HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL DISCUSSES PROGRESS REPORT ON UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW MECHANISM
The Human Rights Council this morning discussed a progress report of the Working Group that is developing the modalities of the Universal Periodic Review mechanism.
Mohammed Loulichki, facilitator of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review mechanism, said the Working Group had concluded its work on 23 November after a range of productive meetings with the participation of stakeholders and a series of useful interactive discussions. Terms of reference, bases of review, objectives and principles of review, periodicity of review, process and modalities of review, outcome and follow-up were the six items that were considered as the main outcomes of the consideration by the facilitator. There were many complexities of a practical and conceptual nature that required further consideration by the Council. Work should continue to be constructive, transparent and inclusive.
In the general debate that followed, some speakers agreed that the Universal Periodic Review would be a significant addition to the Human Rights Council for the protection and promotion of human rights. Subjecting all countries to the process was a major step away from the selectivity which afflicted the Human Rights Commission, and would pave the way for a comprehensive review of the human rights situation in the country under consideration. A lot of work was required to prepare the modalities of the mechanism. The point of departure should always be General Assembly resolution 60/251, which provided the basis for the mechanism. The Universal Periodic Review should review the work of each State on its human rights duties and commitments. It should be a cooperative mechanism, based on dialogue and full cooperation with the country concerned.
On modalities of the Universal Periodic Review, some delegations underlined that the Universal Periodic Review should be conducted bearing in mind universality of coverage, equal treatment with respect to all States, objective and reliable information, interactive dialogue and non-duplication with special consideration given to capacity-building and technical assistance.
Some speakers indicated that the Council must abide by the principles of constructive dialogue, based on a cooperative spirit and close consultations with the concerned countries. Observer States might participate in the review process during the interactive dialogue, and representatives of national human rights institutions, United Nations specialized agencies, and non-governmental organizations with consultative status with the Economic and Social Council could also be present.
Speaking this morning were the delegations of Uruguay, on behalf of Argentina, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Panama, Paraguay and Peru, Finland on behalf of the European Union, Cuba, Algeria on behalf of the African Group, Russian Federation, Bangladesh, Azerbaijan, China, Switzerland, Peru, Japan, Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Conference, Republic of Korea, Tunisia, Argentina, Malaysia, Nigeria, Indonesia, Senegal, India, Mexico, Brazil, Guatemala, Chile, Spain, Iran, Sudan, Thailand, Singapore, Denmark, Nepal, Colombia, United States, Liechtenstein, Norway, Venezuela and the United Kingdom.
Also speaking this morning were the representatives of Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples, in a joint statement with several NGOs1, and International Commission of Jurists.
When the Council meets at 3 p.m. this afternoon, it is scheduled to conclude its general debate on the Universal Periodic Review after hearing statements from national human rights institutions and non-governmental organizations.
Presentation of Progress Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review Mechanism
MOHAMMED LOULICHKI, Facilitator of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review Mechanism, said on the activities undertaken since the conclusion of the second session of the Council, and the progress of the Working Group, the latter had concluded its work on 23 November, after a range of productive meetings with the participation of stakeholders and a series of useful interactive discussions. The conclusions had been disseminated widely in written form. The preliminary conclusions were prepared following the discussions of the Working Group, and also the interactive dialogue during the consultations. Items of convergence had been prepared for further discussion. The conclusions were not the Council’s conclusions, they were the conclusions of the facilitator’s assessment of what were elements of convergence, and what needed to be considered further during the coming weeks.
Terms of reference, bases of review, objectives and principles of review, periodicity of review, process and modalities of review, outcome and follow-up were the six items that were considered as the main outcomes of the consideration by the facilitator. There were many complexities of a practical and conceptual nature that required further consideration by the Council. The Council should feel some satisfaction with the procedure that had been achieved in thinking and in discussions, and with the productive effort that had been exerted. Work should continue to be constructive, transparent, and inclusive.
