The Human Rights Committee and "Human Rights"

Thanks to Rick for his posting on the Human Rights Committee action on the KL v. Peru matter. It is not a case as we understand them. Let me try to address a few of Rick’s important questions. The Committee was created by the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It has a variety of functions that are spelled out in the instrument. One duty it has is to evaluate periodic reports that are filed by countries that are parties to the Covenant under Article 40 of the Covenant. That is pretty straight forward; however, the product of the evaluation is not particularly satisfying in many cases. In recent years, even some progressive countries have disagreed with the Committee’s conclusions about the comments they received on their compliance reports from the Committee.

The more interesting and less clear duty the Committee has is under Articles 41 and 42 of the Covenant. It can receive a “declaration” from one country that is a party to the Covenant that another country that is also a party is not fulfilling its obligations under the Covenant. I have tried to ascertain if that is what happened in the matter to which Rick refers, but I have not been successful. The Center for Reproductive Rights website and the UN websites are unhelpful in answering these basic questions. Does that tell me something? Yes. So I think that is what has happened: another country did report the matter of Peru and KL to the Committee. In any event, the Committee (or an ad hoc “Conciliation Commission” that the Committee can appoint under Article 42) investigates the complaint with the right of the “parties” to supply information. The Committee is not supposed to take action unless it has determined that “all available domestic remedies have been invoked and exhausted” and “in conformity with recognized principles of international law.” “Friendly resolution” of the matter is encouraged. The Committee then submits a report to the State parties concerned. I think that is what happened—a report was issued. Not a ruling. Not a decision.

Is this type of report “law”? I don’t think so, but after a while these reports pile up and they get quoted. When things get quoted time after time, they leave an impression. The Center for Reproductive Rights is aware of this phenomenon. After a while, they suggest that these reports reflect customary law.

My written presentation at the Villanova John Courtney Murray Conference this past September will offer some explanation of the process. It also offers an account of some of the methods used by the Center for Reproductive Rights in commandeering international bodies to further its political agenda of “reproductive rights” (including abortion) which the Center has concluded are “human rights.” That is hard to accept when one considers the implications of the “right to life” article in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

This brings me to Rick’s second question. I hope I am not dodging it here by saying this, but these folks—the Committee and the Center for Reproductive Rights—have a lot to learn about core principles of international law and authentic human rights. Having said that, they understand well a system, and they are exploiting it. In the meantime, human rights suffer. I fear they will continue to suffer under the irony of promoting “human rights” that exist only through skewed interpretations and clever political manipulations and not through sound legal interpretation and application of the rule of law.  RJA sj