HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL CONCLUDES DISCUSSION ON UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW MECHANISM
The Human Rights Council this afternoon concluded its discussion on the Universal Periodic Review mechanism, hearing from nine non-governmental organizations, as well as concluding comments from the facilitator for the Working Group set up to look into establishing the new mechanism.
Reacting to a number of comments and questions raised this morning and this afternoon, Mohammed Loulichki, facilitator of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review Mechanism, said that if progress had been made towards the establishment of the Universal Periodic Review, it would not have been possible without the commitment, active participation, and spirit of open-mindedness and flexibility by all delegations. The General Assembly had said there should be commitment and involvement on the part of the State under review, and it would be required to make a commitment. The review should be one of a number of tools for the Council – as all knew, the country situation review could not be restricted only to the review. On the outcome, there were a number of possibilities, and everyone appeared to agree on the need for technical assistance and capacity-building to be included therein.
Mr. Loulichki also recalled that this was a very important and complex exercise. By its very nature it was a dynamic process, constantly evolving. This was the beginning of the process, with only preliminary conclusions, and there was still a lot of work to be done. The subjects for further consideration were very numerous, more so than those on which there was convergence, and all needed both political will and a spirit of accommodation in order to make progress.
Speakers emphasized the importance of allowing non-governmental organizations to participate effectively in the Universal Periodic Review process. Some speakers from non-governmental organizations further called for the review mechanism to include the issues of women’s rights and indigenous peoples. It was also observed by several speakers that, to be effective, the Universal Periodic Review required the involvement of expert advice.
Speaking were non-governmental organizations from United Nations Watch; Human Rights Watch; Indian Council of South America; International Save the Children Alliance (in a joint statement with several NGOs1); International Federation of Human Rights Leagues (in a joint statement with several NGOs2); International Federation of University Women; International Indian Treaty Council (in a joint statement with International Organization of Indigenous Resources Development); Interfaith International; and International Coordinating Committee of National Human Rights Institutions (in a joint statement with The German Institute for Human Rights).
Following its brief public meeting, the Council continued its discussions in an informal session.
When the Council next reconvenes in public, at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 5 December, it is scheduled to discuss Special Procedures.
Statements by Non-Governmental Organizations
CAROLINE GROSS, of United Nations Watch, said while some areas of convergence were emerging, it was clear that much work remained. The Council should create a system that fairly subjected every United Nations Member State to careful scrutiny of its human rights' record based on a wide range of objective and reliable information from a variety of sources; that allowed NGO participation; and that led to concrete conclusions and recommendations that could be effectively followed up. For the review to be universal, all countries should be reviewed with the same frequency.
SEBASTIEN GILLIOZ, of Human Rights Watch, emphasized that an effective Universal Periodic Review required the appointment of an expert advice or panel of experts which would prepare documents essential for a focused and productive review session. The Council's bureau should also appoint an independent expert, selected from a roster by the Office of the High Commissioner, as session rapporteur for each State. It was essential for the Universal Periodic Review to include existing conclusions and recommendations of treaty bodies and special procedures in the basis for the review. The basis for the review should also include customary international law, including for example Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. Furthermore, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), including national NGOs without consultative status, had to be able to participate effectively in the review process.
RONALD BARNES, of Indian Council of South America, said, if the Council was going to address human rights issues transparently, how would it be prepared to address stonewalling by States that did not sign or ratify international treaties, or that made reservations and declarations that granted immunity from effective scrutiny from treaty bodies? The treaty bodies were sometimes so stacked with papers to review human rights violations that their concluding observations and recommendations could sometimes be a riddle one had to decipher. When certain States did not follow up on the findings of treaty bodies or Special Procedures when they were capable of following up, and then politicized and denied the outcome of certain procedures, then human rights violations were effectively denied by inaction.
ROBERTA CECCHETTI, of International Save the Children Alliance, in a joint statement with several NGOs1, said the objectives of the Universal Periodic Review should include promoting and protecting human rights in general and the rights of the child in particular, ensuring universal coverage and equal treatment for all countries and a focus on implementation and follow-up. It was important that the review complement and not duplicate the work of the human rights treaty bodies. The same standards should be applied to all countries, and the review should be objective, reliable and transparent. The standards used as the basis for the review should be drawn from international human rights instruments.
SIMIA AHMADI, of International Federation of Human Rights Leagues, in a joint statement with several NGOs2, outlined a number of proposals for the Universal Periodic Review, including that it had to lead to improvements in each State’s fulfilment of its human rights obligations and commitments; that it required the involvement of independent expertise; that the process had to be governed by the principle of equality; that it had to be a comprehensive process; that the review had to take into account the conclusions and recommendations of treaty bodies and the special procedures; that non-governmental organizations without consultative status had to be able to participate effectively in the review process; that the review had to result in a comprehensive outcome that would lead to result-oriented follow-up; and follow-up had to ensure action to implement recommendations and decisions taken in the review within a specific time-frame.