Given the elements of convergence and what remained to be considered, delegations had been consulted on the procedure for future consideration. This was a new process, and it was hoped that a general statement would not be reverted to, but delegations should express themselves clearly with regards to the elements of convergence. Delegations should make their proposals and comments either on the whole document containing the preliminary conclusions, or on one or other of the elements, Mr. Loulichki urged.
Statements on the Progress Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review Mechanism
RICARDO GONZALEZ ARENAS (Uruguay), speaking on behalf of Argentina, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Panama, Paraguay and Peru, believed it was important for the progress report to focus on points of convergence. The victims-based approach, as well as gender and child approaches should be kept in the methods of work. International humanitarian law and customary law should constitute important bases to develop the review process. On the participation of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the Human Rights Council should reach more agreement on this matter. A wider and plural participation of NGOs at the preparatory stages and during the interactive dialogue was supported.
On national specificities, they should be studied in the framework of implementation of the results of the review process. States should be treated on an equal basis. On periodicity, it should be a useful tool, and Universal Periodic Review should be carried out every few years. On the modalities of the review, it was vital to ensure impartiality. In that sense, an independent expert could assist in gathering the required information on the concerned State. Concerning sources of information, they should be reliable and from diverse sources. Confidentially should be kept and respected.
SATU SUIKKARI (Finland), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the universal periodic review should indeed be a credible, effective and manageable mechanism aimed at the enhancement of the implementation of all States’ human rights obligations and commitments. It would be to some extent an evolving process, which could be improved on the basis of experience and lessons learned. However, to ensure the quality of the review mechanism, the European Union believed that one should carefully consider the different options for the modalities of the review before making any final decisions on them. On the basis of the review, it was important to use existing information, including the conclusions and recommendations of treaty bodies and special procedures, so as not to burden the review process and duplicate unnecessarily the work of the existing human rights mechanisms. The focus of the review should be the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and human rights treaty obligations.
The universal periodic review was among a number of tools at the disposal of the Human Rights Council to discuss and take action on different human rights situations. Considering the mandate of the Council, the review was not the only means to deal with country situations. The Council had in addition to the review various options at hand, including special procedures, to deal with country situations in a constructive and timely manner. The review should not preclude other UN human rights mechanisms to address country situations. Naturally, the review in itself should also be able to assess and address situations of human rights violations, as the objective of the mechanism was the enhancement of the promotion and protection of human rights. The principle of transparency was of utmost importance to ensure the credibility of the process. The Council should be able to follow-up the implementation of the outcome of the review at any session and consider further measures to be taken. The country concerned had a primary role in the implementation of the recommendations flowing from the outcome.
RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said its first statement would be general. Ambassador Loulichki was thanked for his work. For Cuba, the Universal Periodic Review mechanism was perhaps the most vital element in the process of building the Council’s institutions, and the progress that would be made in this regard would determine the real possibility of establishing a climate of confidence, as required by the work of the Council. The Universal Periodic Review mechanism, if it worked efficiently, could help to avoid establishing again in the Council the kind of practices of the past, namely politicised manipulation mechanisms.
The six themes identified by the facilitator were truly useful, and Cuba agreed with the facilitator’s arguments and work on the points of convergence. There were very serious and important commitments that were made in international world conferences, such as the 0.7 per cent of GDP that should be used by developed countries to support development. Fundamentally, as was pointed out in the document, was objectivity, impartiality, and the use of wide-ranging sources of information. However, preference should be given to information given by States themselves. A period of five years would be sufficient with regards to periodicity. It should be a subject of a formal meeting, and consensus should prevail in final decisions. The absolute majority of the members of the Council would be the required minimum to lend legitimacy to decisions that would emerge.
IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria), speaking on behalf of the African Group, said that in the future, status of progress reports should be transitional papers and not the final report of the Working Group. The progress update by the Ambassador of Morocco was excellent, transparent and indicated quite clearly points of convergence and divergence. It was a very good model and should be followed in the consideration of other matters. With specific reference to the text on adding more responsibilities to States, this clause had been used to prevent States from being the main contributors to the Universal Periodic Review.
