6th Meeting, 1st session of the Intergovernmental Working Group on Older Persons (IGWG)
Human Rights Council
Date: 16 July 2026
Language: English
Transcript: https://transcripts.un.org/en/asset/k14/k14oru4mls
Transcripts available through this tool are created by using automatic speech recognition and are not official records nor official documents of the United Nations. Official records and official documents are available on the Official Document System of the United Nations.

---

IGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [0:00]:

Good morning, Excellencies, distinguished participants. I declare open the 6th meeting of the Intergovernmental Working Group on the Human Rights of Older Persons. This morning, we will resume our plenary discussions under Item 4 for a focused debate on treaty monitoring arrangements. To help introduce and frame this segment of our discussion, I am pleased to give the floor to our moderator, Maria Rozni-Fanko, Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Department of Foreign Affairs of the Philippines. Mrs. Franco, you have the floor.


Philippines · Deputy Assistant Secretary · Maria Rozni-Fanko [0:32]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Excellencies, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen, it is my honor to moderate this very important panel discussion on treaty monitoring with a panel of illustrious and distinguished experts. Treaty monitoring is an indispensable feature of every human rights treaty. The treaty body system is the crowning achievement of painstaking international human rights regime building over 8 decades, and the Philippines is very proud to be part of that process. Majority of the core human rights instruments that we have today has been adopted in the 1960s and the 1980s, even before the digital revolution. The most recent human rights treaties adopted are the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Convention on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances, both in December of 2006. These treaties are a product of their time. Our working group, therefore, has a historic opportunity to trailblaze and bring the existing UN treaty body system fully into the 21st century. We are in a unique position to envision a treaty monitoring arrangement that is fit and responsive to the realities of this century, the specificities of the prospective LBI, and the challenges and opportunities of a UN system in flux. In other words, we did not— we need not be limited by what has worked in the past and what we have gotten used to. The objective of the panel today is to brainstorm and exchange ideas on what kind of treaty monitoring mechanism we should pursue, what would work best for the Older Persons Treaty, and at what point in the process should we start forming the monitoring arrangements. These are some of the questions in our mind going into this discussion. And I invite delegations to reflect on these questions. In our view, it is important to think about treaty monitoring arrangements as we begin to craft the legally binding instrument. Provisions on treaty monitoring ensure that the instrument will come alive in national contexts and that it will be implemented domestically according to the purpose for which we are creating it. We are facing obvious challenges, the most important of which is the continuously narrowing fiscal space. This should compel us to be more efficient, effective, and creative in designing the treaty monitoring arrangements. Prevailing and emerging technologies present us with opportunities not only to have a more cost-effective system, but also to be more inclusive. Lessons can be drawn from the challenges faced by current treaty bodies. There are some options to look into, such as thematic reviews, simplified submissions, predictable reporting schedule, and harnessing ICT, including artificial intelligence, to facilitate treaty body work. These are only some of the many possible approaches. Whatever monitoring arrangement would be decided on, it is important that it strengthens the treaty body system. The committee should be adequately funded and supported to perform its functions. Moreover, fairness, objectivity, due diligence, and relevant principles of international law should underpin the engagement between states and the treaty body. We have taken note that during the general discussion on Monday and Tuesday, a number of member states, NHRI and NGOs have expressed their positions on treaty monitoring and implementation through their statements. Many delegations generally noted the importance of treaty monitoring, some of them stressing the centrality of implementation and accountability. Several delegations noted that monitoring of the LBI's implementation should complement existing human rights treaties. A number of speakers emphasized that older persons should meaningfully and effectively participate and be involved in the design, implementation, and monitoring of the instrument. Several delegations stated that we have to be creative so as not to overburden the UN system and the member states. Similarly, some speakers mentioned that any discussion on monitoring should be mindful of the resources of the Secretariat and the reporting countries. A delegation also proposed that we should make use of existing treaty bodies and mechanisms, and another emphasized constructive dialogue and capacity building. During yesterday's discussion, we have also heard one resource speaker, his views supported from the floor, that we can look at monitoring issue later after we have more direction on the substance. This morning's focus debate is an opportunity to have a constructive exchange on this issue, and a panel of distinguished experts will make presentations gained from years of experience in this agenda. I am pleased to introduce at this point our first speaker, Mr. Antti Korkiakivi. Antti is the Chief of the Treaty Bodies Branch at OHCHR. He has 30 years of international experience in the field of human rights, including as Chief of the Indigenous Peoples and Minorities Section and Chief of the Anti-Torture Capacity Building Coordination and Funds Section at OHCHR. Before joining OHCHR, he worked for 10 years in various capacities at the Council of Europe's Directorate of Human Rights, including as the head of its Minorities Division. responsible for treaty monitoring and intergovernmental work. Antti, please have the floor.


OHCHR · Chief, Treaty Bodies Branch · Antti Korkiakivi [5:44]:

Thank you, thank you so much, Chair, and good morning, Excellencies, distinguished delegates and experts, and fellow panelists. It's really a pleasure and an honor to address you this morning and to offer a few reflections on, on treaty monitoring arrangements as a contribution to your reflections on a draft legally binding instrument on the rights of older persons. Let me at the outset highlight what was already mentioned, and that is the critical role that the human rights treaty bodies have played over more than 60 years as a catalyst of improved implementation and dialogue of all treaties. As treaty monitoring has grown from one committee of experts established by the International Covenant on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination to a system that today encompasses 10 treaty bodies, we have seen how they have helped to support States in translating normative commitments into practical results. As you discuss monitoring arrangements, it is indeed useful to draw upon the extensive experience accumulated within the existing human rights treaty body system. While human rights treaty bodies differ in terms of mandates, of course, and in terms of their scope and size, ranging from committees of 10 experts to committees of 25 members, they all have a number of shared features. One of those key features is the independence, diversity, and expertise of their membership. And as you know, most treaty bodies perform a number of common key features, including the consideration of State Party reports, individual communications, and inquiry procedures. These are all tools that have enabled treaty bodies to make strong contributions to the implementation of their respective treaties. At the same time, certain committees have specific functions that respond to the particular characteristics of the treaty they monitor. We have, for example, the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture with a mandate that focuses on preventive visits, and Committee on Enforced Disappearances with its urgent action procedures, both of which have yielded concrete human rights progress on the ground. All these experiences offer valuable guidance as your discussions move forward. Let me highlight a few elements in this respect. First, I would like to encourage consideration of a mechanism that is closely connected to the existing treaty body architecture. Relevant treaty body strengthening initiatives, including those in connection with the General Assembly Resolution 68268, provide useful lessons about the risks of fragmentation and point to the need to advance harmonization and coordination across the system. Building on existing experiences can help to promote coherence, predictability, and sustainability. Second, it is important to ensure that participation lies at the heart of any future monitoring framework. Experience of treaty parties across the board demonstrates the value of structured engagement with rights holders and other stakeholders. I would like to encourage deep reflection on how older persons, organizations representing them, civil society organizations, and national human rights institutions can meaningfully interact with any possible treaty monitoring body, drawing on the experience of CRPD, CRC, and other treaty bodies in advancing inclusive work. Such participation can significantly contribute to both the quality and legitimacy of monitoring efforts. Third, primary attention should also be given to the relationship between international monitoring and national implementation structures. Many submissions have already highlighted the importance of national legislation, policies, and institutional mechanisms, together with independent monitoring structures, in ensuring effective implementation. Any future mechanism could indeed benefit from encouraging and supporting strong national-level implementation structures, and we have examples of how this can be achieved, including in the work of the SPD and, as we will hear later today, in connection with CRPD. Fourth, I would like to encourage delegates to approach accessibility as a cross-cutting consideration. Older persons may face a range of barriers in accessing information, participating in procedures, or seeking remedies. These barriers are linked to various factors, of course, including in some cases limited access to digital technologies. As discussions continue, it may be useful to explore how accessibility can be incorporated into all aspects of any future monitoring framework and how emerging digital solutions can be utilized while remaining attentive to the realities of the digital divide. At the same time, it is important to remain mindful of the broader context in which the treaty body system currently operates. As all of you know, and as was already mentioned, existing treaty bodies face today significant constraints, including resource constraints, constraints which have limited the scope and impact of their work. It is important to ensure that should a new body be established, it is adequately resourced both in terms of staff and non-staff resources. And in this regard, I would encourage consideration of approaches that maximize effectiveness while avoiding unnecessary complexity or duplication. This may contribute both to the sustainability of the mechanism and to its acceptance by States and stakeholders alike. Relatedly, I would invite reflection on opportunities for innovation. Treaty-body strengthening discussions have generated a range of proposals, including ideas for enhanced predictability, greater use of digital technologies, more modern and simplified reporting modalities, as well as enhanced regional outreach. Such ideas may offer useful food for thought as you explore different models, with a view to ensuring efficiency, accessibility, and most importantly, the impact of any future mechanism. Finally, if States decide eventually to establish a dedicated committee under the future instrument, it would be important to ensure that this is coupled with modalities that foster close cooperation and dialogue with existing treaty bodies. Such engagement would support consistency and coordination, and contribute to the coherence of the international human rights framework. Chair, in conclusion, I would like to encourage continued reflection on how a future monitoring mechanism might be designed so as to be effective, inclusive, accessible, and sustainable. Building on the considerable experience of the treaty body system, while remaining open to innovation may provide a constructive way forward. Equally, ensuring the meaningful participation of older persons and their representative organizations would help strengthen both the legitimacy and the impact of any future framework. I thank you.


Philippines · Deputy Assistant Secretary · Maria Rozni-Fanko [13:29]:

Thank you, Antti, for your very informative presentation.

You—

thank you for recalling the key features of the treaty bodies and for stressing the importance of the treaty body system and how they have help to support states to implement the treaties. You mentioned the risk of fragmentation, the need for participation, and its effect on the credibility of the treaty body work. I believe that your views, including on the accessibility and the importance of coordination of this treaty body that we are trying to shape with the existing ones, should be well noted by different delegations. Thank you for that. Our next resource speaker is Ms. Rigbe Gebre Hawariya. Rigbe is a human rights advocate and inclusion expert with 18 years of experience advancing the rights of persons with disabilities, women, children, and older persons. She holds a Master's of Social Work and a Bachelor of Laws and recently served as a Commissioner for Women, Children, Older Persons, and Disability Rights at the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission. She currently serves as an expert member of the African Union Working Group on the Rights of Older Persons and Persons with Disabilities in Africa. and is a member-elect of the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Rigbe, please, the floor is yours.


AU · Expert member · Rigbe Gebre Hawariya [14:45]:

