Source: United Nations – Geneva
The Human Rights Committee today held an emergency meeting with States parties to discuss the financial challenges of the United Nations and the Committee’s future.
Committee Chairperson Changrok Soh, in opening remarks, said the Committee’s ability to fulfil its mandate was under serious threat. Austerity measures had been imposed on it that jeopardised not just its current work, but the very future of the Committee itself.
The Committee’s most pressing concern was the cancellation of its third session this year, Mr. Soh said. This was the first time in its 50-year history that such a cancellation had occurred. Losing a session meant serious delays in reviewing State party reports and in deciding on individual complaints of Covenant violations. Many victims had already waited years for justice. Now, they would wait even longer, he said.
Mr. Soh appealed to States parties to help the Committee find a solution. The Committee needed States’ political will, financial commitment, and concrete support — not only to help it find a way to hold its third session this year, but also to strengthen the system for the future.
In the ensuing discussion, States parties expressed support for the Committee and the treaty body system, and concern regarding the financial crisis and the cancellation of the third session. They called on the Committee to come up with new, sustainable, cost-effective solutions to address the structural issues underpinning the situation, while maintaining its work and integrity.
Concluding the meeting, Mr. Soh said that treaty bodies were not receiving enough funding for their core work. They were doing their best in terms of rationalisation and increasing efficiency, but as allocated resources declined, support for the treaty bodies’ work diminished, creating a vicious cycle.
To address this situation, special measures were needed, such as utilising voluntary contributions transparently, he said. Without a properly functioning treaty body system, human rights protections would weaken around the world. Decisive and urgent action was needed to protect the treaty body system and human rights around the world, he concluded.
Speaking in the meeting were representatives of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, as well as Japan, Spain, Serbia, Egypt, Croatia, Colombia, Russian Federation, Costa Rica, Islamic Republic of Iran and France.
The Human Rights Committee’s one hundred and forty-fourth session is being held from 23 June to 17 July 2025. All the documents relating to the Committee’s work, including reports submitted by States parties, can be found on the session’s webpage . Meeting summary releases can be found here . The webcast of the Committee’s public meetings can be accessed via the UN Web TV webpage.
The Committee will next meet in public at 3 p.m. on Tuesday 15 July to hear the progress report of the Special Rapporteur on follow-up to the Committee’s concluding observations.
Opening Statements by Committee Experts
CHANGROK SOH, Committee Chair, said the Committee had convened the emergency meeting to discuss a single, urgent issue: “The financial challenges of the United Nations and the future of the Human Rights Committee.” The Committee came before States today with a profound sense of urgency.
All members of the Human Rights Committee were deeply honoured to take enormous responsibility for monitoring the implementation of the Covenant. They took this duty very seriously. But today, its ability to fulfil this mandate was under serious threat. The austerity measures imposed on the Committee jeopardised not just its current work, but the very future of the Committee itself.
These were truly unprecedented times — for the Committee and for the entire treaty body system. The Committee’s most pressing concern was the cancellation of its third session this year, scheduled for October and November, as announced by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. This was the first time in the Committee’s 50-year history that such a cancellation had occurred.
The cancellation put the Committee in a very difficult position. Its rules of procedure required it to meet three times a year. This was a fundamental obligation under the Committee’s mandate and indispensable to the effectiveness of its work. If it lost a session, nearly eight months would pass without a single meeting in Geneva. This meant serious delays in reviewing State party reports and in deciding on individual complaints of Covenant violations. Many victims had already waited years for justice. Now, they would wait even longer. Every delay weakened the Committee’s recommendations, diminished their impact, and undermined their ability to prevent further violations.
The Committee recognised that the United Nations’ financial crisis was serious, and that the Secretariat was doing its best under the current constraints. But it was clear that the rules and structures of the system were too rigid to cope with situations like this. For example, in early June, during the Treaty Body Chairs’ meeting, several Chairs explored the possibility of mobilising emergency funding to hold autumn sessions. However, they were told that this was not possible, as treaty bodies were required to rely exclusively on the regular budget to carry out their mandated activities. This rule was intended to safeguard the Committee’s independence. But it made little sense if, in practice, it prevented it from functioning at all when the regular budget fell short. The Covenant clearly obliged the Secretary-General to ensure that the Committee could carry out its work. If the current approach blocked the fulfilment of that obligation, then it needed to change.
The Committee therefore appealed to States parties to help it find a solution. Open and frank communication with the States parties was crucial because, ultimately, it was in States’ interest to ensure that the treaty bodies could continue their vital work, even in difficult times. The Committee needed States’ political will, financial commitment, and concrete support — not only to help it find a way to hold its third session this year, but also to strengthen the system for the future.
The Committee monitored the fundamental rights of individuals in 174 States parties — as part of the approximately 1,400 treaty obligations regularly reviewed by the treaty bodies. This was a remarkable early warning and accountability system — one that States parties created. The Committee urged States to ensure that this system could continue to function effectively. If not, what alternative was available?
