Mary Mcleod
Acting Legal Adviser
Office of Legal Adviser
U.S. Department of State
Room 7802
2201 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20520
Scott Busby
Deputy Assistant Secretary
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
U.S. Department of State
Room 6421
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20520
June 25, 2015
Dear Acting Legal Adviser McLeod and Deputy Assistant Secretary Busby:
On behalf of Columbia Law School’s Human Rights Institute and the US Human Rights Network’s
(USHRN’s) ICCPR Taskforce and International Mechanisms Coordinating Committee, we write
regarding federal engagement with state and local agencies and officials to improve human rights
implementation. We offer a number of reflections and recommendations specifically focused on the
U.S.’ one-year follow-up response to the U.N. Human Rights Committee and compliance with the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). While we offer these
recommendations specifically in the context of the ICCPR, they are applicable to improving
implementation of other human rights treaties, including the International Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) and the Convention Against Torture
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT), and the
recommendations from the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) as well.
Recent Communications with State, Local, and Indigenous Actors
In the past several years, the State Department has taken important strides to raise awareness of
human rights among state, local, and Indigenous governments.1 In particular, we welcome the
1
Letters from Mary McLeod, Acting Legal Adviser to the U.S. Dep’t of State, to State Governors, Tribal Leaders and
the DC Mayor (April 25, 2015), at http://www.state.gov/s/l/releases/2015/index.htm; Mary McLeod, Acting Legal
Adviser, Remarks at the National Association of Attorneys General National Conference, The Role of State, Territorial, and
Local Government in Promoting, Respecting, and Defending Human Rights (February 25, 2015).
HRI/USHRN ICCPR One Year Follow-Up Letter
1
government’s inclusion of state and local actors in U.N. human rights reviews and its dissemination
of the human rights treaty bodies’ Concluding Observations to state and local officials. These
measures are essential to effective communication with state and local officials regarding the United
States’ human rights commitments and obligations.2 However, the emphasis of communication with
state and local actors remains on treaty reporting. A welcome and important step, the Deputy Legal
Adviser’s April 25, 2015 letter transmitting human rights treaty body Concluding Observations to
state, local, and Indigenous actors lays the foundation for the federal government to provide more
specific guidance on how to operationalize the Committees’ recommendations and relevant
provisions of the international human rights treaties ratified by the United States.
As the Human Rights Institute, the USHRN, and other civil society organizations have noted in the
past, the need for federal support of state and local human rights implementation is even greater once
a treaty review is completed.3 As detailed below, the one-year follow-up on U.S. compliance with
the ICCPR is an important opportunity to build on existing federal efforts. It is also a critical
opportunity to conduct outreach and follow-up with state and local actors to deepen awareness of the
human rights principles relevant to their work and facilitate implementation of the Human Rights
Committee’s recommendations.
The ICCPR and Building State and Local Capacity for Implementation
Article 50 of the ICCPR emphasizes that the treaty applies to all levels of government in a federal
system. Underscoring the importance of state and local actors, the Human Rights Committee’s 2014
Concluding Observations to the United States call on the government to “[e]ngage with stakeholders
… to identify ways to give greater effect to the Covenant at federal, state and local levels” and
“[s]trengthen and expand existing mechanisms mandated to monitor the implementation of human
rights at federal, state, local and tribal levels.”4
During the Human Rights Committee’s review of U.S. compliance with the ICCPR, the federal
government also acknowledged that state and local agencies play a “critical role” in human rights
implementation.5 Acting Legal Adviser McLeod’s February speech to the National Association of
Attorneys General also rightly emphasizes that “it is largely through the work of officials … acting
at the state, territorial, and local level … that the United States ensures compliance with its human
rights treaty obligations.”
2
These letters not only honor the commitment made by the U.S. during the course of the interactive dialogue with the
U.N. Human Rights Committee to disseminate the Committee’s Concluding Observations to state and local officials,
they are responsive to the 2014 CERD recommendations calling upon the U.S. to “widely publicize the concluding
observations.” Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, Concluding Observations on the
combined seventh to ninth periodic reports of the United States of America, ¶ 32, U.N. Doc. CERD/C/USA/CO/7-9
(Aug. 29, 2014).
3
Over the past several years, the Human Rights Institute has offered the State Department detailed recommendations for
improving federal support for and state and local human rights implementation through funding, education and training,
and effective communication and guidance. See, e.g., Letter from the Human Rights Institute and the ACLU to Harold
Koh, Legal Adviser, U.S. Dep’t of State (January 31, 2011) (on file with HRI).
