The United Nations system helps States/countries fulfill their human rights obligations in two main ways. Charter-based bodies are United Nations mechanisms derived from the United Nations Charter tasked with promoting human rights and monitoring State compliance with them. These include the Human Rights Council and Special Procedures. Treaty-based bodies are committees of independent experts, recognized for their expertise in human rights, who monitor core international human rights treaties. The treaty-based mechanisms work alongside the charter-based mechanisms to hold States accountable for the fulfillment of human rights.
A human rights treaty is a written legal agreement between countries. In these treaties countries promise to protect the human rights that are in the treaty. Treaties, an essential part of the United Nations, provide legally binding articles that States and treaty bodies can look to and and use to make sure that human rights are not being violated. Language in treaties is used to hold States accountable when human rights are violated. Some examples of the core treaties, also called “conventions” or “covenants” that are monitored by the treaty bodies are the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESR), and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD). These treaties are voluntarily adopted by States and address core human rights concerns of civil societies and governments.
The Treaty Bodies
There are ten different United Nations’ treaty bodies. Their main function is to receive reports from States about how well they are implementing the treaty. Each treaty body only works with their assigned treaty. For example, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women works to ensure that the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) is upheld. While each committee is different, there are some actions that are carried out by all of them.
Treaty bodies collect reports from States to understand how well a country is following the treaty and where they may need help improving. The committee can then give suggestions to the country on how to improve their human rights practices. Treaty bodies also accept reports and information about States from other actors like national and international human rights organizations, intergovernmental organizations, civil society organizations, other States, academic institutions, individuals, and more. The committee can investigate alleged human rights violations. They have the power to request information from States or visit the country and may issue official comments on their findings.
The United Nations system is deferential to state sovereignty. Only States that have ratified the treaty are legally accountable for abiding by it. Treaty bodies can be flexible with how they respond to alleged human rights violations. Their approach is collaborative rather than confrontational and they seek to help States improve their human rights record. To encourage participation of States in monitoring and compliance with treaties, the committees all emphasize flexibility in the law and amendment procedures to better adapt to differences in States’ situations and their capacity to implement measures. This is considered both their strength and weakness.
Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination
The earliest treaty body to be established was the 1969 Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD). This committee requires all States parties to submit regular reports regarding their implementation of the treaty, their challenges to implementation, and their plans of action. This treaty body also has “complaint procedures” varying from “early warning” procedures for the committee to respond to worsening human rights situations to “inter-State” and “individual” complaint procedures to respond to the concerns of States and civil society. Most importantly, the CERD, and all other treaty bodies, make specific recommendations to States on how they can better implement the treaty. These may include new domestic laws to prohibit racial discrimination, widespread educational programs, or the creation of new agencies to implement the treaty. In many cases, these recommendations and persistent collaboration with the CERD has led States to conduct systemic reviews of their existing laws and regulations and even amend their national constitutions to legally prohibit all forms of racial discrimination.
Case Studies
CERD and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
In December 2025, the Trump administration worked with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to send Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other immigration enforcement departments to Minnesota to conduct “Operation Metro Surge.” The goal of this operation was to detain and deport as many immigrants as possible from across Minnesota. The operation resulted in thousands of unlawful arrests. In many of these detentions, officers used racial profiling and targeted individuals based on skin color, name, or accent. ICE agents also killed two Twin Cities residents, Renee Good and Alex Pretti. In addition to publicly documented human rights violations like these, there have also been an abundance of reports of human rights violations in detention centers like the Whipple Federal Building. Throughout the ICE occupation of Minnesota, community members and the ACLU brought attention to the racist and dehumanizing rhetoric employed by all levels of the Trump administration in justifying violence and unlawfulness.
On February 3, 2026, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the ACLU of Minnesota submitted an official letter to the CERD summarizing the human rights violations of Operation Metro Surge and urging them to support Minnesotans fighting the injustices of Operation Metro Surge. In the letter, they outlined the CERD’s core principles and previous recommendations, and demonstrated how Operation Metro Surge violated those recommendations. The ACLU urged the CERD to enact its “Early Warning and Urgent Action Procedures,” in the hopes of drawing global attention to the serious actions that were being carried out in Minnesota. The ACLU also urged the CERD to send independent experts to Minnesota to document the human rights violations in the state. Doing so would help inform future statements and recommendations related to Operation Metro Surge. The letter makes it clear that, in line with Article 5 of the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), tactics used during this operation were in direct violation of the ICERD which prohibits racial profiling.
CERD, in its Decision, issued several important recommendations. First, they raised grave concerns about the discriminatory character of US immigration enforcement policies and called for immediate reform. They demanded a strict prohibition of racial profiling by CBP and ICE and that they align their practices with human rights standards for policing. They also called on the US government to investigate allegations of abuse, conduct individualized assessments for removal, and to condemn xenophobic rhetoric targeting migrants. Their full decision and recommendations can be accessed here.
Sybrina Fulton and the US Human Rights Network
In February 2012, Trayvon Martin, a 17 year-old Black American teenager walking in his neighborhood, was murdered by a neighborhood watch volunteer who had racially profiled him as “suspicious” based on the color of his skin. The shooter, who was charged with second degree murder, was acquitted. The murder and the acquittal sparked outrage across the United States and prompted three Black organizers - Alicia Garza, Patrisse Cullors, and Opal Tometi - to create Black Lives Matter.
Sybrina Fulton, the mother of Trayvon Martin, in collaboration with the US Human Rights Network (USHRN) appealed to the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination to address racial profiling and police murders in the United States. Trayvon’s murder had sparked outrage, but little changed legislatively in the United States. Fulton and the USHRN brought together more than 300 civil society groups to tell Trayvon’s story and spread awareness of the impacts of racism and gun violence in the United States. The CERD responded, making several statements condemning the persistent racial discrimination that exists in the United States. CERD called for the US to ensure that its local and state laws comply with their obligations under the CERD, noting that many laws including “Stand Your Ground” laws disproportionately have an adverse impact on African Americans. Fulton and the USHRN have used these statements to legitimize their work, publicize their cause, and mobilize communities to advocate for structural change.
Treaty Bodies in Crisis?
The treaty body system has seen success and also faced great challenges. One of the most pressing challenges is the refusal of some States to submit their reports while others submit reports belatedly. As adoption of human rights treaties increase, treaty bodies have struggled with an increased work load, finding it difficult to process the large number of State reports and individual complaints they do receive. Cuts to the UN’s general budget disproportionately impact the treaty bodies that rely on UN funding. These challenges make it difficult to monitor State behavior and gain compliance.
On February 24, 2026, the Human Rights Council held a side event to address the crises that treaty bodies are facing. The meeting brought together the treaty bodies, government representatives, and civil society to discuss how to strengthen and maintain the longevity of the treaty body system. One idea that emerged was to increase cross-committee collaboration and the use of digital tools. The UN General Assembly has adopted resolutions aiming to streamline treaty bodies and eliminate overlap in their work.