Project report

Joint CSO statement – 38th Annual Meeting of Chairpersons of Human Rights Treaty Bodies

Intern 1 · 1 Jul 2026

Abstract

38th Annual Meeting of Chairpersons of Human Rights Treaty Bodies Joint CSO statement 15 June 2026 This statement was delivered on behalf of TB-Net, Amnesty International, ISHR, APT and IRCT on the occasion of the 38th meeting of Chairpersons (15-19 June 2026). We express our strong support for the treaty bodies and Secretariat staff as they continue to operate under constraints at a time of profound crisis of the UN. We are deeply concerned about the impact of the crisis on the functioning of the treaty body system and on opportunities for stakeholder engagement. We recognise the efforts made by treaty bodies to mitigate these challenges through online intersessional work, virtual stakeholder meetings, and other accommodation measures, allowing them to continue discharging their mandates. Given the urgency of the current situation, we will first outline a number of immediate measures that we hope can be implemented in the short term to help ensure the system remains operational and accessible. We will then provide comments on reform proposals, followed by observations on funding necessary for the effective functioning of the treaty body system. 1. Suggested immediate measures We share the following concerns: The cancellation of sessions, pre-sessions, stakeholder meetings and hybrid modalities over the past two years has significantly reduced opportunities for civil society participation. We particularly regret the cancellation of NGO meetings in some instances, including formal NGO spaces as well as in the framework of pre-sessional working groups. We welcome the analysis provided in the document “Exceptional working methods and NGO/civil society participation in treaty body sessions”, which provides data which align with the negative impacts identified by TB-Net over the past two years. Meaningful civil society participation is critical to inform State reviews and other processes led by treaty bodies, as identified in the referred document. We would like to know whether these impacts, as identified in the document, will be raised at the Meeting with States parties, to involve them in the identification of solutions? The late confirmation of sessions and reviews continues to create serious obstacles for civil society participation. Short-notice scheduling and last-minute cancellations/postponements affect visa applications, increase travel costs, jeopardize funding opportunities, and limits CSOs’ ability to prepare meaningful submissions. While we recognize the uncertainty created by the current financial situation, greater predictability is essential. We also note with concern divergences in the implementation of previously agreed efficiency measures, in particular the simplified reporting procedure (SRP). The agreement to make SRP the default option risks being weakened as some treaty bodies opt out. This risks undermining an important system-wide efficiency reform. Funding shortfalls and cash conservations measures by UNOG have attempted to withdraw funding of essential accessibility services – including international sign interpretation and captioning – for the March 2026 sessions of the Human Rights Council and of the CRPD Committee. Only after public complaints by civil society and letters to UN high level authorities, funding was ensured 20 days before the date foreseen for the sessions. Meanwhile, full support to a deaf CRPD Committee member remains pending and the funding for national sign language during States reviews -discontinued in 2024- remain pending and not covered to ensure accessibility during CRPD Committee sessions. Beyond disability specific bodies or sessions, other treaty bodies foresee no budgetary resources and thus have no accessibility measures at all for people with disabilities. The crisis has also fallen heavily on the bodies that act in countries. The SPT was able to carry out only four visits in 2025, from among 96 states parties to the OPCAT. For the SPT a postponed or cancelled visit is not a deferred document but protection that does not reach people deprived of their liberty, and it cannot be recovered through intersessional or online means. Recommendations: Treaty bodies and OHCHR should guarantee the preservation of CSO engagement opportunities during the liquidity crisis and ensure that, where in-person meetings cannot be held, alternative modalities are systematically provided rather than cancelled. All treaty bodies should commit to publishing, at the earliest possible stage, a year-round indicative schedule of State reviews, drawing on the practices of CEDAW and CRPD, even where details remain tentative, provided it is stated that the schedule is an estimate and may be subject to change. To this aim, we encourage OHCHR to support the establishment of a consistent, year-round solution, applicable across all treaty bodies. Treaty bodies with the support from OHCHR should take the necessary steps to ensure harmonisation across key areas, including the simplified reporting procedure as the default reporting method, the handling of reprisals, and the implementation of the Addis Ababa guidelines as well as ensuring formal civil society spaces before all treaty bodies. 2. Comments on the proposals for reform We welcome the “OHCHR working paper on enhancing the effectiveness and efficiency of the UN human rights treaty system”. We are supportive of reforms that strengthen the system in terms of impact, predictability, and accessibility, including for CSOs, NHRIs and NPMs. We further note that the reform proposals are framed primarily around the bodies that review State party reports. We encourage the Chairs and OHCHR to ensure that the distinct mandates of the CED and SPT, are expressly considered, so that measures designed for the reporting cycle neither divert resources from nor inadvertently constrain mandates exercised through visits and other forms of engagement. A predictable review calendar, based on the agreed 8-year cycle, is essential to the effective functioning of the treaty body system. Putting in place the predictable calendar would enable much needed clarity for all stakeholders as well as providing predictability for a forward-looking allocation of resources. However, we are concerned that, under current meeting-time