4
Human Rights Committee, Concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of the United States of America ,, ¶¶
4(a); 4(d), U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/USA/CO/4 (Apr. 23, 2014) [HRC Concluding Observations].
5
See Annex A to the Common Core Document of the United States: State, Local, Tribal, and Territorial Human Rights
Organizations and Programs, Submitted With the Fourth Periodic Report of the United States of America to the United
Nations Committee on Human Rights Concerning the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ¶¶ 1-3, 124–
26 (Dec. 30, 2011), available at http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/179782.htm.
HRI/USHRN ICCPR One Year Follow-Up Letter
2
The One Year Follow-Up Can Serve to Deepen Collaboration
Despite recognition of the value of state and local implementation, and the Committee’s Concluding
Observations, the U.S. one-year follow-up report fails to include information on state and local
initiatives undertaken to implement the Concluding Observations (only state level prosecutions and
compensation for past human rights violations as examples of accountability are referenced). This is
a major gap, particularly in relation to the issue of gun violence, one of the priority one year followup issues for the Committee.6 Gun violence is an issue that falls primarily within the jurisdiction of
state and local governments and continues to have devastating impacts on communities across the
country. Information on actions taken at the state and local levels to foster compliance with the
ICCPR and with the Committee’s recommendations on (1) curbing gun violence through
background checks and other means, and (2) reviewing and amending stand your ground laws (or
lack thereof), are essential for the Committee, and the general public, to accurately assess U.S.
compliance with the ICCPR.
The Committee’s one-year follow-up assessment of the U.S. is an important moment to shift the
conversation with state and local governments toward implementation. The recommendations
regarding gun violence provide one specific platform to engage with state and local actors on human
rights treaty standards and Concluding Observations to the United States, and for the federal
government to offer concrete guidance on ways to comply with these standards and gather
information on initiatives that are directly responsive to them. The Department of Justice could
include the Concluding Observations on gun violence in communications with local law
enforcement, for example. These Concluding Observations can inform roundtables and trainings
with state and local partners, as well as guidance, guidelines, findings letters, consent decrees,
settlements and DOJ grants. DOJ could also convene state and local partners in conversations
focused specifically on the Concluding Observations, offering an opportunity to delve into how they
apply to state and local law and policy, and to provide recommendations to foster compliance with
international human rights norms. This type of substantive engagement is an opportunity to explore
challenges in implementation and strategies to address them. It is also an opportunity for the federal
government to identify state and local law and policy developments to include in the Committee’s
follow-up assessment to address the current information gap in the U.S.’ follow-up report.
Consulting state, local, and Indigenous agencies and officials in this follow-up process will also help
develop relationships that can strengthen U.S. reports in future human rights reporting cycles.
Further, it demonstrates to the world community that the U.S. has a continued commitment to
protecting human rights domestically notwithstanding our federalist system.
Looking Beyond the One-Year Follow-Up to Foster Human Rights Compliance
The Human Rights Committee’s 2014 Concluding Observations address a range of issues that fall
within the jurisdiction of state, local, and Indigenous governments. There are myriad ways to build
these Concluding Observations and the relevant provisions of the ICCPR into federal agency
partnerships with state and local governments to advance implementation. We offer a few concrete
examples in the arena of housing.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has recognized housing as a human
right7 and shown a commitment to strengthening its relationships with state and local civil and
6
HRC Concluding Observations, ¶ 10.
United States Interagency Council on Homelessness, How HUD Protects Rights, http://usich.gov/issue/humanrights/human-rights-article-1.
7
HRI/USHRN ICCPR One Year Follow-Up Letter
3
human rights agencies to operationalize human rights principles. There are multiple avenues to build
upon these positive developments, and we highlight just a few. As a frequent convener and
participant in conferences with state and local partners, HUD is well-placed to present on human
rights standards and their relevance to local initiatives. Human rights principles can also be included
in materials that HUD develops regarding specific programs and initiatives, as well as in stand-alone
letters to state and local actors. HUD’s regulations, guidance and funding streams, which all have
state and local implications, could also reflect human rights standards related to housing. Other
agencies and departments, too, can demonstrate leadership in operationalizing human rights
principles by taking similar steps and we welcome the opportunity to work with you to develop
strategies for implementation of human rights recommendations at all levels of government.
We recognize that our federalist system presents unique challenges and opportunities for federal,
state, and local communication, coordination, and collaboration. The Human Rights Institute and
USHRN stand ready to work in partnership with the federal government to help the U.S. address
these challenges and strengthen collaboration with state, local, and Indigenous agencies and
officials, consistent with these recommendations.
