Unfortunately, the Petitions Unit of the High Commissioner’s office—the body that services the committees and assists in all the mundane but essential tasks that effective follow-up requires—is starved for funds. The current capacity they have to facilitate follow-up to communications was described to me as the equivalent of “less than half a person.” Moreover, while the mandate of follow-up rapporteurs allows them to, in theory, carry out meetings with states on an inter-sessional basis or even conduct follow-up visits in country, in practice, this very rarely happens. The one and only follow-up visit that the HRC conducted, for instance, was fifteen years ago. Moreover, by and large meetings with states that are carried out by the rapporteur only take place when the committee itself is in session, so only three times per year. More can and should be done to improve the treaty-bodies’ follow-up procedures. For instance, the Human Rights Committee has only one follow-up rapporteur for its many cases—numbering well into the hundreds—rather than assigning multiple committee members to conduct follow up, as committees like CEDAW do. It is my understanding that CAT’s Rules of Procedure similarly permit the appointment of multiple follow-up rapporteurs for communication; however, like the HRC, only one rapporteur presently works in this capacity. I would also echo the remarks of earlier speakers that committees really need to think creatively about increasing communication with other human rights mechanisms as part of their follow-up duties. Special procedures, particularly whose remit complements that of a particular treaty body can be useful in this regard. For CAT, this would be the Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; for CEDAW, it might be the Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women. The process of Universal Periodic Review is also an important tool, but unfortunately it has only given passing attention to the implementation of treaty body decisions thus far. Challenges to Implementation Let me now turn briefly to identifying what we see as some of the biggest challenges for implementing treaty body decisions. One enduring challenge is their contested legal status. Dean Grossman referred to individual communications earlier as a “semi-judicial” procedure and certainly a number of legal commentators have persuasively argued that states, having accepted the jurisdiction of the treaty bodies to adjudicate individual complaints, are duty-bound to respect those decisions, and not to act in contravention of them.27 These arguments have largely failed to persuade states, however, many of which merely contest committee findings and insist that they are not legally obligated to implement them. That said, we have seen cases where states will abide by a decision but make clear that they are not doing so as a matter of legal duty; similarly, where compensation has been paid, states will often explicitly state that it is being done on an ex gratia basis. Another important element to mention is remedies. In the CAT’s case, the nature of the communications it receives likely plays a key part in its above-average implementation rate. Unlike the Human Rights Committee, which receives a large number of complaints that span the Covenant, the vast majority of the communications CAT has received concern allegations that the petitioner’s deportation or extradition would breach the respondent state’s non-refoulement obligation under Article 3. Now this is slowly changing, I think: you can read through the CAT’s recent annual reports and see a rise in the number of Article 1 and Article 16 cases. But certainly, with respect to Article 3 complaints, the actions that a state must undertake (or not undertake) are much clearer than the remedies that might be appropriate in more complex litigation. Clarity of remedies is also quite important. As an example, empirical evidence coming out of the Inter-American System supports the contention of many civil society advocates that the more precise a court’s remedial language is, the greater the influence it has on state compliance.28 It makes it more difficult for states to avoid taking action and better arms advocates, who can use the judgment as a basis to press for implementation. My last word on the UN: I want to underscore how crucial the financial picture here is, since this dimension is too often obscured in these more legal discussions. The General Assembly—a political body if there ever there was one—is in charge of allocating the budget to the treaty bodies and can effectively choke the system by not providing it with adequate funds. As the number of States Parties and procedures continue to grow and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights’ budget has been further reduced, this becomes a real risk. In this context, I should say, we are also entering the second stretch of an ongoing, inter-governmental treaty-body “strengthening process” in which a number of states have increasingly sought to push back against what they argue are “non-mandated” activities of the treaty bodies, which, they insist, includes follow-up activities. So this process really threatens to weaken these procedures and to more generally interfere with the independence of committees and their ability to determine their own working methods, including their engagement with NGOs. Those states that are leading this negative agenda also see gain in dragging the process on, leaving the treaty body system in perpetual limbo. So we should not forget the political side of this discussion. Finally, follow-up is crucial. Generally speaking, successful implementation, we have found, occurs in cases with high political visibility and a strong civil society presence capable of complementing the committee’s follow-up efforts and applying other domestic pressures. For instance, in reading through the CAT’s most recent annual report, one case worth highlighting is its 2006 decision against Senegal concerning its failure for many years to prosecute the former dictator of Chad, Hissène Habré.29 The Committee played an important role in pushing for Habré’s prosecution. Indeed, it had been conducting follow-up on the case throughout 2011, a point that the International Court of Justice made note of when it issued its decision the following year, also holding that Senegal was obligated to prosecute or extradite Habré.30 28