HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL DISCUSSES MODALITIES OF A UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW MECHANISM

The Human Rights Council this morning discussed how to set up the modalities of the universal periodic review mechanism, which would periodically review the situation of human rights in all countries, hearing delegations proposing the creation of a working group to design the modalities.

Several speakers underlined that the review mechanism should be non-confrontational, non-selective, impartial and transparent while considering country situations and should take into consideration country specificities of a religious, cultural and historical nature. The Council was also asked to make sure that it did not duplicate the work of the United Nations treaty bodies.

Other points stressed by speakers was that the universal periodic review should not stop the Council from responding to urgent human rights issues as they arose; the importance of holding an interactive dialogue with all stakeholders, including non-governmental organizations and national human rights institutions, in setting up the modalities of the mechanism; that it did not entail additional reporting obligations on States; and that the review should function as a cooperative mechanism, based on an interactive dialogue, with the full involvement of the country concerned and with due consideration for its capacity-building needs.

In its resolution 60/251, the General Assembly decided that the Council will, inter alia, undertake a universal periodic review based on objective and reliable information of the fulfilment by each State of its human rights obligations and commitments in a manner which ensures universality of coverage and equal treatment with respect to all Member States. The review shall be a cooperative mechanism based on an interactive dialogue with the full involvement of the country concerned and with consideration given to its capacity-building needs. Such a mechanism shall complement and not duplicate the work of treaty bodies. The Council shall develop the modalities and necessary time allocation of the universal periodic review mechanism within one year after the holding of its first session.

Taking the floor were State representatives from Uruguay, Switzerland, Malaysia, Mexico, Austria (on behalf of the European Union), India, Canada (on behalf of Australia, Canada and New Zealand), Indonesia, Brazil, Russian Federation, Algeria (on behalf of the African Group), Republic of Korea, South Africa, Philippines, Japan, Ghana, Poland, China, Cuba, Sri Lanka, Romania, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Azerbaijan, Zambia, Ukraine, Thailand, Liechtenstein, Chile, Colombia, Nepal, Bhutan, Singapore, Viet Nam, Côte d’Ivoire, Iran, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, United States and Armenia.

Also speaking were the representatives of non-governmental organizations from Human Rights Watch (in a joint statement with International Federation of Human Rights Leagues; International Commission of Jurists; World Organization Against Torture; and International Service for Human Rights), Asian Forum For Human Rights And Development (in a joint statement with Ain O Salish Kendro (Ask) Law and Mediation Centre; Asian Legal Resource Centre; International NGO Forum on Indonesian Development; Asian Forum For Human Rights And Development), Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples and International Women's Rights Action Watch.

The representative of the Commission on Human Rights of Philippines also spoke.

When the Council reconvenes at 3 p.m., it will take up the issue of the review of mandates and mechanisms as stated in operative paragraph 6 of the General Assembly resolution 60/251, which states that the Council will assume, review and where necessary improve and rationalize, all mandates, mechanisms, functions and responsibilities of the Commission on Human Rights, in order to maintain a system of special procedures, expert advise and complaint procedure. The resolution says the Council shall complete this review within one year after the holding of its first session.

Statements

RICARDO GONZALEZ (Uruguay) said the universal periodic review should be the keystone for the review of the situation of human rights, as the Council was responsible for the promotion and protection of human rights and should address these as they arose, as per the General Assembly resolution establishing it. It should respond to urgent situations, and carry out a thorough review of the situation of human rights in each country through the review. The universal periodic review, its design and other procedures should be discussed within the year since the Council’s establishment. To this end, there were various options, including the appointment of a consulting body, or a working group to establish it.

The Council should develop terms or guidelines to channel the exercise and formal content towards the ends included in the founding resolution. It was based on the principles of impartiality, objectivity and freedom from selectivity. The mechanism should be an effective mechanism to investigate the situation in each country, and should be as profound as possible in order to discover the real state of each country’s compliance with its human rights duties. It was necessary to ensure it did not become, however, a dock for an accused, and thus reproduce the confrontational nature of the Commission. The challenge was to strengthen a framework for cooperation.

JEAN-DANIEL VIGNY (Switzerland) said that Switzerland would like to see a universal periodic review mechanism created with a consultative process that was both structured and flexible. The President could thus designate a facilitator to undertake open and transparent consultations, both formal and informal, with all the stakeholders concerned, including Member States, observers, representatives of the special procedures, non-governmental organizations, and national human rights institutions. Those consultations would take up 10 days of meetings, would be open-ended and would be given all the necessary services.