YURI BOYCHENKO (Russian Federation) believed that the document prepared by the facilitator had pinpointed the essential elements required for the Universal Periodic Review and had narrowed the gap. The Universal Periodic Review should be used for all countries on an equal footing. It was also important that issues considered under the periodic review would be adopted by consensus instead of votes. Such a procedure would encourage States to cooperate. All stakeholders, including non-governmental organizations should actively participate in the interactive dialogue within the Council. The decision on how the review could be implemented should emanate from the States themselves. The review was aimed at avoiding the former procedures that were characterized by politicization. A general approach should be reached to resolve how to implement the review. Further information should be collected to enrich the procedures. Contrary to the former Commission, the Council now had extra sessions to deal with particular issues of concern. The financial implications of the different drafts of the review should be taken into consideration.
MUSTAFIZUR RAHMAN (Bangladesh) said the Universal Periodic Review would be a significant addition to the Human Rights Council for the protection and promotion of human rights. Subjecting all countries to the process was a major step away from the selectivity which afflicted the Commission, and would pave the way for a comprehensive review of the human rights situation in the country under consideration. A lot of work was required to prepare the modalities of the mechanism. The point of departure should always be General Assembly resolution 60/251, which provided the basis for the mechanism. The Universal Periodic Review should review the work of each State on its human rights duties and commitments. It should be a cooperative mechanism, based on dialogue and full cooperation with the country concerned.
ELCHIN AMIRBAYOV (Azerbaijan) welcomed the transparency, inclusiveness and properly scheduled nature of the progress report deliberations. These discussions demonstrated that the Council was on the right track and gave Member States a good basis for continuation of their discussions in the framework of the future sessions of the Working Group.
Azerbaijan believed that the Universal Periodic Review should be based and guided by the United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, obligations arising from treaties to which a given State was a party to, as well as commitments and pledges made by the State under review.
On modalities of the Universal Periodic Review, Azerbaijan welcomed the principles enshrined in General Assembly resolution 60/Implementation of General Assembly resolution 60/251 of 15 March 2006 entitled "Human Rights Council", such as the universality of coverage, equal treatment with respect to all States, objective and reliable information, interactive dialogue and non-duplication with special consideration given to capacity-building and technical assistance. The Universal Periodic Review should be a Member States-driven exercise.
LI NAN (China) attached great importance to the establishment of the universal periodic review. It presented a new approach adopted by the Council in an effort to eliminate the problems such as double standards, politicisation and selectivity that plagued the consideration of country human rights situations by the Commission on Human Rights. To avoid the repetition of those problems and ensure a successful review mechanism, the Council should implement the important guiding principles set out in General Assembly resolution 60/251 not only in words but also in spirit. In view of a number of mechanisms already in place to monitor the implementation of human rights obligations by States, China was of the view that the review should not be a burdensome tool either for the Council or the States.
China was pleased to note that after four rounds of consultations, the Working Group had managed to identity quite a number of elements of convergence, which laid down a good foundation for the work at next stage. China would stand ready to continue to work together with all parties in a cooperative, constructive and flexible spirit in order to set up a fair, efficient and effective universal periodic review mechanism at an early date.
JEAN-DANIEL VIGNY (Switzerland) said the process that had been established on the progress reports on the work of the two Working Groups on the Universal Periodic Review and on the mandates was fully supported. The preliminary conclusions provided an important input into the work of the Council. Switzerland had presented a complete concept for the Universal Periodic Review during the Working Group meetings. Six key points on elements of convergence were identified in the report. On elements that required further consideration, the six points should be considered one by one in an informal meeting.
ELIANA BERAUN (Peru) supported the statement made by Uruguay. Peru believed that the progress report gave an excellent summary which identified points of convergence. Peru reaffirmed some of the elements contained in the report, emphasizing the need for mechanisms to have an impact on the daily aspects of the people being subjected to violations of human rights.
