HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL HOLDS GENERAL DEBATE ON THE UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW

The Human Rights Council this afternoon held a general debate on the Universal Periodic Review process. In the context of the general debate, speakers raised, among other things, the fact that countries from every corner of the world had participated in the Council's Universal Periodic Review. The Universal Periodic Review was one of the Council's most important features, and it was the shared responsibility of Member States to uphold this principle, and to engage in a transparent, objective, non-politicized, non-selective, and constructive dialogue. The success of the Universal Periodic Review depended on United Nations Member States, their approach prior to and during the review, and also their work afterwards, namely the implementation of the accepted recommendations. Some delegations stated that the true measure of success for the Review would be whether it could lead to tangible improvements in the country's implementation of international human rights law, and to that end it was important that the work in Geneva be action-oriented, and that interventions made were in accordance with international law.

A number of delegations also mentioned the importance of States exhibiting openness and cooperation throughout the Universal Periodic Review process. Moreover, the Council should not allow the Universal Periodic Review to be a platform for biased and politicized comments. The Universal Periodic Review was a good platform for the international community to ensure monitoring on an equal and voluntary basis. Moreover, it was common knowledge that no country was perfect when it came to its human rights record and that improvements could be made in every society. The Universal Periodic Review mechanism constituted an important tool for addressing areas where problems persisted and exploring ways to make progress. Moreover, these interim reports were extremely useful and served as learning tools to countries facing similar problems and challenges. Another unique feature of the Universal Periodic Review was that most other processes concerned themselves with the human rights situation of States as they were "now" whereas the Universal Periodic Review gave the human rights situation of individual countries a certain historical perspective. The Universal Periodic Review was a process where the State's performance was measured not only against the ideal of international human rights standards and to the performance of other States, but also against the State's own performance from the previous cycle.

According to some speakers, the most important element of the Universal Periodic Review was the sharing of experiences between countries and the opportunity it offered to observe other States who faced similar challenges. The improvement of the human rights situation on the ground was the first objective of the Universal Periodic Review. As the first cycle was drawing to an end, a thorough assessment needed to be done on how the Universal Periodic Review was performing and how it needed to be improved. States needed to inform the Council on the progress made in the implementation of recommendations and the Council should be given the possibility to address the adequacy or inadequacy of those efforts accordingly. Finally, a number of delegations expressed concern about the politicization of the Universal Periodic Review, which transformed what could be a process of cooperation into one of confrontation. Such politicization only served to undermine the credibility of the Council and set a dangerous precedent. States should therefore refrain from bringing their political agenda to the Review, not least because this was procedurally irrelevant and could undermine the principles and objectives of the Review and damage the credibility of the mechanism.

Speaking this afternoon were Belgium on behalf of the European Union, Russian Federation, China, Cuba, Poland, Japan, United States, Republic of Korea, Hungary, Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Honduras, Austria, Cyprus, Romania, Sudan, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Turkey and Algeria.

Also speaking were the following non-governmental organizations: Colombian Commission of Jurists, Action Canada for Population and Development, Verein Sudwind Entwicklungspolitik, Amnesty International, International Indian Treaty Council and Human Rights Watch.

The next meeting of the Council will be at 10 a.m. on Friday, 24 September, when it is scheduled to hold its annual discussion on the integration of a gender perspective in the work of the Human Rights Council.

General Debate on the Universal Periodic Review

ALEX VAN MEEUWEN (Belgium), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the European Union was pleased that countries from every corner of the world had participated in the Council's Universal Periodic Review, and was confident that in close consultation with the States concerned, the Council would be able to consider and act on two additional outcome reports before the end of the session. The Universal Periodic Review was one of the Council's most important features, and it was the shared responsibility of Member States to uphold this principle, and to engage in a transparent, objective, non-politicised, non-selective, and constructive dialogue. The European Union commended all States which engaged in an open and constructive manner in the Working Group and during the Council session. The measure of success for the Review would be whether it could lead to tangible improvements in the country's implementation of international human rights law, and to that end it was important that the work in Geneva be action-oriented, and that interventions made were in accordance with international law, both as regarded the recommendations States put forward, and the response from the State under review.

