12 character of human rights treaties, bearing in mind, in this respect, the rare example of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination43; fifth, the elaboration of guidelines (although not binding) on the existing rules (of the two Vienna Conventions of 1969 and 1986) in the matter of reservations, so as to clarify them in practice44; and sixth, the attribution to the depositaries of human rights treaties of the faculty to request periodic information from the reserving States on the reasons why they have not yet withdrawn their reservations to such treaties. 35. The recent work (as from 1993) of the International Law Commission of the United Nations on the topic of the Law and Practice Concerning Reservations to Treaties tends to identify the essence of the question in the need to determine the powers of the human rights international supervisory organs in the matter, in the light of the general rules of the law of treaties45. This posture makes abstraction of the specificity of the International Law of Human Rights, attaching itself to the existing postulates of the law of treaties. The debates of 1997 of the International Law Commission focused effectively on the question of the applicability of the system of reservations of the Vienna Conventions in relation to human rights treaties. Although the point of view prevailed that the pertinent provisions of those Conventions should not be modified46, it was acknowledged that that system of reservations should be improved, given its lacunae, above all in relation to non-permissible reservations47. 36. In the debates of the Commission, it was even admitted that the conventional organs of protection of judicial character (the regional European and Inter-American Courts of Human Rights) pronounce on the permissibility of reservations when necessary to the exercise of their functions48; such considerations were reflected in the "Preliminary Conclusions on Reservations to Multilateral Normative Treaties Including Human Rights Treaties", adopted by the Commission in 1997 (paragraphs 4-7)49. In my understanding, there are compelling reasons to go further, and the relevant labour of the ILC on the matter could lead to solutions satisfactory to human rights international supervisory organs to the extent that it started from the recognition of the special character of human rights treaties and gave precision to the juridical consequences for the treatment of the question of reservations - which ensue from that recognition. 37. It seems unlikely, however, that it is prepared to pursue that approach. In its more recent version of its Draft Guidelines on Reservations to Treaties (2003), provisionally adopted by the ILC, it urged States and international organizations to 43 . System of the two-thirds of the States Parties, set forth in Article 20(2) of that Convention. 44 . Such as drawn up in 1998 by the International Law Commission of the United Nations; cf. note (24), supra. 45 . Cf. A. Pellet (special rapporteur of the U.N. International Law Commission), Second Report on the Law and Practice Relating to Reservations to Treaties (1997), paragraphs 164, 204, 206, 209, 227, 229 and 252. 46 . U.N., Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of Its 49th Session (1997), General Assembly Official Records - Supplement n. 10(A/52/10), p. 94, par. 47. 47 . Ibid., p. 112, par. 107. In this respect, it was warned that States often and consciously formulate reservations incompatible with the object and purpose of human rights treaties for knowing that they will not be challenged, and that the lack of sanctions for such reservations thus leads States to become Parties to such treaties without truly committing themselves; ibid., pp. 117-118, pars. 129-130. 48 . Ibid., pp. 106-107, 119 and 121-122, pars. 82, 84, 134, 138 and 143, respectively. 49 . Text in ibid., pp. 126-127.