Switzerland said that the Council should be kept informed by the facilitator at the September 2006 session of progress on the informal consultations. A final report on the machinery, including the time needed for the universal periodic review, should be submitted in December 2006, after which the Council should take a decision as soon as possible so that it could proceed with its first universal periodic review, in keeping with its mandate.

HSU KING BEE (Malaysia) said that given the one-year time period during which the Council was to develop the modalities of the universal periodic review mechanism after holding its first session, it was believed that the Council had sufficient time to deliberate and agree upon clear and well thought out details of the mechanism on a consensual basis. Thus the process should not be rushed. On the scope of the review, one believed it was important at the outset to establish its scope. In that context, the operative paragraph provided that the review should be based on objectives and reliable information of the fulfilment of each State of its human rights obligations and commitments.

The review should be based mainly on obligations specifically made by States through their ratification of or accession to human rights treaties as well as their particular constitution and domestic laws. If a State had not acceded to a particular human rights treaty, there should be particular reasons domestically why it was not able to so. The process in the preparation of the review should not be too cumbersome and burdensome on Member States particularly on developing countries, some of who did not have the resources or capacity for that purpose.

ALEJANDRO ALDAY (Mexico) said the universal periodic review was one of the most innovative and exciting aspects of the reform of the human rights system, demanding that the Council adopt a method of review that was impartial and objective. All States had to use similar parameters and similar periodicity. It should function in a manner complementary to the work of the treaty bodies. The Council should adopt innovative modalities for the functioning of the mechanism, whilst ensuring a high level of quality. The Council should establish four Working Groups, made up of experts from the Council, and these should meet for a set period each year, in order to ensure that within 3 years there had been a review of all United Nations countries.

Each Council member should nominate an Expert who had experience in public policy review and human rights. They should seek the establishment of a balance, and should incorporate regional perspectives and a gender balance. The Groups should meet at least two weeks a year, to hold the review in public meetings in concert with the States involved. Once established, the Groups would have to consider what mechanisms to use for the review. The Council should establish rules of procedure and internal guidelines for their activities, and each Group should develop proposals and recommendations for the reviewed States, with the aim of gradual changes.

WOLFGANG PETRITSCH (Austria), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that turning to the process of setting up the review mechanism, the European Union welcomed the draft resolution by the President on the topic and felt that they would be able to find consensus on that text. Of particular importance for the European Union was that an interactive dialogue with all stakeholders, including non-governmental organizations and national human rights institutions, was ensured in the process. Given the complexity of the elaboration of the review mechanism, the European Union favoured a two-stage approach: the first stage could be led by a facilitator in order to move consultations forward without delay; at a second stage, the discussion on the modalities could move into an open-ended intersessional Working Group. They should keep December 2006 as a goal for finishing the modalities of the universal periodic review.

Turning to the content of the universal periodic review, the European Union said that the review should not impose any additional reporting obligations on States. Instead, countries undergoing the review could present, for example, a declaration on the state of human rights in their country. The system should be efficient and meaningful, but with a relatively light procedure. The universal periodic review should not duplicate the work of the treaty bodies and special procedures. The main focus should be on implementation and follow-up. In order to ensure transparency in the process, non-governmental organizations, as well as national human rights institutions, should be able to participate and substantively contribute to the mechanism.

SWASHPAWAN SINGH (India) said the universal review mechanism would be one of the innovations of the Council. The Council should move with caution in establishing the modalities to the universal periodic review mechanism. India was in favour of the creation of an open-ended intergovernmental working group to develop modalities. The group should meet on several occasions to discuss and establish the modalities essential for the review mechanism. Once the modalities were established, the review mechanism should examine the capacity of each State in fulfilling its obligations and its ability to implement its international obligations. It should also take into consideration the shortcomings of the State in its efforts in discharging its obligations. The focus of the recommendations should be on the specificities of each State by taking into consideration cultures and other differences.

PAUL MEYER (Canada), speaking on behalf of Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, said the Council had to find new and creative ways through enhanced cooperation and dialogue to ensure it had a direct, concrete and positive impact on the promotion and protection of the rights of people around the world. A significant innovation and tool of the Council that would help to focus on implementation and tangible results was the universal periodic review mechanism through which the human rights records of all United Nations Member States would be considered fairly and equally.

The members of the Council had committed themselves to uphold the highest standards of human rights and cooperate fully with the Council, including having their own human rights records reviewed during their term of membership. There was an emerging consensus that the Council should, as a priority, take a decision at this session on the establishment of an appropriate mechanism to develop the modalities for the universal periodic review. A final report setting out the agreed modalities and time allocation for the universal periodic review should be submitted to the Council as soon as possible.