EVAN KOBZEV (Russian Federation) said that for almost four years, the Universal Periodic Review had demonstrated that it was a useful instrument for reviewing human rights developments in different countries. However, there had been a negative practice in adopting politicised resolutions on certain countries and this only further de-legitimised the Universal Periodic Review. Russia considered that States going through the Universal Periodic Review process had to exhibit openness and cooperation. Nevertheless, the Council should not allow the Universal Periodic Review to be a platform for biased and politicised comments. A key part of the Universal Periodic Review was the implementation of recommendations and this should be based on a voluntary basis with external technical assistance. A measure of the effectiveness of the Universal Periodic Review was the voluntary cooperation of States and this aspect needed to be encouraged and supported.

QIAN BO (China) said that no country had a perfect human rights record and dialogue was a way forward in promoting human rights. The Universal Periodic Review was a good platform for the international community to ensure monitoring on an equal and voluntary basis. China underwent the Universal Periodic Review process in February and since then the Government had been trying very hard to implement the recommendations it had received. Progress had been made in the legal framework, whereby the Parliament had adopted new laws and equal votes and equal rights were being applied throughout the country. The protection of prisoners had been improved too and the extortion of confession by torture had been sanctioned. Thirteen items for the death sentence had been removed from the Penal Code. The Government was trying hard to maintain the high growth of economy and improve the living conditions for its people. China had already exceeded the achievement of some Millennium Development Goals, particularly in poverty reduction in rural areas and in achieving universal education. China would make an even greater effort in the future to achieve and fulfil other Millennium Development Goals. Particular attention had been paid to respect of the rights of minorities. The implementation of recommendation was proceeding smoothly, despite challenges and difficulties the country was facing.

MARGARITA VALLE (Cuba) said over half the membership of the Council had come before the Universal Periodic Review, a true departure from the situation of the Commission on Human Rights. The Council had not been able to eliminate selectivity, but all saw it as a natural space to discuss human rights across the world, and to move forward on the basis of genuine cooperation. Those who sought alternative mechanisms to attack countries of the South would be responsible if the Council went back to the old times of bias, selectivity, politicisation and double standards which condemned it to its end. The Council attracted major attention during the informal discussions of the Review process. Some of the discussions, aimed at changing the inter-Governmental role of the process, or at removing the procedural role of the troika, were not a positive step. The Council must bridge existing gaps and adopt a clear and transparent methodology. Cuba had identified a number of inconsistencies that were incompatible with the objectivity that should run the process, such as favouritism for some sources. The Cuban delegation would be submitting particular suggestions during the review of the Universal Periodic Review.

ANDRZEJ SADOS (Poland) said that Poland highly valued the Council’s Universal Periodic Review as a mechanism that was aimed at highlighting situations of concern and contributing to the prevention of human rights violations through dialogue and cooperation. It was common knowledge that no country was perfect when it came to its human rights record and that improvements could be made in every society. The Universal Periodic Review mechanism constituted an important tool for addressing areas where problems persisted and exploring ways to make progress. In this respect, Poland believed that the ultimate goal of the Universal Periodic Review process was to strengthen the enjoyment of human rights by all. Finally, with a view of the second Universal Periodic Review cycle, it was essential to develop concrete proposals that would contribute to strengthening the implementation and follow-up action on the ground.

JOHN C. MARIZ (United States) said some aspects of the Universal Periodic Review needed to be improved in order to fulfil its potential to the promotion and protection of human rights. The process needed to reinforce improving accountability on countries’ human rights commitments and the second round should build on the reviews conducted in the first round to keep a focus on countries’ commitments to improvement. States should focus on updating the Council in their human rights situation and discussing progress on implementing accepted recommendations and pledges they had made in the first round. There had to be a definitive and impartial reform of speakers’ list modalities for the second round and it could only be done if the Universal Periodic Review actually became universal, by ensuring that all States that wished to speak were granted that opportunity. The process needed to be made more substantive, the United States said, and the Council should consider the establishment of best practices to guide States in their preparation of Universal Periodic Review and to promote sound recommendations. The Universal Periodic Review had been a success in many regards and an invaluable exercise for the great majority of governments committed to human rights, but it must improve and evolve in the second round to retain its integrity and relevance.