The contents of the outcome document of the review process should contain references to the roles to be played by intergovernmental institutions, and national human rights institutions. In addition, it should ensure open participation by experts, and national institutions, and guarantee objectivity and impartiality.
ICHIRO FUJISAKI (Japan) said that Universal Periodic Review procedures should find a balance between non-discrimination, transparency and non-politicization. States should provide further information for the review process. How to deal with the provisions of technical assistance for capacity building should be taken into consideration.
MASOOD KHAN (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), said the three bases that had been outlined, namely: the need to establish a credible, effective and manageable Universal Periodic Review; that such a mechanism by definition was an evolving process; and that there was a link between the review and the other review processes undertaken by the Council, notwithstanding their specificities, were supported. The firm basis for the review should be the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as other human rights instruments which had been ratified by a State.
The primary stakeholders and actors participating in the review would be States, as it was essentially a State-centric exercise; however, the concerned State during the preparation could choose to consult other actors. The Universal Periodic Review should not add a cumbersome, duplicative process on the States being reviewed. The OIC had two alternatives on periodicity and order: the first proposed a five-year cycle of review covering all United Nations Member States; the second suggested a staggered examination based on the level of development from developed countries being reviewed every three years to least developed countries every seven years. The Universal Periodic Review should be conducted in the Council’s plenary. The outcome could be in the form of a Process Verbale containing a summary of proceedings with recommendations, to be adopted by consensus. Follow-up should entail implementation of the voluntary initiatives by States, technical cooperation and review of progress at the next Review.
KIM MOON-HWAN (Republic of Korea) was confident that the progress report would adequately guide the discussions. Taking into account the resources allocated to the Universal Periodic Review, deliberations should be conducted during inter-sessional and by multiple chambers or committees which were comprised of members of the Council. Participation by all stakeholders, including national institutions and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), should be assured. Nevertheless, participation in the interactive dialogue, bearing in mind time constraints, should be limited to Member States.
All countries should be treated equally during the review process. The level of development and specificity of each State should be taken into account. Some countries might require assistance in the process of preparation of Universal Periodic Review documentation. On the effectiveness of the Universal Periodic Review, the cooperation of the country under review was key. Therefore, it was important to engage the concerned country in a constructive dialogue. In addition, effective follow-up to decisions of the Council measures were critical and indispensable. The participation of NGOs and national institutions should be encouraged during the national implementation of the Universal Periodic Review.
ALI CHERIF (Tunisia) said the Universal Periodic Review was a foundation for the good functioning of the Council. The document presented by the facilitator provided the elements in which convergence and divergence existed on how to set up the review procedure. The Council should avoid the practice of politicisation and selectivity. States should not be condemned and should be provided with the means to improve their human rights situation. Any decision not based on consensus and cooperation would be counterproductive.
SERGIO CERDA (Argentina) said the document was a good basis for continuing negotiations on the Universal Periodic Review. During the previous negotiations, it had been pointed out that there was a need for three clear phases, including a preparation phase, which was the crucial phase, making it possible to have all available information on the country to be reviewed. The second phase was the review itself, which was an exercise of an inter-Governmental nature, in which all States, members or not of the Council, should have an opportunity to debate with the country concerned on the situation of human rights, based on the document prepared during the preparatory stage. The concerned country could prepare its own report, if it so wished. An interactive dialogue with States should take place, and other actors, such as mandate-holders and non-governmental organizations should be involved if they so wished.
The Universal Periodic Review should be action-oriented, and should produce conclusions and recommendations. The plenary of the Council should adopt the conclusions on the review, but this need not necessarily take place in the same session during which the review took place. It would be inappropriate to rush into taking a decision. The last phase would be an item on the Council’s agenda providing for follow-up on the implementation of the review. The Council should identify technical cooperation approaches, as well as capacity-building exercises, taking into account the level of development of the countries concerned.