We appreciate your attention to these important issues and welcome the opportunity to explore these
ideas with you as the Human Rights Committee one-year follow-up assessment approaches. We also
urge you to adopt these recommendations and engage substantively with state and local actors
during, and after the review of U.S. compliance with the Optional Protocols to the Convention on
the Rights of the Child, the one year follow-ups for ICERD and CAT, and through the UPR process.
We look forward to discussing these recommendations with you. The day of the UPR Townhall
offers one opportunity for us to explore our ideas further and the ICCPR Taskforce and IMCC will
follow-up with you to confirm a time to discuss these recommendations
Sincerely,
JoAnn Kamuf Ward
Columbia Law School’s Human Rights Institute
Rebecca Landy
US Human Rights Network Coordinating Center
The USHRN ICCPR Taskforce* (individual members listed below)
USHRN International Mechanisms Coordinating Committee (IMCC) * (individual members listed below)
USHRN ICCPR Taskforce Members (* denotes ICCPR & IMCC member)
Katrina Anderson (ICCPR Co-Chair, IMCC), Center for Reproductive Rights*
Nasrina Bargzie (ICCPR Co-Chair, IMCC), Asian Law Caucus*
Jamil Dakwar, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
HRI/USHRN ICCPR One Year Follow-Up Letter
4
Sarah Dávila-Ruhaak, International Human Rights Clinic, The John Marshall Law School
Willie JR Fleming, Chicago Anti-Eviction Campaign
Mary Gerisch (UPR Co-Chair, IMCC), Vermont Workers Center*
Chief Gary Harrison, Chickaloon Village
Latrina Kelly-James, Junta for Progressive Action
Deborah LaBelle, Law Offices of Deborah La Belle
Efia Nwangaza, Malcolm X Center for Self-Determination
Jennifer Prestholdt, Advocates for Human Rights
Gina Womack, Families and Friends of Louisiana’s Incarcerated Children (FFLIC)
USHRN International Mechanisms Coordinating Committee (IMCC) Members (see above for
members also a part of ICCPR taskforce)
Josh Cooper (UPR Co-Chair), Four Freedoms Forum
Ejim Dike (IMCC Chair, CERD Co-Chair), US Human Rights Network (USHRN)
Marcia Johnson Blanco (CERD Co-Chair), Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
Melina Milazzo (CAT Co-Chair), Center for Victims of Torture
Additional Endorsers
The Austin Lawyers Guild
Rhonda Cowden
Jessica Chaippone, Florida Rights Restoration Coalition
Brian Citro, University of Chicago Law School International Human Rights Clinic
Fanm Ayisyen Nan Miyami, Inc.
Latino Justice PRLDEF
Ruben Solis Garcia, Universidad Sin Fronteras
Ann Fagan Ginger, Meiklejohn Civil Liberties Union
Bette Levy, NGO Committee on the Status of Women, NGO Committee on Social Dev.
Ricci Joy Levy, Executive Director for Woodhull Sexual Freedom Alliance
National Coalition for Civil Right to Counsel
National Lawyers Guild
William Quigley, Professor of Law, University New Orleans
HRI/USHRN ICCPR One Year Follow-Up Letter
5
Hilary O. Shelton, Director, NAACP Washington Bureau & Senior Vice President for
Advocacy and Policy
Soroptimist International
Sunnetta "Sunny" Slaughter, Slaughter Consulting, LLC (USHRN-CERD Taskforce)
Deborah M. Weissman, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, School of Law
Cc:
Vanita Gupta, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of
Justice
Kathleen Hooke, Assistant Legal Adviser for Human Rights and Refugees
Office of Human Rights and Refugees, Office of the Legal Adviser, Department of State
Karen Stevens, Senior Counsel, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice
Josh Kretman, Attorney Adviser, Office of Human Rights and Refugees, Office ofthe Legal
Adviser, Department of State
Jesse Tampio, Attorney Adviser, Office of Human Rights and Refugees, Office of the Legal
Adviser, Department of State
Amanda Wall, Attorney Adviser, Office of Human Rights and Refugees, Office of the Legal
Adviser, Department of State
Bryan Greene, Acting Assistant Secretary and Genial Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fair
Housing and Equal Opportunity, Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, Department
of Housing and Urban Development
Kevin Washburn, Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior
Kara L. (Preissel) Eyrich, International Affairs Officer, Office of Democracy, Human
Rights, and Labor. The Office of Multilateral and Global Affairs
HRI/USHRN ICCPR One Year Follow-Up Letter
6