ZOLTAN BANYASZ (Hungary) said the Universal Periodic Review process was a unique institution. While most other processes concerned themselves with the human rights situation of States as they were "now", the Universal Periodic Review gave the human rights situation of individual countries a certain historical perspective. The Universal Periodic Review was a process where the State's performance was measured not only against the ideal of international human rights standards and to the performance of other States, but also against the State's own performance from the previous cycle. However, for the Universal Periodic Review to live up to its potential, some conditions had to be met - it needed to be an objective peer review and not an exercise where friendly States did favours to one another by not raising issues that could be politically sensitive. Also, a bloc mentality needed to be discouraged. There were things that could be done to consolidate and reinforce the positive results of the Universal Periodic Review process that did not have to wait - the Council could, and should, for example, applaud those States which, following up on their Universal Periodic Review commitments, provided, on a voluntary basis, periodic reports on the implementation of the recommendations that they had accepted. Another step was the fixing of the problem concerning the list of speakers.

ALBERTO J. DUMONT (Argentina) said that the Universal Periodic Review was an opportunity for each State to inform the Human Rights Council and civil society of the measures it had taken and the progress it had made in promoting and protecting human rights. Argentina’s support for the Universal Periodic Review had been long-standing, particularly since it was reviewed in 2008. At that time Argentina adopted all 21 recommendations made to it and was continuing to strengthen national policies against discrimination and xenophobia. Argentina also highlighted the fact that it had ratified the second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as well as the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Argentina concluded its statement by stressing the importance of the follow-up procedures after a country had undergone a Universal Periodic Review.

ALEXANDRE GUIDO LOPES PAROLA (Brazil) commended the United Nations community as a whole for achieving the benchmark of having two thirds of the United Nations membership reviewed. The Universal Periodic Review was universal both in coverage and participation through a frank dialogue. It was fundamental to guarantee reliability and availability of information and Brazil’s three reports provided Member States with a valuable source of data. The Universal Periodic Review had played a crucial role in strengthening the Human Rights Council. The main idea was that the Universal Periodic Review was at the centre of the review because it was positively seen as a major improvement in the work of the United Nations human rights system. The capacity of the Council to provide technical assistance to interested countries must see a boost and the Universal Periodic Review provided a proper basis to achieve this objective. Brazil concluded by saying that the international community must find ways and modalities to make use of those resources for the benefit of those who needed real improvement on the ground.

ALVARO ENRIQUE AYALA MELENDEZ (Colombia) said Colombia was firmly committed to the recommendations accepted and the voluntary commitments made during its Universal Periodic Review, and three follow-up reports had been made available. The Government was committed to a comprehensive policy to protect human rights. With respect to the fight against discrimination, the Human Rights Observatory had carried out work on the situation of Afro-descendants and indigenous communities, allowing for more effective policies and programmes to protect and promote their rights. The Government continued to work with civil society to protect their rights. There was a clear commitment to provide practical redress to victims. Colombia continued to make progress in the recommendations on impunity for grave human rights violations, and serious efforts were being made in this regard. Colombia attached great importance to the Universal Periodic Review, and believed the issue of the new Universal Periodic Review modalities required clear commitment by all States to implement recommendations, and to provide technical assistance to other States to aid in that purpose.

ROBERTO FLORES BERMUDEZ (Honduras) said that the Government of Honduras attached great importance to the Universal Periodic Review, which led to transparency and equality amongst States. Honduras acknowledged the progress that had been made thus far but also the long path ahead in promoting human rights standards internationally. Cooperation and solidarity amongst nations would help to bolster human rights, particularly amongst the most marginalized sections of society. By way of conclusion, Honduras reiterated the importance of human rights in its country and pointed out that it had extended a standing invitation to all United Nations Special Procedure mandate holders.

PETER GUSCHELBAUER (Austria) said the improvement of the human rights situation on the ground was the first objective of the Universal Periodic Review. As the first cycle was drawing to the end, a thorough assessment must be carried out on how the Universal Periodic Review was performing and how it needed to be improved. This included the fixing of the speakers’ list, together with the clarity on the reaction to recommendations received by the countries. What must follow was a serious and transparent focus on the implementation, Austria said. Ways should be explored on how the Human Rights Council, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Special Procedures could assist States in this process. A sustained follow up within the Council was necessary. States must inform the Council on progress made in the implementation of recommendations and the Council should be given the possibility to address the adequacy or inadequacy of those efforts accordingly. Persistent failure to improve the human rights situation must lead to sustained action by the Council. Austria then informed the Council of the preparations for the Universal Periodic Review process of Austria, which was due in January 2011.