HSU KING BEE (Malaysia) said that the progress report clearly indicated points of convergence. Important features of the Universal Periodic Review were set up to avoid selectivity and politicisation that were common at the Commission on Human Rights. The system should function as moral suasion, and be results-oriented.
The basis of the review should be conducted bearing in mind the respect of international human rights instruments to which States were parties. In the review of a State’s compliance, specificities should be taken into account. On customary international law, Malaysia maintained some reservations, as there was not yet a clear definition of it. The Universal Periodic Review was an inter-governmental process. Discussions should take place during the regular sessions of the Human Rights Council to ensure participation of delegations from developing countries.
ABDUL BIN RIMDAP (Nigeria) said the Universal Review Mechanism was a cooperation instrument. The level of development of each State should be taken into consideration in the implementation of the review mechanism. The periodicity for the developing countries should be five years while for the developed nations it should be three years. The preparation of reports could be organized at the level of regional groups. Only Member States of the Council should be able to participate in the consideration of reports taken up by the Universal Periodic Review mechanism. The conclusions should contain recommendations for technical assistance for their implementation.
ANDRE MARENTEK (Indonesia) said the Universal Periodic Review was an important issue. The work of the facilitator was appreciated. Further input had been sought from such institutions as the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization for the purpose of providing additional material for consideration and discussion. Reports had been compiled into a single document by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Other documents had also been submitted. Documents had proved very useful to keep delegations abreast of the discussions. However, a more formal report of the Working Group should be produced soon, formalising the outcome of discussions. The result of the work so far was a non-binding paper, which did not allow delegations and Governments to engage in constructive criticism of the mechanisms of the Universal Periodic Review.
When looking at the elements for discussion listed in the preliminary discussion paper, the elements of convergence were considerably outnumbered by those requiring further discussion. This meant the pace and speed of debates should be increased in order to meet the stipulated deadline. Elements of convergence already agreed upon during debates were supported. In its elaboration of the Universal Periodic Review, the Council should be guided by the vocation of this special mechanism, that it was to contribute to the strengthening of human rights in the context of international instruments, should take place in an atmosphere of support and mutual respect, and should be based on General Assembly resolution 60/251.
ABDUL WAHAB HAIDARA (Senegal) stated that the Universal Periodic Review entailed a major challenge to Member States, and Human Rights Council members should work together to make decisions on this matter operational and effective. The Council should continue its deliberations of substantive matters as indicated in the progress report. Consensus was desirable, as this consensus would be based on cooperation and dialogue. On the contents of the outcome of possible measures, Senegal advocated practical solutions with an impact at the national level. The mechanism should be given the necessary resources to attain the expected goals, and should also deal with any shortcoming encountered by the end of the first period.
MUNU MAHAWAR (India) said that while developing the modalities of a mechanism, it was essential for the Council to be clear about the objective that one sought to achieve through the Universal Review Mechanism. India noted the two separate viewpoints with regard to the main objective of the review mechanism. The first viewpoint would like the review mechanism to be a mechanism for identification of cases of human rights violations by the States and suggesting appropriate remedial measures. That viewpoint focused solely on the violations of human rights and appeared to be based on the presumption that States would not be inclined to taken additional measures or develop cooperation with the international community for the promotion and protection of human rights, unless they risked a public censure.
The second viewpoint noted that the Universal Periodic Review should be a cooperative exercise and not a confrontational one. It was based on the presumption that the majority of States were committed to the promotion and protection of human rights of their peoples. However, often the States were unable to fulfil their human rights obligations and commitments due to the lack of capacity and would willingly taken necessary remedial measures should they be provided with requisite technical assistance and with some positive persuasion by the peers.
