 Catarina Albuquerque is President of the United Nations working group to consider options regarding the elaboration of an Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. She holds a Masters in International Law and, since 1996, has been an Auxiliary Professor at Universidade Aut?noma, Lisbon. She also works for the Documentation and Comparative Law Office of Portugal's General Public Prosecution Office of the Republic.
Ms. Catarina Albuquerque, you are currently President of the United Nations working group to consider options regarding the elaboration of an Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Can you tell us about you experience and about the latest developments?
The working group assumed its functions in 2004 and the inaugural session was not easy. I can even say it was tense. For the first time different states were discussing the possibility of establishing an Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Many countries weren't prepared at all. Some were interested in the advancement of the optional protocol. Other were committed in opposing it because they feared being compelled by their own civil society to ratify it, and that could mean a high number of complaints, subsequent convictions by the UN and a lot of money spent to implement the recommendations by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. There's also the political price of being continuously reproached or convicted.
Is that related to the states' fear that economic, social and cultural rights become justiceable?
In fact, they are already justiceable, but there's no complaint procedure for violations of economic, social and cultural rights, although there's one for those considered core human rights, except the rights of the child. Economic, social and cultural rights are justiceable by means of some international treaties or through complaint procedures addressed to the International Labour Organization - concerning the right to work or to constitute unions - or to UNESCO, concerning the right to education.
But, for instance, who assures every citizen the right to obtain a job?
That right is assured by the International Labour Organization's mechanisms (although individuals can't use a complaint procedure) and so it is by Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, if a woman feels discriminated when applying for a job; or by the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, preventing race discrimination in employment. There's also the European Social Charter, with an optional protocol assuring complaints procedures. But, there is not a global and universal mechanism, able to cover all rights.
That brings us back to the past and to the distinction between economic, social and cultural rights, and civil and political rights.
In 1966 two Covenants were adopted, one for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and another for Civil and Political Rights. The former has always been considered differently and did not contemplate complaints procedure, unlike civil and political rights, such as the freedom of thought, opinion, religion, assembly, fair trial. Since 1966, all state parties to the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights can be object of a complaint by its citizens. Economic, social and cultural Rights are poor relatives of human rights. The initial covenant even lacked a committee of experts to assess its accomplishment by each country.
Human rights activists have ever since criticized this distinction. A victim of torture suffers, but so does someone unable to express him or herself or deprived from water or food.
But isn't it true that someone starving wouldn't ask firstly for freedom of thought or opinion?
I consider that a rather dangerous statement. That means that in the poorest countries, civil and political rights can be neglected. In fact, that is most African countries' argument in the United Nations - they claim that without the realization of economic, social and culture rights, civil and political rights cannot be assured.
Have there been progresses in considering human rights as a whole?
Meanwhile an international consensus grew strong and consolidated in the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, adopted by the World Conference on Human Rights in 1993. From that moment on the international community should take into account the principle that all human rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated. This Vienna Declaration outcome renewed the awareness to the urgency of creating an Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
The first project regarding an optional protocol dates back to 1996, but wasn't very successful. After that it was Portugal, in the former Commission on Human Rights, who first presented a project aiming the constitution of a working group. The working group started its activities in 2004.
And you are the President of the working group. What are its main functions?
The aim of the working group is the elaboration of an Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. It is an open-ended working group, which means that all UN member and observer States, inter-governmental organizations and non-governmental organizations with ECOSOC consultative status may attend the public meetings.
The truth is that little is known in Portugal about the progress of the working group. I hardly believe the average citizen knows there is a Portuguese leading it and that fact should make us proud.
I believe the problem in Portugal is the lack of awareness, information and knowledge. The civil society generally ignores the human rights issue. If you analyse the Universities' degree syllabus you will see how they totally ignore human rights.
How many more meetings will it take us to achieve an Optional Protocol?
I cannot answer that. The working group had a first mandate of one year and the former Commission on Human Rights decided to continue the mandate for a further two years. It now depends on the new Human Rights Council whether there will be or not a new mandate.
What failed in the Portuguese attempt to seek a seat at the Human Rights Council?
My opinion is that the Foreign Affairs Ministry was very supportive and did a very good job, but we must consider the fact that, in a global context, all the elected countries are much more relevant monetary contributors to the High Commissioner for Human Rights. I am not saying there is a direct correlation but each country's contribution reveals commitment in the advancement of human rights.
What should Portugal consider or revise for future elections?
I think the inclusion of a human rights perspective in the public development aid strategy is paramount. And we should enlarge the scope of countries we help and not be restricted to Portuguese speaking countries only. That narrows our field of action. As I said before, also the Portuguese contribution to international organizations should be reconsidered in order to upgrade our international profile. And, internally, Portugal should implement UN's recommendations, such as the constitution of a National Commission on Human Rights.
Source: www.esc-rights.org (june 2006, News letter) |