MARIA MICHAEL (Cyprus) said during the adoption of the outcome of the Universal Periodic Review of Cyprus, Cyprus had announced, following the recommendations of various countries, that it would submit within three months the instrument of ratification for the Optional Protocol of the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict, and this ratification had taken place in July 2010. The Government was also at the stage of finalising the internal parliamentary procedures for the approval of the respective ratification bills for the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, as well as the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The Government had already started the preparation of all reports due to the human rights mechanisms. Whether the Universal Periodic Review mechanism would live up to the expectations of the international community rested primarily on the seriousness by which all States approached and participated in the whole process. The measure of its success would be the actual tangible improvements in the implementation of international human rights law, which was in no case conditional on partisan political positions. So far there seemed to be some shortcomings in the collective responsibility to uphold the credibility and integrity of this peer review mechanism.

MARIA CIOBANU (Romania) said that Romania was among the countries that pleaded from the very beginning for the usefulness of introducing interim reports. Romania believed that the Universal Periodic Review was an ongoing process, whose credibility depended very much on States taking action to improve their human rights performance both before the review took place and, at least equally important, after it. The human rights situation in Romania was reviewed in May 2008 and on that occasion the Government committed to implementing 28 recommendations. Romania concluded by saying that these interim reports were extremely useful and served as learning tools to countries facing similar problems and challenges.

LIDIA JOCK CHL (Sudan) applauded the commitment of Kenya to commit itself to the Universal Periodic Review with the view of developing the rule of law. The Sudan heard with regret the statement of the United Kingdom in which it criticised Kenya for hosting the President of the Sudan. Such statements did not serve the cause of the Sudan which was currently standing on an important crossroads in achieving peace. Sudan also said that statements like this were a recipe for incitement and sowed misunderstanding between States.

ABIB MIKAYILLI (Azerbaijan) said Azerbaijan recognized the great contribution of the Universal Periodic Review to the work of the international human rights machinery, especially to the Human Rights Council. The mechanism treated all countries on an equal footing, with a positive impact on further enhancing the credibility of the Council. The success of the Universal Periodic Review depended on United Nations Member States, their approach prior to and during the review, and also their work afterwards, namely the implementation of the accepted recommendations. Human Rights Council resolution 5/1 clearly pointed out that the Review should be conducted in an objective, transparent, non-selective, constructive, non-confrontational and non-politicised manner, and should be a cooperative mechanism based on objective and reliable information. Therefore, only objective and reliable, not factually incorrect and politically motivated and misleading information should be provided to the Review. States should not bring their political agenda to the Review, not least because this was procedurally irrelevant, and could undermine the principles and objectives of the Review and damage the credibility of the mechanism. The importance of solving the technical difficulties with regard to the list of speakers should not be ignored.

SATENIK ABGARIAN (Armenia) noted with joy the adoption of the Universal Periodic Review report on its country yesterday. The most important element of the Universal Periodic Review was the sharing of experiences between countries and the ability to observe other States who faced the same challenges. The regrettable politicisation of the Universal Periodic Review transformed the process of cooperation into one of confrontation. Such politicisation undermined the credibility of the Council and set a dangerous precedent, which contradicted the principle of equality of all States. Armenia also noted the imperfect way in which the list of speakers was drawn up and hoped that this would be improved.

ELA GORKEM (Turkey) said Turkey held the firm belief that the Universal Periodic Review was one of the most important mechanisms of the Council. Despite the efforts of some to dilute it with statements of a political nature, this mechanism still created a favourable environment for States to discuss their human rights situation, Turkey said. The first cycle was coming to an end and Turkey was hoping that the mistakes committed therewith would not be repeated in the second cycle. States must give a clear explanation why a recommendation would not be accepted. The list of speakers must be fixed and equal opportunities must be provided to all countries wishing to speak. Importance must be accorded to the implementation of received recommendations, and the proper follow-up must be provided, said Turkey. Presentation of interim progress reports on a voluntary basis must be encouraged.

IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria) said this general debate was welcome, and Algeria wished to underscore the importance of the regime of the Universal Periodic Review, which helped to strengthen the ties between Member States and the human rights mechanism and the Working Group and would help to promote human rights further. Algeria was committed to ensuring the success of the mechanism through the full respect of the rules and regulations to be observed by Member States in their efforts to institutionalise human rights. It was important for these practices to be transparent, constructive, effective and non-politicised. Algeria had accepted a number of recommendations, and implemented them at various levels. It was important to remind Member States that in building institutions, they had to bear in mind their ability to carry out their role. If necessary, the review of the Review should be extended and carried out every four years, in order to enable all Member States to share in the process.

