Covenants60: Joint commemoration of the 60th anniversary of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)

Good afternoon, Excellencies, distinguished members of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and of the Human Rights Committee, representatives of the United Nations agencies, international organizations, civil society organizations, ladies and gentlemen, and above all, the State Party representatives here, together with my co-chair, Mr. Changrok So, Chair of the Human Rights Committee, I declare open this joint commemoration marking the 60th anniversary of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It is my great pleasure to welcome you to this event entitled "60 years of the Covenants: progress, challenges and a roadmap for the future". Sixty years ago, the General Assembly adopted two covenants together. This afternoon gives us, our two committees, a rare opportunity to reflect together on what has been achieved, to consider how the covenants respond to the challenges of today, and to examine future prospects for their implementation, reaffirming that all human rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent, and interrelated. The event is structured around three discussions. focusing respectively on the past, the present, and the future of the Covenants. Each discussion will be moderated by a member of one of the committees and will feature three discussants speaking for up to five minutes each, followed by interventions by invited partners and interventions from the floor where we, of course, welcome your interventions, particularly from state parties. Interpretation is provided in all UN languages, and this event is being webcast on UN Web TV. We will now begin with the opening remarks. It is my pleasure to invite Mr. Mahamane Sissagorou, Director of the Human Rights Council and the Treaty Mechanisms Division of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, to deliver his opening remarks. Mr. Sissagorou, sir, you have the floor.

Thank you, madam Chair. Excellencies, distinguished committee members, distinguished representatives of civil society organizations, colleagues and friends, good afternoon. Sixty years ago, the adoption of the two international covenants answered a pressing need: the need to give the force of law to the principles proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights almost two decades earlier. But the covenants also embodied a larger and more profound idea, the idea of a vision of a world in which states will be bound by international obligations, obligations anchored in respect for human dignity. Since that historic moment, the world has changed profoundly and continued to do so. Yet one fundamental principle remained unchanged. the principle that human rights are not privilege granted by states, but fundamental rights that states have committed to respect, protect and fulfil. That was the promise states made when they negotiated and adopted the Covenant 60 years ago, and it remains as essential today as it was then. This foresight has stood the test of time. The philosophical and cultural differences that shaped the negotiation of the Covenants have not disappeared. Yet, these two committees have helped build common ground around the principles that unite all people everywhere. Indeed, the rights enshrined in the two Covenants are complementary and mutually reinforcing, and the two committees’ approaches to environmental protection illustrate this practice. In this case, In 2018, the Human Rights Committee named climate change and environmental degradation as among the most pressing threats to the right to life. A few years later, in 2025, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights affirmed a clean, healthy and sustainable environment as an essential precondition for the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights. followed its own path to come to a common conclusion. Distinguished guests, six decades after their adoption, the covenants remain living and essential instruments, with two committees continually applying their provisions to real-life challenges. Take the right to water, which is not expressly mentioned in the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. In 2002, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights filled this gap by recognizing the right to water as implicit in the right to an adequate standard of living and to health, an interpretation later echoed by the General Assembly in 2020. In 2020, the Human Rights Committee affirmed that The right of peaceful assembly encompasses both physical assemblies and online gatherings. This work continues today, and the Human Rights Committee is preparing a general comment on the right to freedom of association, while the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is developing one of the application of its covenant in a situation of armed conflict. Thus, the covenants and their monitoring bodies must be seen not merely as a legacy of the past, but as a foundation for the future. This anniversary is an urgent call to action as we stand at a critical juncture. Today, international norms and institutions are facing unprecedented backlash. The promise of "never again" is being gravely undermined. Progress achieved under the Millennium Development Goals and the Sustainable Development Goals is increasingly at risk of stagnation or reversal. At the same time, many young people anticipate a future in which they are likely to face worse living conditions and less opportunities than their parents. Scapegoats are actively being sought and found. among the most vulnerable sectors of society. The last time these forces converged, they led to horror that prompted the creation of the United Nations. However, there is an important difference. This time, we are equipped with a shared understanding of the basic rights of every person, embodied in legally binding treaties. We call on all actors to use this anniversary to reaffirm their commitment to the treaties and the essential work of the monitoring bodies. This is critically important, as recent funding shortfalls have led to staffing cuts, session cancellation, and growing delay in considering State Parties' reports and individual petitions, undermining their ability to fulfill their mandate. Behind every postponed review and every pending petition, there are people waiting for protection and remedy. Excellencies, Committee members, partners, colleagues and friends, 60 years ago, States promised to uphold the dignity of every person by adopting the Covenant. Today, the two expert committees monitors their implementation and promotes the enjoyment of all rights by everyone without discrimination. Their members continue to give that promise meaning, even under difficult conditions. Let this anniversary be an occasion to recognize both committees' achievements and pay tribute to their members, partners, and victims of human rights violations. Let it also renew our commitment to international rule-based order, including its human rights foundation. We owe this to future generations. On this note, I thank you for your attention.

Thank you, sir. Thank you very much, Mr. Sisiguru, for those important reflections. I now have the pleasure of giving the floor to my co-chair, Mr. Changrok So, Chair of the Human Rights Committee. Mr. Soh, you have the floor, sir.

Madam Chair, dear Preeti, distinguished members of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Human Rights Committee, Excellencies, representatives of State Parties, colleagues from UN and civil society, ladies and gentlemen, it is a great honour to open this commemoration together with Chair Preeti Saran. I thank the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and two focal points of the committees who prepared this program, Laura-Maria Krachtjan-Tatu and Konstantin Korokelia. And I welcome everyone who have joined us this afternoon. 60 years ago this December, the General Assembly adopted two covenants on the same day in the same resolution. A divided world could not agree on one treaty, so it adopted two. It then took almost a decade and 35 ratifications for each before either entered into force. That history reminds us of something important. Covenants were not simply a celebration of agreement, but a commitment made in spite of disagreement. Today, the two committees mark this anniversary together in one room. with one program. That in itself sends a message. The right to speak, to assemble, to vote, to a fair trial, and the right to food, health, education, and decent work was set out in separate treaties in 1966, but they have never been separate in people's lives. Our program today invites us to reflect on three questions. First, the past. Have the covenants lived up to the expectations placed in them? In their reach and influence, they have exceeded those expectations. More than 170 states have ratified each covenant. The two committees, which began their work in 1977 and 1987, respectively, have developed an extensive body of concluding observations, general comments, and decisions on individual communications that few of the original drafters could have imagined. Our general comments, addressing rights from right to life to right to science, have influenced national courts and legal systems. Individuals have obtained recognition of violations and sometimes remedies that their domestic systems had denied them. And yet, when it comes to implementation, much remains to be done. Second, the present. The covenants are often tested most severely precisely when they are needed most, during emergencies, in armed conflict, at the moments when governments may be tempted to set aside their human rights obligations. The two committees have consistently affirmed that human rights violations do not disappear in times of crisis. Derogations under the Civil and Political Rights are permitted only within strict limits. Essential obligations under the Economic, Social, and Cultural Covenant continue even in the most difficult circumstances, and international human rights law continues to apply during armed conflict alongside international human rights law. Third, the future. The drafters of 1966 could hardly have imagined a world in which algorithms help determine who receives social benefits. or rising seas threaten the very existence of our communities. Yet, the covenants remain relevant to these challenges because they protect human dignity, not any particular technology or set of circumstances. How we apply the principles of the covenants to emerging challenges, particularly artificial intelligence and climate change, will be one of our central questions for the years ahead. I look forward to exploring these issues in part two this afternoon. Beyond these emerging human rights challenges, I would like to address the future of the human rights body itself. In my capacity in this year as a chair of annual meeting of chairpersons of human rights treaty bodies, I have been closely involved in discussions about how to make state reviews more predictable, how to make better use of digital technology, and how to strengthen cooperation across treaty bodies while preserving their independence and distinct mandates. These reforms are important, and I welcome the ongoing discussions. But an anniversary also calls for candor, not just celebration. The strength of the covenants depends in no small part on the effectiveness of the bodies entrusted with monitoring their implementation, and those bodies cannot function effectively without adequate resources. At the General Assembly marks this anniversary and considers the resources available to treaty body system, I hope states will reaffirm their commitment in practical terms. by ensuring adequate and predictable meeting time, staffing, and financial resources, while fully respecting the independence of the committees. Sixty years ago, states made a commitment that transcended their differences. Our responsibility today is to ensure that this commitment remains meaningful for the generations to come. I look forward to candid and constructive discussion this afternoon. and to hearing the perspectives of both committees, our partners, and all of you. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Soh. Allow me now to say a few words on behalf of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, of which I have the privilege to chair. I'm delighted to participate in the joint celebrations with Mr. Changrok Seo, Chair of the Human Rights Committee, and our colleagues from both the committees, the Committee on Economic, Social, Cultural Rights and the Human Rights Committee, to mark the 60th anniversary of our two covenants. I join Mr. Seo, first of all, in thanking Ms. Laura Craciunuta and Mr. Konstantin Korkelia, our focal points from the two committees, for their hard work, meticulous planning and coordination, supported by the Secretariat, notably Ms. Wanhee Lee, Ms. Neumi Chagwa and Ms. Jasmine Junming Xing, for organizing this event. I would also like to congratulate our colleagues of the Human Rights Committee, who yesterday adopted General Comment No. 38 on the right to freedom of association. This is of importance to both our committees. Both covenants protect the right to form and join trade unions. When the space to associate shrinks, both sets of rights recede. Two covenants, two committees, one indivisible commitment to human dignity. Ten years back, our two committees came together to mark the 50th anniversary of our two covenants, which, along with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, are the international bill of human rights. We meet once again to jointly celebrate the 60th anniversary, to consider our present predicament, and contemplate the future of our two covenants at a time when the international rules-based order is being challenged and global governance has been fragmented, volatile, and weaponized. The two covenants, the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, are at the heart of international human rights law and have shaped the foundation of our broader system of international human rights protection. An entire ecosystem of human rights treaties has grown around these two covenants, shaped the treaty body system, as also the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Human Rights Council, with its special procedures and Universal Periodic Review. And while the UPR and the special procedures are a creation of the Human Rights Council, The treaty body system are legally binding obligations that State Parties have assumed. The ownership of the treaty bodies rests with the State Parties. Just as it is the prerogative of the State Parties to shape the future of the treaty body system that they have created, it is incumbent upon them to provide financial resources from the regular budget of the United Nations to ensure that it works independently. Any attempts to find extraneous sources of funding in the wake of the current liquidity crisis, or use it to undertake structural reforms without the mandate of an intergovernmental decision of the Conference of Parties to the Covenants would seriously undermine the independence and integrity of the treaty body system. As Chair of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, it is my great honour to share with you our Committee's contribution in protection and promotion of human rights. My colleagues from the Committee will elaborate and support with additional details. Our Covenant brought economic, social, and cultural rights in the margins to the center of human rights discourse when it recognized that the rights to health, education, housing, food, social security, work, and participation in cultural life are human rights. It recognized that poverty was not simply an economic or social condition. but can reflect failures to respect, protect, and fulfill human rights. It also highlighted that inequality, discrimination, and social exclusion can be examined through a human rights lens. Furthermore, it brought economic policy and public budgets into the human rights conversation. State parties' obligation to progressive realization and the use of maximum available resources meant that taxation, public expenditure, social protection, debt, development, economic reforms can have direct human rights implications. It also stipulated that state parties must include international development assistance and cooperation as part of their legal and moral obligations and responsibilities. The CESC, as we call our committee, of independent experts is created by ECOSOC and remains an arm of ECOSOC. Our primary responsibility is to help monitor the implementation of the obligations assumed by State Parties under the Covenant. Our Committee has guided State Parties towards diversity of our societies, helped sustain the role of civil society, and given many individual petitioners the opportunity to receive recognition and remedy for violation of these rights. The Committee has also guided States' responses to new challenges. Over the years, our Committee has also helped translate the Covenant into concrete standards. Its jurisprudence and general comments have clarified States' obligations and made Covenant applicable to concrete situations. The cumulative impact of decades of interpretation of the Covenant by CESC has been immeasurable, regardless of the State Party's level of development. The optional protocol to the International Covenant was a major milestone that greatly enhanced the potential impact of the Covenant by making it accessible to individuals to submit claims. The recommendations of the Committee have often been translated into legislation, enhanced budget allocation, et cetera. In many ways, the Committee has remained ahead of emerging challenges. By way of example, in 2025, CESC adopted a general comment on environmental dimensions of economic, social, and cultural rights, and we are now working on our next general comment on armed conflict situations. During COVID, our committee issued three important statements highlighting the importance of TRIPS flexibilities in access to vaccines and essential medicines to the poorest. Moving forward, the value of the Covenant lies in meeting future challenges to human rights, which cannot be approached in isolation, ignoring the complex relationship between human rights, development, democracy, and international cooperation. There should be no double standards in implementing human rights commitments. Persistent inequalities, ongoing conflicts, energy security crisis, tariff volatility, discriminatory market access, economic pressures, and rapid technological changes demand renewed attention to the full spectrum of human rights. Economic concerns have other dimensions, including connectivity, protection of key sea lanes, restrictions in global workplace, changing labor markets, demographic aging, supply chains, heightened control of technology, and critical minerals. Particular attention is needed in light of emerging challenges, including climate change, artificial intelligence, automation, changing labor markets, demographic aging, new forms of poverty, debt and fiscal constraints, corporate consolidation, and technological divides. The COVID pandemic witnessed open discrimination in access to vaccines and to travel. The slow progress of the SDG agenda 2030 and international climate change commitments are other areas of concern. Artificial intelligence and digital platforms are reshaping work, social protection, and access to services. The threats to human dignity posed by today's challenges are unprecedented in their dimensions. These challenges demand a serious response. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights provides a solid blueprint for action in this regard. I will stop here and thank you very much for your attention. We will now move to hear general reflections from our two committees. Each has a designated speaker for this segment. I am pleased to invite Mr. Aslan Abashidze, member of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, to share his reflections. Mr. Abashidze, you have the floor, sir.

