Civil Society Reports Allow International Review to be Comprehensive
Public Launch of the
2011
Taiwan Human Rights Report:
Shadow
Reports on ICCPR and ICESR from NGOs
Press
Statement
22 May 2012
On
20 May, the Taiwan Association for Human Rights and Covenants Watch published
the full text of “2011 Taiwan Human Rights Report: Shadow Reports on ICCPR and
ICESR from NGOs.”[1]
The Shadow Report is in response to Taiwan’s first State Human Rights Report
based on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and
International Covenant on Economic and Social Rights (ICESCR), which the Ma
Administration published on 20 April.[2]
The
Shadow Report is a collective effort of a coalition of 63 civil society
organizations and 57 authors from various relevant fields (the complete list of
contributors, in Chinese only, is in Appendix 5). It includes critiques and
responses to the State Report, as well as specific examples of human rights
violations that were ignored in the official report, in order to illustrate the
extent to which the official version misunderstands or neglects human rights
conditions in our country.
From
the beginning of the drafting of the State Report, civil society actively
participated in and monitored the process. At the same time, civil society
groups organized many training workshops, study groups, online platforms,
editorial meetings, and communication between the Covenants Watch Secretariat
and various NGOs. Through these intensive discussions, the human rights issues
that the Shadow Report should focus on were identified, and this solid
foundation enabled Covenants Watch to complete the Shadow Report within the planned
timeframe.
I.
Structure
of the Shadow Report
For
this first civil society Shadow Report, the ICCPR and ICESCR have not been
treated as two separate volumes. Rather, in one document of over 300 pages,
Covenants Watch and the participating advocacy groups have addressed the
substantive rights enumerated in both covenants. Each of the rights has its own
section, consisting of four elements: an explanation of the content of that
article, a response to the relevant section of the State Report, notable
instances of violations not mentioned in the State Report, and concrete civil
society proposals for further reforms (see Appendix 4, in Chinese only).
For
the ICCPR, the Shadow Report addresses the right of self-determination;
non-discrimination and equality; the right to life; the prohibition of torture;
the prohibition of slavery; the right to liberty and security of person; the right
of all persons deprived of their liberty to be treated humanely and with
dignity; freedom of movement and residence; procedures for expulsion of aliens;
the right to fair trial; the prohibition of being held guilty of an act which
did not constitute a criminal offense under law at the time; the right to
privacy; freedoms of thought, expression, and the press, as well as freedom of
information; freedoms of assembly and association; the rights of children; the right
of political participation, and the rights of minorities.
For
the ICESCR, besides the rights to self-determination and non-discrimination
already covered, the Shadow Report addresses the right to work; the right to
just and favorable conditions of work; the rights to form unions and to strike,
the right to an adequate standard of living, the right to health, and the right
to education.
II.
Problems
with the Drafting of the State Report
Based
on the long-term monitoring of Covenants Watch as well as the direct experience
of some members in various working meetings in the process of drafting the State
Report, we can see some overall issues. First, many government agencies when
drafting their sections almost completely neglected to cite the General
Comments issued by both the Human Rights Committee and the Committee on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. [3]
Lacking these authoritative interpretations, their understanding of the content
of the articles was insufficient. As a result, much of the State Report reads
like a massive “work report” from the agencies of the government. Inspection
and reflection of current human rights conditions in Taiwan is generally
lacking, much less concrete measures to improve these conditions.
In
contrast, in the process of drafting the civil society Shadow Report all
General Comments were referred to. Moreover, the civil and political rights
sections were enriched by extensive reference to the 2005 work by Professor
Manfred Nowak (former U.N. Special Rapporteur on Torture), U.N. Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, CCPR Commentary. For
the economic and social rights sections, many other international studies and
data were considered.
Another
issue discovered by Covenants Watch in the State Report’s drafting process was
the misunderstanding of the content of U.N. reporting guidelines. For example,
the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has requested all States parties
to include in their reports, under Article 11, “Whether the State party has
adopted a national action plan or strategy to combat poverty… and whether
specific mechanisms and procedures are in place to monitor the implementation
of the plan or strategy and evaluate the progress achieved in effectively
combating poverty.” However, in our government’s State Report, we see instead the
“Executive Yuan Working Group on Improving Income Distribution” shoehorned in
as the anti-poverty action plan mandated by the U.N. (see State Report on ESCR,
p. 62, para. 202).
During the process
of the editorial review of the State Report draft, the Presidential Advisory
Committee on Human Rights, five branches of government (yuan) as well as their subsidiary agencies were to be covered.