This should not be treated as a one-time problem. If this unprecedented cancellation were allowed to be “normalised”, it would set a dangerous precedent. Each time the United Nations faced a funding shortfall, the credibility and effectiveness of the treaty body system, a core pillar of the United Nations’ human rights architecture, would erode further.
There was growing global pushback against human rights, especially the very rights the Committee was mandated to protect. This was not the moment to weaken United Nations human rights mechanisms. On the contrary, the world needed this remarkable early warning and accountability system now more than ever.
The Committee called on States to do three things. First, support the Committee — even at this late stage — in finding a solution to hold its third session this year, and commit to holding all three regular sessions in 2026. Second, allow voluntary contributions from States to be used transparently and responsibly to support the Committee’s work, while fully preserving the independence and impartiality of the treaty bodies. Third, help the Committee function effectively by fulfilling reporting obligations, engaging with the Committee in dialogue, and supporting its work financially and politically, both now and in the long term.
Statements and Questions by States Parties
In the ensuing dialogue, many States expressed appreciation for the ongoing efforts of the Committee and the treaty bodies and their firm commitment to the treaty bodies, which were a cornerstone of the international human rights system. The Committee, they said, made significant contributions to upholding civil and political rights around the world.
Several speakers expressed deep concern about the financial crisis, which was affecting the mandates of all treaty bodies, the Human Rights Council and Special Procedures, among other mechanisms in the United Nations system. This situation had serious implications for these bodies’ important work.
One speaker said that their country had increased contributions to the treaty body system and was paying its dues on time, and had also increased unearmarked financial contributions to the Office of the High Commissioner. The speaker said that the country would work to strengthen the capacity of the Secretariat through its contributions.
Some speakers said treaty bodies needed to work to harmonise their working methods. Cooperation between treaty bodies could lead to solutions to backlogs in individual communications. The Committee had a backlog of over 1,000 individual communications. One speaker asked if the Committee had assessed additional measures to address its backlog.
Many speakers expressed dismay that the Committee’s third session for the year was to be cancelled, and called for an urgent, mitigating solution to be found to hold the Committee’s third session in November. Without this session, the Committee’s backlog of cases would only increase. Was this issue related to the ordinary budget or to liquidity? One speaker suggested using new technologies and virtual meetings to hold the third session. The Committee needed to come up with new, sustainable, cost-effective solutions to address the structural issues underpinning the situation, while maintaining its work and integrity.
Some speakers commended the UN80 initiative and the United Nations’ efforts to address evolving global challenges. However, some speakers said that austerity measures implemented through the UN80 initiative should not affect the work of the treaty bodies and the international human rights system.
One speaker said it was worth exploring the Chair’s proposal regarding the use of voluntary contributions to facilitate the Committee’s third session, provided that there were no legal barriers to this solution and that the independence and impartiality of the Committee were not affected. The speaker commended the Committee’s efforts to find a solution.
Another speaker said that their country had attempted to fund one of the treaty bodies’ mandates directly but had been told that funding could only come from the regular budget. If a voluntary funding scheme for the Committee was established, it needed to be established for all the treaty bodies and other mechanisms receiving funds from the regular budget. The speaker said that their country would support solutions proposed by States, while working within the norms of the United Nations’ system.
A speaker said that one State had traditionally contributed significantly to the funding of the human rights system; the reasons for its sudden cessation of funding needed to be examined. States were the owners of the treaty body system.
One speaker said multilingualism needed to be an essential value of the treaty bodies; it should not be sacrificed to achieve budgetary austerity.
Responses by Committee Experts and Others
A Committee Expert said States were authors of the Covenant and the Optional Protocol on individual communications. The harmonisation of working methods related to individual communications began around three years ago, both formally and informally. There was no resistance from the Committee in this regard. The Human Rights Committee received the largest number of individual communications, given the broad scope of the Covenant. It was proud of its record in dealing with these communications. Delays in issuing decisions on communications affected the relevance and legitimacy of the decisions that the Committee adopted. The Committee had had only three days this session to assess individual communications, while it had had a full week previously.
The Secretariat had exerted efforts to maintain its staff in the financial crisis. The Committee had a human resources issue; there was a lack of staff to assess individual complaints, prepare draft decisions, and assess follow-up to the Committee’s decisions. The issue of resources needed to be addressed; simply freeing up time in sessions to assess individual communications would not fix the backlog.
Digitisation was a long-standing structural issue for the Committee. The system that the Committee worked with was not sufficiently digitised.
Another Committee Expert said the Committee welcomed States’ support and was encouraged by their presence in the dialogue. The Committee received over half of all the individual communications received by the treaty body system. If the Secretariat could not prepare individual cases for assessment, the Committee could not assess them. Without sufficient pre-sessional working time, the Committee’s backlog would only increase. Diplomats in Geneva understood the complexities of the treaty body system. They needed to mobilise with colleagues in New York to support treaty bodies’ efficiency.
