A/HRC/6/21 page 4 Introduction 1. In its resolution 4/7 of 30 March 2007, the Human Rights Council decided “to initiate a process to rectify, in accordance with international law, in particular the law of international treaties, the legal status of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, with the aim of placing the Committee on a par with all other treaty monitoring bodies”. In the same resolution, the Human Rights Council requested the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) “to seek the views of States and those of all other stakeholders on this issue, and to prepare a report containing these views, as well as an input from the Office of Legal Affairs in this regard, for submission to the last session of the Human Rights Council in 2007”. 2. The present report reflects and summarizes the replies received from the Governments of Australia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Colombia, Cuba, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Finland, Guyana, Ireland, Japan, Liechtenstein, Mauritius, Mexico, Pakistan, Philippines, Switzerland, Turkey, and the United States of America. The report also includes, in an annex, a paper entitled “Legal Options for Placing the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights on a Par with other Treaty monitoring Bodies”, prepared by the Office of Legal Affairs (OLA). While OHCHR had sent out requests for information to United Nations agencies and non-governmental organizations, no responses were received from them. I. VIEWS ON THE INITIATIVE TO RECTIFY THE LEGAL STATUS OF THE COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS 3. The Government of Australia indicated that it was not convinced of the need to give serious consideration to the legal status of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), noting the significant resource implications that any such exercise would have. Australia noted that it was not aware of any evidence that the creation of CESCR by a resolution of the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) had resulted in any adverse impact on the effective implementation of economic, social and cultural rights, and that further consideration should only be given to this issue should further analysis demonstrate and substantiate that the legal status of CESCR has resulted in such a negative impact. 4. The Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina indicated that it strongly supported rectifying the legal status of the CESCR, considering that the United Nations treaty bodies had contracting character and that the procedures of changing its status needed the opinions of all States parties on this issue. 5. The Government of Colombia indicated that the proposal to modify the legal status of the CESCR was coincident with national programmes and plans, in line with the United Nations Millennium Goals, to ensure the effective enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights. From this perspective, the modification of the Committee’s legal status could serve to give impetus to the promotion of economic, social and cultural rights in Colombia and in other States parties to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), bearing in mind the special importance of the concept of progressive realization of these rights in developing countries like Colombia.