HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL HOLDS GENERAL DEBATE ON UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW MECHANISM

The Human Rights Council this afternoon held a general debate on the Universal Periodic Review mechanism. At the beginning of the meeting, the Council adopted the outcome of the Universal Periodic Review on Slovakia.

Speakers in the general debate on the Universal Periodic Review mechanism said that they firmly believed in the immense relevance of the Universal Periodic Review and fully supported it. It was recording significant successes. It was quite remarkable that the review had not only enjoyed 100 per cent participation by States, but had boosted the number of ratifications by States of international conventions and had improved national human rights institutions. The true genius of the mechanism would be recognized when the second cycle would begin. Speakers also noted that the review process and its outcomes should be incorporated more and more in the broadest possible set of activities of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and of the United Nations system as a whole, especially with regard to human rights-related projects on the ground. Civil society and national human rights institutions played a fundamental role, and all States should guarantee that that participation took place in a normal working atmosphere, in accordance with the modalities commonly agreed. Among the remaining challenges that were identified were the translation of reports and the issue of the excessive registration on the speakers’ list.

Speaking in the general debate on the Universal Periodic Review were Nigeria on behalf of the African Group, Sweden on behalf of the European Union, Uruguay on behalf of MERCOSUR, Italy, Ukraine, Japan, the Russian Federation, the Republic of Korea, Bangladesh, the United States, France, Turkey and Colombia.

Also taking the floor were representatives of International Service of Human Rights and Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network.

With regard to the outcome of the Universal Periodic Review on Slovakia, Anton Pinter, Human Rights Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Slovakia, said that the Universal Periodic Review had been a unique opportunity for Slovakia to assess the implementation of its international obligations in the field of human rights, and had also given it a chance to compare its views on the practical realisation of human rights with that of the United Nations human rights bodies, members of the United Nations family, and non-governmental organizations. The majority of the recommendations had been identified as constructive, target-oriented, and therefore deserving appropriate attention. The majority of the recommendations were related to the situation of the Roma community, and were very complex, requiring huge financial resources, a lot of effort and determination, creativity, and cooperation by all those involved. Solutions were not immediate, they brought fruit at a later stage. Slovakia accepted 89 recommendations and was determined to further improve and promote human rights, and to implement the received recommendations in joint cooperation with Governmental and non-governmental bodies.

In the discussion, speakers commended Slovakia for its commitment to the Universal Periodic Review process and the follow-up given to the recommendations. Slovakia had demonstrated its readiness to implement the majority of the recommendations. Speakers welcomed the creation of a national strategy for gender equality in Slovakia and the measures taken for the progressive integration of women in decision-making positions. Non-governmental organizations expressed concern that large numbers of Roma children were placed unnecessarily in special schools and classes for children with mental disabilities. They commended Slovakia for the fact that the existing anti-discrimination act included a prohibition against discrimination on the basis of, amongst other grounds, sexual orientation.

Speaking in the general debate on the Universal Periodic Review on Slovakia were Hungary, Algeria and the Russian Federation. Also speaking were Amnesty International, the International Lesbian and Gay Association, Franciscans International and the Organization for Defending Victims of Violence.

When the Human Rights Council reconvenes on Monday, 28 September 2009, at 10 a.m., it is scheduled to hold its annual discussion on the integration of a gender perspective in the Council’s work, with a focus on the Universal Periodic Review.


Consideration of Outcome of Universal Periodic Review on Slovakia

ANTON PINTER, Human Rights Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Slovakia, said Slovakia believed that the Universal Periodic Review could serve as an efficient tool of the Human Rights Council in evaluating the human rights situation in each and every Member State of the United Nations. The Universal Periodic Review had been a unique opportunity for Slovakia to assess the implementation of its international obligations in the field of human rights, and had also given it a chance to compare its views on the practical realisation of human rights with that of the United Nations human rights bodies, members of the United Nations family, and non-governmental organizations. The majority of the recommendations had been identified as constructive, target-oriented, and therefore deserving appropriate attention by the different bodies dealing with human rights in Slovakia. However, many of the recommended measures had already been incorporated in various strategic documents and action plans and were at different stages of practical implementation.