However, alone among the branches, the Executive Yuan only submitted the
reports from each of its subsidiary agencies, there is no mention in the report
of the work of the Executive Yuan itself. Thus, the opportunity for a truly comprehensive
examination of the human rights work of the executive branch of government was
lost. This gap raises the concern of Covenants Watch as to the attitude of the
Executive Yuan to the State Report and its contents. Among specific agencies,
we observed the hostile attitude of the Environmental Protection Agency towards
the requirement to submit its draft section, as well as in its exclusion of the
suggestions put forth by civilian experts during the editorial review stage.
III.
International
Review Process Key to Enable Constructive Dialogue Between Government and Civil
Society
The “implementation law” enacted along with the
ratification of the two covenants, Article 6, reads: “The Government shall,
according to the provisions of the two covenants, establish a human rights
reporting mechanism.” At this time the basic elements of the mechanism,
including the procedures, the timetable, and the composition of the
international examination body, are not yet in place. Nonetheless, information
received by Covenants Watch, or from those of its members who are participating
in the seven member committee of the “ICCPR and ICESCR Republic of China
Initial State Report International Examination Secretariat,” at least indicates
that the government currently intends to follow some of the recommendations of
Covenants Watch and establish an international examination mechanism here in
Taiwan. [4]
When this mechanism is
confirmed, the Ma Administration’s publication of the State Report on 20 April
will no longer just be one single day’s news. Our initial State Report on the
two covenants will need to go through an external, international examination
process, including procedures to ensure further implementation. Under such a
process, all shadow reports, counter-reports, or alternative reports provided
by national or international NGOs will be included as reference materials for
the independent experts conducting the examination. This will lead to a
“constructive dialogue,” not at all like earlier efforts (notably, the series
of “pilot” National Human Rights Reports issued by the Executive Yuan from
2003 to 2009), when officials and civil
society simply restated their positions, with no useful interaction. Indeed,
the actual experience of the U.N. Treaty Bodies demonstrates that the committee
members often rely heavily on materials and evidence submitted by civil
society, and that this information makes it possible for a rigorous examination
to take place during the formal meetings with the officials of the state
parties (see Appendices 1, 2, and 4).
IV.
Our
hope for “letting many flowers bloom”
Although this report is entitled “2011 Taiwan Human
Rights Report: Shadow Reports on ICCPR and ICESR from NGOs,” Covenants Watch
strongly emphasizes that this report has been
produced by only a portion of Taiwan’s civil society organizations. It
cannot represent all the views of all of Taiwanese civil society. Instead, we
hope that this first Shadow Report will stimulate other efforts, providing a
precedent or a template that other groups may follow. We hope that more and
more NGOs will, from their various perspectives, put forth a variety of shadow reports, counter-reports, or alternative reports.
This will enhance the prospects for such human rights dialogue to become a
regular, systematic practice, in order to effectively promote the improvement
of human rights conditions in Taiwan.
Media Contact: Mr.
Shih Yi-hsiang (施逸翔)
Tel: 02-2596-9525
email: riverrain308@tahr.org.tw
[1] The full text of the Shadow Report is available at http://ppt.cc/@A!G . For now, it is only available in the
original Chinese; however, an English translation is being prepared and will be
made public in the future.
[2] The State Report was
published in 3 volumes, respectively “Status of Implementation of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights”; “Status of
Implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights”; and “Selection of Core Documents Regarding the Obligations as a State
Party to the Covenants.” The full text is available at http://www.humanrights.moj.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=267054&ctNode=30551&mp=200
(in Chinese only).
[3] Since each covenant is a legal text, each article is necessarily
very condensed. Thus, in order to strengthen understanding of the content of
the articles, each treaty body has promulgated a series of General Comments,
which elaborate on the intent of the covenants. The range of General Comments is
broad; some involve a single article, some describe areas that involve more
than one article, some indicate the types of information States are expected to
supply in their reports. They form the most important basis for delineating the
scope of the covenants, which was recognized in Article 3 of our country’s “implementation
law,” which reads: “In the application of the provisions of the two covenants,
reference shall be made to their legislative intent and the interpretations of
the relevant treaty bodies.” This amply demonstrates that the government may
not simply look at the text of the articles, but must study as well the General
Comments. As of January 2011, the Human Rights Committee had published 34
General Comments, and the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights had
published 21. For the convenience of Taiwanese citizens, Covenants Watch has
published compilations of these two sets of General Comments in Chinese on its
website. See http://covenants-watch.blogspot.com/2011/06/blog-post.html.
[4] Covenants Watch has appealed to the government 3 times with
specific proposals for how to institute the international review mechanism. See
http://covenants-watch.blogspot.com/2012/04/blog-post.html
(in Chinese only).
Tags: 聲明論述