Inaugural Session of UPR Concludes, Working Procedures Finalized

New York, 16 April 2008 – The Human Rights Council launched the inaugural session of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) last Monday, 7 April and conducted the last review of the Session today.

During this Session remaining unfinished modalities and procedures regarding the Review were finalized. The process is still open for adaptation upon the conclusion of the current session.

The UPR cycle will continue to meet three times per year until all 192 UN Member States have been reviewed, which will take until the year 2011.

History and Procedures

At the establishment of the Human Rights Council (Resolution 60/251), the UN General Assembly tasked the Council with undertaking “a universal periodic review, based on objective and reliable information, of the fulfillment by each State of its human rights obligations and commitments.” The establishment of a consistent, comprehensive and meaningful UPR is widely regarded as the major reform distinguishing the Council from the former Commission on Human Rights.

Most of the rules of procedure were developed during 2006 and 2007 by the Council’s UPR Working Group, agreed upon during the Council’s Fifth Session (18 June 2007) and formalized under Resolution 5/1. They include the following:

• All Member States will be reviewed within 4 years (It was noted in Resolution 60/251 that States should be reviewed every three years in keeping with the length of Council memberships, but this was later extended to four years for the first cycle.)
• The order of review is decided by the drawing of lots, but in keeping with the principles of “equal treatment and universality, and equitable geographic distribution.”
• The Council may review modalities and periodicity of the review after the completion of the first cycle (2011).

The reviews consist of reports from the Member State, the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), and NGOs, followed by “interactive dialogues” between Council members.

Reviews are conducted by a Working Group of all 47 Member States of the Council, and moderated by a ”troika” of three Rapporteurs selected from the regional groups. (Click here for the list of troikas chosen for the first UPR session, and here for the second session’s troikas).

The UPR reviews current human rights practices in the State under review, based on three sources of information:

1. Information prepared by the state under review. States are asked to prepare this report “through a broad consultation process…with all relevant stakeholders.”
2. A compilation prepared by the OHCHR of information pertaining to the country contained in the reports of treaty bodies, Special Procedures, and other relevant UN documents.
3. “Credible and reliable” information provided by other relevant stakeholders to the UPR, summarized by the OHCHR following the “general guidelines” established at the Sixth Session (Decision 6/102). Because of the four-year periodicity of the UPR, stakeholders’ input on each country under review is supposed to cover only a four-year period. OHCHR’s summary of stakeholders' input is made available online. (“Other relevant stakeholders” include NGOs, national human rights institutions, human rights defenders, academic institutions and research institutes, regional organizations, civil society representatives, and others. Hundreds of organizations, either individually or in aggregate, have contributed input on the status of human rights in the countries under review during the first session of the UPR.)

The working group then makes relevant recommendations to the Member State in a final report on the outcome of the review. The reports seek to provide an objective and transparent assessment of the human rights conditions in each state.

The UPR is the first universal mechanism to review each of the 192 Member States’ fulfillment of their human rights obligations and commitments. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has noted on several occasions that no Member State – regardless of power or politics - will be able to avoid the scrutiny of the UPR. UN Watch has noted that: "The very fact of holding debates on countries that were previously given a free pass, even if only once every four years, helps activists to shine an international spotlight on human rights violations, and to challenge government responses that are inadequate or false."

Formal NGO participation in the process has been welcomed as an indication of review credibility. In addition to contributing information to the initial reports on each country, other relevant stakeholders may attend the reviews, make comments before the adoption of the review outcome, and participate in the follow-up and implementation to each review outcome (as per Resolution 5/1).

Last-minute Decisions on Modalities

Several modalities and procedures of the UPR remained unfinished until the current Session began, including:

1. Responsibilities of the Troika Members prior to the review;
2. Timeframes allocated to presentations, and to comments and interactive dialogues during the review process; and
3. Presentation and contents of the final report.

A proposal to resolve these procedures was prepared by Council President Doru Romulus Costea of Romania (who also serves as Chair of the UPR working group) and circulated to Member States on 27 March. In response, the African Group, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, and the Arab Group issued a non-paper containing their own suggestions. Incorporating some of their concerns, Costea made a Presidential Statement finalizing the modalities on 9 April. The divergent views are summarized below, along with how each issue was resolved in Costea’s statement.

In his opening statement to the session, President Costea reiterated that the inaugural session of the UPR would present challenges and circumstances that would prompt further amendments to the working methods and modalities of future UPR sessions.