constraints, establishing the eight-year cycle would not be possible in practice without accompanying structural reforms, including digitalisation and further harmonisation, undermining one of the central objectives of the reform process: ensuring predictability and timeliness in State reviews. We provide the following reflections on specific proposals: 1) Clustered treaty body dialogue model We are open to the exploration of new modalities for State dialogue and to exploring some kind of clustering. We see value in efforts to enhance coherence, efficiency, and predictability across the treaty body system. But we believe it is critical to make sure that discussions around clustering are guided by the following principles: While clustering may allow for more consistency and complementarity within the treaty body system (reducing duplication and inconsistencies), treaty specificity, cohesion and consistency within each Committee should be secured as well as the preservation of geographical diversity, gender balance, and thematic expertise in the composition of panels, ensuring representation from diverse legal, social, cultural, and regional backgrounds. Any clustering arrangements should not result in a reduction of civil society access to, or participation in, the treaty body system. We suggest that any move towards clustered dialogue models be informed by consultations with all stakeholders, including CSOs, and be introduced gradually, with a pilot phase and clear evaluation criteria before any system-wide implementation. In this regard, we look forward to receiving further information on the various options under consideration, including their operationalisation, resource requirements, and associated costs. 2) Decentralised / regionalised approaches We support further exploration of regionalised modalities for treaty body work, provided that such approaches are guided by predictability, accessibility, inclusivity, independence, and safety. Lessons learned from past experiences should be carefully assessed, including what has and has not worked in decentralised formats, considering the added value of Geneva as an international hub, including in relation to safety and access for experts, civil society organisations, NHRIs, NPMs, rights holders and victims / survivors. The assumption that mere geographical closeness enhances participation cannot be taken for granted and each country’s situation considered. Any process to design and implement the regionalization of treaty body work, particularly regarding core functions such as State reviews, should be informed by meaningful and inclusive civil society participation. Civil society plays a vital role in ensuring the effectiveness, legitimacy, and accountability of treaty body processes. Key considerations include: Ensure that the universal character of treaty bodies is preserved, including through diverse and geographically balanced treaty body membership in any regionalised modalities. Preserve the unity, coherence, and consistency of treaty body jurisprudence, working methods, and practices. Maintain a strong centralised coordination and support structure from the OHCHR Secretariat to ensure consistency and effective implementation of any regionalised modalities. Guarantee meaningful, safe, and inclusive participation of civil society and other stakeholders, including through both in-person and hybrid engagement opportunities. That is, ensure that regionalization enhances, rather than limits, access to treaty body processes for rights holders, civil society organisations, NHRIs, and NPMs and other stakeholders. And ensures that risks of reprisals, targeting and surveillance of rights holders is prevented. Ensure accessibility and equitable participation, including by addressing availability of visas through agreements with host countries, reasonable travel costs, and the specific access needs of persons with disabilities, including support to CRPD Committee members and provision of reasonable accommodation to civil society participants. Ensure predictability and transparency regarding the planning, scheduling, and conduct of treaty body activities carried out under regionalized arrangements. Based on these considerations, we support piloting more regional or decentralised initiatives. 3) Digitalisation of treaty body processes We support proposals to simplify State reporting through an integrated, multilingual online submission platform. We understand this could reduce administrative burdens, costs, and translation requirements, and improve efficiency in the reporting process. However, we emphasise the importance of transparency and accessibility of such platforms. In particular, we consider that: all submissions and updates should should be publicly accessible; changes or updates to State submissions should be clearly trackable; clear deadlines should ensure that civil society and other stakeholders have sufficient time to review and respond to information submitted by States. We support strengthening transparency in the election of treaty body members through improved online application systems. 3. Funding and enabling conditions We stress that treaty body reforms must be matched by adequate and sustainable financing, in line with States’ obligations under the treaties they have ratified. In closing we want to highlight some key recommendations: States should ensure that the treaty body system is adequately and predictably funded through the UN regular budget. States should provide a clear mandate for dedicated funding for hybrid modalities to support meaningful participation of stakeholders, including civil society organisations. States should identify and mobilise the allocation of resources essential to establish digitalisation tools, including accessible submission platforms and case management systems, as part of treaty body strengthening. States should also ensure that funding expressly protects the country visits functions of specific bodies within the system, which are least able to be delivered remotely. We end by highlighting that the treaty body system is being steadily weakened by the financial and operational crisis. Urgent measures are needed, which includes States reaffirming political and financial support for the system. We also look forward to hearing any updates on how the discussed reform objectives, short and long term, will be funded? We thank you.