Daily Summary related to Draft Article 25
MONITORING
Prepared by Landmine Survivors Network

Volume 3, #9
January 15, 2004

Afternoon Session
Commenced: 3:34pm
Adjourned: 6:00 p.m.

NATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES

Canada commented that the small group discussions had led to general agreement on paragraphs 1 and 2, but had not reached consensus on the rest, partly because some, including Canada, felt that it should not elaborated further or be more prescriptive than the first two paragrapsh. Others felt that there should be more elaboration on what States should do. While both of those views are reflected in the footnotes, Canada was not satisfied that the footnotes accurately reflected items of consensus or the level of objection in some areas, and also asserted that the level of support for certain elements was over-represented. Canada made several suggestions to: reflect a higher level of disagreement in the small group; lessen the degree of prescriptiveness of the text; and avoid promoting a “strong” monitoring mechanism, as this might imply that is should be large. Canada also pointed out that this text discussed was developed by the Chair of the small group. Canada noted that the group had agreed that, to assist the AHC, the NGOs might develop a paper, but that if this is done it should be very clear that it represents the work of NGOs and not of the Working Group.

Ireland referred to the EU paper’s suggestion that the question of monitoring be examined at a later stage in the context of the content and scope of the convention and to take into account work in other fora to review monitoring in other treaties. In principle, the first two paragraphs probably can be supported. It is difficult to see how item b in the footnote can claim that there was “consensus” for a strong and effective monitoring mechanism when the EU, among others, did not express views one way or another. If a paper is prepared for the AHC, it should be factual and not attempt to identify “preferred models” for monitoring.

Japan commented that some kind of implementation measures are needed but preferred a very simple statement so that it could be used in all countries. Therefore, paragraphs 1 and 2 might be acceptable but the views reflected in footnotes are too prescriptive. It would be preferable to delete items a, b and c from the footnotes and avoid trying to give guidance to the AHC.

The South African Human Rights Commission explained while there was no consensus at the small group meeting, there were strong views that these issues should be put forth to the AHC for further discussion. The footnotes are important so that the AHC is made aware of the issues as they were debated.

China stated that monitoring should be as flexible as possible. Paragraphs 1 and 2 are the result of extensive consultations and serve as a good basis for futher discussion. However, the footnote is too long. Many of the elements are provisions regarding rights and State obligations and are similar to the substantive articles. The footnote should be simplified by deleting points a, b and c. As noted by other speakers, there was no consensus on paragraph 3 b,

The Coordinator adjourned the meeting but stated that the remaining speakers on the list would be able to speak tomorrow.

Volume 3, #10
January 16, 2004

Morning Session
Commenced: 10:30 AM
Suspended: 11:05 AM
Reconvened: 11:36 AM
Adjourned: 1:04 PM

NATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION MECHANISMS (cont).

Sierra Leone was not clear over the extensive nature of the document’s footnote, which moreover seemed to contain draft elements as opposed to just commentary. The footnote needed to be redrafted to deal with the structural issues and more accurately reflect the level of consensus that was reached in the small group.

India did not support inclusion of the footnote but preferred that only paragraphs 1 and 2, which adequately reflect what is needed, be put forward to the AHC.

The Russian Federation believed that the document as drafted would mislead members of the AHC and asked that the reference to international monitoring be deleted, as it has not been discussed within the WG.

Thailand supported the actual text, but felt that the footnote should be revised to more accurately reflect the views of the WG, especially regarding claims to consensus and agreement among the group.

Ireland reflected on the mandate of the WG, to cut down on the options to be sent to the AHC so that it can have focused discussions. The trend of adding more and more footnotes is not helpful in this regard. Substance aside, the inclusion of the footnote is not appropriate to send to the AHC.

Lebanon noted that the first paragraph indicated that responsibility for implementation should be given to focal points within national governments rather than be mainstreamed. There is consensus that implementation should be mainstreamed and the text should be clarified: “States Parties shall designate a focal point within Governments for matters relating to the follow-up of implementation…” The national focal point’s responsibility relates to follow-up of that implementation, not to the implementation itself.

Sierra Leone suggested that with Lebanon’s proposed adjustment, the first two paragraphs could be forwarded to the AHC, but with only a simple footnote indicating that much discussion had taken place on various issues and that the AHC should consider monitoring in the context of work that is ongoing within the UN system to evaluate how monitoring and implementation are addressed generally.

The Coordinator noted that there seemed to be agreement on paragraphs 1 and 2, and noted Lebanon’s suggestion. The concern seems to be about the level of detail in the footnotes.

Ireland supported the approach of Sierra Leone but said that the footnote should avoid giving the impression that the wording of the two paragraphs had been agreed upon, even if the concepts had gained some acceptance.

The Inter-American Institute on Disability (IID) was not satisfied with the proposal to include only two paragraphs on the important subject of monitoring. The footnote reflects views of different members and they should be forwarded to the AHC. Eliminating the footnote would reduce the basis of discussion.

The Coordinator agreed that consensus couldn’t be reached on monitoring issues and if colleagues are able to resolve the problems among themselves during the lunch hour, then they can put forth the consensus.

Columbia agreed that nothing has been concluded definitively, and did not support deleting the footnote.

Ireland did not support the idea of further small group discussions at this point in the process. It is not possible to put all of the views of all delegations in footnotes.

Sierra Leone said that a decision had to be made regarding including the footnote. Sierra Leone offered to work with delegates to revise the footnote along the lines it had suggested earlier but the WG should make a decision now as to whether this should be attempted or not.

Landmine Survivors Network (LSN) noted that the footnote included a proposal to introduce models for monitoring. Would it be possible for NGOs to develop materials that present models for the AHC to consider?

The Coordinator affirmed that delegations have the right to develop and submit materials to the AHC and he anticipated that this would be done on many issues. The Coordinator stated that a revised footnote would be developed that reflects that discussion was not concluded on this issue, that members had differing views, and that some delegations supported many elements in the text while others did not.

Volume 3, #10
January 16, 2004

Afternoon Session
Commenced: 3:13pm
Recessed: 5:00pm
Reconvened: 5:15pm
Adjourned: 6:15pm

MONITORING

The SAHRC asked if the Coordinator would accept comments on the recirculated draft text on monitoring. The Coordinator explained that this draft is now part of the draft convention and it would be problematic to reopen discussion on all parts of that text. He invited comment on particular issues.

SAHRC was generally satisfied with the text as presented. Footnote 1, however, stipulates that the “Article was not based on a preliminary discussion by the WG but on discussion by a smaller drafting group.” As this is generally what happened, the representative was not sure as to the purpose of the footnote. Footnote 2 states that “the smaller drafting group did not reach agreement…” However it was the WG, which was not able to come to an agreement, and not necessarily the smaller thematic consultation. Furthermore, the SAHRC, having chaired the meeting, wished to note that there was general agreement, though not necessarily consensus, around linking national monitoring to international monitoring systems. The Coordinator suggested deleting the first sentence in footnote 1 and replacing “smaller drafting group” with “WG” in footnote 2.

Back to Draft Article