PABLO MACEDO (Mexico) said both documents reflected the progress that had been made, as well as aspects that required further work. The normative framework that would underlie the review needed further urgent consideration. It was not necessary for the Working Group to discuss the degree of obligation and implementation of certain standards and norms, when customary law should be included as one of the bases for discussions. There was great clarity in international humanitarian law in this respect. The mechanism should also include the international obligations undertaken by States in the area of human rights without them having to be defined by the treaty bodies or other competent bodies. National legislation should not form part of this normative framework, it should form part of the review material, and be used as a means for determining to what extent the State lived up to its obligations.
Duplication should be avoided among treaty bodies, or a two-fold review that would give rise to contradictory conclusions. A political body should not be allowed to review the conclusions. Treaty bodies should be involved in how to ensure complementarity and avoid duplication of work.
SERGIO ABREU E LIMA FLORENCIO (Brazil) said that the preliminary conclusions were a very solid basis for constructive work. With reference to the basis of the review, Brazil supported all the efforts on the elements of convergence. On requiring elements needing further consideration, the Universal Periodic Review should also be based on international humanitarian law. Conclusions and recommendations of treaty bodies could also be used as a basis, but the Council should not duplicate the work of the treaty bodies and Special Procedures.
On principles, Brazil stressed that it did not think that the Universal Periodic Review should be an exclusively State-guided process. It should instead be guided in its first part to include experts to help fill the gaps of questionnaires, and then based on the answers from States to questionnaires, experts could draw up a list of important elements for Member States to take up for consideration.
The Universal Periodic Review must be one of the tools at the disposal of the Human Rights Council. States must cooperate with the Human Rights Council, including the cooperation with the mechanism of the Universal Periodic Review. Participation of non-governmental organizations should also be taken into account.
It would be not be realistic to not consider the level of development of a country in view of their implementation of Universal Periodic Review, but the level of development should not be used as an excuse not to fully implement decisions of the Council.
CARLOS RAMIRO MARTINEZ ALVARADO (Guatemala) believed that the review should be an intergovernmental mechanism. That exercise did not mean that non-governmental organizations and other institutions would not participate, but they could take part only by providing information. Each State had put forward its point of view on the review mechanism and the outcome of the document had indicated a convergence on the issue.
PATRICIO UTRERAS (Chile) said the concepts in the statement of Uruguay were endorsed. On the basis for the Universal Periodic Review, there were still doubts on whether the recommendations of the treaty bodies and Special Procedures should be included in the review. The review should complement and not duplicate their work. When designing the Universal Periodic Review, it should be borne in mind that the resolution establishing it included the need for substantive interaction between the bodies. On principles, there was concern that one of the elements requiring further consideration was that the Universal Periodic Review should be one among the numerous tools of the Council- it should be unique and be value-added. The main objective of the review should be to determine how each State had fulfilled its human rights objectives, with the aim of amending and correcting its behaviour. The level of development should be taken into account, but not used to determine the cycle of appearance before the Council - there should be shorter intervals for developing countries in order to provide them greater assistance from the international community.
JOAQUIN MARIA DE ARISTEGUI LABORDE (Spain) said that the Universal Periodic Review should be based on the provision of reliable information on the situation of human rights in the country under consideration. This should result in a participatory debate. This review should also help the country under review, and ultimately the victims of human rights violations. Thus, if any participants had any doubts with reference to any possible discrepancy between national law and international obligations, the transparency of the process would guarantee its immediate redress.
MOSTAFA ALAEI (Iran) said that the General Assembly resolution 60/251 acknowledged that the Universal Periodic Review mechanism should review the fulfilment of each State of its human rights obligations and commitments. In that regard, Iran believed that the review mechanism should be applicable to the actions of States both within and outside of their national boundaries. Iran had its doubts about the including of international customary law, as there were different interpretations of what those were as the basis of review. The main objective of the review should be the elimination of the political selectivity that undermined the credibility of the former Commission. It was not to assume the function of a tribunal. Rather, it was meant to be a cooperative mechanism based on interactive dialogue with full involvement of the country concerned. Balanced treatment of both sets of human rights including right to development; different levels of development as well as national, cultural and religious specificities and full involvement of the country under review were critical principles and objectives in developing of the new mechanism.