IGNATIUS PUGUH PRIAMBODO (Indonesia) said that Indonesia warmly welcomed the universal periodic review, which would serve as a forum that would place all countries on the same footing, because all would be subject to the review and would provide a foil against politicization and selectivity in dealing with human rights issues. For optimal results, the review should function as a cooperative mechanism, based on an interactive dialogue, with the full involvement of the country concerned and with due consideration for its capacity-building needs.

Indonesia further underlined that the universal periodic review should complement, not duplicate, the work of the treaty bodies. To that end, it believed that the Council should complement the work of those mechanisms and use coherent synergy in order not to place a heavy burden of reporting obligations on the country under review. Thus, Indonesia proposed that, aside from any information that could be gleaned from its mechanisms and other sources, the Council set modalities for a dialogue involving officials whose responsibility would centre on the fulfilment of countries’ national obligations in the promotion and protection of human rights. In order that a credible mechanism could be developed, Indonesia, like many others, supported the establishment of an open-ended intergovernmental working group that would meet on an inter-sessional basis as a forum to develop modalities.

SERGIO ABREU E LIMA FLORENCIO (Brazil) said the idea behind the universal periodic review was that the Council could count on an effective instrument to reduce political selectivity and politicization, the main flaws of the former Commission. In order to avoid selectiveness, the mechanism should be really universal and all States, with no exception, should be scrutinized. It should also be carried out on a regular basis and for that a period of three years, coinciding with the term of the membership, could be considered. The efficiency of the universal periodic review mechanism would depend on two aspects: States should submit themselves to the examination and take seriously into consideration the recommendations and their follow-up; and the mechanism should not be used as a mere tribunal, a forum for motivated accusations, in many cases, by political considerations far from the human rights perspectives.

The focus of the universal periodic review should be to identify problems and at the same time to foster dialogue with States, including by the need of assistance and cooperation. Brazil saw the universal periodic review and the global report that could derive from the mechanism, not as a tool for the imposition of standard values from a sole point of view. On the contrary, its universal and comprehensive character might provide a unique opportunity to reflect the diversity and complexity of each country.

MARINA KORUNOVA (Russian Federation) said the universal periodic review would be at the heart of the future operations of the United Nations, but unfortunately its mechanism had not been clearly settled in the establishing resolution, and without a clear definition, it could not be established. The universal periodic review mechanism could only become an effective mechanism if true impartiality, objectivity, non-selectivity and non-politicisation were adopted by all States without exception. Specific criteria would have to be adopted for assessing the situation in the various countries. It would also be important to take account of the basic socio-economic capacities of the community under review.

It was also important to ensure that duplication between the functions of the treaty bodies and the Council was avoided.

IDRISS JAZAIRI (Algeria), speaking on behalf of the African Group, said that the African Group insisted on the necessity of avoiding entering into detailed negotiations of the universal periodic review at the current plenary session of the Council. To that purpose, the Council had to entrust that task to an open-ended inter-sessional working group that would adopt a transparent, inclusive, fair and equitable approach based on constructive dialogue and cooperation; take into account the level of development and the cultural specificities of each country; define the status of the new mechanism in relation to the special procedures and the treaty bodies, as well as their interaction; finalize the elaboration of modalities of the mechanism before submitting to evaluation those first outgoing members with a one year mandate; choose a President, to be selected from among Council members; draw to the maximum extent on the New Partnership for Africa’s Development Peer Review Mechanism; work in close cooperation with a second intersessional working group to be charged with the revision of mandates; and request the Bureau to make the necessary arrangements to avoid clashes between the dates for holding meetings.

CHANG DONG-HEE (Republic of Korea) said the success of the new review system would be critical in determining the extent to which the Council would contribute to the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms across the globe. In that sense, developing modalities of the new system, which would ensure its universal, objective, cooperative and interactive character, was central to the Council’s efforts aimed at establishing an efficient and productive Council. The review mechanism would do much more than simply review and criticize. The main focus should be on assessing capacity in each Member State and identifying areas in which there was a need for the support of the international community.

The universal periodic review mechanism should neither replace nor duplicate the existing human rights mechanisms, such as the treaty bodies and special procedures. It should be complementary and not overlapping with those mechanisms. The review mechanism would be critical for the success of the Council.

GLAUDINE MTSHALI (South Africa) said the universal periodic review was an important step towards the effective global promotion and protection of human rights, and was an instrument meant to assist countries and enhance their human rights records through the sharing of best practices. This approach based on cooperation and dialogue, with the full involvement of the country concerned and with consideration given to its capacity-building needs, would move the Council away from the politicisation, double standards and selectivity that had plagued the Commission.