Responsibilities of the Troika Members: Questions for State under Review

President’s proposal: Although the Member State under review has the final right in deciding which questions and issues to respond to, encourage full cooperation is encouraged in addressing questions and issues.

African Group and others: The Member State is under no obligation to respond to any question other than of its choosing.

The final statement by President Costea contained no encouragement to “cooperate fully” as his proposal had done.

Timeframes

President’s proposal: The Member State under review should have 30 minutes to introduce its report and reply to questions.

African Group and others: Member States should have 60 minutes to present and reply.

Costea’s final statement reflected the desired change, and 60 minutes were afforded to each State under review.

Other Concerns: Web-casting the UPR

Contentions also arose regarding the live web-casting of UPR sessions.

The proposal made by the African Group, the OIC and the Arab Group stressed that UPR sessions should conform to the established practices of the Council, wherein only the plenary sessions are transmitted live. In President Costea’s statement, however, he noted that the Council would “consider favourably” a decision to web-cast all UPR proceedings, which has been taking place since the opening of the session.

First Session Reports

The timetable for the 1st Session is as follows:

Date of Review	Morning	Afternoon
Monday, 7 April	Bahrain	Ecuador
Tuesday, 8 April	Tunisia	Morocco
Wednesday, 9 April	Indonesia	Finland
Thursday, 10 April	United Kingdom	India
Friday, 11 April	Brazil	Philippines
Monday, 14 April	Algeria	Poland
Tuesday, 15 April	Netherlands	South Africa
Wednesday, 16 April	Czech Republic	Argentina

Final reports on the outcome of each review are prepared in the 48 hours following the review, allowing time for additional input from the State under Review, and then are presented for adoption by the plenary of the Council.

The current review session concludes on Wednesday, 16 April, but the session is scheduled to continue until Friday, 18 April to allow for the adoption of reports on the last reviews.

Although President Costea warned Member States to keep to the time limits for proceedings, the adoption of the first reports last week proved to be more problematic than anticipated and extended beyond the scheduled 30 minutes. In the second week publication of reports has fallen behind schedule, and the interactive dialogue portion of the review has been limited to the circulation of written statements.

By the end of the first week, the Council had made public three final UPR Reports, on Bahrain, Ecuador and Tunisia.

Bahrain (Troika: Slovenia, the United Kingdom and Sri Lanka)

1. Information prepared by Bahrain, included a presentation of domestic laws and institutions for the promotion of human rights. Additionally, Bahrain presented a report of progress made towards pledges made during its 2006 candidacy to the Council. Identifying a series of challenges and constraints facing the state, Bahrain discussed and made voluntary pledges towards a number of human rights situations, including children, women, foreign workers, foreign female workers and trade unions.

1. UN Documents and Information about Bahrain, included a commendation of Bahrain’s accession to several international treaties, amongst them the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). It was also recommended that Bahrain ratify more international treaties, and incorporate treaty definitions into domestic laws. Specific concerns were raised on the following human rights issues: discrimination in access to social services, women’s rights, migrant worker’s rights, torture, trafficking, the pattern of impunity and limits to human rights NGOs.

1. Information on Bahrain from relevant stakeholders, came from 12 NGOs and included concerns about gender discrimination, resumption of the use of the death penalty, torture and ill-treatment of prisoners, harassment of human rights advocates, freedom of the media, prohibition of public gatherings impunity of officials, demarcation of election constituencies, sexual freedoms, poverty, unemployment, housing and pollutions.

Ecuador (Troika: Italy, Mexico and India)

1. Information prepared by Ecuador, outlined the core domestic legal framework and reviewed efforts to fulfill its international human rights obligations. Ecuador also noted their institution-based and policy-progress towards dealing with specific human rights issues such as the right to physical integrity, prisoner rehabilitation, torture and justice, the rights of vulnerable groups, collective rights and rights to health, education, culture, labor, housing and food. Ecuador also made note of the need for international cooperation in helping the state reach its human rights goals.

1. UN Documents and Information about Ecuador, welcomed Ecuador’s accession to several international human rights treaties such as the International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). The report also welcomed a number of new legislative initiatives and government cooperation with the Office of the High Commission for Human Rights. The report also mentioned that Ecuador should work towards ratifying other international treaties, and mentioned specific concerns for human rights in areas such as: indigenous peoples, discrimination against migrant women and asylum seekers, police use of force, torture, gender equality, abortion child rights and domestic violence.