ANA-MARIA RODRIGUEZ, of Colombian Commission of Jurists, wished to address the Council on the follow-up of Colombia’s Universal Periodic Review. The Colombian Commission of Jurists noted with serious concern the increase in the assassinations carried out by the public forces in Colombia. Until June 2008, the paramilitary had committed approximately 4,300 enforced disappearances with the support of the Government. Over the course of 2010, 83 indigenous people had been murdered and little was being done to protect these groups or investigate these crimes. Furthermore, there was a failure in the demobilisation process of about 12,000 paramilitary soldiers.

SANDEEP PRASAD, of Action Canada for Population and Development, in a joint statement with Franciscans International, called on the need for every State that had undergone the Universal Periodic Review to hold timely, effective, broad and transparent domestic consultations with a wide range of stakeholders, including civil society. The non-governmental organizations regretted to inform the Council that they were only a few months away from the two-year anniversary of Canada’s Universal Periodic Review and there was still no sign of significant progress in implementing the kinds of serious reforms that the Universal Periodic Review had called for. In conclusion, they urged the Council to play a more active role in ensuring the implementation of human rights aspects of the Universal Periodic Review outcomes of all United Nations Member States.

HELMUT PRANTNER, of Verein Sudwind Entwicklungspolitik, said that States that underwent the Universal Periodic Review process heard the feedback from other States, which helped them to find their faults domestically. Sudwind suggested allowing recommendations by civil society stakeholders in the earliest phase. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had not accepted even one of the recommendations, while Iran insisted there was no torture in the country while facts recalled grave instances of torture. A follow up mechanism must be worked out to monitor implementation of promises made, so that planned state action was more effective and international assistance could be distributed as needed. A more orderly and fair process in establishing speakers’ lists must be found. Disasters and other problems prevented some States from fulfilling the Universal Periodic Review in time and Sudwind suggested the establishment of quick postponement procedures to enable those States to pick up where they were interrupted and complete the process.

MARIANNE LILIEBJERG, of Amnesty International, said that in the second cycle the principal focus should be on the implementation of recommendations, commitments and obligations. Effective implementation would be a true test of the Universal Periodic Review and would by extension be important for the credibility of this Council. Many States had already developed implementation plans for their Universal Periodic Review outcomes and Amnesty International encouraged those States to share their experiences with the Council. The dialogue in the Working Group should be clustered around the key human rights issues and challenges for the State under the review. A more active role of the Troika and the introduction of an independent expertise could play a useful role in this regard. Recommendations should address the main human rights challenges in the State under review and should be fewer in number, more focused, specific and measurable. Amnesty International said national human rights institutions could play an important role in the follow up to the review and recommended that this pioneering work be shared with all national human rights institutions.

ANDREA CARMEN, of International Indian Treaty Council, said the International Indian Treaty Council expressed its support for the letter presented yesterday to the Government of Canada, urging it to implement transparent and participatory structures and processes for the effective follow-up and implementation of the Universal Periodic Review as well as treaty body recommendations, proposing that a process for reform be immediately instituted, involving civil society, indigenous peoples, and representatives of all levels of Government. The steps taken by the United States this year to involve indigenous peoples and civil society in the preparation of its Universal Periodic Review report were appreciated, but many participating in the process had concerns regarding follow up and implementation of the outcomes. Monitoring and follow-up was essential to the credibility and effectiveness of the process in all States and to ensure it made a real difference to communities on the ground.

PHILIPPE DAM, of Human Rights Watch, said with regard to the adoption of the report on Equatorial Guinea, the Council could not allow the acceptance of recommendations to become window dressing for the Government. The Government had endorsed more than 100 recommendations, including to end torture, advance socio-economic rights, alleviate poverty, and respect freedom of expression. Since then, however, the Government had continued to impose restrictions on these freedoms, holding unfair trials, and contradicting its basic commitments as made during the Universal Periodic Review. These were not the actions of a Government that was honouring its Universal Periodic Review commitments, and there should be a vigorous and participatory follow-up mechanism to ensure the application of recommendations, including for Equatorial Guinea.


For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC10/107E