CONCHITA PONCINI, of International Federation of University Women, said the Universal Periodic Review was an innovative mechanism of the Council, which her group welcomed, and it hoped the process would guarantee impartial and equal treatment between women and men of all ages and status. Addressing women’s rights and empowering them to enjoy equal rights with men was far from being fulfilled, and was long overdue. Violence against women as individuals was a daily occurrence around the world and happened in great masses during armed conflict. Women were very often discriminated against instead of rewarded for their double productive and reproductive role by being deprived of the right to decent work and to personal development. There existed a very wide gap in women’s rights to decision-making, particularly in political and economic spheres, because of the predominance of men. The Council’s agenda should contain a regular agenda item on women and a gender-balance perspective in all the review mechanisms.
ANDREA CARMEN, of International Indian Treaty Council, in a joint statement with International Organization of Indigenous Resources Development, said the periodic review process to examine the human rights records of each Member State was one of the most significant and important aspects of the new methods of work to which the Council had committed itself. The Council should include the human rights situation of indigenous peoples in each country as a distinct, ongoing point of consideration in the review. The Universal Periodic Review should also include a mechanism by which indigenous and other peoples and non-governmental organizations could be directly involved in the process.
GUL NAWAZ KHAN, of Interfaith International, said that Universal Periodic Review provided an opportunity both for States and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to further the fundamental principles of the Human Rights Council in the promotion and protection of human rights. Some NGOs had been criticized by some States for naming and shaming, and for having incomplete information, or being biased. A new approach in the Council should be based on a constructive and open dialogue. The Universal Periodic Review gave the opportunity for such a fruitful dialogue to take place. It was important for civil society to provide an input in the review process. The Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights should coordinate information provided by NGOs; and NGOs should start preparing their dossiers.
ANNE-MARIE GARRIDO, International Coordinating Committee of National Human Rights Institutions, in a joint statement with The German Institute for Human Rights, said they supported the Universal Periodic Review, and hoped that the mechanism would include national human rights institutions in the review process. The national human rights institutions should participate in the preparation of the reports of the concerned country and continue to advise the authorities on human rights issues. The involvement and active participation of national human rights institutions would be significant in the promotion and protection of human rights efforts in a given country. The organizations would like to see the review mechanism be an effective tool in dealing with the human rights situation of States.
Concluding Comments by the Facilitator of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review Mechanism
MOHAMMED LOULICHKI, Facilitator of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review Mechanism, said if progress had been made towards the establishment of the Universal Periodic Review, it would not have been possible without the commitment, active participation, and spirit of open-mindedness and flexibility by all delegations. All the work that had been done and documents that had been published would not have been possible without the assistance of the Secretariat and Conference Services. The mediators that were needed to understand each other and to establish productive working relations had been effective.
Mr. Loulichki recalled that this was a very important and complex exercise. By its very nature it was a dynamic process, constantly evolving. This was the beginning of the process, with only preliminary conclusions, and there was still a lot of work to be done. The subjects for further consideration were very numerous, more so than those on which there was convergence, and all needed both political will and a spirit of accommodation in order to make progress. Among the issues raised, a certain emphasis had been placed on the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the rights of women. The international human rights instruments as a generic group were used as the basis for the mechanism, and these two Conventions were part of that group.
The General Assembly had said there should be commitment and involvement on the part of the State under review, and it would be required to make a commitment, Mr. Loulichki said. The Universal Periodic Review should not constitute an additional burden on the States to be reviewed. The process should be inter-Governmental, and what remained was the question of the participation of all stakeholders. There should be participation, and the scope and nature of that participation remained to be studied in a structured manner, and the Council needed to come up with a compromise in that regard in order to reach consensus. The Review should be one of a number of tools for the Council – as all knew, the country situation review could not be restricted only to the review. On the outcome, there were a number of possibilities, and everyone appeared to agree on the need for technical assistance and capacity-building to be included therein.
Joint statement 1: International Save the Children Alliance; International Catholic Child Bureau; International Federation of Social Workers; International Alliance of Women; SOS - Kinderdorf International; International Federation Terre des Hommes; and World Organization against Torture.
Joint statement 2: International Federation of Human Rights Leagues; Amnesty International; Human Rights Watch; International Service for Human Rights; Franciscans International; and World Organization against Torture.
For use of the information media; not an official record
HRC06079E