The majority of the recommendations were related to the situation of the Roma community, and this issue was very complex, requiring huge financial resources, a lot of effort and determination, creativity, and cooperation by all those involved. Solutions were not immediate, they brought fruit at a later stage. It was Slovakia's intention to initiate, where appropriate, the legislative process aimed at improving or upgrading the national legal norms in the field of protection and promotion of human rights. Slovakia had accepted 89 recommendations. Slovakia was determined to further improve and promote human rights, and to implement the received recommendations in joint cooperation with Governmental and non-governmental bodies. It also remained committed to work towards the implementation of the received recommendations in joint cooperation with Governmental and non-governmental bodies. Slovakia also remained committed to work towards the implementation of the voluntary pledges it undertook when presenting its candidature to the Human Rights Council. The Universal Periodic Review had helped Slovakia to access the progress made in various domains, for instance with regards to ratification of international human rights treaties.

KLARA TUNYOGI AKOTS (Hungary) commended Slovakia for its commitment to the Universal Periodic Review process. During the interactive dialogue, Hungary had welcomed the positive steps taken by Slovakia in strengthening its framework to improve the situation of human rights. In 2009, Slovakia had adopted an amendment which, in the view of Hungary, undermined the promotion and protection of the human rights of minorities instead improving them, and Hungary and Slovakia had engaged in bilateral negotiations in this regard. On 10 September they agreed to fully accept the recommendations made by the High Commissioner for Human Rights concerning the amendment of the Slovak state law. Hungary sincerely hoped that at the upcoming Minority Forum in November they would be able to update the Human Rights Council on the progress that had been made on this subject.

NADIA LAMRANI (Algeria) thanked the delegation of Slovakia for the follow-up given to the recommendations that were made during the fifth session of the Universal Periodic Review. Slovakia had demonstrated its readiness to implement the majority of the recommendations. Algeria noted that Slovakia was a party to most of the international human rights instruments. Algeria also welcomed the creation of a national strategy for gender equality in Slovakia and the measures taken for the progressive integration of women in decision-making positions. Algeria could but salute the efforts taken by the Government to achieve the Millennium Development Goals and its commitments to increase the volume of its development help for least developed countries.

PAVEL CHERNIKOV (Russian Federation) said the Universal Periodic Review of Slovakia was completely in conformity with the requirements established in the General Assembly resolution and in the institution-building package of the Human Rights Council. This positive result had been precipitated by the serious approach of the delegation at all stages of the process, with a clear demonstration of how Slovakia behaved at the end of the review, when the majority of the recommendations were adopted. Slovakia was wished further success in the protection and promotion of human rights, and in implementing the recommendations adopted during the review process.

CATHERINE BENLACQUE, of Amnesty International, expressed concern that large numbers of Roma children were placed unnecessarily in special schools and classes for children with mental disabilities. It further encouraged Slovakia to ensure the prompt implementation of recommendations 75 and 76, which called for a strategy to address the disproportionate enrolment of Roma children in special schools. Moreover, Amnesty International remained concerned at the continued failure by the Slovak authorities to carry out thorough, impartial and effective investigations into all cases of alleged forced sterilizations. Finally, in line with recommendations 67, 68 and 69, Amnesty International urged the Government of Slovakia to ensure that Roma women who had suffered from forced sterilization received prompt and appropriate compensation.

JOHN FISHER, of European Region of the International Lesbian and Gay Federation (ILGA-EUROPE), said that they appreciated the Government’s detailed responses and commended Slovakia for the fact that the existing anti-discrimination act included a prohibition against discrimination on basis of, amongst other grounds, sexual orientation. They also welcomed Slovakia’s acceptance of the recommendation to formulate and implement a national plan of action for the protection of the civil rights of lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender persons.