The Council had been entrusted with the task of operationalising the universal periodic review mechanism, and in order to succeed in this task, it should ensure that the mechanism was fair, inclusive and transparent and that there was sufficient guarantee that it was above political manipulation. The mechanism should be functional within one year of the establishment of the Council.

ENRIQUE MANALO (Philippines) said that a key innovation of General Assembly resolution 60/251 was the universal periodic review, and the Philippines looked forward to participating in it. The Philippines favoured the establishment of a formal, open-ended intersessional working group to set up that mechanism. The draft resolution by the President of the Council should be the basis for the establishment of that Working Group.

Modalities and procedures should be established by consensus, and they should be applied universally to all countries in a timely fashion. There should be full transparency of all procedures of the review. There should also be genuine cooperative dialogue between the Council and the State under review, with due account taken of their capacity-building needs. Finally, the universal periodic review should not duplicate the work of the treaty bodies.

SHIGERU ENDO (Japan) said Japan attached great importance to the universal periodic review mechanism and therefore looked forward to actively participating in the discussion and contributing to make the mechanism an effective one. Japan believed that an effective mechanism would make the Council a more efficient and results-oriented body, and therefore it was important that one worked hard on setting modalities to ensure that the review mechanism was meaningful. In implementing the new mechanism, one should also take into consideration the Council’s limited capacity on human and financial resources, as well as for the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Japan supported the establishment of an inter-sessional open-ended working group and the appointment of a facilitator. The efforts of the working group with a facilitator would be satisfactorily concluded by December and thus the Council could take a decision by the end of this year.

KWAME BAWUAH EDUSAI (Ghana) said the universal periodic review had the potential to make a positive impact on the human rights situation worldwide, and it should be a complement to the existing process. When adopted, it should be applied equally and fairly to all States without exception. The process to establish the mechanism should be all-inclusive to give it the necessary legitimacy.

ZDZISLAW RAPACKI (Poland) said that Poland fully associated itself with the statement made by Austria on behalf of the European Union. The universal review was probably one of the most significant procedures of the Human Rights Council, as both an essential empowerment and a fundamental responsibility. The General Assembly had left it up to the Council to develop the modalities and determine the necessary time allocation for the review. The Council’s decisions would be measured by the extent to which it managed to make that process objective and impartial, effective and helpful, as a tool of human rights protection. All stakeholders would make that assessment – from the international community to rights holders.

All knew the complexity of the issue and related sensitivities. In that context, Poland was in favour of utilizing all conducive modes of proceedings to determine optimal modalities for the universal review, including both formal and informal consultations facilitated in an appropriate manner and a working group framework. Poland recalled the Council’s responsibility to being the review within one year of its first session, and reiterated the call to develop the modalities as soon as possible. Prompt adoption of the relevant rules would send a powerful signal that the Human Rights Council was determined to assume its responsibilities in a swift and effective manner, and was up to the seriousness of the challenges ahead.

LA YIFAN (China) said all members of the Council should be ready to be reviewed periodically by the universal review mechanism. The review should give full consideration to the different cultural, religious and historical traditions and to the level of development of the country concerned. The Council should have materials submitted to it by the country under review as a primary source for its consideration. Secondary sources should include relevant general comments, concluding observations of treaty bodies, which included the comments made by the State concerned. The review of a country should be within one session and the Council could allocate up to four weeks to the universal periodic review each year. Technical assistance might be provided at the request of the country concerned with a view to enhancing its capacity.

JUAN ANTONIO FERNANDEZ (Cuba) said the content and the basic guidelines of the universal periodic review were clearly laid out in resolution 60/251, paragraph 5E, wherein lay clear elements. The resolution requested the Council to decide on the question of determining modalities for implementation, and that was what the Working Group should be concerned with. A number of statements had been heard, and there had been a view expressed of the universal periodic review mechanism being the jewel in the crown of the new Council. To a large extent, the universal review mechanism had been created to overcome the shortcomings of the past, to reduce selectivity, manipulation, politicisation and double standards, and Cuba hoped that the mechanism would not become a fresh battleground, and that cooperation and dialogue would prevail.

Cuba suggested calm and prudence in the creation of the mechanism, as it was directly linked, interdependent and inter-related to the whole question of the review of the human rights machinery of the United Nations. The vices of the past should not be transferred to it. There should be a thorough review of the special mechanisms one by one. There should be a spirit of dialogue and cooperation, as some fresh air and a new start were required, and these would only be ensured by changing the rules of the game. The mandate holders of the special procedures should also draw on this new culture. Both processes, that in paragraph 6 and in 5E, went hand in hand, and that was the only guarantee for success. An open-ended, participatory and transparent Working Group should be created.