Dear colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, my former colleague, the late Mr. Saadi from Jordan, used to compare the Committee on Economic, Social, Cultural Rights and Human Rights Committee to the two wings of a bird. Allow me, as a representative of one wing, to extend my warm greeting to you, the representatives of the other wing, and to congratulate you on the 60th anniversary of the adoption of the International Covenant on Human Rights. For my part, I would venture to suggest that the Board itself represents the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Although we were separated for political reasons, we remain indivisible based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights together with two international covenants and to our committees forming the International Bill of Human Rights. Unfortunately, this fundamental fact seems to have been forgotten by those who are attempting to merge us with others and to incorporate a proposed new treaty body on the right to development into the International Bill of Human Rights. I can confidently assert that among the major achievements of the United Nations following the process of decolonization, the promotion of human rights stands out as one of its most significant accomplishments. Within this field, the international cooperation, the human rights treaty body system occupies a central place, and within this system, our two committees hold a leading position. On the one hand, much is said in various U.S. reports about the important role of our two committees and their achievements. On the other hand, since 2006, repeated attempts have been made initially to merge treaty bodies into a single treaty body, and subsequently, under the pretext of strengthening the entire treaty body system, to deprive our committees legal status in universal human rights system, their leading positions and distinctive characteristics through harmonization of working methods. Furthermore, through the Addis Ababa guidelines, which has no any legal background, attempts have been made to replace us as real independent experts. However, the process of resolution 68/260 has reached an impasse, and it has now replaced by so-called integrated, decentralized, and fully clustered treaty body dialogues, which envisages regional meetings involving only three members of each of our committee. When we are asked the authors of such paper on what legal basis they are seeking to impose such paper upon us as independent experts, they refer to a joint statement delivered at 63 sessions of the Human Rights Council, endorsed by representatives of more than 60 countries, as well as the outcomes of the chair's meetings. Meanwhile, those attempts become stronger, there is weak attempt to address the fundamental problem, the need to allocate sufficient financial resources to enable our committees to hold regular full-fledged sessions and effectively discharge their core functions. to examine State Parties' reports in a timely and thorough manner, in considering individual communications and to adopt general comments on the key provisions of our Covenant. I have the impression that the financial difficulties are being artificially created in order to keep us under control. In light of the foregoing, I appeal to you, dear colleagues, don't participate in questionable informal forums aimed at reforming our committees. Ensure that our Chairs' meeting accountable to the members of their respective committees and that at the annual meetings of chairs, no recommendations are adopted that go beyond their competence. We must determine the agenda of our session independently, remove secondary matters from those agendas, and concentrate on the core functions of our committee. If there are those who wish to abolish our committees or transform them beyond recognition, let such decisions be taken by States themselves, not by a group of States or by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights or various foundations and institutions. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Mr. Bashidze. We will now hear Mr. Koji Teraya, member of the Human Rights.

Committee.

Thank you, madam Chair, distinguished guests, dear colleagues, ladies and gentlemen. It is a great honor to address you on this commemorative occasion. Today, I'd like to reflect on why we have gathered here through the principles of indivisibility and interdependence of human rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted in 1948 without a single vote against it. Yet, the two covenants that are followed were adopted separately in 1966 against the backdrop of Cold War division. In today's increasingly divided world, commemorating them together carries particular significance. Even General Assembly resolution 543 of 1952, which called for two separate covenants, emphasized unity of their aim. Since the adoption, each covenant has continued to seek its better half in the other, here in Geneva, in New York, and beyond. Indivisibility was proclaimed in the 1968 Proclamation of Tehran, reaffirmed in the 1986 Declaration on the Right to Development, and powerfully expressed in the 1993 Vienna Declaration. Following regional meetings in Tunis, San Jose, and Bangkok, The Vienna Conference brought governments and civil society into a genuinely cross-cultural and civilization conversation. What do indivisibility and interdependence mean for our work today? Let me offer three perspectives. First, for whom do we protect human rights? Should anyone have to accept hunger in exchange for freedom, or surrender political freedom in exchange for prosperity? The very principle of indivisibility rejects that choice. Individuals face difficult vulnerabilities and needs. Our communities must therefore look beyond the one-size-fits-all solutions and attend to rights as they are actually enjoyed in people's lives. As the 2030 Agenda reminds us, no one will be left behind. Second, by who are human rights protected? The traditional distinction between negative and positive obligations cannot fully capture the reality of human rights protection. Civil and political rights, too, require positive action, otherwise they remain rights on paper. States bear the primary legal responsibility, but their capacity differ, making international cooperation essential. Business and civil society also have important roles. The Global Compact and Millennium Declaration, both from 2000, marked a significant step towards broader engagement, further developed through the United Nations' guiding principle on business and human rights. Third, over what time must human rights be realized? In its landmark General Comment number 3 of 1990, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights made clear that progressive realization is no excuse for indefinite delay. Allow me one modest reflection. Obligations cannot wait, but progress takes time. The Human Rights Committee introduced follow-up procedures for individual communication in 1990 and concluding observations in 2001. These procedures reinforce a continuous cycle of review, recommendations, and follow-up rather than isolated decisions. This spirit of sustained engagement also underlines our efforts to strengthen the treaty body system, notably since General Assembly resolution 68/268. Distinguished guests, dear colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, The two covenants are fundamental instrument within a wider human rights system, alongside the other seven core treaties and many institutions and actors. Our gathering is not merely a commemoration of shared history. It is an invitation to a more connected future. 60 years ago, human rights were set out in two covenants, but human dignity cannot be divided into two. Today, we look to the past, to the present, and to the future to make our commitment real. That, I believe, is why we have gathered here. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Mr. Teraia. I thank both speakers for setting the scene so clearly for our commemoration. We will now move to the first segment, I thank once again Mr. Mahamanesi Siguru, Mr. Bashir Zin, and Mr. Theraia, and kindly request the next speakers to take their place on the podium. For the next segment, I would like to invite Ms. Wafa Ashraf Moharram Basim, Vice Chair of the Human Rights Committee, as moderator of discussion one. Ms. Wafa Ashraf Muharram Basim, you have the floor.

Thank you. Thank you very much. I would like to start by indicating how much I am proud and happy to participate at this high-level event. This comes at a time we are celebrating 60 years since the adoption of these two international covenants. critical international documents, and I would like to take this opportunity to warmly thank the organizers, the Secretariat, a warm thank you for the efforts undertaken that made it possible for me to speak to you in Arabic during this forum with the hope that the Arabic language can once again resume its rightful place in the work of the treaty bodies. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. And we are to start our first discussion with the objective of reviewing what has been achieved in this realm. This first debate will be focused on the 60 years that have passed since the adoption of these two fundamental covenants. And so we look forward to revisiting the most important areas of progress, the achievements by our two committees since the creation of these committees and their work over half a century. We look forward to seeing how influential their work has been in multiple different sectors and domains. We will be trying to assess to what degree the dreams and aspirations of the international community during the adoption of the two covenants have been realized, to what degree have they been translated into reality. I would like to recall for the panelists that each speaker has a period of five minutes, and I would like to give the floor to Mr. Wassaf Kanuul, Deputy Director of the Committee of the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. You are welcome to take the floor.

Ashraf Khouni.

Mr. Ashraf Khouni, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mrs. Rasim. Distinguished Chairs, dear colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, A 60th anniversary is not merely a chronology of meetings and documents. It should ask what a treaty has changed in our understanding of justice. The achievement of 1966 was to make the material conditions of freedom a matter of treaty obligation. A person formally free, but deprived of food, health care, education or cultural life, does not enjoy freedom in its full human meaning. In 1976, that conviction became treaty law in force. Yet, its consequences had to be made visible, tangible. Economic, social and cultural rights were treated as aspirations, while civil and political rights were treated as genuine claims. The two Articles 2 differ in drafting, not in the dignity they protect. The history of the Covenant is largely one of overcoming that perception of false hierarchy. As the Committee has interpreted it, Article 2 contains a legal discipline. Progressive realization recognizes that institutions and resources cannot be transformed at once. It does not empty the obligation of present content. States must take deliberate, concrete and targeted steps, non-discrimination is immediate, and available resources must be used to the maximum. Deliberately regressive measures require the most careful justification. Minimum essential levels claim priority. A State invoking resource constraints must be able to show that every effort has been made to meet the minimum essential levels. Time matters to compliance, but it cannot be invoked as as a legal alibi. This changed the relationship between law and public policy. The Covenant does not prescribe an economic model, and the Committee does not replace governments. It requires that public choices be justified by reference to rights. A budget is not legally neutral when it determines access to food, medicine, housing or education. As a former judge, I regard General Comment No. 9 as decisive. Where a court accepts that covenant rights have legal effect, the question before it changes altogether. It no longer enquires whether social rights belong in a courtroom. It asks whether a decision was discriminatory, arbitrary or unjustifiably regressive, and, more importantly, whether the person affected had an effective remedy. Courts identify legal boundaries; democratic institutions choose among lawful means. The reporting obligation and the dialogue built upon it converted implementation into a duty to give public reasons. General comments built a common legal vocabulary, and the Optional Protocol in force since 2013 made the individual the bearer of a claim, not merely the subject of a State report. I shall refer to J.T. and others v. Finland, decided in 2024 by our Committee. Finland, which has accepted this procedure of Optional Protocol, had authorized mining exploration on traditional Sámi reindeer herding land without an adequate process of free, prior and informed consent, including an independent impact assessment. The Committee found a violation of the right to take part in cultural life, read alone and in conjunction with the right to self-determination, the principle of equality and non-discrimination, and the right to an adequate standard of living. The Human Rights Committee has long held that Article 27 protects Sámi reindeer herding, and has protected Sámi political participation. Here, therefore, the two covenants meet: different rights, but one conception of freedom. Commemoration, however, should not become self-congratulation. Normative clarity has advanced more quickly than implementation. Too many rights still depend on geography, status, income, or other circumstances. Too many recommendations remain without follow-up. The Optional Protocol still binds only a minority of States-Parties. And access to remedy remains uneven. The decisive test, therefore, is domestic. That is, whether the covenant enters legislation, judicial reasoning, administrative practice, and budgetary choice. The deepest achievement of these 60 years is therefore not that every question has been answered. It is that the terms of accountability have changed. Poverty, exclusion, and preventable deprivation are not merely social facts to be managed. They may disclose failures of legal obligation that require evidence, justification, and remedial action. The justiciability of social justice was the challenge of the past 60 years. It now conditions the next. I therefore call on every State Party to ensure that Covenant rights can be invoked before its domestic courts, and on those that have not yet done so, to ratify the Optional Protocol. Our task is to make that legal insight ordinary, in courts, in parliaments, in ministries, and above all, in the lives of those for whom the Covenant was written. I thank you for your attention.