ELIN MARTINEZ, of Franciscans International, said any assessment of the social and economic status of the Roma population – and any action plan taken thereupon - must be preceded by an accurate reflection of the situation faced by them. This could only be successful if up-to-date statistics were available. Governmental policies for the development of Roma communities must take into account the extreme poverty most of them experienced, and should also ensure their effective participation in matters related to the right to education and health. Slovakia should identify why Roma children who were not in need of special education were enrolled in special schools; and analyse the reason for the large presence of such schools in Roma communities and settlements. Bringing an end to the marginalisation of Roma children within the education system should be a priority for the Government, which should engage in campaigns for the promotion of an effective right to education.

MAHMOUDREZA GOLSHANPAZHOOH, of the Organization for Defending Victims of Violence, said that the efforts of the Slovak Government were evident in its Universal Periodic Review report, in particular with regard to social and education rights, refugee rights, and fighting against racism. Nevertheless, the lack of a fully independent human rights monitoring body at the national level in the country was a problem that was highly noticeable. That could be rectified by the removal of restrictions on and by expanding the authority of the current Slovak National Centre for Human Rights. It also seemed that there was a need to take action regarding the improvement of the conditions of women and children, especially in areas such as trafficking, prostitution and exploitation. Those issues had to be top human rights priorities for Slovakia.

ANTON PINTER, Human Rights Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Slovak Republic, in concluding observations, thanked all the delegations that had taken the floor and had said kind words about his country’s approach to the Universal Periodic Review, although there had been some negative reactions on Slovakia’s follow-up to the recommendations. He invited those delegations to go back to the written report and responses Slovakia had provided. This was not the end of the Universal Periodic Review from Slovakia’s point of view. Slovakia would work on all recommendations it had mentioned in the coming months and would be in a better position when it came back in four years’ time for the next round of the Universal Periodic Review.

With regard to the new issue of the amended act on state language, Slovakia was glad that, after several months of a campaign based partially on false or incorrect information, the whole issue was now becoming a normal and civilized dialogue between two neighbouring countries. Slovakia was confident that the law was in line with its international obligations.

General Debate on the Universal Periodic Review

MOHAMMED I. HAIDARA (Nigeria), speaking on behalf of the African Group, said the African Group firmly believed in the immense relevance of the Universal Periodic Review, as envisaged in the General Assembly resolution and as elaborated in Human Rights Council resolution 5/1. The African Group was committed not only to the universality, transparency and effectiveness of the mechanism, but also to its global relevance. It was recording significant successes. It was quite remarkable that the review had not only enjoyed 100 per cent participation by States, but had boosted the number of ratifications by States of international conventions and had improved national human rights institutions. The true genius of the mechanism would be recognized when the second cycle began and States were called to give account of the implementation of the recommendations. The African Group strove to protect the mechanism's sanctity, as a unique mechanism within the United Nations architecture. States should share best practices and exchange views on how to strengthen the mechanism. Nigeria also wished to highlight a disturbing trend of the non-availability of reports from some countries in all the official languages.

LINA VAN DER WEYDEN (Sweden), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the European Union fully supported the Universal Periodic Review mechanism as one of the most important instruments of the Council, but reiterated its willingness for adjustments to be made so that all States could participate. The European Union further commended those States that had reacted in detail to the recommendations which had been made to them. Each State should clearly indicate which recommendations it adopted and which it had not and for what reasons, and it was important to keep in mind that the reviews should lead to real improvement. Finally, the European Union expressed its thanks to the High Commissioner for Human Rights and her Office for their work, as well as to civil society, whose participation was crucial in follow-up to the reports.

GABRIEL WINTER KABRAN (Uruguay), speaking on behalf of the South American Common Market (MERCOSUR) and associated States (Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela), reiterated the support of MERCOSUR and its associates to the Universal Periodic Review. They were committed to the development and strengthening of the system; it was one of the most important parts of the reform that had led to the Council. MERCOSUR countries had already carried out national consultations and had participated and embarked in a constructive dialogue with the Universal Periodic Review, thus demonstrating their commitment to the process. They also attached great importance to the follow-up given to the recommendations.