SARALA FERNANDO (Sri Lanka) said that the universal periodic review, which the High Commissioner had championed, was the most important element in the fresh start envisaged for the Human Rights Council. The universal periodic review was designed to encourage Member States to assess their own performance and needs in the promotion and protection of human rights, thereby moving away from the previous practices of the now discredited Commission.

It went without saying that the intersessional working group that would meet to conclude the methods of work of the universal periodic review should be open-ended and should encourage the participation of all Member States, particularly the smaller Member States that might find it a challenge under the new criteria to gain election to the Council. The smaller Member States, which were not even represented in Geneva, would have to submit to the universal periodic review, hence it was important that their concerns be fully taken into account in the design of the methods of work of the universal review. Sri Lanka therefore supported that any process of consultations be made as inclusive as possible, avoiding any controversial “green room” procedures as in the World Trade Organization. Consideration should also be given to the capacity-building needs of Member States.

DORU ROMULUS COSTEA (Romania) stressed that Romania supported the implementation of the universal periodic review mechanism. The review should be carried on taking into consideration reliable information on the States’ obligations in the implementation of their international human rights commitments. All States, without exception, should be subjected to the review mechanism. The review mechanism would avoid politicizatoin and selectivity. The review would also cover the integrality of human rights such civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights. The review further sought to identify dialogue and cooperation with the concerned State. The mechanism should focus on usefulness and transparency. It should also depend on credible information provided to the Council by other bodies.

The mechanism should allow States that had not yet ratified the relevant international instruments to reconsider their situation. That new exercise should not pre-empt the possibility of tabling country resolutions in situations of gross and systematic violations of human rights.

TEHMINA JANJUA (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), said the most diagnosed malaise in the work of the international human rights machinery had been politicisation, selectivity and double standards. The Council was a new beginning, providing a historic opportunity to extricate human rights from the bitter past legacy of confrontation and politicisation and move to a higher plane of dialogue, cooperation, education and awareness raising; the universal periodic review mechanism was an important tool to achieve this ideal.

The most important element in devising the structures, programmes and mechanisms of the Council was the faithful implementation of resolution A/60/251. Self-serving reinterpretation would be divisive and make the task difficult. The universal periodic review could be one way to reduce selectivity and politicisation of the human rights machinery, and in developing the modalities of this mechanism, it should be ensured that the universal periodic review emerged as a strength of the Council.

HEMAYETUDDIN (Bangladesh) said that as the Council implemented General Assembly resolution 60/251, the most important element in the concept of the universal periodic review was that the Council should develop the modalities and necessary time allocation of the mechanism within one year after the holding of its first session. Regarding the scope, the first task was to determine what the human rights obligations and commitments were. States had human rights obligations emanating from their respective constitutions and laws, and, simultaneously, a body of international laws had been developing, defining some multilaterally agreed definitions of human rights. A compilation of the vast body of literature emerging showed that the list was daunting. Clearly they needed to have an agreed understanding of the scope for the review. They could not have an open-ended mandate, allowing each person to tailor the scope to his or her own desires.

Turning to the review process and report preparation, Bangladesh said that, with the increase in the treaties and conventions that required reporting, the area had become almost unmanageable. There was an attempt to adopt harmonized or unified guidelines for reporting under human rights treaties. Moreover, as per the founding resolution, the universal periodic review should not duplicate the work of the treaty bodies. The provision in the General Assembly resolution regarding the universal periodic review was one of the most difficult to implement. It was an important issue, but the mandate was structured in a manner that required political compromises if they were to implement it faithfully.

ELCHIN AMIRBAYOV (Azerbaijan) said that the universal periodic review mechanism would be carried out through a transparent manner in its consideration of country situations. He hoped that the universal periodic review mechanism would be useful to the promotion and protection of human rights. The time limit set by the General Assembly in starting the review process should be respected. Azerbaijan would fully cooperate with the Council in the fulfilment of its mission.

LOVE MTESA (Zambia) said the universal periodic review was one of the most fundamental features that stood in sharp contrast to the Commission, which had no such mechanism. The universal periodic review placed all States on the same footing, as they would all be reviewed. There were a number of basic requirements to be fulfilled, including objective and reliable information, universality of coverage and equal treatment with regards to all States, a focus on the fulfilment by each State of its human rights obligations and commitments; and the taking into account of the capacity-building needs of States.

Adherence to these requirements would constitute the building blocks of a strong Council that was transparent, non-selective, and promoted dialogue and cooperation with Member States, non-members, and relevant stakeholders, and would therefore avoid the pitfalls of the discredited Commission. The process would ensure that States upheld the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights. By implementing human rights obligations arising from various international instruments, States would begin to play a fundamental role in the greater realisation of all rights by women, men, and children alike.