Thank you, Madam Moderator, Chairperson, distinguished delegates, and colleagues. It's a pleasure to address this panel today on the critical architecture of accountability, specifically the potential treaty monitoring arrangements for a future legally binding instrument on the human rights of older persons. As we embark on this historic session, our premise is clear: we do not need to reinvent the wheel, but we must build a stronger, more resilient vehicle. The rich jurisprudence of existing treaty bodies is not our ceiling, but the foundation from which we must rise to address distinct protection and accountability gaps. It's true that this Convention must solidify a paradigm shift from a welfare-based narrative to a binding framework of active, autonomous rights holders. The cornerstone of this shift is the meaningful, diverse participation of older persons. We must draw inspiration from the UNCRPD, which was driven by the active agency of the rights holders themselves, ensuring a more equitable representation of the Global South. Crucially, this representation and direct agency is carried over to the Convention's monitoring and accountability. In the same way, the monitoring body for this future Convention must be led by older persons. Their active agency must start now during the drafting phase and be explicitly codified within the monitoring text. Here, we must take— we must make a vital distinction. Representatives of older persons are not just individuals who happen to be older. They're self-advocates actively working on behalf of their peers. To make their participation meaningful, as already mentioned, we must apply the CRPD core principle of reasonable accommodation for actively removing physical, digital, and structural barriers so their voices are truly heard. When designing our global architecture, we must look to both the successes and critical omissions of existing frameworks. A key lesson lies in the African framework. Unlike the CRPD, which established a specialized standalone committee, the African Protocol on the Rights of Older Persons delegates its monitoring to the African Commission. Furthermore, the African Older Persons Protocol, as opposed to the Disability Rights Protocol, completely lacks a dedicated national monitoring framework, and this structural gap has left the rights of older persons highly vulnerable of being sidelined. This gap exists because a global human rights-based approach to ageing is still maturing. But this is also an interesting opportunity. Instead of waiting for a top-down UN standard, we are building from the ground up using regional lessons to guide and draft our global instrument. Our normative rights are only as secure as the machinery built to enforce them. We must adapt and improve upon Article 33 Sub 2, a distinct provision of the CRPD, mandating independent national monitoring by explicitly requiring the collection of age-disaggregated intersectional data. This independent domestic oversight is backed by decades of treaty body jurisprudence, including the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights General Comment No. 10 and the Committee on the Rights of the Child General Comment No. 2. Both explicitly declare that treaty obligations cannot be fully realized without independent, well-resourced, well-resourced NHRIs on the ground. As already mentioned, to ensure effectiveness of the treaty body, we must confront a harsh reality that the human rights system faces unprecedented resource constraints. Replicating expensive backlog reporting cycles of the past of the past risks administrative failure. So, we must be innovative, cost-efficient, and collaborative. Here are 4 suggestions as a starting point for our discussion, in addition to the ones mentioned by OACHR. The first one is complementarity. We should adopt Article 38 of the CRPD to systematically leverage the technical expertise, of specialized agencies like the WHO and ILO, not only to build on their established work but to formally involve them in our future oversight. Secondly, we should structurally integrate regional bodies like the African and Inter-American Commissions into the global monitoring process, allowing these mechanisms to submit joint reports and coordinate follow-up avoids reporting fatigue and builds vertical synergy. And this institutional partnership should begin now during the drafting phase to secure widespread ownership. Third, proactive and agile monitoring. We should look to the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture's model of preventive site visits, providing a vital eye-on-the-ground approach for all for older persons, especially in institutional settings. Similarly, we can adopt the International Convention for the Protection of Old Persons from Enforced Disappearance, Article 30, and its urgent action procedures to bypass slow reporting cycles when life or liberty is threatened. Finally, the committee must— closely collaborate with organizations of older persons as primary representatives and rights holders alongside NGOs and NHRI. By formalizing joint monitoring network, their credible data can feed directly into the committee's work, significantly reducing the Secretariat's research overhead. The final item I want to talk about is individual complaints. Which is a vital diagnostic tool exposing systemic ageism and structural loopholes that state reports often gloss over. To balance protective strengths with the state ratification, we should embrace the pragmatic historical approach of using an opt-in clause or an optional protocol. However, this pathway must not be an afterthought. Whether built in as an opt-in or or a parallel optional protocol, it must be drafted and ready from day one. Distinguished colleagues, in conclusion, we are certainly not starting from scratch. We stand on the shoulders of the CRPD, decades of international jurisprudence, and the pioneering regional protocols. Let us now develop a treaty that does not just declare rights, but has the teeth to protect them. Thank you, and I look forward to our discussion.


Philippines · Deputy Assistant Secretary · Maria Rozni-Fanko [22:12]:

Thank you, Rigbe, for sharing with us insights from the CRPD, the African Protocol, and the other treaties. We must draw inspiration from the CRPD and the representation of the Global South in the treaty. And thank you for emphasizing the importance of the meaningful participation of older persons, as well as the importance of removing barriers that would hinder their participation. From your presentation, I note also the importance of building from the ground up, addressing ageism, strengthening rights-based implementation at the national, regional, and international levels. Thank you for those recommendations. These are valuable points that all delegations need to reflect on. On to our next speaker. Our next resource speaker has rich experience in the multilateral space. Ms. Catalina de Vandas Aguilar. She is the first UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities from 2014 until 2020. She was appointed Senior Director for the Office of Partnerships, Advocacy, and Communications with the International Organization for Migration. Previously, she also served as the Permanent Representative of Costa Rica to the UN in Geneva. She has worked with the World Bank and took part in the establishment of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities with the United Nations Secretariat. Thank you, Catalina.

The floor is yours, please.


UN · Former Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities · Catalina de Vandas Aguilar [23:30]:

Thank you, Madam Moderator, and thank you all for the opportunity to be here. I would like to take a step back and reflect a little bit on, for member states and for civil society, what are the key considerations when it comes to procedures and not only to substance, but in general, the main considerations that perhaps could be considered while thinking about this new legally binding instrument. And of course, I'm going to reflect, and I've been thinking about the process, as was mentioned, the process of the negotiation of the Convention and some of the questions that we face at the moment in interaction with the member states, with academia, with civil society, and how we evolve in our thinking about what, what was needed. Of course, it is clear that there is a protection gap, that the growing older population has made evident that there is new circumstances, new contexts that have not been properly addressed, or that we don't have the tools and the policies that are human rights-based to address those new emergent issues. And of course, the Human Rights Council resolution, it's already recognizing that need. When we started the process of the Convention, there was a big question about why do we need one Convention, and I think that was an important question to answer. And there was a lot of member states that were saying all the conventions, all the human rights, the Universal Declaration on Human Rights already cover persons with disabilities, and what we have to do is just to be more intentional in mainstreaming those rights. And how to do that? Through the treaty bodies, through the special procedures, et cetera. We had a foundational report that you may have heard about, that is the report of Theresa DeGeneres and Gerard Quinn, which analyzed and was actually requested by the Office of the High Commissioner that analyzed all the body of work of the treaty bodies and the special procedures to date, and that showed that persons with disabilities were not where to be seen, so that the mainstreaming was not happening. The mainstreaming cannot happen alone. We needed a twin-track approach. We needed the visibility, and we needed to have a tool for advocacy. Other question that was also raised was, this is about nondiscrimination, so we just need to make sure that people with disabilities is not discriminated into accessing the rights or enjoying the rights. And there was a proposal to actually create a convention with 5 articles, basically merely stating the non-discrimination principles. But this is also, and I think that's part of the learnings of the CRPD, non-discrimination is not enough. We're talking here about substantive equality. This is not about the needs of an individual nor of a group of individuals. This is about a systemic change. To make sure that persons that are outside of the circle enjoy their rights, their human rights, they have to be— there has to be a transformation in the system, a transformation of attitudes, a transformation of barriers, but also a new imagination that can come with new solutions and new responses. for the new situations. We also need to make sure when we are talking about substantive equality that this is about not only opening the door for people to enter. This is not about making sure that deaf students are sitting in the classroom. It is about making sure that deaf students are learning sign language and are getting interpretation. And that is different. And this is what requires the systemic change. So the meaningful participation and belonging and thriving and being embraced in our communities requires further action by member states and by the communities that welcome all of us. And of course, as I said, this is not only about to get into the ball, room. It is about to be able to dance, to be able to enjoy the party. So what was important? Our objective in the CRPD was about how do we create the enabling conditions, how do we facilitate persons with disabilities' rights enjoyment? And this is important because there was this discussion about how do we make sure that And member states were actually very interested in what are the interventions, what are the policies, what are the accommodations, the support that are required so that people with disabilities can enjoy their rights in and with human rights-based approaches. Because there are many ways in which you can say, tick the box, access to education, access to health, access to employment, but how do we make sure that those guarantees are also being provided through human rights-based approaches, through approaches that respect the agency of people, that are not imposed, but what people want and the way that they want, and how do we then create the support and the accommodation and the interventions that are needed. The CRPD strengthened the notion of legal capacity, something as basic as the recognition of a human being as a human being, However, that was transformational, not because we changed the notion of legal capacity, but because we invest in understanding how persons with disabilities could exercise their legal capacity and what were the tools, the accommodations, and the support that needed to be provided by member states to be able to secure that persons with disabilities enjoy their human rights. The impact was another question, and I think that 20 years— we're now celebrating the 20 years of the adoption of the CRPD in December, and one of the questions is, what is going to be the impact of the CRPD? Well, I have to say, although things are not perfect, it has been transformational, not only through the work of the CRPD Committee, of the Special Rapporteur, the mandate that was created, in 2014, or the work of other treaty bodies and the UPR. Now we even have members of other treaty bodies that are persons with disabilities, but that happened, and I go back to my first point, not because we were able to get the mainstreaming first, but actually because of the CRPD is that we were able to mainstream across of the rest of the system, and not only the human rights system. We are now seeing inclusive humanitarian action, we are now seeing inclusive discussions on climate action, we are now seeing the SDGs, the Millennium Development Goals, where there was no mention to persons with disabilities, whether after the adoption of the CRPD, the SDGs did extensively refer to persons with disabilities. So, the impact was clear. The tool allowed for the civil society, the academy, and the states to use it as an advocacy tool, but also, as important and beyond all the attitudinal change, it serves as a guiding framework. And as a Special Rapporteur, the things that I noticed when I did my country visits was the eagerness of member states to receive guidance. How do we do this? How do we advance? We are genuinely engaged and willing to engage in a conversation or engage in a policy change or in a practice that is evidence-based, that is human rights-based, and that is going to be meaningful for the people that are participating in these new interventions. So, it is quite important to have this legally binding document and to utilize it and to think forward as how is this going to serve to guide the actions that we want member states to be engaging with. And then, of course, this is a rich conversation and a multilateral conversation that should be as participatory as possible. It has been already mentioned. The CRPD but everything that is done in a participatory manner will result in better tools, better governance, more meaningful interventions that will transform the realities that we want to transform. So, I think that we have, of course, and we are in a very difficult moment, and we are all aware of a situation in a challenging context in which the human rights machinery, the multilateral system, seems to be under threat. And then it's harder to think about how do we reach consensus and how do we advance in the implementation of this puzzle, because I would like to think of the human rights system as a big puzzle in which each of the work that the treaty bodies, the special procedures, the member states, the UPR, civil society are building this big picture by advancing interpretation, by furthering understanding of one concept. So how do we get into that complex exercise in these very complex moment in which we are. But I think, like, as in art, you know, music and art, and even when we are discussing legal instruments, the creativity, the new imagination that we need to face the emergent issues always come after difficult times. When the difficult— when there are challenges, the creativity is like when you have the deadlines, right? Deadlines are the thing that inspires the creativity. But when you are struggling, when there are very strong challenges, the creativity and the need for engagement and the eagerness to engage increases. And we also have to use that as an opportunity to make sure that this discussion on the legally binding instrument is going to advance our puzzle, is going to help us to refocus on the people, to avoid what we saw during the COVID pandemic and how older people were neglected, to make sure that we don't repeat that again, and to make sure that we united because older people is not them and us. While we are thinking about this substantive equality, we're thinking about how do we belong, how do we be part, how do we become part of this community and how do we thrive. So, in creating that, we have an incredible opportunity to think outside the box, to further our understanding of the current human rights frameworks to be applied, to find innovative solutions to make sure that people with— older people, sorry, can enjoy their rights with agency, with independence, with dignity. How do we do that is our challenge, and we need all the brains, all the diplomatic skills, the experience we need, from procedural to substance, to demonstrate that this is possible. And this is the opportunity that we have ahead of us, and I'm pretty sure that with all your participation, we will do it. The Human Rights Council, it's already showing that leadership through this resolution, through the recognition of the right to a healthy environment, the Human Rights Council, the member states are showing their commitment and their leadership in how to move forward with this. And with that, I end. Thank you very much.


Philippines · Deputy Assistant Secretary · Maria Rozni-Fanko [36:37]:

Thank you, Catalina. It is great to engage you again. That was a very powerful presentation. I appreciate you for walking us through a kind of history of the CRPD and pointing out the good practices, the lessons learned, and the challenges. These lessons are very valuable and can inform this older persons process. Personally, your thoughts on thinking outside the box, on transformation, systemic change, these are important takeaways that I will take back to capital. Also, the experience of mainstreaming the rights of persons with disabilities is a very good one and something that perhaps this older persons process can try and follow. Thank you for that. At this point, I would like to introduce our last but certainly not the least resource speaker. She is Ms. Anna Biondi. She joined the European Parliament, then the CGIL in Rome and New York, where she was president of INCA CGIL USA. In 1998, she joined the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions office, later the International Trade Unions Confederation in Geneva, as secretary of the workers group at the International Labor Office. She was also Deputy Director of the ILO ACTRA from 2009 to 2023. Now retired, she serves as pro bono advisor to SPI-CGIL on international issues. Anna, please, you have the floor.