Thank you very much, sir, for that. Very clear assessment of achievements to date. I'm also grateful to you for the critique, which will allow us to, I think, further improve performance in our committees. Allow me now to pass the floor to my colleague and friend, Madame Tianna Shulen, member of the Human Rights Committee, ICPR. You have the floor, madam, for five minutes.

Thank you, Madam Basim. A very good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and dear colleagues. After the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations General Assembly, the need to transform its principles into legally binding international obligations was recognized, but it wasn't an easy task. The drafting of the covenants took almost two decades, from the initial work in 1948 to their adoption in 1966. The ICCPR was adopted by 106 votes in favor and a none against, together with the first optional protocol. Although this demonstrated broad support for the instruments, it took another 10 years for the covenant and the first optional protocol to enter into force on March 1976. The 35 states whose ratifications or accessions triggered the entry into force of the Covenant represented all five UN regional groups. Following its entry into force in 1976, the ICCPR gradually expanded its membership. By the end of the 1970s, another 25 states had joined the Covenant. The 1980s brought further expansion, with 15 additional states becoming parties. By the end of 1999, there were 144 States Parties. Today, there are 175. This development demonstrates the growing international recognition of civil and political rights as universal rights, although participation in the Covenant is not yet universal. The first optional protocol is an important addition to the Covenant. It allowed individuals from 116 States Parties to the Protocol to bring alleged violations of their rights under the Covenant before an international body, the Human Rights Committee. The second Optional Protocol, adopted on 15 December 1989, entered into force in 1991, reflects a significant international commitment to the abolition of the death penalty for its 92 State Parties. What would be the Covenant and its optional protocols without the Committee? While commemorating 60 years since the adoption of the ICCPR, we also commemorate 50 years of the Human Rights Committee. The Committee was formally established on 20 September 1976, and its first session took place in March 1977. First composition of the Committee mirrored regional participation. but was entirely composed of men. First female member joined in 1984. First female chair was elected in 1997. Over these 50 years, each of the Committee's mandates and working methods has evolved. Originally, States were required to submit their initial reports within one year of the entry into force of the Covenant. In 1981, the Committee established a five-year periodic reporting cycle. In 2009, a simplified reporting procedure was introduced. Finally, in 2020, the Committee introduced an eight-year predictable review cycle, making simplified reporting the default procedure. The simplified procedure changed the method of reporting, but not the extent of State Parties' human rights obligations. Through the adoption of COPs, The Human Rights Committee provides guidance to State Parties by interpreting the rights enshrined in the Covenant and elaborating on the measures necessary to ensure their effective implementation. The first General Comment was adopted at the Committee's 13th session in 1981. From relatively brief explanations to increasingly comprehensive interpretations, the Committee has progressively developed its General Comments drawing on its experience and providing guidance to States Parties on the implementation of the Covenant. The first individual communication, Lovelace v. Canada, was submitted already in December 1976. By 1977, 13 communications were already before the Committee. In July 2001, a historical milestone was reached with the submission of the 1000th communication. Speaking about the past, we acknowledge that the ICCPR is not merely a historical document. It is a living instrument. Rights that were initially expressed in broad terms have acquired greater depth and practical meaning through the Committee's jurisprudence. In this way, the Covenant's fundamental principles have remained constant, with their application continuing to develop. And perhaps the most important lesson of these 60 years is: the Covenant has transformed the way we understand international law. The protection of human rights is no longer regarded as a matter falling exclusively within the domestic jurisdiction of individual states. Now, it is a matter of international concern and responsibility. I thank you.

Thank you very much. Madam Laura Izabelis will now have the floor. She is a member of the Committee for Economic, Cultural and Social Rights. Thank you.

Thank you very much, madam Basim, and a very good afternoon. to everyone here. Dear colleagues, we are here to celebrate the 60th anniversary of a historic milestone that consolidated the Universal Declaration of Human Rights through two legally binding instruments that, although separate, protect together the fundamental rights of all. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights constitutes the legal cornerstone for the construction of a dignified life for all and opens the path to progress towards universal social justice. Despite the fact that the interpretation of economic, social and cultural rights as second tier rights meant relegating their full acceptance by the states, after 60 years, we can say that the dynamic towards the recognition of the universality, indivisibility and interdependence with civil and political rights, in addition to the undying and rigorous work of the CESC Committee have allowed us to destroy this erroneous paradigm. Throughout six decades, we've seen significant progress towards the effective enjoyment of rights in social justice of broad collectives around the world, which have set the groundwork to eliminate the worst forms of labour exploitation. making us able to move towards more equitable and satisfactory working conditions, as well as ensuring environments propitious to collective dialogue and negotiation. Also strengthen social security, protecting those against people, against unemployment scenarios, accidents, health issues, disability, and age. We have managed to remove hunger as well and improve systems of sustained food production. We've also moved towards appropriate housing and core services, enjoyments of the highest levels of mental and physical health, progress towards the achievements of egalitarian and quality universal education, participate in conserving development as well as disseminate cultural life and access to the benefits of scientific progress. The outcomes achieved by the CESC are extraordinary. And despite the challenging environment, we have made great steps forwards over the last 60 years. As we know, its entry into force occurred 10 years after its adoption, while the CESC Committee, the body with the mandate to oversee it, was established in 1985. Notwithstanding this, despite this beginning, we have seen compliance reviews of around 450 reports and more than 7,000 recommendations issued to countries over the last ten years. These countries have progressed towards cultural assimilation of these rights and legislative harmonisation, fostering institutional consolidation and strengthening processes of oversight. In addition, they have supported the design of public policies grounded in rights and evidence. Over this period, the Committee has also issued 27 general comments. These constitute fundamental doctrinal progress, moving towards improving standards underpinning the obligations in the Covenants, breaking them down, and making clear cross-cutting responsibilities which keep the covenant alive in the current day and age, in an international framework in permanent flux. These include, among other things, recently, sexual and reproductive rights, the right to water, the state’s obligations in the business environment, science, the land, and the environmental dimension of sustainable development. The Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is responsible for ensuring non-discrimination for all in these areas, particularly equality of rights between men and women. Nonetheless, it's necessary to recognize that Significant challenging gaps endure in these areas, endured by many groups in situations of structural discrimination, exclusion, and intersectional vulnerability. They continue to not only hope to see progress in their social rights, they continue to languish in dark and desperate contexts of deprivation, worse succumbing to avoidable deaths that humanity should never accept. This is our era's greatest debt. At these times of barefaced political attack on human rights, it is essential to renew the world's commitment to these two covenants and progress towards the strengthening of the treaty bodies who are responsible for defending and promoting them. Thank you very much.

Thank you, madam Perez. I give the floor now to two partners and two guests. Each one of them will have three minutes. I first invite Mrs. Francesca Mengruni, senior attorney of the Center for International Environmental Law, who will speak on behalf of the Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Mrs. Mingron, you have the floor, please.

Thank.

You very much. It's a pleasure to be speaking on behalf of GSR and the Center for International Environmental Law. We welcome the opportunity to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the Covenants. As has been highlighted already by various panelists today, the essential contribution that the covenants and their treaty bodies have made to human rights is also true in the context of environmental harms, as both committees have developed a growing number of recommendations, decisions, and guidance on States' obligations to take effective action on climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution. The four climate and toxic-related decisions by the Human Rights Committee continue to provide important precedents on States' obligations to protect individuals from climate harm. The Committee's newly adopted General Comment No. 38 on freedom of association also includes important guidance on States' obligations to protect environmental human rights defenders. The CESCR has reinforced its forward-looking approach to human rights by responding to some of the most pressing challenges of our time. Its General Comment No. 27 on the environmental dimension of sustainable development affirms the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment as both autonomous and inherent in the Covenant, building on the work of the Human Rights Council, and firmly anchors environmental justice within the framework of States' obligations. In its statement on tax policy, the committee recognized for the first time that fair and progressive taxation is a human rights imperative directly tied to states' obligations under the covenant. Together, these instruments really reaffirm that economic and climate justice are required by the ICESCR and that both depend on states mobilizing the maximum of their available resources, nationally and through international cooperation. Recommendations by both committees have also provided important guidance on States' obligations with respect to fossil fuel phase-out, highlighting the wide range of rights affected by this industry. The impact of this legal finding is clear. For instance, the recent advisory opinion on climate change by the International Court of Justice has drawn extensively on treaties bodies' work, confirming their central role in advancing human rights protection in the context of the triple planetary crisis. We thus thank both committees for their continued work on environmental issues, and we encourage them to provide even more specific guidance to States. This anniversary comes at a time of growing financial fragility of the multilateral system, including treaty bodies. This anniversary is an invitation to reclaim the covenants as a roadmap for development that is grounded in rights. one that is capable of strengthening democracies precisely because it insists on the indivisibility and interdependence of civil, political, economic, social, cultural, and environmental rights. In a moment of weakened multilateralism, recommitting to that vision is not a nostalgic gesture, but a necessary one. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Madam Attorney. I now invite Mr. Ronald Chauvel, Director of the Center for Civil and Political Rights. Mr. Chauvel, you have the floor.