VOLODYMYR VASSYLENKO (Ukraine) said that Ukraine viewed the universal periodic review mechanism as an instrument to assess the fulfilment of human rights obligations by all Member States without any exceptions – and first of all members of the Council. Ukraine was confident that in order to make the universal periodic review more efficient, it was important to bear in mind that protection of human rights was not a fight against any particular State, but rather implied support of democracy all over the world. Thus the review should be concentrated first of all on the establishment of an effective and constructive dialogue with the State in question, and on identifying its needs in achieving higher standards in the field of human rights. In that regard, the outcome of the review should provide practical recommendations including necessary technical and consultative assistance to enhance the capacity of States.

Ukraine was of the view that while preparing the review it was important to take into account information received from the widest range of sources. Therefore the Council had to develop effective dialogue with civil society on human rights issues. In conclusion, the Council, by virtue of its universal periodic review mechanism, could also accumulate and further disseminate best practices in the field of human rights.

PITCHAYAPHANT CHARNBHUMIDOL (Thailand) said Thailand welcomed and supported the establishment of the universal periodic review mechanism as one of the most important initiatives of the Council. All parties concerned should uphold the objectives and basic guidelines of the review mechanism. The review mechanism should be credible and useful review mechanism of the Council, making a real impact on human rights situation. The mechanism, therefore, should ensure that the principles of non-selectivity, objectivity, openness, transparency and inclusiveness would be respected.

The review mechanism should provide additional value in improving the human rights situation within the country, region and worldwide, through effective measures and follow-up mechanism. It should also help identify areas in each reviewed State where there was a need for technical assistance and capability building in order to fulfil human rights obligations and enhance the promotion and protection and promotion of human rights.

PATRICK RITTER (Liechtenstein) said the work establishing the universal periodic review should be guided by principles of complementarity with the work of the treaty bodies, the possibility of a differentiated response, and an efficient and effective universal periodic review on the basis of an interactive dialogue. It should be the answer of the Council to the criticism of selectivity and double standards which plagued the Commission, and if its credibility was to be ensured, it was essential to guarantee that all countries would be treated on the basis of the same standards. Universality of coverage meant that not only all States should be submitted to the universal periodic review, but also the standards against which they would be reviewed were the same for all.

The differences that had to be taken into account were those which related to the level of implementation of the universal human rights standards. It should be possible to react in different ways to different degrees of implementation and to different reasons for varying levels of implementation. The universal periodic review should be a cooperative mechanism which was based on an interactive dialogue. It was also crucial to design a system which did not place an enormous burden on the resources of the Council and avoided creating a separate bureaucracy.

JUAN MARTABIT (Chile) said that the universal periodic review of all the Member States of the United Nations was basic to ensuring that the Human Rights Council could fulfil its obligation to protect human rights. However, it should not inhibit the Council’s ability to act to address grave and serious human rights situations.

Chile supported the President’s inclusive proposal. If it was to be effective, the universal review had to avoid duplication of the work of the special procedures and treaty bodies and the need for States to prepare new reports. In order to take advantage of the review mechanisms that had been elaborated in other forums, the Council should undertake a study of those mechanisms. Chile approved the universal periodic review being linked to the technical assistance and capacity-building being provided in the area of human rights, in particular to developing countries. For that reason, Chile felt that it was necessary to work with other international organizations in the human rights field, including the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the World Health Organization, the International Labour Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, among others.

CLEMENCIA FORERO UCROS (Colombia) said the principle of universality of periodic review of human rights had found its expression in the resolution of the General Assembly. The modality of the review should take into consideration information from all sides in order to determine the needs to assist the country concerned. The period, in which a country situation was to be reviewed, the modalities of the participation of the civil society, among other things, should be determined. The idea of a facilitator to set up modalities to the universal periodic review mechanism was raised by many speakers; Colombia would prefer the idea of the working group and one of the vice-presidents of the Council might serve as chairperson of that working group

GYANCHANDRA ACHARYA (Nepal) said the universal periodic review was one of the important and innovative mechanisms of the Council, and progress of the work of the Council would therefore depend a great deal on how this mechanism would be crafted and executed. It was hoped that it would be based on genuine cooperation and interactive dialogue and would be able to provide an objective alternative to address country-specific situations away from selectivity and politicisation. Genuine cooperation and constructive dialogue were key approaches, and an open-ended and transparent Inter-Governmental Working Group should be established to examine and agree upon many important issues.