SPI-CGIL · Pro bono advisor · Anna Biondi [38:01]:

Thank you so much, Ms. Frango, and thank you so much, Chair, for the opportunity to participate in the debate as Order Person Representative Please pass also my congratulations to Ambassador Foradori, because yesterday afternoon I spoke for the first time, but we had to condense our speeches. I wanted to do it there. I think it was wonderful, by the way, that we have had this— such a rich discussion up to now. My CV represents a little bit of the wild card compared to the esteemed colleagues who have been involved in the preparation of the instrument for a long time. So I hope that bringing mostly my experience linked to the adoption and monitoring of ILO standards can be helpful. But above all, I want to stress that this is not just a personal statement. I want to bring the reflection that have been elaborated by my own organization, an organization of retired workers, pensioners, that has more than 2.5 million members in Italy, but also through the experience of GAROP, Age Platform Europe, and the NGO Committee on Aging. It will not surprise you if I say that civil society organizations are currently focused on the building blocks of the Convention, striving to create a solid basis for advancing the human rights of older persons all over the world. We strongly believe that substance should drive form and institutional design, not the other way around. Issues concerning concrete monitoring and enforcement arrangements can be developed progressively as negotiating matures, but we nevertheless appreciate that the program of the week also provides a slot for starting a dialogue about monitoring and implementation, both at national and international level. And I would like to share with you a few initial ideas on 4 dimensions. The first one is indeed accessibility and information. Establishing a legally binding instrument with clear concept and definition, which is translated in as many languages as possible, that is known and owned by older persons themselves, is the first step toward effective implementation and monitoring. Ultimately, the Convention will only achieve its full potential if rights holders know about it and are able to use it. Throughout this phase of elaboration of the instrument, accessible and user-friendly information, including offline, together with transparency and visibility of recommendations, will be essential. Technology can help make participation more inclusive. Web-based consultation and online submission are valuable tools in reference to interaction between government and civil society, for example, in preparing national inputs. But they should complement, not replace, the principle of oral hearing, in-person dialogue, and meaningful participation. As colleagues have already mentioned during the previous day, let's learn from the hiccups also to access to even this specific meeting to do better, issues of physical access, the provisions of tools in the room without unnecessary displacement, give the possibility of looking at processes via a rights-based approach. While we are currently dealing with these issues in reference to negotiations, it is clear that through this process we are also selecting positive examples that will be useful for future implementation. Awareness-raising and human rights education will also be crucial in supporting rights awareness and ensuring that rights are understood and claimed. The second set of thoughts is about international monitoring. It is evident that once we are drafting an international legally binding instrument, we must think on how to make it enforceable. Already in 1919, when the ILO was created and the first standards were adopted— and I remind you the powerful Convention 1, which states that workers should work not more than 8 hours per day in order to enjoy both rest and leisure— such a powerful statement that resonates more than ever, even after 160 7 years, a reporting procedure was established as part of the international supervisions. The experience of the UN human rights treaty bodies, as it was greatly explained, has also demonstrated the value of combining states' reporting obligation with independent international oversight. The drafting of the treaty provides an opportunity to consider innovative monitoring and implementation alongside well-known existing ones. Any future monitoring mechanism should ensure accountability, independent oversight of compliance, effective follow-up, and interpretative guidance, while also supporting implementation at the national level and access to just and effective remedies. The question before us is therefore not whether monitoring is necessary, But whether it is possible to innovate without losing effectiveness. Innovation should strengthen rather than increase reporting obligations. I think, Rosie, you said this in your opening statement. Technological tools, digital platforms, and clear indicators could help make monitoring more efficient while preserving the essential elements of accountability, independence, transparency, and meaningful participation. We are not starting from scratch. It was stated brilliantly in the previous session. Through the years, the participation of civil society organizations has also been widespread across the UN system. We welcome, therefore, the many statements— I would say all of them— from governments during the general discussion stating that civil society organizations must form part of the monitoring, partners or have a formal institutional role. The third set of thoughts regards the national implementation and monitoring. As already mentioned, when the CRPD was drafted, it included an innovative monitor framework which involves states' independent national monitoring institutions and civil society organizations for national-level implementation and monitoring. As demonstrated by its Article 33, effective implementation requires a national framework involving states, independent monitoring mechanisms, and civil society. The meaningful participation of organizations of older persons should therefore be at the heart of national implementation and monitoring arrangements. This is why we appreciate the inclusive process that started in February and is continuing in this session, with the involvement of many NGOs, civil society organizations that represent older persons, social actors as trade unions, academia, national human rights institutions, and international bodies. We are confident that what is happening now at the international level will be replicated at regional, national, and local levels. Since only through active participation of older persons' democratically chosen representatives, this path towards creation and eventual implementation and evaluation can be meaningful. Allow me to recall again the crucial role of national human rights institutions that can play both in supporting implementation and monitoring process. As the representative from the National Human Rights Institution from Poland stressed yesterday, we should not just count the number of programs that governments establish, but we need to redesign the systems that, even if the principle geared to everybody's benefits in theory, they work instead through inherent ageism and discrimination. National treaty implementation should address the roles of executive governments, parliaments, local authorities, the judiciary, and other relevant actors. And the true access to justice can only be implemented if effective mechanisms are in place. The 4th and last set of recommendations involve data and technical assistance. Another priority highlighted by civil society is the collection of data. No monitoring system can function effectively without reliable evidence. There remains a profound lack of information on older persons, particularly age-disaggregated data within national statistical systems. The convention should help address this gap by promoting the collection of reliable and comparable data that can support evidence-based policies and effective monitoring. A specific welcome work will be in reference to intersectional discrimination, where more and better analyzed data are necessary. I was impressed by the experience reported on the collaboration in Brazil between the government and the International Longevity Center from academia. More links need to be created as such, at national and regional level. Clear indicators underpinned by quality data will be essential components of both national implementation and international monitoring. Finally, technical assistance and international cooperation should form part of the overall implementation framework, supporting states in fulfilling their obligations and enabling the meaningful participation of older persons and their representative organization. As my colleagues at the podium, and I think everybody in this room is thinking, we convene in times when various quarters are questioning the relevance of multilateralism. This Working Group is therefore a welcome but engaging task to show that we can produce a relevant text in a reasonable amount of time and with a commitment to an effective, robust monitoring for adequate implementation. In New York over 15 years, in February in Geneva, and from last Monday in this first substantial working group, we have heard strong statements committed to this journey. As older persons here together with me, we look forward to building up not just a consensus, but an agreement to shape a truly transformative legally binding instrument.

Thank you.


Philippines · Deputy Assistant Secretary · Maria Rozni-Fanko [49:31]:

Thank you, Anya, for your important insights gained from extensive experience. We welcome the initial ideas that you have shared, including on accessible and user-friendly information, noted on accessibility offline, but the importance of in-person and meaningful engagement. Thank you also for stressing the opportunity presented by innovative technological approaches, but the need to preserve the essential elements of monitoring. I also note especially the emphasis on the active participation of older persons, their representative organizations, as well as NHRI and other stakeholders throughout the implementation and monitoring of the treaty. And thank you for the reminder that reliable and comparable data is key to the— to our endeavor, and that international cooperation would be indispensable as we go through this process. We have listened to excellent presentations of speakers, and I hope that these presentations will help delegations inform their priorities and their positions. At this juncture, I wish to give the floor back to you, Mr. Chairperson, to preside over the focus debate. Thank you.


IGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [50:41]:

Thank you, Madam Chair, for conducting this segment of our plenary discussions, and of course to all panelists for their very valuable contributions. All of you are very highly qualified panelists and have provided us an overview and suggestions of elements that we can consider in one of the pillars of our negotiations that will be the section on implementation and monitoring. Well, having said that, I will now open the floor for an interactive discussion, starting with member states. So member states that wish to take the floor are invited to raise their nameplates. Germany has the floor.


Germany [51:36]:

Thank you for giving me the floor, and I would really like to thank the panelists for this good start into the day. I think we had an excellent wrap-up from the Philippines on the discussions we've had in previous days on how we could envisage monitoring. She put everything on the table, and this really helps us forward. I would like to draw your attention to the work that's done currently by the UNECE Standing Working Group on Aging and the Population Unit of the UNECE, which is implementing the MIPAA process for this region, and we are currently drawing up a new regional implementation strategy. UNECE's Population Unit and Standing Working Group are strongly working together with the Statistics Unit. So we are collecting really data on older persons to make the monitoring of MIPAA in the region better. There is also the UNECE database on aging where you can see best practices and implementation programs of member states in one of the UN languages plus the national language to get informed what's going on. I would like to know what role could we envisage for the regional commissions of the UN and how do we incorporate the knowledge gained by the periodic reviews and appraisals of MIPAA that are there. We are now in the 5th review cycle, which is led by the UN regional commissions. We should bear that also in mind. We're not starting from scratch. We have a political tool, which is MIPAA, which has already laid a certain foundation and gave us a knowledge base. And I think we're not talking only about human rights, but we're also talking about political action to make these human rights reality, and this where MIIPAC plays an important role in implementing and making human rights a reality. Thank you.


IGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [53:35]:

I thank the distinguished representative from Germany, and I give the floor to the delegation of Austria.


Austria [53:47]:

Thank you, Chair. Austria welcomes the opportunity to discuss treaty monitoring arrangements at this early stage of the process. The effectiveness of any future legally binding instrument will depend not only on the rights to— the rights it recognizes, but also on the mechanisms established to ensure their implementation in practice. Austria supports robust provisions on implementation, monitoring, and accountability. At the same time, we believe that form should follow substance. The precise monitoring architecture should be developed in light of the rights, obligations, and implementation requirements that will ultimately be included in the legally binding instrument. Nevertheless, some basic elements already seem important. First, the future instrument should provide for regular reporting by States Parties. Such reporting can create a structured dialogue on implementation, identify progress and challenges, and support the gradual development of guidance and good practice. Second, the Convention should ensure ensure the meaningful participation of older persons in their representative organizations in implementation and monitoring. Older persons must not only be the subject of reporting, they must be active participants in assessing whether rights are realized in practice. Third, Austria sees particular value in national implementation monitoring mechanisms. Experience from other human rights treaties, including the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, shows that national mechanisms can play an important role in identifying implementation gaps, collecting information, engaging with civil society, and preparing the ground for international review. This could be especially relevant for the rights of older persons, where many challenges arise in everyday settings such as care, housing, health, mobility, access to services, digital participation, and protection from violence or neglect. In this context, Austria would also encourage building on existing reporting frameworks and practices. Where obligations overlap with those under other human rights instruments, existing reporting processes could be used or adapted. In order to avoid duplication and reduce the reporting burden on We should not reinvent the wheel where similar or identical obligations are already being monitored, but rather seek coherence and complementary across the human rights system. Fourth, national human rights institutions should have a clear role in the future monitoring framework. Their independence and proximity to national realities make them important actors in promoting, protecting, and monitoring implementation. Austria is aware that the wider treaty body system is currently under discussion and that concerns exist regarding workload, efficiency, and duplication. These concerns should be taken seriously. However, they should not lead to weak monitoring. A legally binding instrument requires credible monitoring systems. Simplification must not come at the expense of visibility, accountability, or the ability to address emerging issues.

issues.

The future monitoring framework should also be supported by age-disaggregated data without arbitrary upper age limits, as well as indicators, awareness-raising, human rights education, access to justice, and effective remedies. In conclusion, Austria supports a monitoring system that is effective, realistic, and connected to existing human rights structures. It should strengthen implementation at the national level and contribute to a more coherent international protection framework for the human rights of older persons.

Thank you.


IGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [57:37]:

I thank the distinguished delegate from Austria.

I now call on France.


France [57:48]:

Thank you, Chairperson. Ladies and gentlemen, we welcome this Thank you. Item on treaty monitoring arrangements. Thank you for placing it on our agenda. It's important to have this discussion now regarding the accountability mechanism to be put in place. The instrument needs to have a dual mechanism to ensure the effectiveness of the instrument ensuring monitoring and to consolidate the coherent United Nations human rights architecture, ensuring a follow-up that is coherent and similar to that carried out by the other treaty bodies. The question of the accountability mechanism is therefore central. States must question the contours of this mechanism, namely the creation of an ad hoc treaty body, the submission of periodic reports on their deadlines, the launch of investigation proceedings, and the follow-up of individual cases. France calls on its partners to address the difficulties of the current treaty system, which is faced with delays in transmission of reports and insufficient resources to organize regular meetings. The fragmentation of the treaty bodies also leads to disparities in the application of individual complaints mechanisms and in the periodicity of state hearings, which could encourage certain situations to be brought to the attention of committees, consulates, be more operational. In this context, and in view of the spirit of reform underway at the United Nations, France believes that the accountability mechanism of the future instrument should not present excessive complexity or an additional burden on states and the United Nations system with a view to preserving their ability to implement commitments. France therefore suggests considering innovative solutions to develop a lean relevant and functional accountability mechanism. This may be defined in the text of the conventional subsequent Danish Protocol. France reaffirms that a clear, legible, and progressive architecture is an essential condition for the effectiveness and ownership of the future instrument.


IGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [59:58]:

Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of France, and I now


Chile [1:00:13]:

Thank you, Chairperson. We thank all the panelists for their presentations which enrich our discussions this morning. I wish to confirm that Chile considers that an international treaty is only fully effective if it has a solid mechanism with ongoing dialogue with the States Parties and the national human rights systems. Chile agrees with the proposal to have an expert body to supervise the application of the future treaty and a state obligation to provide periodic reports on measures taken to render the rights in the convention effective. The experience shows that treaty bodies have a crucial role not only in supervising but also cooperating and providing technical assistance and exchange of good practice among states. We believe that the Future Committee must play a constructive role supporting progressive implementation of the obligations and developing consistent application of the treaty. We agree with the importance of significant participation by older persons in organizing their organizations in the work of the treaty bodies. The experience of other treaty bodies, in particular the CRPD, shows that participation by rights holders strengthens the quality of dialogue with States Parties and the effectiveness of international supervision bodies. It is important that the future treaty create or strengthen in national coordination mechanisms and adequate assessment of progress on the rights of older persons. Chile believes that the follow-up mechanism must have an adequate balance between rigorous monitoring of the application of the rights and cooperation and technical assistance to support states in implementing the Treaty. We are convinced that this will contribute decisively to ensuring that the future instrument not only sets new international standards but also produces true change in the lives of older persons. I thank you.


IGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [1:02:28]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Chile and I now give the floor to the delegation of Malaysia.


Malaysia [1:02:37]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We appreciate the invaluable insights shared by the distinguished panelists and moderator, and we wish to echo the various elements highlighted by them. Malaysia recognizes that a legally binding instrument must be accompanied by credible arrangements that support implementation, constructive dialogue, and measurable progress in the enjoyment of the rights of older persons. The effectiveness of a monitoring framework should therefore be assessed not merely by the number of reports produced, but by whether it contributes to tangible improvements in their lives. Therefore, we must capitalize the opportunity of having the wealth of resources that we could refer to in the forms of other established conventions and mechanisms before us. Any mechanism should possess relevant expertise, operate independently, reflect equitable geographical representation, and the diversity of legal and social systems. The framework should also avoid unnecessary duplication with existing treaty bodies, the Universal Periodic Review, the Independent Expert, and other relevant mechanisms. Coordination, information sharing, and appropriate use of existing national reports could reduce administrative burdens, particularly for developing countries and states with limited capacity. We see merit in utilizing AI in assisting us towards this end. Furthermore, technical assistance and capacity building should contribute to implementation. Monitoring should assist states in strengthening legislation, institutions, data collection, public services, and professional capacity. Malaysia looks forward to the continued constructive engagement without prejudging the final form of the monitoring arrangements. I thank you, Mr.

Chair Patois. Thank you, Mr.


IGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [1:04:25]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Malaysia, and I now give the floor to the delegation of Australia.


Australia [1:04:35]:

Thank you, Chair, Rapporteur. Australia welcomes these rich insights from the panel. Indeed, the design of monitoring arrangements is a valuable component of any treaty working group's discussions. Thank you particularly for elaborating practical creative and informed pathways to addressing the principles and concerns raised by the Working Group. Of these, I have 4. Firstly, Australia supports treaty monitoring arrangements that are meaningful, proportionate, and aligned with existing reporting obligations. Secondly, reporting that is focused, useful, and manageable rather than duplicative. Thirdly, we support negotiations as an opportunity to approach treaty reporting obligation with fresh thinking. and to avoid unnecessary duplication across UN rights mechanisms. And fourthly, alignment with existing human rights mechanisms, so the Convention fills genuine gaps and does not duplicate rights, obligations, or expectations already captured elsewhere.

Thank you.


IGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [1:05:34]:

I thank the distinguished representative of Australia, and I give the floor now to Iran.


Iran (Islamic Republic of) [1:05:45]:

Different views expressed today.

Regarding the future monitoring mechanism, Iran believes that it should be designed in a manner that is effective, practical, and responsive to the specific objectives of this future instrument.

If a committee is established, it should ensure equitable geographical representation so that all regions are fairly represented.

Thank you.

The mechanism should promote dialogue, cooperation, and technical assistance while respecting national circumstances and avoiding unnecessary financial and reporting burdens, particularly for developing countries.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.


IGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [1:06:28]:

I thank the distinguished delegate from Iran, and I give the floor to the representative of Belgium.


Belgium [1:06:38]:

Thank you, Chair Rapporteur. Let me start by thanking the panelists and the Chair Rapporteur for organizing this discussion. With regards to the monitoring mechanism, Belgium remains attentive to the need to strike an appropriate balance between existing reporting requirements and ensuring the effective implementation and monitoring of any future legally binding instrument. Belgium considers that the existing monitoring mechanisms provide a solid and credible basis for monitoring of the implementation of states' human rights obligations. In this regard, we wish to underline the importance of systematic age mainstreaming across the treaty body system. We recall that this was also one of the recommendations of the Open-Ended Working Group on Aging. Such an approach would allow for swifter progress in the advancements of the rights of older persons within the broader human rights architecture, while simultaneously enhancing the expertise of both state parties and treaty bodies. In doing so, it could also generate valuable experience and lessons to inform the ongoing discussions on the LBI. In the context of limited resources and persistent capacity challenges facing the treaty body system, the establishment of an additional standalone committee may not be warranted at this stage. Any such proposal would require a careful cost-benefit analysis to assess its added value and ensure that it strengthens in a meaningful and effective manner the monitoring and advancement of the rights of older persons. I thank you.


IGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [1:08:09]:

I thank the distinguished representative from Belgium, and I now give the floor to the delegation of Türkiye.


Türkiye [1:08:18]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Turkey believes that monitoring arrangements should assist states in translating international commitments into effective national legislation, policies, and practice. In this regard, Turkey sees merit in considering a dual-track monitoring system, drawing on the experience of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, while reflecting the specific rights, circumstances, and needs of older persons. Such an approach would combine strong national accountability with international oversight promoting effective implementation while respecting the different legal and institutional systems of States. At the national level, State Parties could designate government focal points to coordinate implementation, establish or identify independent monitoring mechanisms in accordance with their national frameworks, and ensure the meaningful participation of older persons and their representative organizations through implementation and monitoring processes. Their respective— their perspectives are essential for developing responsive policies and strengthening accountability. At the international level, an expert body could review periodic reports submitted by state parties, provide constructive recommendations, and support the consistent interpretation and implementation of the Convention. Such a mechanism should operate in harmony with the existing UN human rights treaty system, avoiding unnecessary duplication while complementing the work of existing treaty bodies. An efficient and coherent monitoring framework will reduce reporting burdens and strengthen the overall effectiveness of the international human rights architecture. Türkiye also considers that implementation should remain centered at the national level. The future instrument should encourage States Parties to adopt appropriate legislative, administrative, and policy measures, strengthen institutional coordination, and promote cooperation with national human rights institutions, academia, and civil society organizations to support evidence-based implementation. Türkiye also attaches particular importance to strengthening statistical capacity and ensuring the collection of reliable, comparable, and age-disaggregated data. Which are essential for informed policymaking, measuring process, and periodically reviewing implementation. Türkiye believes that a practical, efficient, and complementary dual-track monitoring system combining robust national implementation with constructive international supervision would strengthen national ownership, promote accountability, and support the progressive realization of human rights of all persons.


IGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [1:11:01]:

I thank Türkiye and I call on Peru.


Peru [1:11:12]:

Thank you, Chairperson. I welcome the panelists' valuable contributions. We believe that the provisions on follow-up and monitoring will be crucial to ensure that commitments translate into real changes in the lives of older persons. The experience of the Inter-American Convention on the Rights of Older Persons is particularly useful in this respect. On the basis of that experience, the mechanism, which could be an expert committee, should not be limited to assessing fulfillment through periodic reports but also provide technical assistance, exchange of good practice, and follow-up of recommendations in a reasonable timeframe with indicators. As also indicated during the panelists' statements, it is important to note that what cannot be measured cannot be improved, and in this respect, national capacities need to be supported. Technical cooperation and technical assistance will be important for this. The Inter-American experience also shows the complementarity with effective protection against violations of rights through individual complaints, for example, that could be— this could be assessed during the negotiations. It is important to ensure significant accessible participation by older persons themselves and their representative organisations, as well as NHRI and civil society. We need to have a solid participatory effective follow-up system which is sustainable, provides constructive dialogue, and cooperates with national mechanisms in a significant way. I thank you.


IGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [1:13:10]:

I thank Thank you, Peru. And I now call on Uruguay.


Uruguay [1:13:21]:

Thank you, Chairperson. Uruguay welcomes the opportunity to have this preliminary exchange on possible follow-up and implementation mechanisms for a future instrument. This discussion will need to be built on further at a later stage of the negotiation process. The effectiveness of a future instrument is closely linked not only with the nature of its substantive provisions but also with the existence of mechanisms that contribute to effective implementation and strengthening of the protection of human rights of older persons. Thus, it is important that the future instrument have clear provisions for national application. And an international follow-up mechanism that is specialized and independent. This must support the implementation of treaty obligations, promote constructive dialogue, promote cooperation among states, facilitate exchange of good practice, and contribute to strengthening national capacities. Uruguay also believes it's important that the mechanism contribute to accountability and progressive development of standards, avoiding duplications and providing appropriate complementarity with the existing mechanisms within the international human rights system. Finally, Uruguay believes it is essential to ensure significant participation by older persons and their representative organizations in the follow-up process. Their experience and their points of view are essential for more effective, inclusive human rights centered implementation. I thank you.


IGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [1:14:59]:

I thank the distinguished representative from Uruguay, and I now give the floor to the delegation of Israel.


Israel [1:15:12]:

Just one second.

Sorry.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair. We wish to thank you and the panelists for the enlightening presentations setting us off in this important discussion. Being mindful of the role of monitoring mechanisms in promoting effective implementation and accountability, it is Israel's view that in-depth discussions should take place on the issue of introducing an additional monitoring mechanism and the construction of such mechanism. We have to carefully consider the concerns regarding introducing an additional mechanism, taking into consideration challenges faced under existing mechanisms. We should take into consideration that introducing a mechanism— a reporting mechanism will increase the reporting and constructive dialogue weight, especially due to the lack of coordination between the various treaty bodies and the lack of unification of questionnaires. To the extent that it is decided in our negotiation to support establishment of an additional reporting mechanism, we have to be innovative and constructive in shaping the mechanism in a way that will allow it to be efficient and not create an additional excessive burden on treaty bodies as well as states. For example, the group could explore simplified reporting mechanisms, use of technological tools, unification of reporting mechanisms and streamlining or coordination of reporting schedules, and so forth. The discussion can also be informed by experience of monitoring procedures in other fields and organizations. It is also recommended that the group engage in dialogue and cooperate with existing treaty bodies in the discussion of the formulation of the monitoring mechanism, and thought should be given in our negotiations on how the new treaty body could engage— sorry, thought should be given at a later stage on how a new treaty body could engage with existing treaty bodies inter alia on specific coordination issues, for example, on reporting constructive— on reporting and constructive dialogue dates, unification or simplification of questionnaires, etc., all for the sake of efficiency and in order to streamline monitoring procedures and avoiding unnecessary duplication and excessive increase of the burden on treaty bodies as well as on reporting states in order not to deter accession to the instrument. With respect to timing, we are of the view that this discussion could be postponed to a later stage of the discussion after we have made progress with the discussion on substance. Thank you.


IGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [1:17:57]:

I thank the distinguished delegate from Israel, and this was the last speaker from the member states. Are we missing China? Okay, China has the floor, please.


