Madame Chairperson and colleagues,

I would like to summarize the paper I prepared at the request of last year's Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery.

At its twenty-third session last year the Working Group "asked [me] and Anti-Slavery International... to prepare a comprehensive review of existing treaty and customary law covering all the traditional and contemporary slavery-related practices and relevant monitoring mechanisms.

"I found that task to be much larger than I had expected when I volunteered. The working paper I prepared with Anti-Slavery International ran 89-pages or so and covered many substantive issues. I also prepared a 12-page executive summary that has been circulated at this meeting. The working paper first traces the origins and progress of the international campaign to abolish the slave trade and slavery, the legal instruments and institutions which have been established to combat slavery (including the Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery), the evolving definition of slavery, contemporary forms of slavery, and other related practices. The working paper then focuses attention on serfdom, forced labour, debt bondage, migrant workers, tratficking in persons, prostitution, forced marriage and the sale of wives, other issues, international monitoring mechanisms, and tentative conclusions and recommendations.

Today, I want briefly to summarize the evolving international prohibition against slavery as well as the gradually widening definition of slavery and slavery-like practices. I want to focus particularly in this presentation on the future role of the Working Group.

Between the years of 1815 and 1957 there were some 300 international agreements relating to the suppression of slavery. Since 1957 there have been a number of additional treaties which contain provisions forbidding slavery and slavery-like practices. Unfortunately, while there have been many treaties and other instruments adopted which ban slavery, none have been totally effective. One possible explanation for the lack of complete success is that the Slavery Conventions of 1926 and 1956 as well as other major slavery-related treaties have outlawed slavery and associated practices, but they have failed to establish procedures for reviewing the incidence of slavery in States parties. They have similarly failed to create an international body that could evaluate and pursue information about violations. Without a mechanism to monitor and implement States' obligations to abolish slavery and related practices, international law will not be effective in ending slavery.

Since 1974 the Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery has made a contribution towards the abolition of slavery. This year the Working Group should consider how it might improve its approach. There are at least three courses of action from which the Working Group can choose to help shape its role in the future. The first option would be to address the lack of an international body by giving the Working Group the explicit authority to receive and comment upon States reports under the various slavery conventions. The Working Group could seek authorisation from the Commission on Human Rights to begin functioning as the treaty monitoring body for the slavery-related conventions. This option would have its benefits, as it would lead the Working Group to structure its work and to rely upon the procedural precedents of the treaty monitoring bodies.

A major drawback to this option is that many governments have already expressed concern that they are overloaded with their present reporting responsibilities to the six existing human rights treaty bodies. Adding another periodic report could very well be too much of a burden for governments.

A second option would be for the Working Group to build upon its approach of the past year or two in which it is beginning to focus on particular issues, for example, trafficking in persons, debt bondage, and so on. At its 1998 session the Working Group identified trafficking in persons as the principal focus of its 1999 session and debt bondage as the principal focus for its session in the year 2000. In order to more fully pursue this approach, the Working Group should devote some attention in 1999 to planning the discussion on debt bondage for its following session. For example, the Working Group might select a sample of three to five nations which would be expected to possess useful information about the theme to be discussed. The governments could then be informally invited to participate at the session the following year. Those governments could be invited to submit written reports. Hence, each session of the Working Group would be divided into two parts - a more formal segment in which it would receive information from governments and non-governmental organizations about the theme of that year, for instance trafficking in persons.

The second part of the session would be informal and at least partially without observers. During the second informal part, the Working Group could consider, first, whether it could draw any conclusions from the information it had just heard about the theme of that year. Second during the informal part, the Working Group could discuss what topic should be selected for the next and future years. And third the Working Group could hold informal consultations leading to the selection of a few countries which could be specially invited to participate in the next year's session of the Working Group.

This option also has its benefits. Under this option, governments, in general, would be far less burdened than they would be by a comprehensive, universal reporting process affecting all States parties. Instead of establishing a State reporting responsibility which would burden all States, only a few governments would be asked to participate actively in the Working Group's session in a particular year. Governments would be invited not only if they have particular problems relating to the theme of the following year, but also if they have been successful in overcoming slavery-like practices, so that other countries can learn from their experience.

The Working Group would be expected to vary the countries invited to participate from year to year, as the theme of the session would shift every year or two. Also, governments would generally be given much better notice of the issues that may arise in a particular session than they receive at present. Of course, if emergency situations relating to slavery-like practices arise prior to or during a particular session of the Working Group, the Working Group could reserve time to deal with those matters as well. The Working Group need not devote its attention solely to the theme selected the year before, but this approach would substantially professionalise and focus its activities if the thematic approach is developed.

A third option was suggested by the Bureau of the Commission on Human Rights 54th session. It proposed to "terminate the mandate of the Sub-Commission's Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery and transfer those responsibilities which are not addressed by existing mechanisms to a new Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of slavery." This proposal may reflect the view of the Bureau and at least some of the members of the Commission that the Working Group has not been effective in achieving its goals. The chairperson of the Commission on Human Rights 55th session concluded the Commission's deliberations on the Sub-Commission by observing, "While fully valuing the distinctive role and contribution of the Sub-Commission over its more than 50 year history, the Commission considers that it too is in need of a thorough review." The Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery could contribute to that review either by improving its own methods of work, or by considering the proposal for the Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Slavery.

This final option has its benefits as well. A Special Rapporteur would be a less expensive way of focusing world attention on the issue of slavery. The negative side of this option is that a Special Rapporteur would also be less effective than the Working Group could be in monitoring the implementation of the slavery-related conventions. The Working Group should at least be aware of this proposal and should improve its own procedures, so that members of the Commission can be reassured that the Working Group is achieving its objectives. I believe that it would be in the best interest of the Working Group to adopt the second method discussed. By assigning themes to each session of the Working Group, as well as by inviting individual countries and giving them time to prepare, the Working Group will be better able to address the issue of slavery. Furthermore, this option will not place a significant annual burden on countries. The Working Group, by following this path, will have a better idea of its role and be able to focus its activities. While the method of appointing a Special Rapporteur might be less expensive, a Special Rapporteur would not be able to have as extensive and systematic a review of slavery, nor would she or he be as effective in monitoring the implementation of slavery-related conventions. For these reasons, I believe it would be in the best interests of the Working Group to adopt a thematic approach for its future sessions

In conclusion, the right of all individuals to be free from slavery is a basic human right; yet the current lack of a mechanism for monitoring States obligations to abolish slavery and related practices does little to encourage member States to establish safeguards against all contemporary forms of slavery. In order to make the Working Group more effective in combating slavery, the Working Group should either seek to emulate the human rights treaty bodies or adopt a thematic and more regularized approach to monitoring the treaties relating to slavery-like practices. If the Working Group does not substantially improve its methods of work, for example, by adopting the thematic approach, it is more likely that the Commission may decide to pursue the Special Rapporteur alternative. I hope that the Working Group will give constructive consideration to the working paper, its executive summary, and most-of-all its recommendations, so that the Working Group can achieve its principal objective of abolishing all contemporary forms of slavery.