1. Information on Ecuador from relevant stakeholders came from 9 sources, detailing the lack of commitment by the government to properly implement human rights decisions and legislation. Specifically, concerns were raised about: the persistent practice of killing and torture by law enforcement officials, prison conditions, delays in the administration of justice, freedom of expression and the right to peaceful assembly. The negative impact of oil development and illegal logging on indigenous communities.

Tunisia (Troika: Bosnia-Herzegovina, China and Mauritius)

1. Information prepared by Tunisia, highlighted amendments made to domestic law, human rights education, the status of women. Tunisia also identified terrorism, extremist racial and religious intolerance and the “perverse” effects of globalization as the main challenges to Tunisia fulfilling its international human rights obligations.

1. UN Documents and Information about Tunisia, urged the government to withdraw reservation declaration to a number of international treaties, but welcomed progress to improve the status of women and children, and to combat poverty. Specific concerns were raised about: discrimination, the judicial system and treatment of prisoners, restrictions to freedom of expression and assembly, and counter-terrorism measures.

1. Information on Tunisia from relevant stakeholders, came from 39 sources and expressed deep concern over freedoms of expression and religious belief, that is often specifically targeted against human rights activists. The widespread use of torture as an anti-terrorism measure was also noted. Other issues raised were: the non-independence of the judiciary, arbitrary detention, sexual freedom, religious discrimination and discrimination against ethnic minorities.

During the second week the Council has adopted and made available final reports on: Morocco (10 April), Finland (14 April), India (14 April), Indonesia (15 April), Brazil (15 April), and Algeria (16 April).

Emerging Criticisms

Despite the high hopes for the review process and its effect on the credibility of the Human Rights Council, since it opened on 7 April the UPR has been subject to criticism as “farcical” and mere “verbiage” that will prove incapable of tackling substantial human rights abuses. Already there have been reports of NGO participants being denied access, and of Member States wasting review time with lengthy monologues about tangential topics. There have also been complaints that the Bahrain’s review was dominated by praise for the initiation of the process, rather than providing a robust human rights examination. Another criticism is that the UPR serves as a “soft” alternative to General Assembly resolutions on human rights issues. Still other concerns have been voiced about the human rights records of UPR troika members and their own interests in the process.

Future UPR Sessions

The 2nd Session of the UPR is scheduled for 5-16 May 2008 to review: Gabon, Ghana, Peru, Guatemala, Benin, Republic of Korea, Switzerland, Pakistan, Zambia, Japan, Ukraine, Sri Lanka, France, Tonga, Romania, and Mali.

NGO input for this session has already been collected.

The 3rd Session of the UPR is scheduled for 1-12 December 2008 to review: Botswana, Bahamas, Burundi, Luxembourg, Barbados, Montenegro, United Arab Emirates, Israel, Liechtenstein, Serbia, Turkmenistan, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Colombia, Uzbekistan, and Tuvalu.

With 16 countries being reviewed per Session, the Council will complete the reviews of 48 countries each year. The complete UN membership of 192 countries will be reviewed once every four years.

Documents

URP Final Reports: Bahrain (9 April 2008), Ecuador (9 April 2008), Tunisia (10 April 2008), Morocco (10 April 2008), Finland (14 April 2008), India (14 April 2008), Indonesia (15 April 2008), Brazil (15 April 2008), Algeria (16 April 2008)

HRC President’s Statement on UPR Working Methods and Procedures (9 April 2008)

African Group, OIC and Arab Group Non-paper on Modalities of UPR (3 April 2008)

HRC President’s Proposals on UPR Working Methods and Procedures (27 March 2008)

Timetable for the First Session of the UPR (28 March 2008)

List of Troikas for First Session of the UPR (28 February 2008)

List of Troikas for Second Session of the UPR (28 February 2008)

Guidelines for Preparing Information for the UPR (27 September 2007)

HRC Decision on Working Methods and Procedure of UPR (18 June 2007)

General Assembly Decision establishing UPR Working Group (29 June 2006)

General Assembly Resolution establishing Human Rights Council (3 April 2006)

The e-Newsletter of ReformtheUN.org is a free service. To subscribe, go to http://reformtheun.org/mailman/listinfo/latestdevelopments. Please forward this announcement widely to individuals and organizations that have expressed an interest in UN reform.</p