Good afternoon. The adoption of both covenants 60 years ago was a historic moment in the evolution of international human rights. The covenants have transformed universal ideas and principles into binding legal obligations. This anniversary therefore holds significance far beyond mere commemoration. It's an opportunity to assess the current states of civil and political rights and reaffirm why they must be actively defended. International human law is only meaningful when it is understood, claimed, and implemented by those it is meant to protect. The role of the CCPR Center, founded in 2008, has always been to build bridges connecting civil society actors, national institutions, and individuals to the normative framework of the ICCPR, while bringing the outcomes of international processes back to the national level, where they drive tangible change. As we celebrate these anniversaries, we are now witnessing across regions worrying erosion of international norms and attacks on human rights, restriction on freedom of association and assembly, regressive austerity, and setbacks in women's rights and reproductive autonomy. This comes at a time of growing fragility of the multilateral system. The UN's financial crisis has hit the treaty bodies particularly hard, leading to cancelled sessions, growing backlogs, and reduced capacity to engage with states and civil society. Yet, the system works. According to different analysis, almost half of the Human Rights Committee priority recommendations, 45% of them, have led to human rights improvement. Amidst the world's cacophony and while international human rights law is being challenged, these are mechanisms, far from the headlines, advancing human rights through dialogue. In this anniversary year, we therefore call upon States to reaffirm their commitment to international law by providing the financial and political support necessary for the Committees to fulfill their mandates and by accelerating ratifications of the two covenants. Excellencies, The covenants are not documents of the past, but living instruments that continue to inspire, that remain essential for confronting the defining challenges of our time, from climate emergency to artificial intelligence to rising inequalities to democratic backsliding. 60 years on, their promises remain more urgent than ever to guarantee dignity, freedom, and justice for all. In the framework of those celebrations, the CCPR Center had organized an exhibition, Kate Wilson, in July. And we just issued a publication as well, which includes cartoons to illustrate the main articles of the ICCPR, as well as legal analysis, historical perspectives, and data on the current human rights violations. And we have a few copies here, and copies available in French and English on our website. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chauvel. Unfortunately, due to lack of time, we were able only We are only going to listen to one State Party and for only two minutes. Who wishes to take the floor? I give the floor to the representative of India. Please, the floor is yours for two minutes.

Thank you, Madam. Distinguished panelists, let me begin by thanking the OHCHR for this special commemorative event. We also thank the panelists and all the speakers for the insightful remarks and reflections on the achievements of the Covenant over the past 60 years. Together with the UDHR, the two covenants form the main pillars of the international human rights framework. We heard at length how they are all tied together, and frankly, it's good that we're celebrating it or commemorating them together. This framework remains today anchored in the principle that true dignity cannot be divided, and that civil, political, economic, and social rights are inextricably woven together. This balanced approach is deeply ingrained. in India’s democratic and constitutional fabric, and precedes the adoption of the covenants. Our Constitution came into force in 1950 and already had legally enforceable fundamental rights and its guiding directive principles of state policy. This framework is continually safeguarded and expanded by an independent judiciary, ensuring that economic and social aspirations advance hand-in-hand with civil and political freedoms. India places immense value on the work of both committees and their esteemed members. In fact, we take particular pride in seeing an Indian expert and my senior colleague currently chairing the CESCAR. We would also like to emphasize that the treaty body system, and many of you mentioned this, must remain driven by member states. And any reform process must be conducted with greater transparency and after taking into confidence all member states. As we look ahead, the Covenants must remain our guide in reducing inequality, advancing social protection, and safeguarding fundamental liberties, ensuring that they are interpreted in a manner that continually advances these rights. Reflecting on the 60 years of this foundational Covenants, what do the panelists actually view as the most effective strategies for the committees to engage in true partnership with member states to address emerging global challenges over the next decade? I end on this note, and I thank you again for this opportunity.

Thank you for respecting the time limit. I invite the representative of Russia to the floor. Please go ahead.

Distinguished members of the committees, 60 years ago, the UN General Assembly adopted the International Covenant Economic, social, and cultural rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Those adoptions undoubtedly marked a significant milestone in the field of promotion and protection of human rights. To make its contribution to a solemn commemoration of the 60th anniversary of the mentioned covenants, the Russian Federation, alongside with Belarus, Ethiopia, Mali, and Venezuela, as a multi-regional co-group, initiated the adoption of the relevant Human Rights Council resolution 61/7 during its 61st session last March, as well as become one of the co-sponsors of the high-level panel dedicated to the 60th anniversary, which was held during the 63rd HRC session. We strongly believe that the concept of human rights should unify states rather than divide them. Being universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated, all human rights must be treated globally in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing and with the same emphasis. It is a primary duty of states to promote and to protect all human rights, while states' national and regional peculiarities and various historical, cultural, and religious backgrounds should be duly borne in mind. Any attempts of politicizing the concept of human rights, imposing a unilateral vision of this concept, as well only one possible or using the human rights issue as a tool for increasing political pressure on several states seem to be counterproductive and Only genuinely constructive and mutually respectful dialogue should be the way to achieve sustainable and long-lasting decisions in the field of promotion and protection of human rights. Celebrating the 60th anniversary of the two international covenants, we encourage all States to contribute constructively to multilateral cooperation in the field of human rights with a view of achieving universally supported and recognized solution to the existing human rights challenges and to promote universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Thank you for your attention.

Thank you, the representative of the Federation of Russia. We hope that we were able to go ahead with this interactive dialogue, but time flies by and maybe in the future we might have opportunities to give the floor to the other participants in the context of this anniversary. From the bottom of my heart, I wish to thank the panelists and the speakers. Mr. Kony, Mrs. Shuland, Mrs. Perez. I thank them for their statements. I wish also to thank the speakers for their precious statements. Please, we have to prepare for the next round of discussions. Thank you so much.

I would now like to invite Mr. Lezari Bouzid, member of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, to come to the podium to moderate the next discussion. Mr. Bouzid, sir, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam Chair. At the outset, I wish to thank you all. Madam Chair, 10 years ago, and in room 17 next door, I attended the first meeting. of the two committees in June 2016, when I was a member of the Human Rights Committees, in which I stayed for eight years. Now I attend the second meeting ten years from that date. Back then, the two committees issued their first joint communication, that communication is still relevant and we should build on it because it underlines key issues that come in 14 paragraphs. Three important are important of that communique. In the third one, it states that the two covenants contributed to propagating a joint global language on human rights. They provided protection for millions of people globally. In paragraph 4, it says that the two committees have a common vision which stresses that human rights are universal, interdependent and indivisible. The last paragraph which is relevant to the situation of today. It stipulates that the two committees pledge to prepare for the work of the treaty bodies system of human rights. Now we go back to our discussion and start our meeting. This meeting is on the title, "The Two Conventions in the Time of Crisis." This discussion will bear on the ongoing relevance of the two conventions in dealing with the current challenges, including in times of emergency, equality and non-discrimination, and the protection of the covenant rights in situations of armed conflicts, conflicts which abound in our current times. Without further ado, I give the floor to Mr. Hernán Quezada Cabrera, Vice Chair of the Human Rights Committee. The floor is yours.

A very good afternoon, everyone. Thank you very much. I'm going to be referring to the current global challenges for the enjoyment of human rights, and particularly for the effective implementation of the covenants. As the High Commissioner of the United Nations for Human Rights said on 14 October last before the UNGA's Third Committee, "Our world, as we know it, is shaken by war, polarization, climate chaos, and rapid technological change. Powerful interests are amplifying a sense that destructive trends from democratic backsliding to climate chaos are inevitable. The High Commissioner and many international observers have stated their concern regarding the generalized and critical deterioration of human rights at the global level throughout this year. This deterioration is the outcome of a range of factors. which demonstrate a context which is not only unfavourable, but frankly contrary to the respect for human rights, both civil and political, and economic, social, and cultural. These factors include the following, which I will rapidly highlight: 1. Armed conflicts and grave violations of international humanitarian law taking place in areas and countries across the Middle East, Africa, and Europe; 2. Backsliding in fundamental freedoms and rights; particularly expressed in serious threats to gender equality, freedom of the press, and protection of children in various areas across the world. Three, risks arising from artificial intelligence, which is arising from a out-of-control technological arms race. which represents existential risk and a threat to basic rights, including the right to life, privacy, health, security, and generalised discriminatory environments, as well as the propagation, disinformation, and exclusionary automation, as well as threats against privacy through mass vigilance of all. protests and the indiscriminate use of force, which we've seen today in Europe and other regions, where we're concerned by the police response and the excessive use of force against demonstrations, including against children demonstrating. which seriously impacts the right to peaceful demonstration and protest; 5. The climate and environmental crisis, which has led to the loss of biodiversity and scarce resources, impacting disproportionately the most vulnerable and indigenous populations; 6. An increase in inequality and discrimination arising from an increase in poverty, growing socio-economic gaps, the persistence of racism, xenophobia, male chauvinism, and the marginalisation of minorities; 7. the institutional deterioration and authoritarianism in countries across Latin America, arising from phenomena around corruption and organized crime, and extreme movements and parties. This has led to a democratic backsliding, which is conveyed in the weakening of the rule of law and an increase in authoritarian regimes, among other things. Eight: closely connected to these, we should consider corruption. This is a phenomenon which impacts the enjoyment of all human rights. Corruption undermines the operation of justice and accountability. It is an agent of abuse, as well as an obstacle to the compliance by States with their obligations in human rights. In this regard, I should highlight that the Human Rights Committee has dealt with this issue in many State party reviews. Historically, the Committee predominantly referred to corruption in the context of Article 14 of the Covenant, so this is the right to a fair trial, although It is now increasingly concerned by corruption in relation to the right to life, the prohibition of slavery, trafficking in human beings, the right to freedom and security, as well as the effective participation in public affairs and non-discrimination. At the same time, we know that for part of the 20th century, international human rights protection focused on threats to human dignity, such as censorship, political persecution, torture, summary executions, forced displacement and discrimination. By contrast, at the dawn of the 21st century, this is no longer limited to States parties’ limits on persons’ rights. It extends to economic rights, institutional capture, and issues of general economic interest. And here we need to wonder: Can we really consider that human rights are guaranteed, particularly economic, social and cultural rights, if the rights of peoples and nations are too often transferred through opaque processes to private entities, often bogged down in corruption. This situation creates particular concern in countries which possess strategic resources for the global economy, including mineral, natural gas, and water. In this vein, the key is not only to determine what country possesses these resources, but rather what actors are benefiting from their exploitation. This reminds us of the principle of permanent sovereignty over natural resources recognized in international law for decades, including Resolution 1803 of the General Assembly of 1962, which declared that peoples' and nations' sovereignty over their natural resources should be exercised in the interest of national development and the well-being of the people of that country. Some years later, as we know, Article 1, which is shared by both covenants, reaffirmed the principle, establishing that all people should be able to dispose freely of their resources and natural resources, and that under Under no circumstances could a people be deprived of their own means of subsistence. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Cabrera, for this valuable intervention. Without further ado, I give the floor to my colleague, Annabelle Lodewijk. The floor is yours.

