An interview with Prof. Dr. Yvonne Donders on the enduring relevance of the UN Human Rights Committee
By: Elena Mouli, Moniek Veen, and Greta Barho
In the context of our course International Human Rights Law in Practice as part of our LLM in International Human Rights Law we had the honour of interviewing Prof. Dr. Yvonne Donderss, elected member of the UN Human Rights Committee.
Question:
Individual communications before the Human Rights Committee are a lengthy process; several years may pass before the Committee adopts its views. Why do such delays arise in practice, and how do they affect the effectiveness and credibility of the procedure for victims seeking justice? What must be done to combat this problem and improve the meaningful function of the procedure?
Professor Donders:
Delays do indeed constitute a significant problem for the Human Rights Committee, particularly because many applicants are in vulnerable situations, such as being held in detention centers or in prison and every additional day may be detrimental for them. Hence, even short delays may have important consequences.
Part of the delay is built into the procedure itself. After an applicant submits a communication, the State party must be given time to respond, and both parties will subsequently have the time and opportunity to comment. Extensions, reminders, no or slow responses from the parties can therefore extend the process, resulting in delays.
Delays also occur because of a lack of financial and human resources. The Committee has many pending cases and limited session time. More specifically, the Committee has four weeks of sessions, which are divided between the reporting procedure and the individual communications. In addition, the Committee relies upon drafts prepared by the Secretariat, which is often understaffed. This lack of staff results in fewer cases being prepared and examined.
These delays affect the effectiveness and credibility of the communications procedure. Applicants may lose trust in the system or may be discouraged to bring a case before the Committee, if they know that the process may take several years. However, other international and regional communications procedures also face similar challenges with delays. In some situations, the applicants may already have finished the (unjust) sentence and been released by the time the Committee adopts its views. While the decision may still be crucial for compensation to the applicant and for the development of the law and jurisprudence, it may come too late to provide immediate relief to the individual.
The Committee has recognised this problem and has taken steps to improve the internal efficiency and credibility of the procedure. For instance, it may combine very similar cases or rely on previous reasoning where a new case raises issues that have been already addressed in earlier jurisprudence. However, the most important step in addressing the problem is for the states to provide the necessary resources for the proper functioning of the procedure - one they themselves established. Without adequate funding and staffing, the system cannot work properly and deliver meaningful access to justice.
Question:
Despite these challenges, including procedural delays, limited resources, and the existence of regional human rights courts, individuals continue to submit a high number of communications. What explains the Committee’s continued attractiveness, and how does it position itself within the broader system of international and regional human rights protection?
Professor Donders:
There is no single explanation for why individuals continue to bring cases before the Human Rights Committee; rather, it is the result of several practical, legal, and historical factors. One important aspect is the central role that civil and political rights still play in the human rights system. Rights such as freedom of expression, religion, and liberty are often perceived as more tangible and more easily justiciable than economic, social, and cultural rights. Because these are precisely the rights protected by the ICCPR, lawyers and applicants are often more familiar with the Committee’s mandate and jurisprudence.
Another factor is the wide ratification of both the ICCPR and its First Optional Protocol, which allows individuals to submit communications. Similar complaints mechanisms of other treaty bodies are not as widely ratified and they thus lack accessibility compared to the Committee’s complaint mechanism. This institutional familiarity also contributes to its continued use.
Geopolitical developments also play a role. For example, following the Russian Federation’s departure from the Council of Europe, access to the European Court of Human Rights became limited for certain cases. As a result, many applicants have turned to the Human Rights Committee as an alternative avenue to raise their claims.
At the same time, it would be misleading to view the Committee as competing with regional courts. Institutions such as the European Court of Human Rights and the African and Inter-American Courts of Human Rights continue to receive large numbers of applications and remain highly significant, particularly because they issue binding judgments and are often more closely connected - historically and culturally - to the individuals concerned. The Human Rights Committee therefore functions as part of a broader, complementary system of human rights protection rather than as a substitute for regional mechanisms.
Question:
The Human Rights Committee has increasingly adopted evolutive interpretations of the ICCPR in cases such as Portillo Cáceres v. Paraguay on environmental harm and D.Z. v. the Netherlands on childhood statelessness. As a member of the Committee, how do you understand the role and limits of evolutive interpretation? What enables the Committee to adopt forward-looking interpretations, and how do you balance legal innovation with concerns about legitimacy and possible state pushback?
Professor Donders:
The Human Rights Committee embraces the idea that the ICCPR is a “living instrument.” The Covenant is sixty years old, but its provisions must be interpreted in light of present-day conditions. In principle, this approach is widely accepted by states. The challenge lies in determining where interpretation ends and where the creation of new norms begins.
As long as the Committee is interpreting and applying existing rights, there is generally little controversy. However, criticism can arise when states perceive the Committee as extending rights beyond their scope. Climate change is a good example. The Committee’s General Comment No. 36 on the right to life, adopted after years of consultation with states, NGOs, and other stakeholders, incorporated important environmental and climate-related dimensions. Such developments provide a foundation for later jurisprudence, while also being grounded in the Committee’s existing practice.
Personally, I take a relatively cautious approach. General Comments should reflect the Committee’s established practice rather than become forward-looking academic exercises. Their legitimacy depends on being firmly rooted in concluding observations, previous General Comments, and case law.
The Committee’s reporting procedure plays an important role in this process. Through state reporting, we can address emerging issues such as corruption, climate change, environmental degradation, multinational corporations, digital technologies, and surveillance. This helps build the practice that may inform interpretations of the Covenant. Individual communications work differently: the Committee can only address issues that are actually brought before it.
Environmental and climate-related cases illustrate this gradual development. In Portillo Cáceres v. Paraguay, environmental harm was linked to Covenant rights. In Billy et al. v. Australia, brought by Indigenous Torres Strait Islanders affected by climate change, the Committee found a violation of Article 17 ICCPR (privacy, family, and home), but it did not find a violation of the right to life. Some members dissented, suggesting that future cases may further develop this area of law.
The key challenge is balancing what I would call the “human rights heart” with the “human rights mind.” The Committee is neither a state nor an activist organisation. Its role is to apply and develop existing standards within the present-day context, but not to continuously create new ones. If the Committee moves too far beyond its mandate, states may begin to question its credibility. Determining the boundary between (progressive) interpretation and norm creation is not always easy, but the Committee’s diverse composition and consensus-based decision-making help ensure that different perspectives are taken into account.
Bios
Elena Mouli holds a BA in International Relations and European Studies from the University of Piraeus in Greece, and an LLM in International Human Rights Law from the University of Groningen in the Netherlands. Her academic interests lie in international affairs, migration and asylum law, gender equality and women’s empowerment. Her research focuses on the immigration detention of asylum-seekers in European States, with particular attention to vulnerability, dignity and gender-sensitive alternatives to detention.
Moniek Veen holds a BA in Art, Architecture and Landscape History and Law, an MA in the History of Architecture and Urban Planning, and an LLM in International Human Rights Law, all from the University of Groningen in the Netherlands. Her interdisciplinary academic background bridges the humanities and legal studies, informing her research interests in identity politics across both European legal frameworks and historical and architectural contexts. Her work explores how identity is constructed, represented, and governed, with particular attention to its manifestation within the European system as well as within spatial, cultural, and built environments.
Greta Barho holds a BA in International Relations and International Organisations with a minor in Development Studies from the University of Groningen and is currently in pursuit of an LLM in International Human Rights Law at the same institution.