This was the first time that the Committee had organised a special, focused meeting, and it had been very successful. It would be helpful to have annual meetings with States, as well as emergency meetings to discuss urgent issues.
One Committee Expert proposed that the Committee use digital technologies to hold the third session remotely. A decision on this issue needed to be taken rapidly. However, this was not a solution to the structural problems the Committee faced. The Committee needed to take slow steps forward in this situation.
Another Committee Expert said that the young generation was questioning the capacity of the human rights system to protect human rights, in the context of the recent increase in violations of human rights and international humanitarian law around the world. The Committee was witnessing the emergence of new challenges, including in relation to climate change and artificial intelligence. It was considering how to address these challenges while preserving human rights. The Committee’s objective was not to level accusations at States; it was to accompany them on their journey toward achieving the best implementation of their commitments. Member States needed to support the Committee now, in the same manner as they had supported it for decades.
A Committee Expert thanked States parties for their support to the international human rights system. States had created the Committee, recognising the need to monitor and protect civil and political rights. The Committee had an enormous workload and required appropriate financial resources, so that the Secretariat could hire necessary human resources to facilitate its work. The Expert called on States to take initiatives to address the crisis. Solutions needed to address the overall structural crisis over the long term.
CHANGROK SOH, Committee Chair, said the Committee would present a proposal to States regarding the use of voluntary contributions for holding the third session, but only States could approve this. Mr. Soh expressed support for the idea of holding annual meetings with States parties.
The Committee met online during the COVID-19 pandemic. It found that these meetings were not effective for various reasons, including time difference and limitations on dialogue and interpretation. The treaty body Chairs had discussed this issue, but had decided that online meetings were not an effective option. However, the Committee would continue to use digital technology, including artificial intelligence, to increase the efficiency of its work.
WAN-HEA LEE, Chief, Civil, Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Section, Human Rights Council and Treaty Mechanisms Division, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights , said that, in the past, the Office of the High Commissioner had reduced the working time of pre-sessional working groups to manage the financial crisis. The working group for the third session had been cancelled.
In the past, the treaty bodies had been facing a liquidity crisis. Dues were being paid, but did not reach the treaty bodies in a timely manner. However, it was not an issue of liquidity anymore. The budget of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights for this year had been cut, and the situation had moved from a liquidity to a financial crisis. The financial outlook for next year was also not bright.
DINA ROSSBACHER, Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights , said that there was a structural problem in terms of the processing of decisions related to individual communications. The formula adopted by Member States regarding the processing of individual communications had not been fully adopted and this had been exacerbated by the financial crisis. The Committee had taken several steps to address the situation, including efforts to align working methods and increase the efficiency of processing individual communications. Last year, the Committee adopted a record number of decisions on communications – over 450. However, the large backlog remained, and the situation remained urgent.
Statements and Questions by States Parties
States expressed support for the work of the Committee, the treaty bodies and the human rights system. It was the responsibility of States to support the work of the Committee, one speaker said.
Speakers said creative initiatives were needed to address the financial situation, including digital meetings. One State expressed support for the Committee’s efforts to harmonise and increase efficiency for its work.
One speaker said the Committee needed to further consider the cultural diversity of States in preparing its concluding observations. If the Committee did not consider challenges such as terrorism and unilateral coercive measures, its recommendations would be considered irrelevant to the realities on the ground in some countries. The speaker called on the Committee to prepare a general comment on the impact of unilateral coercive measures on civil and political rights.
Responses by a Committee Expert
A Committee Expert said the treaty bodies were implementing innovative methods to review States parties. The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women had this year conducted a special, informal meeting in Fiji to review States parties in the region. This initiative was funded by States parties, and could be a model for other Committees to follow. The application of simplified procedures to individual communications would not be sufficient for fully addressing the Committee’s backlog.
Closing Remarks
CHANGROK SOH, Committee Chair, said treaty bodies were at the core of the human rights architecture. However, the Committee’s third session would not happen without extraordinary measures, and this trend would continue if the Committee continued to rely on the United Nations’ regular budget. Less than five per cent of the United Nations’ regular budget was allocated to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The treaty body system was not receiving enough funding for its core work. It was doing its best in terms of rationalisation and increasing efficiency. But as allocated resources declined, support diminished, creating a vicious cycle.
To address this situation, special measures were needed, such as utilising voluntary contributions transparently. Without a properly functioning treaty body system, human rights protections would weaken around the world. Decisive and urgent action was needed to protect the treaty body system and human rights around the world.
____________
This document is produced by the United Nations Information Service at Geneva and is intended for public information; it is not an official document.
The English and French versions of our news releases are different because they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.
CCPR25.017E
MIL OSI United Nations News –