M. ALI IDRIS ALI (Sudan) said this new mechanism should be based on the letter and spirit of General Assembly resolution 60/251, and would rectify the previous experiences, based on selectivity. It should be based on the United Nations Charter, and on all the instruments the country under review was party to. The Universal Periodic Review should be based on correct and reliable information, and the country involved should be included in the dialogue. It should be based on a document provided by the country. On participation of non-governmental organizations, this should be in conformity with the decisions taken by the General Assembly and the Economic and Social Council. The review should not lead to country-specific resolutions. The conclusions of the review should be directed towards technical support and capacity building, as well as helping the concerned country to improve its situation with regards to human rights. The review should take place within the regular sessions, and not during the inter-sessional period.
CHAIYONG SATJIPANON (Thailand) said that the review should be conducted in the plenary to avoid selectivity and to enhance transparency. The Council must abide by the principles of constructive dialogue, based on cooperative spirit and close consultation with the concerned countries. Observer States might participate in the review process during the interactive dialogue, and representatives of national human rights institutions, United Nations specialized agencies, and non-governmental organizations with consultative status with the Economic and Social Council could also be present.
The outcome of the review process should be in the form of a summary record of the proceedings. It should be adopted by consensus by the Human Rights Council. The outcome should be practical, concrete, and lead to effective improvements of the human rights situation on the ground. It should identify needs and opportunities to assist countries under review thorough capacity building and technical cooperation on the request and with the consent of the concerned country. The Universal Periodic Review needed an effective follow up in which all relevant entities could participate.
FAITH GAN (Singapore) said the merits of the Universal Periodic Review mechanism should first be addressed. The mechanism should involve the States in the preparation of the background information to the reports concerning them. The objective of the review was cooperation with the examined Member States based on the desire of States to improve the situation of human rights in the country.
MARIE LOUISE OVERVAD (Denmark) said the Universal Periodic Review was one of the central innovations created with the establishment of the Human Rights Council. It should be based on a compilation of existing material, including reports and concluding observations from treaty bodies and Special Procedures, as well as information from the country in question. States should not have more reporting obligations. The task of compiling the information needed for the Universal Periodic Review should be given to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in order to ensure the independence and consistency of the process. It should complement, not duplicate other human rights mechanisms, and should thereby serve to indirectly strengthen the implementation of recommendations from treaty bodies and Special Procedures. The Universal Periodic Review should enhance the fulfilment by each State of its human rights obligations and commitments.
GYAN CHANDRA ACHARYA (Nepal) reiterated the importance of the Universal Periodic Review. It was vital for the review process to be based on a cooperative mechanism and a constructive dialogue. Nepal stressed that the review of the Universal Periodic Review was an evolving process. The ultimate objective and reliable information of this process was the promotion and protection of human rights and the enjoyment of human rights by all.
With reference to elements of convergence, the Council should consider the recommendations of treaty bodies, but it should at the same time avoid duplication of work. The Human Rights Council should also look at the situation of those countries that were not willing to cooperate with the Council. On periodicity, it was important to take into consideration the limited resources of developing nations. The review process should be kept as an inter-governmental one in nature.
CLEMENCIA FORERO UCROS (Colombia) said the document was useful to the Council’s discussion on the Universal Periodic Review. As it was indicated in the General Assembly resolution, the specificity of States should be taken into consideration. Although countries were obliged to implement their international obligations, the obstacles that impeded them from implementing certain human rights should be taken into account. Among the elements of convergence in the document were that observer countries should be involved in the process of the review mechanism.