China [1:18:13]:

Mr. Chair, the effective monitoring and implementation of human rights treaties are essential to advancing the protection of human rights. Otherwise, efforts risk remaining merely rhetorical As mentioned before by China, the design of a monitoring system for the protection of rights of older persons should be considered within a broader process of reform of the human rights treaty bodies, drawing on the experiences and lessons of other treaty bodies, including report backlogs, undue expansion of mandates, as well as politicization and double standards. China stresses that This working group is an intergovernmental process. While we recognize the importance of the participation of all stakeholders, however, the party— however, the parties to any future instrument will be sovereign states. We hope that discussions will be conducted on a basis of consensus among states and in full respect of their will so as to avoid any negative impact on the future acceptability of this instrument. Thank you.


IGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [1:19:26]:

I thank China and I call on Cuba.


Cuba [1:19:35]:

Thank you, Chairperson. In previous days and this morning, we have had different discussions on the implementation mechanism of the future international instrument, and this discussion is likely to continue into the future in the working group. So we're providing a preliminary vision regarding this topic. Firstly, as an international follow-up and implementation mechanism for an instrument, there needs to be a treaty body. Cuba supports this, and the system of periodic reports by States Parties in line with the established practice of the human rights treaty bodies in the UN. The future treaty body must be guided by the principles of genuine cooperation, technical assistance, and capacity building, as well as constructive dialogue which respects the sovereign equality of all States. Objectivity, impartiality, and non-selectivity must also be pillars of the implementation of this future treaty. It is crucial to fully respect the specific mandate of the future legally binding international instrument. The financing of this treaty body must come from the United Nations ordinary budget through assigned quotas and not voluntary contributions in order to guarantee its independence, financial predictability, and non-politicization. Cuba supports the participation of older persons in the activities of the future treaty body in line with the practice of other human rights treaty bodies that other colleagues have also mentioned in their statements, including CEDAW CRC, CERAD and CRPD. At the same time, the intergovernmental nature of the review of implementation of the future international instrument must be maintained. I thank you.


IGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [1:21:46]:

Muchas gracias.

Thank you.

Is there any other member state wishing to take the floor at this stage? I see none. Then we will turn to national human rights institutions, and the first one is the Commission on Human Rights from the Philippines.


Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines [1:22:08]:

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairperson. Excellencies, the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines aligns with the statement of GANRI, the Asia-Pacific Forum of National Human Rights Institutions, and the joint statement of the group of NHRI present here this week. The IGWGs should guarantee the meaningful participation of older persons, their voices and experiences as central to the whole process of the LBI development, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation. Binding human rights obligation primarily rests on the state. They must protect, respect, and fulfill human rights of older persons and provide access to remedies for human rights abuses and States should ensure that non-state actors, which includes but not limited to individuals, businesses, corporations, among others, are not impairing or violating older persons' human rights. The Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines understands that deliberation on treaty monitoring arrangements during this week can be premature, but given the opportunity today, and we thank the panelists, the Philippines, for moderating this segment and their role in the core group, we can ponder on any of the following possible mechanisms of monitoring. This is not an exhaustive list, and the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines looks forward to further elaborating these recommendations in succeeding sessions of the IGWG and during intersessional period. One, a group of independent human rights experts that form the treaty body to review states' Second, periodic reporting of either 4 or 5-year cycle with possibility of national and regional multi-country level follow-up reviews that can utilize the UN regional hubs to promote and improve cooperation among countries and regions. Third, national monitoring, reporting, and follow-up that can set indicators to measure states' progress to comply with the LBI. Fourth, Community-based monitoring, such as older persons monitoring councils composed of older persons, civil society, and members of the local government. Fifth, consideration of community-sourced information and recognition of citizen-generated data as official data in addition to national government statistics. Sixth, consideration of a— of the mandate of A-status national human rights institutions monitoring the compliance of states; and seventh, an individual communications or complaints procedure embedded in the LBI. The Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines acknowledges the instrumental role of the IGWG Chair and the OHCHR Secretariat in their coordination among member states, older persons, CSOs, NHRI, UN bodies, and other relevant stakeholders to implement and Human Rights Council Resolution 58/13. This process is a monumental undertaking. NHRI, such as the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines, continue to lend their support through their monitoring and advisory functions. Thank you very much. Mabuhay tayong lahat.


IGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [1:25:19]:

I thank the Commission on Human Rights from the Philippines. I now give the floor to the National Commission for Human Rights of Greece.


Greek National Commission for Human Rights [1:25:27]:

Thank you. The Greek National Commission for Human Rights has constantly advocated since 2015 for a legally binding instrument on the human rights of older persons. We remain committed to this objective and welcome the commencement of the drafting process for a comprehensive LBI. Such an instrument should provide the guiding principles, codify the existing standards, and enhance the visibility of older persons by reinforcing the shift from viewing them as vulnerable groups in need of protection to recognize them as rights holders and active members of society entitled to exercise their rights on an equal basis, as many speakers prior to me have emphasized. In our view, the Convention would benefit from clear state commitments as a foundation for effective implementation. This could include addressing ageism and intersecting discrimination, ensuring access to long-term care and quality health services, promoting independent living, and responding to emerging challenges, including digital inclusion and artificial intelligence. To support implementation, the LBI could also benefit from an independent and effective international monitoring mechanism as part of its institutional framework. The instrument should preserve and complement, in our opinion, the protection afforded by existing UN core human rights treaties, particularly the CRPD, as we heard from the experts. At the same time, it could build on the experience of existing treaty bodies while taking into account the financial and institutional realities facing the UN human rights system. In this regard, consideration could be given to establishing a dedicated body of independent experts with a mandate comparable to those of other treaty bodies and adequate resources. Such a mechanism could help ensure the consistent interpretation and implementation of international standards relating to older persons. Beyond state reporting and individual communications, we will welcome further discussion on ways to address systemic issues more effectively. States may also wish to reflect on the contribution that NHRIs can make in identifying systemic patterns of violation. Consideration could also be given to accessible urgent action procedures and to ensuring the meaningful participation Participation of older persons and their representative organizations throughout implementation monitoring. International monitoring is likely to be more more effective when supported by strong national implementation. Paris principles compliant NHRI can play an important role in implementing and monitoring the convention, provided of course that they are equipped with the necessary legal mandate, capacity, and resources. The Greek National Commission on the remaining agenda items aligns its myself with the statements already delivered by our networks, GANRI and ENRI.

Thank you.


IGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [1:28:13]:

I thank the National Commission for Human Rights from Greece, and I now give the floor to the National Human Rights Committee from Qatar.


National Human Rights Committee [1:28:26]:

Chair, the effectiveness of any international instrument will be closely linked to the presence of effective and clear tools for monitoring arrangements and accountability. We must develop measurable criteria to evaluate the progress made in the implementation of these commitments. It is important to strengthen the role of national human rights organizations when it comes to the follow-up and on the implementation of these, strengthening the cooperation with UN mechanisms to guarantee the effective implementation of this instrument and to guarantee the protection of older persons. I thank you kindly.


IGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [1:29:09]:

I thank the representative of the Human Rights Committee of Qatar, and I now give the floor to the Prosecutor General for Human Rights of Guatemala. Thank you.


Guatemala · Prosecutor General for Human Rights [1:29:21]:

Thank you, Chair. The Prosecutor's Office for Human Rights believes that it is timely that we evaluate 3 important aspects. One, the consideration of a committee of experts which has these essential functions, namely receiving reports from governments that detail progress and obstacles in the implementation of the rights of older persons. Secondly, a communications mechanism, individual communications mechanism, that is, it should include an optional protocol that allows for older persons or organizations to bring complaints against the International Committee when all administrative or judicial avenues have been exhausted in their country. 3, an investigative or a self-initiating inquiry mechanism in which there is the authority to investigate cases when there is reliable information that systematic violations are being committed in their countries. I thank you kindly.


IGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [1:30:26]:

Muchas gracias.

Thank you very much.

The floor is to the German Institute for Human Rights.


German Institute for Human Rights [1:30:35]:

Thank you, Chair, for giving me the floor. Excellencies, colleagues, and friends, allow me to congratulate the panelists and the Chair for this rich basis to this discussion on the topic. The new legally binding instrument will also be judged by how effective, modern, and future-proof its monitoring mechanism is designed to be. Therefore, we particularly welcome the discussion on this point. Assessment and monitoring are necessary to ensure the implementation of the rights and standards agreed upon as part of this transiting process for a legally binding instrument to protect the rights of older persons. A legally binding instrument without effective monitoring would be a toothless piece of paper. Therefore, the drafting process must ensure a meaningful monitoring process that is swift enough to guarantee a positive impact on the daily lives of older persons. Older persons do not have the time to wait years for systems to be adapted to fully enjoy their human rights. Monitoring mechanisms can be carried out At the international level by an international panel of experts, commonly referred to as treaty bodies, and at the national level by national experts. From my experience of working in a national human rights institute, monitoring through national-specific monitoring mechanisms is very effective. We already have good examples through the national monitoring bodies to the CRPD and CAT. Till today, a lot of existing human rights institutions or equality bodies are in charge of those mechanisms. Their findings are fruitful resources to support governments in ensuring the best implementation through laws, policies, and safeguards. The existing monitoring of current human rights conventions has long been the subject of criticism, and this process also gives us the opportunity to discuss effective solutions and consider how we can create something new. To do this, we must be open-minded, but also keep in mind that new ideas must be just as effective as the existing monitoring mechanism. It is the right time to brainstorm for new ideas which are effective as the current monitoring system. This includes the election of the experts to ensure gender and regional balance, but also how often experts can be re-elected. We want to ensure that the implementation of new legally binding instruments of the rights of older persons is monitored in a meaningful way. I thank you.


IGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [1:33:08]:

I thank the distinguished representative from the German Institute for Human Rights and also our former UN expert, independent expert on the enjoyment of human rights of older persons. Thank you for your contribution. I now turn to NGOs, and the first one is Amnesty International.


Amnesty International [1:33:29]:

Thank you, panelists, for this very helpful and insightful conversation. Amnesty International welcomes the opportunity to participate in this preliminary exchange of views on possible monitoring and implementation mechanisms. We believe that a specific debate about monitoring and implementation should follow from concrete discussions of the content of a future LBI. However, we are prepared to offer some preliminary comments. It is essential that any treaty pertaining to the rights of older persons be accompanied by a robust monitoring and implementation mechanism. The role of the mechanism should be to assist States in the promotion and protection of the rights of older persons through monitoring of national implementation, including through dialogue with States. A monitoring mechanism shall also have the competence to consider individual cases and to promote effective remedies and accountability at the national level. A treaty without an effective means to further implementation would undermine the rights of older people and therefore the purpose of the treaty itself. We are well aware of the current challenges that the treaty body system faces, including resource constraints and reporting burdens faced by States, among other issues. Therefore, consideration should be given to a monitoring mechanism that is efficient, sustainable, and tailored to the specific context of older persons' rights, and which complements existing mechanisms. We propose the following considerations for future reporting mechanism. First, there must be strong complementarity with existing mechanisms, particularly treaty bodies whose mandates already address issues relevant to older persons. Complementarity with existing regional mechanisms mentioned by the panelists will also be crucial. Second, delegates, delegates must draw on examples of flexible reporting models, such as, for example, the Committee on Enforced Disappearances. Which calls for a comprehensive initial review followed by more focused subsequent reviews as necessary. Third, the monitoring mechanism must streamline reporting arrangements, building on ongoing efforts to enhance coordination between committees and reduce unnecessary duplications. Fourth, further efficiency could be created by giving any implementation body investigative and preventive functions, such as an urgent action procedure or country visits and inquiry procedures, which would allow it to respond rapidly to grave or systematic violations of the human rights of older persons, including during situations of humanitarian crisis, emergencies, and armed conflict. Fifth, the monitoring body should seek maximum coordination with existing national mechanisms that could be particularly relevant to the implementation of the treaty, including but not limited to national prevention mechanisms, national mechanisms established under the CRPD, and NHRIs. In addition to these recommendations, Amnesty International believes the treaty should provide for an individual communications procedure ensuring access to international remedy where domestic avenues have been exhausted and failed. This procedure should align as closely as possible with existing individual communications procedures to promote consistency and reduce administrative burdens on states and rights holders. Finally, meaningful participation should be a defining feature of the monitoring framework, including direct engagement with rights holders, particularly older persons themselves, regular consultation with representative organizations of older persons, accessible and inclusive review processes, including the provision of reasonable accommodation where required, and opportunities for engagement beyond Geneva, including through regional consultations, digital participation, and locally accessible formats. Remedies must be accessible to older persons, including those with disabilities, low literacy levels, or limited access to digital digital technology. Thank you.


IGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [1:36:57]:

I thank the representative of Amnesty International. I now give the floor to AgeWell Foundation.


AgeWell Foundation [1:37:06]:

Mr. Chair, delegates, and friends, as a civil society organization working daily with thousands of older people, we stress that the success of this treaty will be judged not by the debates in Geneva, but by whether it reaches millions of old people in villages, towns, and cities across the Global South. We support a dedicated treaty body with strong oversight powers. However, monitoring must go far, far beyond Geneva and a handful of advocates who are present here. For this instrument to be meaningful, it must deliver real accountability on the ground. We therefore urge the member states to establish strong yet flexible national monitoring mechanisms and mandatory participation of older persons themselves, not just a few NGOs. Independent national focus points or repertoires. Regular and transparent national action plans with measurable targets and age-disaggregated data. Accessible complaint mechanisms and older persons with— where older persons with low literacy, disabilities, or limited digital access can actually use it. International cooperation and capacity building. To support developing countries in implementing and monitoring.

Mr.

Chair, older persons in Global South cannot afford another treaty that exists only on paper and in meeting rooms in Geneva. Let us build monitoring arrangements that ensure rights are realized where they are— they matter the most, in the daily lives of older persons everywhere. Nothing about us without us must come as a lived reality, not just a slogan in this room. Thank you, Chair. And if you allow me, I would like to share good news with all of us who are present here. Yesterday at New York, finally, one full paragraph has been added in the SDGs to support old people. This is something that everybody has been wanting for the last 13 years, ever since SDGs were set up. Now it has been approved by the competent authorities. Thank you.


IGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [1:39:42]:

I thank the representative of AgeWell Foundation for his contribution and the announcement, and I give the floor to the Center for Global Non-Killing.


Center for Global Non-Killing [1:39:56]:

Dear human beings, Mr. Chair, Excellencies and panelists, thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, everyone everywhere, greetings of proactive human rights. There is need to go beyond top-down approaches. There are numerous possibilities enabling us to do so, to become more equal, reciprocal, and universal in procedures as well. First, We can be inspired by the Universal Periodic Review. State members to the future treaty can systematically or willingly include a paragraph on older persons' situation and their state progresses in their national UPR reports. States could already do that, both in reports and recommendations. Moreover, the treaty itself could have a peer-to-peer mechanism in whatever form. Secondly, peaceful settlement of disputes. Integrating conciliation, mediation, and the like into national law is a long-term process. It has started in many countries and regions. It is found in many Indigenous traditions. We may encourage this. We can include it in the treaty itself. No complaint mechanism without a preliminary mediation attempt at the international level. We have fundamental human rights and freedoms. We also need fundamental human rights methods. Which do not hinder or worsen, that enhance situations. Peaceful settlement of disputes is one of these fundamental methods. Thirdly, resources. Let me be very blatant: humanity is immensely rich. Wealth and infrastructures as examples, no doubt. We all need to learn how to use our resources in a sustainable way. We also need to learn how to share them much better. Older persons most often may be among the richest. They may also be among the costliest. This will need to be monitored. Integrating a human rights-based economic perspective in our monitoring and practices is an interesting possibility, a worthy challenge. Let us enrich our discussions and practices. We are working towards a fulfilled and peaceful future. Thank you, Chair.


IGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [1:42:09]:

I thank the representative of the Center for Global Non-Killing, and I now give the floor to AARP.


AARP [1:42:17]:

Thank you, Chair. Thank you too to the panelists, including especially an older person's representative voice. As a member of the Global Alliance for the Rights of Older People, GAROP, AARP is pleased to contribute to this discussion on treaty monitoring arrangements. We work with organizations around the world at— in GARAP to support the human rights of older persons, and we wish to highlight 2 elements from GARAP's joint consensus position on the conceptual framework, underlying principles, and possible scope of a convention that are particularly relevant here. Strong treaty monitoring requires a strong treaty to monitor, one grounded in transformation and the equal enjoyment of human rights. The first element we highlight, as others have pointed out today already, participation is a core principle to ensure effective human rights protection. This is a right that needs full elaboration in the substantive content of the treaty, but must also be reflected in the methods of work to elaborate it. Implement it, and enforce it. Treaty monitoring procedures should provide for the full, meaningful, and effective participation of older persons and their representative organizations and national human rights institutions in that procedure. Such monitoring procedures should be practical, accessible, and responsive to local realities. The treaty should also provide for a role for civil society organizations, in particular older persons' representative organizations and national human rights institutions, to promote and monitor the implementation of the treaty and should address the roles of executive government, parliaments, local authorities, the judiciary, and civil society bodies in its monitoring and implementation. The second element we highlight that the treaty should have a structural element of general obligations. These serve to articulate States Parties' general human rights obligations in relation to each of the articles within it. For example, one such obligation would be adopting all appropriate legislative, administrative, and other measures for the implementation of the rights that are recognized in the treaty and ensuring that resources are allocated. Another such obligation would be taking all necessary measures to ensure that private actors do not violate the human rights of older persons and to give effect to their positive obligations in this regard. Without these guideposts making state obligations explicit, treaty monitoring could not be effective. In closing, strong treaty monitoring requires a strong treaty. to monitor. Thank you.


IGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [1:45:11]:

I thank the representative of AARP and I give the floor to International Disability Alliance.


International Disability Alliance [1:45:21]:

Muchas gracias.

Thank you very much, Chair, for affording me the floor. From the International Disability Alliance, I would like to first thank— express my appreciation for the comments on the impact of the rights of persons with disabilities over the last 20 years, and in particular, the work of the treaty bodies created by the conventions, and likewise the independent monitoring mechanisms domestically which have launched since then. We support the comments made by other comments from civil society promoting mechanisms for monitoring and that are robust, broad, and have a broad range of authority nationally and internationally. There was the very complete presentation from Amnesty International as an example of this. The practice of the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has made it clear that often when we— the monitor, independent monitoring role is assigned to a preexisting NHRI, They often don't have the resources necessary to complete this role. So that could be addressed in a convention, a future convention. Now, on the international front, international monitoring arrangements or mechanisms, I have a series of comments. The first is that the— in the current context, Which we all know, scant resources internationally, for example, in the international system, that is. This should not— well, there's also a need to innovate, but these should not lead to a level of monitoring internationally that is less than that which we see in the remit of other treaties and monitoring mechanisms.


Speaker 59 [1:47:17]:

Excellent.


International Disability Alliance [1:47:18]:

That are already in place. Also, we've had experience throughout this year, over the last several years, in the selection of committee members. And we would like to note that it would be important here for one— for an instrument to establish a principle of gender parity. That should be left crystal clear and from the get-go so that that doesn't have to be discussed later. And then the promotion of diversity in general in the membership, addressing intersectionality and other identities. Then, as regards geographical representation, I think it would be important to note or to think about a mechanism that ensures in every election of members of international monitoring groups equitable geographical balance. for example, as we see in the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights as regards the election of their members. Now, of course, it would be interesting as well to promote from the beginning participative mechanisms for nominations on the domestic level. And I thank you very much for your kind attention.


IGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [1:48:31]:

I thank the distinguished representative of that organization, and I now give the floor to the International Association


International Federation of Associations of the Elderly [1:48:41]:

Sir, ladies and gentlemen, delegates, FIABA, International Federation of Associations of Elderly, thanks the Working Group for this opportunity. For more than 40 years, we have witnessed on the ground that the current international framework does not sufficiently protect older persons. In many countries, older persons face specific violations: age-based discrimination, unequal access to healthcare, mistreatment, isolation, obstacles to autonomy, and economic insecurity. These realities show that existing norms are too fragmented. This is why FIABA strongly supports the development of an international legally binding instrument grounded in human rights, one that fully recognizes older persons as rights holders. We consider the following elements essential: non-discrimination and recognition of ageism as a human rights violation, autonomy and free informed consent, Dignity and protection against abuse and neglect. Participation and social inclusion in line with the principle nothing about us without us. Effective economic and social rights, including long-term care and social protection. An intersectional approach to protect the most vulnerable groups. A binding instrument would allow for clear obligations, independent monitoring, and harmonization of national policies. FIAPA reaffirms that dignity has no age and calls on States to support an ambitious treaty capable of addressing the challenges of global aging. Thank you for your attention.


IGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [1:50:15]:

I thank the representative of the International Federation of Associations of the Elderly, and I now give the floor to the National Association of Community Legal Centers, Inc.


National Association of Community Legal Centers, Inc. [1:50:27]:

Thank you, Chair. Community Legal Centres Australia thanks the panelists for their informative and stimulating presentations. We would like to make 4 points. First, we recognize that reporting involves substantial workloads for states, but reporting is not just an administrative exercise. As the Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights pointed out in its General Comment Number 1 decades ago, the reporting procedure potentially enhances policymaking, assessment of progress, and the provision of better information to government, the promotion of democratic participation in governance, and allowing the sharing of good practices, and is a mechanism for accountability. If governments incorporate their treaty obligations into their normal national policy planning and evaluation process, rather than seeing treaty reporting as an entirely separate exercise, then the burdens could be minimised and the benefits still realised. Secondly, in terms of national institutions, we should not affect— should not forget the roles of the courts and tribunals and especially the role of parliaments and legislatures. A number of the treaty bodies have adopted statements or general comments of the role of parliaments in implementing and monitoring the implementation of international treaties. And the Interparliamentary Union has produced useful publications for parliamentarians on their role in treaty implementation. Thirdly, we know that resources are tight and are always becoming tighter. It would be helpful to have before the Working Group at a later stage more detailed information about the costs of the UN Human Rights Treaty Body Programme as a whole and in detail, and as a percentage of the overall UN and OHCHR budgets. It would also be useful to have comparative figures of the funding available within some of the other monitoring models that have been referred to. referred to, for example, the ILO supervisory bodies. Finally, the question, or perhaps shibboleth, of mainstreaming. There are significant barriers to existing bodies doing significantly more on older persons' human rights. These have been outlined in updated— the updated study of the OHCHR in 2021 to the Open-Ended Working Group. They include limited time and already heavy agendas, limited expertise on the treaty bodies and others. And further, as a practical matter, we have heard calls for mainstreaming for nearly 20 years from many States, but neither the performance of States Parties overall or of the treaty bodies themselves has significantly improved in mainstreaming the human rights of older persons, for some of the reasons I've mentioned above. Ms. Catalina Devandas made the important point that we should remember that paradoxically the adoption of a separate thematic instrument is exactly what is needed to bring about better mainstreaming. Thank you, Chair.


IGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [1:53:15]:

Thank you for your contribution. The International Federation on Aging has the floor.


International Federation on Aging [1:53:22]:

Thank you, Chair. Excellencies, colleagues, panelists, the International Federation on Aging welcomes this important discussion on treaty monitoring arrangements. We thank the distinguished panelists for their insightful interventions and align ourselves with the statements previously submitted by civil society organizations. Experience across the international human rights system has consistently shown that the effectiveness of a convention depends not only on the rights it recognizes, but equally on the mechanisms established to support their implementation. Monitoring should therefore not be understood simply as oversight. It should be regarded as one of the principal tools for helping States Parties progressively realize the objectives of the Convention through dialogue, communication, cooperation, mutual learning, and sharing of good practices. IFA therefore supports establishment of a dedicated committee or panel of experts on the rights of older persons. Such a mechanism should provide an essential institutional anchor for the Convention, promote coherent interpretation, support implementation at the national level, identify emerging challenges, and contribute to the progressive development of international human rights standards relating to other persons. It should also be provided with adequate and sustainable resources to carry out its mandate effectively. Meaningful participation should also be a defining characteristic of the monitoring process. National human rights institutions, civil society organizations, and above all, older persons themselves and their representatives' organizations should be able to contribute meaningfully through the reporting, review, and follow-up. Effective monitoring also depends upon effective evidence. Yet today there remains a significant gap in production, dissemination, and use of data on older persons. How can implementation be monitored? If older persons remain statistically invisible. Reliable, timely, and age-disaggregated data are indispensable for measuring progress, identifying inequalities, informing public policy, and enabling meaningful accountability under the Convention. IFAO's own global consultations with older persons have reaffirmed the importance of ensuring that the lived experiences of other persons remain central to the implementation and review. Ultimately, the success of this Convention will not be measured by the quality of its monitoring arrangements alone. It will be measured by the measurable, visible difference those arrangements make in improving the daily lives of other persons. IFAW looks forward to contributing constructively to that objective. Thank you, Chair.


IGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [1:56:10]:

Thank you. I now give the floor to the Japan Support Center for Activity and Research for Older People.


Japan Support Center for Activity and Research for Older People · Professor of Social Security Law · Kiyoe Takata [1:56:19]:

Thank you for this opportunity. I'm Kiyoe Takata, Professor of Social Security Law, University of the Ryukyus in Japan, speaking on behalf of Japan Support Center for Activity and Research for Older People. It's necessary to establish an effective monitoring system for a new convention. For continuous monitoring, the treaty body should be established, specifically focused on human rights of older persons. Individual communication procedures should also be established. It is appropriate that the new treaty itself should provide it in order to apply to all the third parties to ensure the treaty's effectiveness.

Thank you.

A key point is that we should create a monitoring system in which the older persons themselves can participate. Civil organizations representative of older persons should be also to participate too. Also, to ensure the effective and appropriate implementation of the treaty, it is important that national human rights institutions play active role within each country. Therefore, treaty should include a provision mandating the establishment of NHRI to each government. In Japan, for instance, still lack of an NHRI. There are cases that violations of international human rights conventions are brought before domestic However, in the most of them, the court do not acknowledge human rights violations based on inappropriate interpretations of the treaties, differs from the treaty bodies' views. In other words, domestic courts themselves can be the cause of situations where international treaties are not properly properly implemented within the country. Therefore, we call for the convention should stipulate that older persons and their representative civil organization participation in monitoring process and establishment the national human rights institution is an obligation for each country. Finally, we call for the drafting process will guarantee older persons' substantive and meaningful participation. To enable other persons, even who cannot attend in person, to share their views, we request participation via online comment also be permitted, and meeting documents should be made available well in advance. Thank you.


IGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [1:59:08]:

Thank you. I will now give the floor to H. Noble Consulting Inc. by video message.


HNOB [1:59:19]:

Chair, HNOB welcomes this early discussion on treaty monitoring arrangements. Considering lessons from existing experience before exploring specific options provides a valuable foundation for future discussions. To inform our contribution, We examined international and regional treaty monitoring models, including independent expert review, peer review, preventative monitoring, supervisory systems, judicial oversight, and regional human rights mechanisms. Our comparative analysis suggests that no single model provides a complete blueprint for monitoring a Convention on the Human Rights of Older Persons. Instead, comparative evidence points to 5 recurring design principles that appear to contribute to effective monitoring, implementation, and accountability regardless of institutional form. They are credibility and legitimacy, evidence-informed assessment, meaningful engagement and participation, Accountability and continuous follow-up. And learning and continuous improvement. HNOBO suggests agreeing first on a shared set of design principles. They provide the common lens for evaluating different monitoring options. Then, as discussions progress, operational considerations such as sustainability, efficiency, proportionality, scalability, and implementation feasibility will help refine these options. Thank you.


IGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [2:01:14]:

Thank you. I now give the floor to Professor Fusako Seki.


Japan · Professor · Fusako Seki [2:01:20]:

Chair, I'm Fusako Seki, professor at Kanagawa University, Japan. 3 points on monitoring and implementation. First, a committee on the rights of older persons will have an important role. No treaty text can settle in advance every question about age-based distinctions. Standards mature through practice. As reasonable accommodation matured, Thank you. At the same time, monitoring should be designed realistically, focused reporting, coordination with existing treaty bodies, and avoidance of duplication. Second, implementation begins at home, and this summer shows why. Of the more than 10,000 excess deaths reported in Europe in late June, 9 in 10 were aged 65 or over. Older persons often do not feel heat or thirst until it is too late. It is cool here today, but Here in Geneva, I'm told installing air conditions has required an energy authorization, sometimes even a medical certificate.

I was surprised.

It is a rule with a legitimate climate purpose. Yet, as the heat turned deadly, I understood that the Government of the Canton of Geneva, the very authority that made this rule, has begun to simplify the procedure. Legitimate rules must be revised when their weight on other lives becomes visible. How does that weight become visible? Through procedural safeguards at the national level. Other persons affected by such measures should receive reasons, have voice in that decision, and have access to review. Some may ask whether domestic procedure belongs in an international instrument. It does. Human rights treaties have long required effective remedies, and the CLPD guarantees access to justice. Procedural obligations are also the least intrusive kind. They do not dictate outcomes. They let problems come to light and be resolved at home, which also keeps the committee's burden realistic. Third, the participation of older persons and their organizations should be ensured in both monitoring and implementation in forms that are meaningful and feasible. A treaty lives not only in Geneva, but in hospitals, in care settings, and at the country counters of local governmental offices. Thank you.


IGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [2:04:42]:

Gracias. Le doy ahora la palabra.

Thank you. I call on the Latin American Association of Associations of Older Persons.


Latin American Association of Associations of Older Persons [2:04:56]:

Distinguished Chair, distinguished delegations, panelists, we welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate on the monitoring mechanisms for international human rights treaties. We consider that strengthening monitoring and evaluation systems is a priority to guarantee the rights of older persons. Without quality information, it is not possible to define— design effective public policies or assess whether international obligations are translating into real changes for people. However, we wish to emphasize that the objective of monitoring goes beyond collecting data. It is to protect lives. Violence against older people does not begin with physical aggression. It often starts with ageism, a form of discrimination that has been normalized. It occurs when an older person goes to a bank and the only answer they receive is that can only be done from the application. Nobody asks whether they have a smartphone, whether they know how to use it, or if they need support. When services are not tailored to people, it is people who end up being excluded, and that exclusion is also a form of violence. The most silent violence often occurs within the home. Psychological abuse, abandonment, physical violence, and economic abuse affect thousands of older persons, with women facing greater risks because of the inequalities accumulated throughout their lives. We need to strengthen reporting mechanisms and ensure that every report receives an effective response. Reporting requires an enormous act of courage. Registering a case is not enough if the person has to go back to the same environment where they continue to be at risk. Thus, we need to have timely care routes, specialized teams, temporary protection spaces, and institutional responses that restore confidence to those who decide to break the silence. Treaty monitoring mechanisms play a critical role in accompanying these efforts. Their recommendations make it possible to identify gaps, strengthen the capacities of states, and guide evidence-based public policies that respond to the real needs of older persons. For this system to be truly effective, monitoring needs to go beyond regular reporting and contribute to the effective implementation of human rights. We also need accessible, transparent data disaggregated by age, sex, territory, and other relevant factors that allow us to understand which forms of violence are most frequent, where they occur, and who are the most affected people. We must strike a balance between the protection of personal data and access to information. Evidence strengthens government decision-making. I thank you.


IGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [2:07:51]:

I thank the representative of the regional committee, and I call on Professor Maria Soledad


Professor · Maria Soledad Cisternas Urias [2:08:01]:

Thank you, Chairperson. On the monitoring mechanism, we have to— for the conclusion of a Convention on Elder Persons, it is crucial that it have a monitoring committee, an international monitoring committee, on an equal basis with the remaining treaty bodies. This is a binding instrument that we're talking about, and part of its binding nature is underscored by the existence of a follow-up committee. Now, looking at the functions of committees— report, review, concluding observations— There's also the consideration of individual communications. There's investigation of situations of systematic violations of rights. But let us not forget that committees have a number of important functions. They prepare general comments. These are interpretative norms. They interpret the treaty. To guide implementation by the state and other interested parties. Committees also cross-refer and they can provide joint observations with other treaty bodies. They can link up with them on their real positions on common issues. They also have the link— the meeting of chairpersons. That is another link. I was the chair of the CRPD for a number of years and I am well acquainted with that system. The importance of the meeting of chairpersons is that it reaches a consensus which has an incidents on international standards. For example, Resolution 68/268 on strengthening and improving the effective functioning of the human rights treaty bodies system, and the norms— the guidelines against intimidation or reprisals which protect human rights defenders. The treaty bodies are also an engine of— that drive other processes, the 2030 Agenda, for example, as mentioned by a colleague. Older persons did not receive this type of attention before. We need to have a committee to focus on them. The treaty body's recommendations rarely refer to older persons because we don't have the normative basis or a committee. And as was mentioned here already, it's important to have this presence looking at the Summit for the Future. Again, there's barely any mention of older persons because there isn't a convention. There isn't a treaty body. So clearly, of course, committees also produce other internal regulations such as the simplified guidelines for the presentation of reports. This is a list of questions. States reply to those questions. Then there are the guidelines for participation by civil society and their organizations. Those are internal regulations of the committees. And in the appointment of members who have to have moral integrity, knowledge of the convention and legal systems, there needs to be gender equality and the presence of experts who are themselves older persons. And this— the chairperson mentioned yesterday that We could speak on structure. Now, looking at the preamble, I would agree with the chairperson's message, but we need to describe the human rights-based approach for older persons. Autonomy. Autonomy is central to the preamble.

Yes.

As is intersectionality and eradication of ageism. To be very synthetic, I will refer just to some principles which I believe are fundamental, such as respect for inherent dignity, autonomy, freedom in decision-making, and independence. Intersectionality, but also I emphasize this: aging is a natural part of the life cycle of all persons and self-development. If we look at the CRPD Article 24, this speaks of personal development of talents and creativity of each person. In conclusion, I would say that it is essential to have an interpretative norm which points out that any other standard contained in treaties or internal legislation which is more favorable to older persons shall apply, taking priority over the Convention. As to the definition of older persons, the treaty seeks to provide security and certainty to states and to people. The definition in the Inter-American Convention on Older Persons recognizes this, stating that older persons are aged 60 or older unless internal legislation points to a different age as long as it is not over age 65. Rights must involve the eradication of ageism and a life free of violence. together with inclusive lifelong education and the avoidance of situations of risk and human emergencies. I thank you.


IGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [2:15:34]:

I thank Professor Cisternas Urias for her contribution to the debate, including to yesterday's debate since she was not able to do that yesterday. Welcome her presence at this session.

Platform, New Technologies and Older Women.


PATISCA Platform [2:15:59]:

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I am speaking on behalf of PATISCA Platform and also SENEX Association for Aging Studies. Monitoring is about ensuring accountability, and accountability cannot exist without participation. Those whose rights are being monitored must be equal partners in the room, not merely consulted, but part of the process itself, where their lived experience and evidence count. Only then can monitoring and accountability retain their legitimacy. A monitoring mechanism should not ask only whether rights exist in law. It should ask whether older persons, including older women in all their diversity, can actually enjoy those rights in practice. To this end, the LBI should require States to collect and publish data disaggregated by age, sex, disability, and other grounds, together with indicators that capture intersectional discrimination and access to justice. It should also require independent national monitoring mechanisms with the meaningful participation of older persons and relevant NGOs. Mr. Chairperson, as Ms. Šupla mentioned on Tuesday, anti-rights and anti-gender movements are rising across many parts of the world. These movements threaten gender equality and the human rights of women and girls and of LGBTI persons, and older persons are not immune. Monitoring under the LBI must therefore be capable of detecting and responding to regression and backsliding. Mr. Chairperson, we should draw on the experience of international regional human rights mechanisms, including the CEDAW Committee and the GREVIO. The LBI offers a historic opportunity to strengthen human rights monitoring further. While treaty body members are nominated by States, consideration should be given to modalities that reinforce their actual and perceived independence beyond that process. Committee members should act in their personal capacity and be elected through transparent procedures safeguarding independence, expertise, and diversity. National nominations should be open and participatory. Older persons and civil society including organizations without ECOSOC status, must be able to contribute through accessible submissions, consultations, and follow-up. Finally, the LBI should provide from the outset for effective remedies, individual communications, inquiries into grave and systematic violations, and effective follow-up so that older persons can hold duty bearers to account when their rights are violated, and States should not defer their obligations solely on grounds of domestic law, limited resources, or family responsibility. Thank you.


IGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [2:19:07]:

Thank you, Madam, for your contribution. This was the last speaker on my list. Is there anyone else that we may be I don't see anyone. So now I will give the floor again to our moderator for concluding remarks of our moderator herself and our distinguished panel. Please, Madam Moderator.