Madame Chair, Mr. Chair, Your Excellencies, dear colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, The two covenants are often presented as two distinct human rights systems. One is the heir of struggles against arbitrary rule, holding that power must check power. The other, the heir of social struggles, holding that power must answer for misery. So two centers of justice, two centers of gravity, and one and the same dignity. The ICCPR embodies a peace-building conception of civil and political justice. It subjects force to law and guarantees voice, pluralism, and remedy so that disagreement does not turn into violence. The ICE-SCR embodies a peace-building conception of social justice. It gives freedom its flesh and bones: food, health, housing, work, education, and culture. The one prevents force from becoming arbitrary. the other prevents deprivation from becoming inevitable. Hence there are two forms of violence: one attacks the body, arbitrary arrest, torture, repression; the other strikes at the very conditions of life, hunger that endures, famine that kills, hospitals that stop functioning, the child denied his education. This is slow violence. And like repression, poverty is not fate. It results from choices, above all, political choices. So they are distinct. These forms of violence, however, feed one another, if not mechanically. Exclusion weakens institutions. Armed violence destroys the infrastructure on which social rights depend. In conflicts, civil peace and social peace unravel together. The decisive test of both covenants is whether they continue to bind when the ordinary order breaks down, for example in war, in crises. in emergency situations and in others also. The law may adapt its modalities to circumstances; it cannot cease to apply without betraying its universality. The asymmetry is crucial: Article 4 of the ICCPR strictly circumscribes the power to derogate. However, the ICESCR, for its part, recognizes no general power to suspend rights. However, war does not suspend the demands of social justice. In fact, it lays them bare. When resources grow scarce and institutions retreat, every single allocation of resources draws a line between the needs that are protected and the sacrifices that are imposed. The law does not promise the impossible. It refuses to let impossibility simply be declared. It must be demonstrated. In times of scarcity, obligation does not disappear. It becomes a discipline of justification. This continuity does not set the covenants in competition with international humanitarian law. The two regimes apply together without merging. One and the same fact, a hospital destroyed, a school closed, belongs at once to the immediate time of hostilities and to the longer time period of the conditions of human existence. The forthcoming General Comment on economic, social and cultural rights in the context of armed conflict now being drafted within the Committee should, in my view, turn this continuity into a method: identifying the right affected, the obligation that remains, the authority that answers for it, and the remedy that stays open, that is, before, during, and after the conflict. To that end, its drafting will have to confront questions that both our committees know very well: extraterritoriality, effective control over territory, non-state actors, the interplay with humanitarian law, and minimum core obligations. These are challenges, intellectual as much as they are legal, that it falls to us to meet. By adopting yesterday, with remarkable diligence, its general comment on freedom of association, the Human Rights Committee has shown that law can respond to the urgency of our time and produce authoritative interpretations. War and social injustice impose the same urgency upon us in our Committee. Sixty years after 1966, the struggle for law takes the form of a refusal, the refusal to let war deny dignity, erase the humanity of those it strikes, and cast them outside the law. Institutions may collapse, resources may dwindle, populations may be displaced. Never does this person cease to be a subject of rights. Giving this continuity its full force is the task of this committee. Social justice is neither a peacetime luxury nor a promise deferred until the post-war period. Its power lies in preserving, in the very midst of destruction, the conditions of a shared humanity and in making possible a peace that is more than just the silence of the guns. I thank you.

Thank you very much, Professor Rodrique Nabel, for this valuable intervention. And now I give the floor to Mr. Ivan Simunovic, Vice President of the Human Rights Committee. You have the floor.

Your Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, dear colleagues. Look around us. From Ukraine and Gaza to Sudan and Myanmar, we are witnessing devastating conflicts and shocking atrocities. Civilians are paying a terrible price, and impunity remains widespread. This is a challenge not only to international humanitarian law, but also to international human rights law. International humanitarian law applies during armed conflict, but so do both human rights covenants and other human rights treaties. And the rights they protect are inseparable. What does the right to life mean without food, water, or medical care? What does human dignity mean when homes, hospitals, and schools are destroyed? Civil and political rights cannot be effectively protected without economic, social, and cultural rights, and vice versa. But should our ambition be limited to making armed conflict less inhuman? Surely not. We must also make war, atrocity crimes, and serious human rights violations less likely. And this is where human rights in peacetime become crucial. Discrimination, exclusion, repression and injustice are often root causes of armed conflicts. Respect for human rights, equality, participation and rule of law can help prevent it. Human rights protection in peacetime is therefore our first line of defense against atrocities in wartime. But Prevention cannot stop there. We must address the entire conflict cycle. When tensions rise, Identify early warning signs and act before violence escalates. During emergencies, prevent abuses of power and protect those most at risk. During armed conflict, protect civilians, facilitate humanitarian assistance, and demand accountability. And after conflict, ensure that human rights guide peace agreements, reconstruction, and efforts to prevent renewed violence. Otherwise, unresolved injustices and impunity can fuel the next conflict. And there is a paradox. While we need stronger human rights protection to prevent conflicts, human rights are increasingly under pressure even in peacetime. How did we get to this point? The two covenants we heard had a promising start. Ratifications increased, the committees began their work, human rights became part of national laws and institutions. But since the beginning of the 21st century, the gap between human rights commitments and their implementation has been growing. Ladies and gentlemen, we have built an impressive human rights system. But are we making sufficient use of it? The central challenge today is not only to develop new standards; it is to implement more effectively the standards we already have. How can our two committees and other human rights treaty bodies contribute? Our concluding observations, views, and general comments can help identify risks earlier, guide preventing action, and strengthen accountability. But recommendations that stay on paper cannot protect anyone. We need more practical recommendations, systemic follow-up, and stronger implementation. And we cannot do it alone. Success requires commitment from States and closer cooperation between treaty bodies, special rapporteurs, civil society, regional organizations, and the wider UN system. Our findings must feed more effectively into the Universal Periodic Review, OHCHR field work, and UN action on the ground. Dear friends, 60 years ago, the Covenant offered a promise. Let us turn that promise into action. Stronger human rights protection in peacetime, including during emergency, is our best investment in preventing conflicts and atrocities. Stronger implementation Greater accountability, more prevention, that would be a worthy way to mark 60 years of our two covenants. But why not start right now, today? Let us strengthen the group of friends of UN human rights treaty bodies here in Geneva and establish one also in New York. And let us assure to mobilize political as well as financial support, strengthen implementation, and turn recommendations into action. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Simanovic, for that statement.

Which was very important. I would now like to pass the floor to Madame Lindsay Cameron, who is head of the legal division with the International Committee of the Red Cross. You have the floor.

Thank you very much. Excellencies, distinguished colleagues. Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to first start by thanking the organizers for inviting the International Committee of the Red Cross to make a short intervention today. And I've really appreciated already the remarks of the panelists that we've heard so far, in particular in relation to continuity and prevention. I think these are concepts that we also share. The topic of this part of the event relates very much to key aspects of our mandate, and in particular, to prevent and alleviate the suffering of victims of armed conflict and to protect them from the worst excesses of human behavior, like extrajudicial killings, torture, other forms of ill-treatment, and enforced disappearances. Also, as many of you have noted, when essential needs of entire populations are not met, the survival and the subsistence, but also the longer-term prospects of a dignified life and livelihoods are at stake. So currently, as you may know, the ICRC has said that there are somewhere in the neighborhood of 130 armed conflicts that are ongoing, where there are in many of them, staggering levels of death and mental suffering, prolonged disruption of essential services, widespread destruction and disruption of hospitals, and degradation of entire health systems. And we also see acute food insecurity for millions, access to education disrupted for entire generations of children. I mean, the list goes on. Many of these humanitarian consequences are also exacerbated by the fact that many of these armed conflicts go on for a very long time, and the ICRC has been in many situations of armed conflict and many conflict settings for over 40 years. This is where the law comes in for the ICRC, not as a theoretical exercise, but really as a practical tool that informs our dialogue with states and parties to conflict, with the ultimate aim to mitigate human suffering and the humanitarian consequences for victims of armed conflict. I'm sure you are all very well aware that our first point of entry is international humanitarian law. It is very useful and good to know that international human rights law also continues to apply, also in situations of armed conflict, and provides a complementary legal framework. And so, even though they are not exactly the same, there are a number of obligations that are sometimes exactly the same, prohibitions like on humane treatment and prohibitions of ill-treatment. And complementarity means that international humanitarian law and human rights law need to be and can be interpreted in a harmonized way. Also, due to the sheer nature and complexity of armed conflict, international humanitarian law will not provide all of the answers in any situation. For example, on issues like the acceptability and quality of medical services, or on minimum core obligations in relation to the availability and accessibility of food. And so here, for example, General Comment 14 on the right to health contains useful benchmarks that we can also look at on medical ethics and quality of care. The continued undertakings, such as the current work that you spoke about on the general comment by the Committee on addressing the protection of economic, social and cultural rights in armed conflict are therefore of great relevance to us, and we are very encouraged by that and happy to engage on that. to say we very much welcome this occasion to examine the enduring relevance of the Covenants in emergency situations like armed conflicts, and we look forward to continuing to engage with you in efforts to reaffirm and further clarify State obligations. Thank you.

Thank you very much, madam, for that statement. We have been glad to have had the opportunity to listen to each of the panelists, our partners, and however, not everyone has been able to speak, and we would like to give the floor to the representative of Iraq to start with. Thank you. Is the representative of Iraq absent? Then I give the floor to the representative of Korea.

Thank you, Chair. The Republic of Korea warmly congratulates both committees on the 60th anniversary of the Covenant. Sixty years ago, the international community transformed its shared commitment to human dignity into binding legal obligations. Together, the Covenant affirmed the universality, interdependence, and indivisibility of human rights. We extend our deepest appreciation to all Committee members, past and present, for their tireless dedication and invaluable contribution to translating this commitment into reality. Looking ahead, we would highlight two priorities. First, the Covenant must remain effective in the digital age. Since 2000 19. Korea has played a leading role in advancing the new and emerging digital technologies and human rights agenda at the Human Rights Council, including through resolution most recently adopted by consensus in 2025. Treaty bodies have an important role in applying the covenants to new challenges and ensuring that human rights protection keeps pace with technological change. Second, We should strengthen the practical implementation of the governance through clear, action-oriented recommendations, effective national follow-up, and engagement with civil society. Ultimately, their success should be measured by the difference they make in people's lives. The Republic of Korea stands ready to contribute to these efforts.

Thank you.

Thank you. I give the floor to the representative of El Salvador.

No microphone for the speaker.

It's working.

You can hear me? Okay, perfect. Thank you.

Thank you very much. El Salvador aligns itself Very happily, with the spirit of the commemoration of the 60th anniversary of the CESCR and the ICPR adopted by the UNGA on the 16th of September 1966, after 6 decades, the international community. has transformed shared aspirations into legally binding obligations and recognizes that human dignity can only be fully enjoyed when civil and political rights, as well as economic, social, and cultural rights, progress jointly. El Salvador signed up to both covenants and their various optional protocols, which reflects our conviction that the human being is the origin and the goal of States' work, as enshrined by Article 1 of our Convention. This anniversary is first and foremost an opportunity to reaffirm three principles that our delegation believe to be essential. the universality of these, indivisibility of them, interdependence and the interrelation of all human rights. No right can be fully enjoyed without the material and security preconditions making it possible. The right to live free from violence and fear is vital for the effective enjoyment of the other rights recognized in both covenants. The importance of international cooperation and constructive dialogue. is essential. El Salvador appreciates the work of both Committees and reiterates its preparedness to maintain a frank, respectful dialogue with them, which is goal-orientated alongside the treaty bodies in the context of the recognition of national realities and priorities, the necessity to ensure a sustainable treaty body system. The covenants will only conserve their practical end if the treaty bodies have efficient, forecastable and effective resources given to them by states. We recognise the principles enshrined in both covenants and need to be underpinned with an efficient mechanism which is placing human beings at its heart, and we are delighted to have an expert on these committees. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And now we will hear from Chile, and following that, we will move on to the next speaker or end.

The debate.

Thank you very much for the floor. We're very grateful to all of the members of the committees. Commemorating the 60th anniversary of the International Human Rights Covenants, means that we must assess whether or not the goals laid down six decades ago have been complied with. This historic milestone is decorated with significant progress. This has significant importance for Chile. Our founding principles establish that there is no divisibility between these two bodies of rights. Santa Cruz established with clarity that the principles of solidarity, indivisibility, and the dependence of all rights are essential. Throughout six decades, the technical and substantive work of both committees through their concluding observations, general comments, and individual communications have consolidated indispensable normative standards for international law. They're right. and jurisprudence under both covenants have established an indivisible body of work, establishing that civil and political rights are indivisible from the guarantee of economic, social and cultural rights, which fully ensure human dignity. The foregoing is particularly important today, bearing in mind what our compatriot Don Hernán Quesada laid out in terms of the threats that are currently blighting human rights the world over. This 60th anniversary should renew our multilateral political commitment to strengthen the mechanisms supervising the treaties, ensuring the protection of both instruments, effectively responds to the mandates, and preserves humanity and dignity without discrimination. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

With this, we come to the end of this episode. And I would like.