The overview of the fulfilment of the human rights obligations under the universal periodic review should take into account the capacity of the countries concerned, and the progressive nature of the realisation of all human rights. A balanced overview of all human rights the country had been party to was crucial to have a constructive review process. In preparing the reports for the universal periodic review, the human rights situation in the developing countries, the level and stages of economic development and the prevailing social and cultural contexts in each country should also be taken on board.

SONAM T. RABGYE (Bhutan) said that Bhutan welcomed the universal periodic review initiative as a cooperative and constructive mechanism based on genuine dialogue and the full involvement of the country concerned. One of the most important decisions to be taken at this first session of the Council was the establishment of the modalities towards the elaboration of a sound and credible mechanism for the universal periodic review, which would meet their collective aspirations for universality, objectivity and non-selectivity in the consideration of human rights issues, avoiding double standards and politicization.

Bhutan supported the adoption of the draft resolution establishing the modalities for the universal periodic review mechanism that was currently under consideration. Bhutan therefore supported the establishment of a formal open-ended intergovernmental working group. Only such a modality would ensure the credibility of the process, critical to the success and sustainability of the universal periodic review mechanism. Bhutan wished to add that predictability in terms of meetings scheduling of the proposed working group would facilitate the active participation of smaller delegations, as well as permit more thorough substantive preparations by all, thereby permitting greater enrichment of their discussions.

LYAN TAN (Singapore) said the universal periodic review mechanism was conceived as the answer to the politicisation and selectivity, which had plagued the Commission. With the new review mechanism, all States would be subjected to a review, starting with the Council members. That would ensure universality of coverage and equal treatment across the board. The President’s draft resolution on the review mechanism provided for an open-ended intersessional process to work out the modalities, through the establishment of a formal working group to be preceded by a more informal consultative process. The decision-making should remain clearly in the formal working group. A formal and transparent process would add to the legitimacy of the new mechanism. The entire UN membership should have a say in the formation of the review mechanism, since all States without exception would be subjected to it

NGO QUANG XUAN (Viet Nam) said protecting and promoting human rights were primarily the responsibility of the State, and in this regard the universal periodic review was a tool to help assess the fulfilment by all countries of their human rights obligations and commitments. It should be carried out in a manner to ensure the universality of coverage and equal treatment with respect to all States. It should be conducted through a transparent and impartial procedure, taking into consideration countries’ historical and cultural backgrounds and different levels of development. Only in such a manner would the review not repeat the past mistakes of politicisation, selectivity, and double standards in dealing with human rights issues.

The universal periodic review should be based on objective and reliable sources of information. It was a cooperative mechanism, based on an interactive dialogue, with the full involvement of the country concerned and with an aim to strengthen the State’s capacity building. It should not duplicate the work of the treaty bodies, and avoid creating a burden of new and redundant reporting obligations.

CLAUDE BEKE DASSYS (Côte d’Ivoire) said that Côte d’Ivoire considered the universal periodic review mechanism as the cornerstone of the new Human Rights Council, which would enable States to gauge the credibility of the present reforms because, for the first time in human rights history, each State Member would have to account for the implementation of its international and national human rights obligations. Côte d’Ivoire, which helped to establish a similar Peer Review Mechanism within the New Partnership for Africa's Development, could testify that that mechanism had contributed to objectivity, transparency and equality in the review process, as well as offering States the opportunity for self-evaluation.

To guarantee objectivity and transparency necessary for the effective functioning of the new mechanism, the Council would need not only to be inspired by similar instruments in the field, notably the treaty bodies, but would have to ensure that it had truly independent expertise to call on. Member States would also need to benefit from technical assistance from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

ALIREZA MOAYERI (Iran) said the universal periodic review mechanism constituted a breakthrough in the work of the UN intergovernmental human rights activity. The rationale behind the proposal of that mechanism was to ensure universality, objectivity, non-selectivity and impartiality in the work of the Council. The real performance of the mechanism should allow the human rights machinery to act beyond the monopoly, maintained by a few in the past, in monitoring the human rights situation in countries. Yet, there was every reason to believe that the review, through a universal mechanism, would be subjected to the risk of being perverted, over the passage of time, if all safeguards to protect the system were not identified and implemented.

The real challenge before the Council, in that domain, was to ensure that the monitoring system worked truly as a universal mechanism in addressing the human rights situation worldwide. That would require the Council to adopt a balanced and integrated approach and enforce the unified set of criteria and terms of reference in all situations alike.

DUSKO UZUNOVSKI (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) said the universal periodic review in the system of human rights of the United Nations should serve as a new effective tool in protecting human rights and freedoms and should help in their further promotion. Three interrelated phases of the universal periodic review mechanism would be of crucial importance: the preparation of the dialogue; the interactive dialogue itself; and the follow-up process.