Philippines · Deputy Assistant Secretary · Maria Rozni-Fanko [2:19:33]:

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Rapporteur. I wish to express my appreciation to all delegations for their active participation, thereby enriching this debate with their reflections and Before turning over the floor to our resource speakers for their concluding remarks, I just wish to note a few points very briefly. First, a strengthened treaty body system is central to the success of treaty monitoring. Adequate funding and support should be accorded to the Committee on the Rights of Older Persons. The legitimacy of the entire treaty body system is dependent on the quality of the output of each treaty body. In this regard, complementarity is something to be seriously considered. Secondly, monitoring arrangements for a new treaty should not add burden to an already overwhelmed system. An innovative approach is necessary, and that approach needs to make use and optimize available technologies. Finally, the full and meaningful participation of older persons in treaty monitoring is crucial. It is hoped that the call of older persons and their representative organizations for nothing about them without them will not fall on deaf ears. Treaty monitoring may look like it is a mere procedural issue, but it's actually not. Monitoring arrangements spell accountability, a key objective of this entire process. In any case, the discussion on treaty monitoring does not end here, and we will again revisit this topic in due time. With that, I would now wish to invite our resource speakers to give their concluding remarks, starting with Mr. Antti Korkiakivi.


OHCHR · Chief, Treaty Bodies Branch · Antti Korkiakivi [2:21:09]:

Thank you so much, Chair, and thank you for all the speakers for a very, very rich set of comments and observations and recommendations. I think it was extremely encouraging, and in a number of areas we saw a lot of alignment in of the concerns and recommendations, one example being the critical need to ensure participation and dialogue in any future monitoring arrangement. And I think that is crucial, and indeed the positive spirit in the discussion to me was very encouraging. I would also like to recognize and really truly thank the numerous comments that recognize the importance of the treaty body system as a whole and its role. We've, in recent months and years actually, we've been facing a lot of challenges including financial and others, so the discussion around treaty bodies has often been rather challenging and it has not always reflected the fact that actually these are absolutely critical foundational tools that we have in the international human rights architecture with huge impact on the ground. And I think it was excellent to hear that recognition from basically all of you, and I think that's important to keep in mind while we openly look at the challenges that really need urgent attention. Should keep their role in mind. Also, go back to the issue of innovative approaches. Again, there were so many good points made about the need to be innovative, creative, and bring fresh thinking to the table when we look at different models, while at the same time picking the best elements of the current system, and I think that was a another encouraging message. But also, just echo also those who mentioned— and there were many who mentioned— the importance of data collection and disaggregated data and related issue of reporting. That's a really, really critical factor in ensuring the impact of any monitoring arrangement. But there again, I think there are ways in which we can update the current ways of working and be more modern in terms of reporting and tapping into the existing data that exists. There were some good examples of regional data that exist in this area, and I think it is important that that type of information is brought to the brought to any monitoring mechanism that may be set up. Finally, I would just like to stress that at the OHCHR we are very keen and ready to provide contributions and support and information on future discussions on monitoring mechanisms and on other aspects, of course. And I would mention that in the coming weeks, so there will be a new Secretary-General's report on the treaty body system that gives an overview of the current gains and challenges that treaty bodies are facing, and I think that might be an interesting source of information that— for your future discussions. So thank you so much.


Philippines · Deputy Assistant Secretary · Maria Rozni-Fanko [2:24:48]:

Thank you very much, Antti, for your concluding remarks. Okay, thank you very much, Antti, for your concluding remarks. Now, I would like to give the floor to Ms. Rigbe Gebre Hawariya for her concluding remarks too.


AU · Expert member · Rigbe Gebre Hawariya [2:25:04]:

Thank you, moderator, and thank you, my fellow panelists and distinguished colleagues, for this incredibly rich and constructive exchange that we just had. As we conclude, it's clear that we share a unified vision We're not here to create a passive checklist, but an active, responsive accountability mechanism, and as someone said, monitoring beyond regular reporting. And I'm deeply encouraged by the strong convergence we have heard today on several non-negotiable pillars, but I want to highlight 2 of them. The first one is active and meaningful participation. The future of this Convention depends on the direct agency of older persons in all their diversities and their representatives, ensuring their voices are structurally integrated from drafting to monitoring. And we must also guarantee diverse geographical representation and gender parity and intersectionality. The second one is the role of NHRIs. A designated national monitoring mechanism complements the government implementation and coordinating focal points. And this framework empowers national human rights institutions with specific mandates and dedicated resources. And my colleague, Claudia Mahler, already provided proof that this has been effective with regard to other instruments as well. And several member states highlighted the need to build on existing on existing reporting mechanisms. And to do this effectively, I want to reiterate what has been already mentioned by Ms. Catalina and Professor Andrew, that we adopt a twin-track approach which involves focused specialized reporting dedicated to the distinct rights within the upcoming Convention, while simultaneously pushing for mainstream reporting integrated simultaneously across all other existing human rights bodies. Furthermore, as a distinguished delegate from Peru highlighted, we must actively leverage regional experiences and exchanges. That should ensure our global standards with invaluable ground-level lessons. And finally, we must address the pragmatism of treaty monitoring. I fully agree with the calls to make reporting procedures less cumbersome, reduce administrative duplication, and ensure cost efficiency. However, we must be extremely cautious that simplified reporting procedures must only be introduced if they are applied across the board to all international human rights treaties. We cannot allow a system where the Convention on the Rights of Older Persons is singled out for a simplified or lighter reporting track. We must tolerate no double standards. Older persons deserve the same rigorous reporting, uncompromised level of international scrutiny as other rights holders. Thank you so much, Moderator.


Philippines · Deputy Assistant Secretary · Maria Rozni-Fanko [2:28:20]:

Thank you very much, Rigbe, for your statement, which is very much appreciated. I would now like to give the floor to Ms. Catalina de Bandas for her concluding remarks.


UN · Former Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities · Catalina de Vandas Aguilar [2:28:31]:

Muchas gracias. Thank you very much, Madam Moderator, and also thank you to Mr. Chair, who I cannot avoid but congratulate by that heartbreaking game yesterday and for your classification to the final of the World Cup. I think, as the other panelists have already mentioned, it's actually very exciting to be in this room and to be part of this initial process. The CRPD negotiation process was such a learning experience, but also a life-changing experience, that I only wish that all of you can revive that kind of energy and that kind of really transformational process that will have the impact that older people and everyone, everyone deserve when it comes to the enjoyment of their rights. I agree, as it has just been said, that we are in unity here. I hear a lot of consensus about how the monitoring needs to happen and how important it is to make it participatory, to make sure that it's on equal basis with the rest of the system, and that We have also to provide, and I think this is very key, going back to my point on the accommodations, the support, and the conditions so that older people can fully and actively and meaningfully participate on this monitoring process. Otherwise, it will not be meaningful. And it has been said by some members of civil society that the monitoring will be meaningful as much as the treaty is meaningful or the instrument is meaningful. So we really need a strong instrument, as the representative from Austria mentioned at the very beginning, the form should, follow the substance. And so the substance is the one that, if we have a very, very strong substance, will then make the monitoring meaningful for the member states, for the civil society, as many of you said, to learn, to engage in the monitoring not as a defensive mechanism, but actually as a mechanism of peer learning, peer exchanging, enhancing understanding the implementation of the rights and how to advance further that interpretation of the rights for older people. I also want to repeat the idea of avoiding the othering exercise. This is not— this should be not an exercise in which we are discussing about them and us. Older people is us. In this society, we all aim to get old. The development, the better access to services is hopefully going to allow us to— much of us to get old. How do we get old in the better way and continuing enjoying all our rights is our goal.

Thank you.

how to facilitate that implementation, that enjoyment of rights. And for that, I want to get back to the notion of community. Some of you refer, and I think it's very important also to see many, many faces, many old friends here in the room. This idea of— it's in reality, it's in the community, it's on the ground where we are going to see the difference. This discussion here is not the discussion that matters. It's how it will impact the people on the ground. And this is what the beauty of the CRPD was, that we managed to transform the lives of people with disabilities on the ground. In the same way, we really need to make sure that people, older people, thrive in their communities, and we need to transform those communities. And to do that, expanding the notions of Article 19 of the Convention will be fundamental. Belonging to the community, being visible in the community, is what is going to make the transformation. It is also going to be the best monitoring mechanism because people will be noticing what needs to be fixed, what needs to change, what needs to be accommodated. So, community everywhere is what we need to make sure that our discussions here will render the fruit that we want. We hope, and I truly wish for the Bureau members, for the member states— of course, somebody said that whatever is going to be adopted is going to be under the responsibility, but also under the control of member States, as it always is on this kind of processes. You're going to bring evidence to the table that is going to help us advance the data that was mentioned. But also, I hope that we are going to be able to create a positive competition and that the monitoring becomes the art of competing to be the best, competing to show how we can do it best, and competing to show that rights exercise is for all. So thank you very much.


Philippines · Deputy Assistant Secretary · Maria Rozni-Fanko [2:34:12]:

Thank you very much for that thought-provoking and inspiring message, Catalina. Very much appreciated. I would now like to give the floor to Ms. Anna Biondi for her concluding remarks.


SPI-CGIL · Pro bono advisor · Anna Biondi [2:34:26]:

Thank you very much. And indeed, you know, this was supposed to be very contentious, and we see that even when we start talking to each other and exchange ideas, in reality we are able to already see that it's possible to talk if there is a common will, as I feel there is in this room. Just a couple of thoughts coming from a very rich discussion. 2 governments spoke specifically about the interaction with regional mechanism. Germany started with a discussion about the UNECE and also discussing the data collection. The statistic was very interesting. Of course, this is for the Madrid International Plan of Action on Aging, where my friend and colleague Heidrun Möllenkorf plays a strong role for older persons. And I think it's very interesting. Of course, this will be— we are discussing a legally binding instrument, so we need also to make sure that this will be based on the supervision of the standard, of its principles with indicators, interpretative guidance, and so on. I also mentioned Peru because indeed, you know, the series of information that were given about the Inter-American Convention and technical assistance indicators, good practice, you know, it's like all of this is really very valuable. So, you know, it's regional, but, you know, it can work together. You know how it's a different animal, but I think it's It's quite important. Also, you know, because we don't have the time, let me just say that the National Human Rights Institution from the Philippines, excellent examples. Greece, Claudia Mahler, again, you know, it's like with her wealth of experience, you know, it's like we already have a group of solid thinkers that we certainly can go through. Of course, all our discussion and the strong support that we got from the civil society organization. But, you know, I know that governments are concerned about too much reporting. But this is why I also want to say that, as Professor Andrew Burns has stated again, reporting procedures, they serve a purpose. They are not just there because of, you know, we need to report. So, it's really— and that's why I always say, I always speak about monitoring and implementation, because if it's the monitoring per se, just sorry, it's not that. It's like, how do we change the lives of older people? How do we give them rights? And so, I think that, for example, this afternoon, I look forward to the next discussion where we will interact with other UN bodies because, you know, as we were saying, you know, it's like I mentioned, I started with the ILO, but, you know, by all means, WHO, all the others, ITU. In fact, it's wonderful they are also there talking about artificial intelligence and so on. You know, we have the time to think creatively about all of this. And, you know, finally, thanks again to our excellent independent expert, especially when she said changes need to be adopted only if they concern all the treaties in case setting and not only this one. Otherwise, honestly, we create a lame duck, and this is not exactly what we want. I think they— what this room and beyond this room, what those who are listening to us and will work with us is what we want to create, a strong standard that really is a transformative standard. So, I really count on this wonderful actual debate in order to advance this agenda item.

Thank you.


Philippines · Deputy Assistant Secretary · Maria Rozni-Fanko [2:38:53]:

Thank you, Anna. I think your powerful message is very well received. At this point, I think that the panel discussion has already concluded. Mr. Chair, I would like to give back the floor to you and thank you for the opportunity.


IGWG · Chair-Rapporteur [2:39:12]:

Thank you very much, Madam Moderator, and thank you to all the panelists for their contribution. I think that they are very valuable and I thought at some point that we are already on a negotiating mode Mostly, I mean, most interventions were to the point. I'm favoring or not favoring, I have this problem, I have this idea, innovative, we need to be innovative, etc. So I think that it is really timely and interesting to have this conversation with all of you today. Excellencies, distinguished participants, This brings us to the end of this meeting. This afternoon we will resume our sessions at 3 PM for a dialogue with HRC mechanisms and other UN bodies. I hereby declare this meeting closed. Thank you very much.