Thank you. We are coming to the end, and I would like to thank all of the speakers during this second discussion. Your participation shows us once again that human rights are of crucial importance, and they are applied not just during time of peace, but during conflicts also. Now I'd like to give the floor back to my own chair.

Thank you very much, Mr. Bouzid. We now turn to our third and final discussion, entitled The Future, Challenges, and the Way Forward. We need a little time to... Yes. This segment will look ahead at how the two covenants can respond to emerging challenges in a changing world, and at the elements of roadmap for the future. I'm very keen to hear from the discussant how they view the future challenges, and most of all, how we can ensure that treaty parties will be able to meet them. I kindly remind our discussant that we have up to five minutes each. So, first discussant, I will invite Ms. Joo-Young Lee, member of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Ms. Lee, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Excellencies, dear colleagues and friends, it's a great pleasure to be part of this event marking the 60th anniversary of the two covenants. Let me begin with two young people, a girl who is 10 years old today, and a young man who is 20. Let us imagine their lives 10 and 20 years from now. Will they have work? What kind of work? Will a machine decide whether they get a job, a loan, a place at university? Will the water they drink be clean? How would the air they breathe be? When they are sick, who will care for them? Who will they talk to? Who will they play with? A friend? or a chatbot? And how will they find meaning and joy? How will they know that their lives have worth? Many things will shape our future. Two stand out: artificial intelligence and the ecological limits of our planet. We often speak of both as if they were inevitable. As if AI simply arrives and we adapt. As if the climate simply breaks down and we cope. However, these are not forces of nature. They are the results of human choices. We choose what we build and how we use it. We choose what we consume. We choose who pays and who benefits. So the real question is this: who decides? Who decides the future of this girl and this young man, and the future of those who are not yet born? This is where the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights matters. Let me make three points. First, indivisibility. We cannot secure the rights to work, health, water, education, and cultural life if people cannot speak. They need to be able to organize, to assemble, and to take part in decisions. Economic, social, and cultural rights need a voice, and a voice needs these rights. Without food, without education, it is much harder for people to have their voices heard. Second, what states must do? In many countries, governments are cutting budgets. Social protection, health, and education are treated as a cost, something to trim. The Covenant says otherwise. These rights are not a cost. They are the foundations for today and for the future. Investing in them is how a society prepares for AI and for a changing planet. In many places, democracy is also under pressure, and civic space is shrinking. Under the both covenants, States must let people say what future they want and how they want to contribute to it. That includes young people. States' obligations also reach beyond the present. What we do with the planet's resources today decides what the next generations will inherit. Decisions taken today must not close the door on their rights tomorrow. Third, our role as a committee. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights was adopted 60 years ago. Its drafters did not have algorithms or planetary boundaries in mind, but they did have its purpose in mind: ensuring the equal enjoyment of universal human rights in a changing world, against the old and new threats to human dignity. Our task is to keep the Covenant relevant. Committee has already started. In General Comment No. 25 on science, we addressed both the benefits and the risks of new technologies. In General Comment No. 27 adopted last year, we addressed the environmental dimension of sustainable development, including obligations towards future generations. These are parts of the roadmap, although they are not the whole road. We must keep reading the Covenant in the light of today and the future. Where necessary, we must revisit our own interpretations, our methods, and the questions we ask States. And we should do this together with other treaty bodies and with the people whose rights are at stake. Let me return to the girl and the young man. Their future is not written yet. It will be written by the choices we make now. in parliaments, in government ministries, in companies, and here at the United Nations. And I hope it will also be written by the girl and the young men themselves. And the two covenants tell us what we must find a way to make sure these choices are made with them and not for them. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Ms. Lee. Now I'll invite Mr. Larry Helper. Member of the Human Rights Committee, Mr. Halper, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Artificial intelligence is reshaping the exercise of public and private power over individuals and how that power is challenged. International human rights law provides established standards to assess the impact of AI tools such as predictive algorithms, facial recognition, and large language models. Yet those standards require careful attention to both the risks and the benefits of AI for the exercise of the rights protected in the Covenants. In my brief remarks, I will highlight three such risks, as well as three potential benefits. The first risk is discrimination. AI models can reproduce exclusions, such as in policing and public benefits, that contravene the equal treatment guarantees of the Covenants. Addressing computer and human biases are essential to avoid these discriminatory outcomes. Second, surveillance. Facial recognition software enables pervasive identification of individuals in public spaces. Even accurate surveillance tools can invade privacy, chill free expression, and deter peaceful assemblies. To be compatible with the covenants, all such tools must respect the requirements of legality, legitimate aim, necessity, and proportionality. Third, opacity. Individuals often lack the information needed to challenge automated decisions. Article 23 of the ICCPR requires effective remedies for rights violations. This requires transparent and independent review procedures to examine and correct biased decisions. Turning to positive aspects, AI has the potential to strengthen protections of the covenants. First, it can help to document patterns of violations, such as extrajudicial killings or disappearances. by analyzing large data sets of information that investigators would otherwise miss. However, investigators using such AI tools must carefully verify their outputs to ensure accountability. Second, AI can improve access to remedies for covenant violations, for example, by reducing barriers for victims and systematizing the review of individual complaints. However, more efficient processing of cases must never undermine the effective exercise of human judgment by judges and treaty body experts. Third, AI can enhance participation in public life. The translation of texts into accessible formats, for example, can enable people with visual disabilities to obtain information and contribute to debates on law and policy. In sum, States parties have an overarching obligation to respect and ensure the rights in the covenants and to provide effective remedies for violations. In the context of new and increasingly powerful artificial intelligence tools, this obligation requires developing more precise standards about permissible uses, oversight, and remedies, as well as accountability of both governments and private technology companies. I hope that all treaty bodies will increasingly focus their attention on developing these standards in the years to come. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Halfar. Now I will invite Mr. Santiago Furio, member of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Mr. Furio, you have the floor.

Thank you very much to the Chairs for the floor, distinguished colleagues, honourable representatives of the Permanent Missions accredited in Geneva, ladies and gentlemen. It is a great honour for me to be here as the youngest member of my Committee, the youngest to have occupied a seat in the entire history of the Committee. And from the position of my youth, I am going to talk about the future. here. Since 1985, this body is now celebrating its 41st birthday. I am 40, so I am one year younger than the Committee. Commemorating the 60th anniversary of the Covenant constitutes a particular opportunity which is significant. After six decades, the international community has taken a decisive step by making a profoundly human conviction, a legally binding commitment, and that is that the dignity and liberty of all should be protected with no distinction. Sixty years after, this instrument continues to represent one of the most important manifestations of that collective and universal commitment. But this commemoration shouldn't just invite us to look back. Obviously, we do need to do that and recognize the path trodden, but it should also lead us to think about the responsibility incumbent on us now in the present and project towards the future with the vision that human rights are permanently evolving in a progressive process which goes forward ever faster every day, with growing demands that we see across the world. Some of these we have borne witness to in this privileged position that we occupy with due awareness and responsibility. Allow me to begin with something I think to be fundamental to understand not only the scope of the obligations established by the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Covenant, but also relates to each of our responsibilities moving forwards to the future. Article 2, this provision obliges states to adopt measures to the extent of available resources to progressively achieve the full enjoyment of the rights enshrined in the covenants, and that obligation contains a fundamental message. The enjoyment of human rights turns on concrete decisions and priorities. Progressiveness doesn't mean indefinitely postponing compliance, but deliberately and effectively progressing, using available resources and guaranteeing from the first moment the obligations of immediate implementation. And here there is an important point of convergence between our covenants and the ICCPR. Also coincidentally, in its second article, it establishes the obligation to respect and guarantee those rights enshrined and adopt necessary measures to make them effective. as well as to ensure deployment of resources in the face of violations. This isn't just a technical drafting coincidence between the two treaties. It is a legal proof that both covenants are part of one system, two dimensions of a single dignity, two expressions of a single reality. Although the obligation in both covenants have their own characteristics, they are based on an essential commitment: the rights internationally recognised should become effective guarantees at national level. And it is precisely that premise that raises this thought about the future of our two committees, and furthermore, the treaty body system at large. I believe that one of the key challenges consists in strengthening follow-up to recommendations which we make to states. As a member of these bodies, we should be at the forefront of ensuring the implementation of our recommendations. Our work cannot simply run through the adoption of COBs or constructive dialogues. On the contrary, That moment should be the beginning of an implementation process that leads to follow-up and cooperation. And so, that means firstly we must continue to strengthen our methodology as treaty bodies, providing follow-up to our own work and continuity to the work of our predecessors, as well as providing a guide moving forwards for the future of our mandates. The recommendations of the treaty bodies should be consolidated as useful tools for states which have deposited their trust in our mechanisms and our work. This is extremely important, to bring together all branches of the state, all international instruments, civil society and academia, as well as groups in a situation of vulnerability and all other stakeholders to contribute to the protection of human rights. And in that vein, I think it's particularly important to promote the establishment and strengthening of national mechanisms for the implementation of and presentation of reports as well as ensuring follow-up. This is a institutional practice which has grown in recent years and offers specific opportunities to improve inter-institutional coordination within States to comply precisely with human rights obligations, thus facilitating the implementation of recommendations and strengthening accountability. We must continue to promote these mechanisms, ensuring they have clear mandates and sufficient institutional capacities, as well as tools that allow them to carry out systematic follow-up of recommendations. At the same time, I want to highlight the value of the spirit of cooperation that exists between our treaty bodies, the States, and stakeholders. We must ensure that States continue to see treaty bodies as constructive allies that make recommendations which can be considered as genuine tools to improve the quality of life of those who bear the rights, peoples, groups, each individual, you and me. Now, thinking about the future of the system also requires recognising a difficulty, which is the liquidity crisis, which for some years now has affected the ideal operationality of the treaty body system. This situation has led to backsliding and cuts to sessions, and has led to growing pressure on the Secretariat and the High Commissioner's Office that support us. looking forwards without calling for a confrontation of this present reality would not be right. And so it just remains to me to express my trust that the necessary commitments will be made in the context of Article 2 of the Ceasach. To conclude, I want to recognise the significance of this commemoration. The covenants we celebrate today were written in the conviction that humanity cannot simply leave itself victim to circumstances, borders, or the transitional nature of governments. This is finding all of its strength today and makes a responsibility incumbent on us, which goes beyond our specific mandates and institutional positions. Thank you.

Mr. Fiorio, and before we open the floor, I will give the floor to our two invited partners. For up to three minutes each, I first invite Madame Isabelle Kempf, Director of UNESCO Institute for Lifelong Learning.