Transparent cooperation throughout the mechanism should lead into a constructive interactive dialogue, which was imperative. Such orientation would portray the Council as a result-oriented body that aimed to further strengthen the United Nations human rights system. It should be possible to clearly proclaim that the universal periodic review mechanism was the main joint achievement of the Member States of the United Nations.

PATRICK SMELLER (United States) said that paragraph 5 (e) of General Assembly resolution 60/251 contained most of the important elements that had to guide their work in elaborating a system of universal periodic review. The system of universal periodic review that they developed had to be elaborated by all stakeholders, with equal input from Council members, observers, non-governmental organizations and civil society alike. As others had suggested, the United States agreed that States’ fulfilment of their review obligations should not replicate that already done in fulfilment of their other treaty obligations. Whatever decision on review modalities they ultimately reached, it was the United States view that there had to be full participation in management and oversight of the new mechanism by all United Nations Member States, including Human Rights Council observer States.

The United States agreed with others who believed that the universal periodic review mechanism should be held intersessionally and report to the Council session held after a given review session was conducted.

ZOHHRAB MNATSAKANIAN (Armenia) said that the review mechanism would allow establishing an inclusive and comprehensive approach to the objective and impartial assessment of the human rights in all parts of the world. The responsibility was now upon the States, collectively, to work out such modalities for assessment that it was indeed objective and cooperative. That process, through a working group, should be clearly inclusive and well structured to allow both non-members of the Council, as well as smaller delegations, to participate.

LAWRENCE MASS, of Human Rights Watch (in a joint statement with International Federation of Human Rights Leagues; International Commission of Jurists; World Organization Against Torture; and International Service for Human Rights) said the creation of the universal periodic review was one of the most significant innovations in the Council, as the human rights records of all United Nations Member States would be examined through a common mechanism. The review would be based on objective and reliable information, and a list of independent experts should assemble all recommendations from the different bodies and NGOs and national human rights institutions to prepare a background note and questions for the State under review, to which the latter should respond, and then the Council should hold a dialogue with the State, with the participation of NGOs, national human rights institutions and other United Nations bodies to examine how it was living up to its human rights commitments.

MOMOKO NOMURA, of Asian Forum For Human Rights And Development ( in a joint statement with Ain O Salish Kendro (Ask) Law and Mediation Centre; Asian Legal Resource Centre; International NGO Forum on Indonesian Development; Asian Forum For Human Rights And Development) said that they would like to highlight three core elements that must underpin whatever shape the universal periodic review might take. First, it should be well publicized and participatory. To that end, the Asian Forum proposed that national universal periodic review focal points be appointed within the existing Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights or United Nations field offices, which would empower national civil society actors to submit information directly to the universal periodic review. Secondly, when reviewing States, the universal periodic review had to examine allegations of violations of the entire spectrum of human rights. That was particularly important in Asia, due to low levels of treaty ratification and limited avenues for redress available to victims. Finally, the universal periodic review had to be able to deliver results and ensure States’ implementation of the outcome of the review without delay or exception.

GIANFRANCO FATTORINI, of Movement against Racism and for Friendship among Peoples, said the new mechanism would provide new impetus to the protection and promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The Movement was convinced that civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights were universal, indivisible and interdependent. The Council had received a mandate to coordinate and strengthen the promotion and protection of human rights within the UN system though its universal periodic review mechanism. With the context of globalization, only a global vision of human rights could promote the economic and social development for all in order to ensure peace among peoples.

ANURHADA RAO, of International Women's Rights Action Watch, said the remarks of many Government delegations stressing the need for the Council to focus on the implementation mechanisms for the promotion and protection of human rights, a key agency for which was the universal periodic review mechanism, were welcomed. The need for a transparent, inclusive and effective mechanism had also been stressed across the board, however, there seemed to be different interpretations of inclusiveness and transparency. At this stage of formulation, it was necessary to clearly articulate the role of non-governmental organizations, and they should play an active part in designing the mechanism for implementation.

C. VALERA QUISUMBING, of Commission on Human Rights of Philippines, said that the Commission warmly welcomed the inclusive process which the Council had launched, and they stood committed to cooperating with the Council in order to enhance promotion and protection of universal human rights, especially where they had clear comparative advantages. During its operational stages, national institutions could add value to the universal periodic review, because the review envisaged by General Assembly resolution 60/251 was closely linked to their mandates as independent institutions that monitored, reviewed, analysed and advised at the national level, as well as cooperated with the United Nations bodies, as stated by the United Nations Paris Principles, which guided their status and functioning.