See The Government of the Republic of South Africa and others v Irene Grootboom and others [2001] (1) SA 46 (CC).
137. Fifth Working Group Session Report, supra n. 12 at para. 168.
138. Azerbaijan, Denmark, Nigeria, Norway and Russia expressed their objection at the Fourth Working Group Session, and Ecuador, Egypt (on behalf of the African Group), Guatemala, India, Lichtenstein, Mexico, Peru, Sri Lanka and the NGO Coalition for an OP-ICESCR asked for its deletion at the Fifth Working Group: Fourth Working Group Session Report, supra n. 50 at para. 94
139. and Fifth Working Group Session Report, supra n. 12 at para. 88.
140. Fourth Working Group Session Report, supra n. 50 at para. 94
141. and Fifth Working Group Session Report, supra n. 12 at para. 88.
142. Fifth Working Group Session Report, supra n. 12 at para. 91.
143. Ibid. at para. 171.
144. Arai-Takahashi, The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine and the Principle of Proportionality in the Jurisprudence ofthe ECHR (Antwerp: Intersentia, 2002).
145. Explanatory Memorandum, supra n. 50 at para. 35.
146. Ibid.
147. See, for example, Article 26, OP-CAT.
148. Fourth Working Group Session Report, supra n. 50 at paras 164 and 165.
149. Ibid. at para. 168 and Fifth Working Group Session Report, supra n. 12 at paras 117, 184 and 191-4.
150. Fifth Working Group Session Report, ibid. at para. 114.
151. Fourth Working Group Session Report, supra n. 50 at para. 21.
152. Argentina, Mexico, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland and the United Kingdom: Fourth Working Group Session Report, supra n. 50 at para. 21.
153. At the Fifth Working Group Session, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Finland, France, Haiti, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Mexico, Poland and the NGO Group had added their voices in favour of the more general wording in the Chair's draft: Fifth Working Group Session Report, supra n. 12 at para. 17.
154. Preambular at para. 2, OP-CRPD.
155. Argentina, Belgium, Chile, Finland, Germany, Mexico, Portugal, South Africa and Venezuela: Fourth Working Group Session Report, supra n. 50 at para. 140.
156. Ibid. at para. 139.
157. Article 17, OP-CEDAW.
158. Supporters of the inclusion of an interim measures provision included Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, France, Finland, Liechtenstein, Mexico, Peru, Portugal, Spain, Uruguay, Venezuela, Poland, South Africa, Uruguay, Amnesty International, ESCR-Net, FIAN and the ICJ: Fourth Working Group Session Report, supra n. 50 at para. 67.
159. Fifth Working Group Session Report, supra n. 12 at para. 160.
160. The HRC has taken the view that failure to comply with its interim measures are 'grave breaches' of a state's obligations under the OPI-ICCPR to permit the consideration of communications: Piandiong v Philippines (869/99), CCPR/C/70/D/869/1999 (2000); 8 IHRR 349 (2001).
161. This had been suggested by the Chairperson and supported by Argentina, Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, Greece, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States, although it was considered redundant by Finland, Switzerland, Amnesty International, ICJ and the NGO Coalition: Fifth Working Group Session Report, ibid. at para. 158.
162. Fourth Working Group Session Report, supra n. 50 at para. 111.
163. Ibid.
164. Article 21, CAT and Article 76, MWC.
165. For instance, in the Fourth Working Group Session, China, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Japan, Norway and the United Kingdom suggested it be deleted, some expressly on the basis that similar procedures had remained unused: Fourth Working Group Session Report, supra n. 50 at para. 109.
166. Elements Paper, supra n. 43 at para. 34.
167. Fourth Working Group Session Report, supra n. 50 at para. 109.
168. Case Concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Uganda), Judgment of the International Court of Justice, 19 December 2005.
169. Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion of the International Court of justice, 9 July 2004.
170. See further, the press releases of the International Court of justice, 'Georgia submits a Request for the indication of provisional measures', 14 August 2008, and 'Georgia institutes proceedings against Russia for violations of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination', 12 August 2008, available at: http://www.icj-cij.org/ docket/files/140/14661.pdf and http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/140/ 14659.pdf respectively [last accessed 24 August 2008].
171. Fifth Working Group Session Report, supra n. 12 at para. 3.
172. Supra n. 5.