Distinguished members of both committees, Excellencies and colleagues, on behalf of UNESCO and its Institute for Lifelong Learning, I would like to congratulate us and you all for the 60th anniversary of the true governance. For me, it's a special honor to be here because 30 years ago, when I started my UN career in Latin America for the Economic Commission, I was invited by the then Secretary of the CESC to provide regularly information on the situation of different Latin American countries. So it was my first volunteer work with the Committee. And throughout my UN career, I've always taken to heart the rights-based approach and what I learned, of course, for working for many years with OHCHR. And I'm very happy to be here among my very dear colleagues and with many of the committee members whom I used to work with for many years. In 1985, Neil Postman contrasted two warnings about the future from George Orwell, the author of 1984, and Huxley, the author of The Brave New World. He said, "What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information, but Huxley feared those who would give us so much information that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us, but Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. So today, AI gives Huxley's warning a new urgency. We are overfed with information, yet starving for wisdom. The capacity to know the truth, to question power, and to act with consciousness is under threat. This is why we must boldly reclaim the true purpose of education: to empower learners to be critical, creative, and courageous members of their communities, and act together for the common good. Lifelong learning is not a mechanism only for passive consumption of information, nor is it a mere tool for gaining economic power. It is the spark of human agency. It equips individuals with the critical thinking, digital literacy, and moral clarity needed to master AI, ensure technology serves humanity rather than polarizing our societies. So by promoting this agency, we empower learners to be the architects of the new eco-social contracts our world so much and desperately needs. Therefore, the right to education can no longer be viewed in terms of formal schooling only. It must be a lifelong guarantee of learning and meaningful participation, accessible at every age, in every space, from classrooms and workplaces to our digital online realities. The UNESCO's global network of over 420 learning cities proves that this is a vision that can be attained. Yet, we cannot talk about empowerment while allowing systemic exclusion to endure. We must dismantle the barriers facing older persons, indigenous and rural communities, and persons with disabilities and minorities, so that digital exclusion does not turn into violation of human rights. As health care, social protection, and public services become AI-mediated, older adults, for example, need more than only technical skills. They need the capacity to access, critically evaluate, and use information, protect their own data, and recognize misinformation, fraud, and AI-generated content. UNESCO's 2021 recommendation on the ethics of AI provides a moral compass, demanding fairness, transparency, and human oversight. So to protect human rights in this rapidly changing context, UNESCO and our institute stand ready to collaborate with the Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights on a statement on the right to education in light of AI and lifelong learning. Let us ensure together that the promise of the convenants are kept as a living reality where every learner at every age is fully empowered to shape our collective future, so that we are all protected from fear and from want. Many thanks.

Thank you very much. I now invite Madame Liev Verboom, Chief of Social Dialogue, Labour Relations and Governance of Work Branch of International Labour Organization. You have the floor, please.

Distinguished delegates, colleagues, friends, it's an honor also for me to be here and congratulations on the 60th anniversary. And as we reflect on 60 years of two covenants, I want to bring in and zoom on one particular right, one particular right that sits at the intersection of both, that sits at the very heart of it, and that is freedom of association. Freedom of association is protected by both covenants, article 22 in the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, article 8 of the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. And the two committees have jointly acknowledged this intersection. They linked democratic participation, civic space, collective action with the rights of workers and their protection, with social justice, and with human dignity. So I want to walk you through what freedom of association means and also its synergies among the two instruments and the International Labour Convention on Freedom of Association, and say why they are relevant today as we discuss the context of technological change and artificial intelligence. Freedom of association, what does it do? Well, it enables and it empowers. It enables who? It enables individuals, individuals like the young workers. The young workers of tomorrow and of today that are in platform work, that want to come together and advance their shared interest, express their views and participate in public affairs, in trade unionism, and hold institutions accountable. And these individuals coming together, that's the cornerstone of our democratic societies. It's a prerequisite also for the expression of civil and political rights, including freedom of expressions and peaceful assembly. And freedom of association is also empowering. It empowers workers and employers' organizations to organize themselves, to meet and to engage, to engage in social dialogue and to negotiate, negotiate collectively, so that When artificial intelligence is introduced in the enterprise, this is discussed, the parameters of it are being defined, that surveillance led by artificial intelligence protects the workers to some extent. That's getting to collective agreements. This freedom of association is a very specific right, sits at the intersection of both the covenants, and this unique bridging function of freedom of association illustrates a close relationship between the two covenants and the normative framework of the ILO. The ILO, 100 years old, a bit more even, at its foundation recognized that lasting peace And social justice can only be enabled or can depend on the fact that workers and employers have to be able to freely and collectively organize themselves. And that was materialized in 1948, almost 80 years ago, so we're close to another anniversary, in 1948 with Convention 87 on Freedom of Association. That International Labour Standard occupies a very singular place in international humanitarian law, and is the only international treaty that's also explicitly referred to in both covenants. So it underscores a shared understanding, a shared understanding that freedom of association is a foundational right, cutting across the full spectrum of human rights. And there is another example, a very recent one, of this cross-cutting nature. It's in the recent advisory of the International Court of Justice of The Hague, I have to close, on the right to strike. So the relevance of freedom of association in an age of technological change and artificial intelligence, one may ask, Is it less or more important? More or less, or more than ever? I say more than ever. And today, as we celebrate, we celebrate the full spectrum of human rights and the place that freedom of associations rightly occupies within it. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We have only 11 minutes to go. because we have, both committees have a meeting right after starting 5:30. So I'm not able to give the floors to all the requested state parties, but I have a list of the state parties from previous segment, the protocol, Senegal, France, and Togo. and Judge Sangsin from the European Court of Human Rights. So Judge Sangsin is not only the European Court of Human Rights judge, she was a previous committee member, human rights committee member. So I will give the floor to Madame Sangsin first.

Participants to this august commemoration of this important treaty. I am a proud former member of the Human Rights Committee and now a sitting judge in Strasbourg. And allow me to congratulate on behalf of the President of the Court, Mathias Guillermin, and my own behalf, the two committees for groundbreaking achievements and for continuous efforts despite all unprecedented challenges. I wish to, perhaps in addition to everything that has been already said on the challenges that new technologies, including artificial intelligence, are bringing to our lives, stress two points and share one information. The first point I wish to stress is that we need to recognize that the development and use of artificial intelligence has a remarkable environmental footprint. And I'm stressing that because I think it is important also to decide when we need to use these tools and when we are obligated to refrain from using it because the tasks can be achieved otherwise. And another very important decision that our bodies will need to make And this is something that was discussed during the first joint meeting of UN human rights treaty bodies and the European Court of Human Rights in June this year in Strasbourg, is to what extent will we use artificial intelligence for our tasks, and how we will accord responsibilities for the outcomes that are produced by these artificial intelligence tools. We are developing our own tools within the Court, but we cannot avoid in the future to use also tools developed elsewhere and imported from various open market possibilities. And in this respect, just to share the information that our court is in the process of now finalizing the charter on the use of artificial intelligence at the European Court of Human Rights, which will be soon available, and also has a working group of judges on artificial intelligence preparing also for what we expect to be a number of applications coming to the court substantively bringing to our judicial bench issues of artificial intelligence impacts on human rights. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, dear friend Basirka. And I give the floor to Protocol. Please be mindful of the time constraints. Protocol.

The 60th anniversary of two key pillars of the International Bill of Human Rights, Portugal also recalls the 50th anniversary of the Portuguese Constitution, adopted in the aftermath of the end of dictatorship.

It embodied Portugal's transition to democracy and allowed for the ratification, only two years later, of the International Covenant.

On Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Both covenants remain living instruments. They have provided a framework for the promotion of human rights, serving as a safeguard for individuals and ensuring that states remain accountable for their obligations.

As we look ahead, their.

Relevance lies not only in the protection of the rights they enshrine, but in their continued.

Capacity to guide our collective response.

To emerging challenges. Portugal reaffirms its commitment to their implementation, including through elaboration of national.

Reports, meaningful participation in their Committee's reviews, and effective follow-up to their recommendations. We encourage all States who have not yet done so to ratify these instruments. We thank both committees for convening this celebration and commend their work in monitoring the.

Implementation of the covenants and in contributing to the interpretation and development of international human rights law.

In the context of the current UN budgetary and liquidity crisis, Portugal expresses serious concerns with the grave constraints faced by these and all treaty bodies. I thank you.

Thank you very much. Now I will invite the Senegal.

Thank you. The Senegal delegation is very happy to see this commemorative event, and we thank each of the speakers. Sixty years after the adoption of these two international covenants, their core principles remain of uncontested importance. They are crucial for our societies as we face new challenges that mean that we must not just reaffirm our commitments, but work to ensure that they are fully applied. We would like to emphasize a number of issues which we believe are crucial for protecting human rights. First, transformations in the world and the importance of the digital world for human rights. It's a way of accessing education, public services, and information, but the digital world is also exposing new forms of vulnerability. The protection of the private life Private data and individuals should remain at the heart of our concerns, notably as we face the rapid development of artificial intelligence. In Senegal, we have chosen a path and a philosophy where technology should be used for emancipation and to equalize rights, and not a new vector of exclusion. This is at the heart of a project that we have launched at the national level. The climate is also a major issue as the environment changes, and energy is another issue. Over the coming decades, we need not just to preserve the heritage of the two covenants, but face new realities. Our ambitions should be to ensure that technological progress, challenges to climate, and our work together converges on ensuring together the dignity of man. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Now I will give the floor to France.

Chair, panelists, thank you very much. for your passionate statements. The two covenants that we are celebrating the anniversary of today are a pillar of the United Nations in the continuity from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They are today a foundation for almost universal protection, supported by other vital covenants and treaties. They are vital to protecting the spirit of the rule of law. protecting human rights. We have seen these committees do remarkable work, and we are very aware of the challenges that they face, which mostly are caused by a lack of equality between growing amount of work that they face and falling of finances. We need to find the means to answer these challenges, and I would like to explore a number of avenues briefly that I think are important for strengthening this system. We need a predictable timeline of meetings and events over the year, coordinated between the different treaty bodies. We have already worked in this area that should ultimately ensure more than just submitting reports on time. We also need to harmonize the working methods and the procedures for interaction between the treaties. This long-term effort is vital to shore up the efficacy of the committees for handling individual inquiries, communications, and so forth. We stand in favor of strengthening the role of coordination of the High Commissioner of Human Rights Secretariat. It's vital also to jump forward in digitalizing the work of the committees to increase the readability, visibility for the population and the public in general. It's vital that we take this step for greater transparency. We need to be ambitious to protect the credibility of the system which we together have created. You can count on the commitment of France here in Geneva and within the framework of budgeting negotiations in New York to make a contribution. Multilingualism is a critical precondition for this system to remain truly inclusive. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Last but not least, Togo, you have the floor.

Thank you very much, Chairperson. Togo would have liked to share comments on the two initial sections, but given the time, we'll settle with this statement on the third section. Although obviously the two covenants have profoundly impacted the last six decades, they should also guide us moving forwards in forthcoming years. Artificial intelligence. Widespread digital technology and climate change are raising new concerns around the protection of human dignity, the right to a private life, and access to essential services. These developments call for an adaptation of our policies, but also adaptation of our international protection mechanisms. Togo is committed to this, adopting a legislative framework relating to personal data protection and biometric data. bears witness to our desire to have an inclusive approach to the digital sphere while ensuring data protection and the protection of a private life. Environmentally, this coastal country, which is particularly exposed to flooding and erosion, we are developing adaptation to climate change. Coastal communities in Togo have been supported by the Global Environmental Fund, continue to contribute to restoring ecosystems, reforestation, and ensuring means of sustainable subsistence. In a constructive vein, we'd like to highlight three priorities: strengthening of synergies between the two committees, improving support for states in following up on recommendations, and developing international cooperation, technical assistance, and national capacity building. This last dimension is particularly important for countries which have limited human and financial resources. My question to panellists is the following. Do the two committees plan to strengthen their shared work on the impact of AI, digital transformation under the guarantees in the two covenants, in particular in the area of personal data and combating algorithmic discrimination? On the occasion of the 60th anniversary, Togo reiterates its commitment to the two covenants and its commitment as a whole to the international human rights system. always more coherent, accessible, and adapted to the realities of our time. Thank you.