PATRICK SMELLER (United States) said there should be a meaningful review of 40 countries per year, with a five-year cycle between reviews. The Council on its own initiative could decide to consider a country-specific situation at any point. The Universal Periodic Review should be a peer review system. The Working Group, made up of Council members, should invite each country for a two-hour long interactive dialogue, open to the public and non-governmental organizations. There was no role envisaged for experts to prepare conclusions or recommendations. Not every review should necessarily lead to a specific recommendation or decision by the Council in plenary session. The purpose of the Universal Periodic Review was for States to have a detailed and frank dialogue on human rights with all their peers, to identify areas that could need technical assistance or capacity building, and to call for more attention to specific problems, and this to take place in an open, transparent, and inclusive process.
ANDREA HOCH (Liechtenstein) stressed the fundamental importance of the principle of universality of the review, and the equal treatment of all States. This principle should be applied when discussing the basis of the review. Liechtenstein noted with satisfaction that the Working Group could agree on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as one of the relevant human rights standards. That would enable the Universal Periodic Review to address the whole set of internationally agreed human rights and fundamental freedoms, regardless of how many human rights treaties the State under review was a party to.
The question of the adequate review cycle was related to whether the Human Rights Council wanted to undertake the review in plenary or in smaller review committees. On both issues, the Working Group could not yet find a point of convergence. Liechtenstein thought it was very important that the Universal Periodic Review consisted of a lean mechanism that did not absorb too much of the overall meeting time of the Human Rights Council and did not overburden the membership of the Council as a whole.
VEBJORN HEINES (Norway) said all procedures that the Council was building currently should be adopted by consensus. In order to ensure an effective mechanism, all States should support the Universal Periodic Review mechanism. The resolution of the General Assembly had provided the modalities of the review mechanism and the Council should strengthen it through the cooperation of States.
GABRIEL SALAZAR (Venezuela) said the Universal Periodic Review was important, in particular interaction between the State and aspects of involved civil society. These were aspects that were open for further discussions and negotiations. Venezuela believed that the review should be carried out every three years, and States should be given an opportunity to provide responses to questionnaires, the format of which should be the subject of negotiations. The Universal Periodic Review was a wide-ranging general exercise, a tool to allow States to assess their human rights commitments, and to strengthen their national capacity. The review should be based on the United Nations Charter on Human Rights, and should be based on as much information as possible.
NICHOLAS THORNE (United Kingdom) said it was right that at this point of the discussion they should take stock, look at points of convergence, and also identify difficulties. The proposed system of the Universal Periodic Review had the potential to alter the way the United Nations human rights system looked at countries. For that reason, it was important to get it right. The Universal Periodic Review should ensure that politicisation would not resurface. All States should be assessed on the challenges each State faced with reference to their human rights situation.
The United Kingdom was concerned in those cases in which the data collected on individual countries was based only on governmental sources. Therefore, more work should be carried out on studying the role of independent expertise in collecting and reviewing data. The United Kingdom believed that the Human Rights Council should profit by adding the work of independent expert advice to ensure independence and also quality control of the collected data on a country under review.
GIANFRANCO FATTORINI, of Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples, in a joint statement with several NGOs1,said that the operative paragraph 11 of the General Assembly resolution 60/251 should be respected. Non-governmental organizations should not be prevented from participation in the work of the Council. Although the Commission on Human Rights lost its credibility after 60 years of service, the Council should build its own credibility. The conclusions of the Council should not be polilticized.
MARIE LAURE BAZEROLLE, of International Commission of Jurists, said the Universal Periodic Review, if wisely constructed, could contribute to the protection and promotion of human rights, as well as the prevention of human rights violations around the world, based on principles of universality, impartiality, objectivity and non-selectivity. The review of the fulfilment by each State of its human rights obligations and commitments should be based on an impartial, objective and technical expert assessment, which should be free of political pressures and influences. Recommendations addressed by the Council to the country concerned should not be limited to measures for technical assistance or capacity-building, but should offer a range of actions, adaptable to the specificity of each situation and human rights challenges.
Joint statement 1: Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples; Europe-Third World Centre; Women's International League for Peace and Freedom; International League for the Rights and Liberation of peoples; and International Catholic Child Bureau.
For use of the information media; not an official record
HRC06078E