Thank you very much. This brings our last discussion to a close, and we have now reached our concluding, closing segment. It is my pleasure to invite my co-chair, Madam Preeti Saran, for your remarks. You have the floor.

Thank you, sir. I know we are running out of time, so I will be very brief. At the outset, I'd like to thank all our participants, state parties, partners, and of course, dear colleagues from the two committees who have participated and shared your thoughts. I think they mean a lot to us. Your presence itself means a lot to us, and so I want to thank you for that. I promise and assure you that we will introspect on the thoughts that you've shared, and we will incorporate them as we go along in our work. The world is changing, the pace of the human being within it is also changing at an incredible pace, as you heard several of our colleagues and speakers mention. Unlike previous periods of major upheaval, today there is an international agreement on the minimum guarantees of a dignified life that states must uphold. Our two covenants serve as an anchor in these times of turbulence and transition, and we assure you that we live up to the expectations that are there from us. Thank you, and thank you for your presence.

Thank you very much, Madam Saran. Allow me now to make a few closing remarks on behalf of the Human Rights Committee. I'll be very brief. Madam Chair, dear Preeti, distinguished colleagues, Excellencies, dear friends, As I listen to our discussion, I found myself thinking about the people rather than instruments and institutions. I think of those whose rights have been violated, who have suffered injustice, discrimination, and who have turned to our committees because they couldn't find the justice at home. I also think of the human rights defenders who stand behind these people, often at great personal risk and of those who came before us, the generations of committee members, civil society organizations, scholars, and secretariat colleagues who have helped build and sustain this system. What we have achieved over 60 years would not have been possible without their dedication and, in many cases, their sacrifices. The future will depend not only on the strength of our principles, but also on the people willing to defend them. And that responsibility now rests with us, all of us. They may never meet us, and they may never know our names, but they have placed something precious in our hands: their hope that human rights can make a difference in their lives. Let us be worthy of that trust. Thank you very much. Now, this brings our joint commemoration to an end. On behalf of my co-chair, Madam Saran, and of our two committees, thank you all for your participation, and most of all, for your commitment ensuring that promises of two covenants continue to shape our world. I declare closed the joint commemoration marking 60th anniversary of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Members of the Human Rights Committee, please. Members of the Committee, ladies and gentlemen, we have arrived at the closing of the 146th session of the Human Rights Committee. We have completed a productive session. To my fellow Committee members, I truly commend you for your commitment and professionalism in the way you have carried out your duties in upholding the rights enshrined in the Covenant. It is my pleasure to announce that the Committee has successfully accomplished the following tasks at this session. We held constructive dialogues with four delegations: Austria, Cameroon, Jamaica, and Rwanda. In all these reviews, We noted positive developments, identified areas of concern, and made recommendations to the State Parties. The concluding observations will be issued on the website of the Committee later today. We adopted 10 lists of issues prior to reporting related to Bahrain, Czech Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, El Salvador, Lithuania, Portugal, Romania, Thailand, Tunisia, and Uzbekistan. The Committee examined and adopted 22 drafts covering 73 communications. The Committee continued to prepare drafts in accordance with the simplified format adopted by the Committee at its 140th session. Of the decisions taken by the Committee, 36 communications were decided on the merits, 16 communications were declared inadmissible, and 21 were discontinued. Among the communications decided on the merits, the Committee found violations in 35. Unfortunately, due to lack of time, The committee had to postpone the consideration and adoption of 10 drafts covering 20 communications. We adopted the follow-up report on concluding observations of five countries, Bolivia, Iraq, Luxembourg, Togo, and Uruguay. We would like to thank rapporteur Madame Dondos for her dedication. I would like to highlight that we adopted General Comment 38 on the right to freedom of association. We would like to thank all State parties, UN entities, regional mechanisms, national human rights institutions, civil society organizations, academia, and other stakeholders for their contributions and comments during the process of drafting the General Comment. We would also like to thank Rapporteur Madame Tigrusa for her hard work and commitment. Regarding the next session, next session, which will be confirmed, will be session number 147, and will take place from 1 to 19 March 2027. At this session, and pending final confirmation, the Committee will review the periodic report of Costa Rica Liechtenstein, Mozambique, and Poland. The Committee will also adopt a list of issues prior to reporting and will consider a number of individual communications. In closing, I would like to thank members of the Bureau, Vice-Chairs, Madam Basim, Mr. Quesada Cabrera, Madam Tigriza, as well as the Rapporteur, Mr. Sinanović, for their wise advice and guidance. I thank all the members for their hard work at this session, which was particularly challenging for various of reasons. Of course, we could not have been so productive if we were not supported by Secretariat and the Petition Section. We thank you for your hard work, commitment, and teamwork spirit. We also owe appreciation to the UN entities the national human rights institutions, and the NGOs for their continued engagement with the Committee. In this regard, I would like to acknowledge the important role played by CCPR Centre in facilitating in-person and online engagement with national and local civil society organizations, which are invaluable. Finally, I would like to extend my gratitude to the technicians, the interpreters, the conference room assistants, the press writers, and the communication and media officers, and everyone who worked behind the scene to make this session a successful one. Now, would anyone like to take the floor at this point? Ivan Simonovic, you have the floor.

By members of Eastern European Group to convey thanks. Thanks to you, Chamrock, who with your thoughtfulness, good nature, helped us to steer our boat at high seas during heavy weather, which you have mentioned. But I didn't know that you also had such a wonderful sense of humor. And we have We have witnessed that last evening. We thank you also for your efforts as Chair of Chairs, defending treaty bodies in addressing the reform in December, which is still your task. I want to thank all other members of the Bureau, especially outgoing Hélène and Hernán, and personally thank them for opportunity to work with them. I would also like to thank Secretariat. This is good opportunity to give our best wishes to Gabriela, to thank you, Godson, for stepping in, to thank Wan He Lee, Miriam, and all others. I can't mention them all, but I have to mention Sheri is our good spirit taking care of all of us. And of course, thanks to interpreters, because often we were talking not only too long, but also too fast, and they were doing everything to help us. And to our outgoing two members of EEG, Tiana and Dalia, I wish all success in their future work. We will be dearly missing you. We are cut by half, but we will be getting two other members. So hopefully, it won't be repeated historically that EEG is not represented in the Bureau. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much for your warm words to me. Thank you. Help her, please.

Thank you, Chair. And really, I think all the, i just will echo all the thanks that the previous, that you and Mr. Savonovitch made to all of the different individuals who make the treaty body process and the Human Rights Committee in particular function as well as it does under such trying circumstances. It has been a privilege and a pleasure to work with all members of the committee over the last four years. I particularly, of course, want to acknowledge the other members of the WIA group. my colleagues and friends, Ivan Donders, and also Carlos, I'm blanking on the last name, it's been a long time, my sincere apologies.

Fernandez-Lieza.

Fernandez-Lieza, thank you, Chair. And also Hélène Tigrigui, as I mentioned. So this is my last day as a member of the Committee, and I will miss participating, but I hope that I have made at least some progress in helping to advance its very important mission. So thank you very much.

Thank you very much. I want to remind you that your mandate ends at the end of December.

Okay, thank you.

Any other member who wishes to take the floor? Koji Teraya, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. On behalf of the Asia-Pacific Group, I'd like to express our sincere appreciation to a number of colleagues. First, I'd like to extend our heartfelt thanks to Mr. Soh. So much has happened recently that we might almost overlook the fact that his term as chairperson is coming to an end. The past two years have been particularly challenging, not least because the Committee's annual sessions were reduced from three to two. Throughout this difficult period, Mr. Soh has provided strong and steady leadership, not only as a chairperson of the Human Rights Committee, but also as a chair of the meeting of chairpersons of the human rights treaty bodies. We are deeply grateful for his ability to listen to bring together diverse perspectives while guiding the committee with determination and a clear sense of direction. I would also like to express our profound gratitude to the six colleagues who will be leaving the committee at the end of the session. One of them is Miss Tigrigija who has done an outstanding job of bringing the work on General Comment number 38 to a success conclusion. I'm speaking in French. 38 or 22. Spanish. También.

Also, I would like to express my most sincere thanks to our colleague who speaks Spanish, our colleague who speaks Spanish. See you soon.

This is true of all our departing colleagues. We are deeply grateful for the way they have guided the Committee, combining their unwavering passion for human rights with rigorous legal reasoning. And if I may express one small wish, I hope you will continue to join us even after leaving the Committee through UNTV. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Koji. Now I give the floor to Mr. Rodrigo Carazo.

Thank you very much, Chair, dear colleagues. Well, this Committee has, I think, met the challenge, and it supported the Chair as well in his conversations and negotiations in other fora across the various human rights pillars and other contacts related to the States parties. This Committee has adapted itself to the limitations on time and resources, and it has supported its members. It has, in recent years, been able to find a way to respond to the various challenges around the pandemic and the ability to confront a horrific dynamic of hate speech, polarization, and catastrophes in various countries, and properly find a way of bolstering civil and political rights in those countries. Obviously, we hope that this will all go well for those who follow us attempting to overcome the wave of hate speech. We've progressed with positive steps for many States Parties. We've discussed the need to energize and bolster our jurisprudence. We've discussed the possibility of adapting our rules of procedure, which have sometimes stayed our hand in condemning what, for example, has happened in Gaza, and perhaps limited our margin for manoeuvre in the spaces we have. We've taken the necessary changes to allow the adoption of General Comment 38, paying great testimony to its author, but the entire Committee. And I think we need to recall that we all have a commitment to a general comment regarding Article 17 that we've been thinking about moving forward. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much, Rodrigo. Anyone? Yes, Mr. Caserta.

Just briefly, very briefly. Not to repeat myself, I align myself with everyone's thanks, as has been conveyed here to the Secretariat, in particular, Juan Gil, Carlston, the technical support staff, the interpreters, and I obviously join the warm words expressed to the Chair for his leadership and his very positive example that he has set over recent years, confronting the various challenges that we have had. And of course, I would like to share the feelings that I think are inherent to this kind of moment. There is a degree of sadness, of course, but also happiness of having shared eight years with so many of you or the initial years with others. And I've tried to contribute substantively over those years to the work of the Committee, and I'm very happy to know that I'll be continuing to work in the same vein, bolstering human rights and very close to the Committee moving forward. Thank you.

Thank you very much. You want to stay? Yes, just a few words. We don't have much time.

Very briefly, thank you. Just a few words to those colleagues who are leaving us. I've learned so much from all of you, also, of course, from those who are staying, but I do hope we will keep very close to you, looking forward to the future. In the time I've been working with you, I've seen fantastic work, a huge example of professionalism, and those who work for the High Commissioner’s Office as well, working to support the Committee, I’d like to thank them for all of their efforts. I think do try and be optimistic looking forwards, because I think in times of crisis, we need to remember that those things pass as well and are overcome, and that’s the thought we need to keep dear to us. Thank you.

Thank you very much. So I also want to say that for that last two years, it was really a privilege to become a chair and to lead this committee. I felt like I was kind of a crisis management special officer in this group. I tried my best, and I really appreciate your collaboration and support. Some members mentioned that I did a good job, but that's never been possible without your support. So I really cherish your friendship, your support, everything you've done for me, for the Committee. So wishing everyone a safe return home, I now declare the 146th session of the Human Rights Committee officially closed. That's right. That's right. That's true. Yeah, that's true. I momentarily forgot about it.