NICO FRANDI (Italy) said the Universal Periodic Review mechanism was an instrument with an enormous potential, representing an added value for the role and credibility of the Council and of the wider human rights protection and promotion system. A number of factors were crucial in order to ensure that the review lived up to its expectations, including the inclusiveness of the process of preparation that preceded the review in the Working Group, the quality of the reports, a certain degree of self-critical attitude during the interactive dialogue, the acceptance of a significant number of recommendations, and a real willingness to implement them. The review process and its outcomes should be incorporated more and more in the broadest possible set of activities of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and of the United Nations system as a whole, especially in regard to human rights-related projects on the ground. Some aspects in the working modalities and time management in both phases of the review could present some room for improvement. Civil society and national human rights institutions played a fundamental role, and all States should guarantee that that participation took place in a normal working atmosphere, in accordance with the modalities commonly agreed.

SVITLANA HOMANOVSKA (Ukraine) said that the Universal Periodic Review mechanism was extremely important and Ukraine was of the view that it could improve human rights globally. Ukraine had been among the first countries that had passed through the Universal Periodic Review, and the review’s positive influence had been felt in Ukraine even during the preparation process. Other countries, however, had seemed to experience some problems, which could undermine the Universal Periodic Review as a whole. Ukraine further believed that the Universal Periodic Review mechanism could positively influence regional relations.

AKIRA MATSUMOTO (Japan) welcomed the productive interactive dialogues on each country’s human rights situation through the Universal Periodic Review. At the same time, there remained some issues or challenges that needed to be addressed appropriately, such as the translation of reports and excessive registration on the speaker’s list. Taking into account that the Universal Periodic Review was a cooperative peer review system based on interactive dialogue, Japan believed that the opportunity to speak should be given to as many States as possible and did not think that it was appropriate to allocate speaking slots to regional groups. On the issue of the translation of reports, Japan regretted that the outcome of Chad and Viet Nam had not been translated yet into all official United Nations languages. Regarding related budgetary issues, Japan hoped that they would be dealt with in accordance with established procedures within the United Nations system. In that regard, Japan felt that the information provided was still insufficient.

PAVEL CHERNIKOV (Russian Federation) said that all countries had agreed to the conduct of the Universal Periodic Review, and the increasing number of States participating in the discussion of human rights in other countries was a positive point. The experience of the Universal Periodic Review was not free from shortcomings, however. Some of those were of an exclusively technical nature, not requiring any urgent action from the Council. One of the real problems was the need to provide translations of the documents into all six official languages, so that they were available to the broadest public. In their work it was absolutely vital to stick to the agreed rules of procedure, and to avoid post mortems dissecting the Universal Periodic Review of any one country. That could undermine the whole review system.

LEE SUNG-JOO (Republic of Korea) said the unprecedented mechanism of the Universal Periodic Review would undoubtedly serve as a significant element in the review of the work, function and status of the Human Rights Council in 2011. The initial stage of the process revealed both the merits and the limitations of the mechanism. There were many remarkable features of the Universal Periodic Review. Governments were given an opportunity to refine their national policies regarding human rights, enhance the level of transparency in their governance, and intensify cooperation among ministries and with non-governmental organizations. To help maximize those merits and improve human rights records on the ground, the Working Group should first and foremost offer recommendations in as sincere and value-added a manner as possible, rather than being too condemnatory or laudatory. States under review, for their part, should seek to be more cooperative and open in their consideration and implementation of the recommendations, rather than being defensive or in denial. In the Republic of Korea, the implementation of the recommendations was being monitored on a regular basis.

MUSTAFIZUR RAHMAN (Bangladesh) said that, as the first cycle of the Universal Periodic Review neared its end it was time to start reflecting on that mechanism, which had sparked much interest. So far, Bangladesh was happy about the way the Universal Periodic Review was proceeding. Some issues, however, remained of concern, as for example the question of inscription on the list of speakers, but that was a procedural issue. Bangladesh was not aware of any issues that were left out because one country or another could not speak during the Universal Periodic Review of another country. The success of the Universal Periodic Review did not depend on how it was conducted, but on how seriously the State under review took the recommendations. It took time to implement recommendations, but efforts had to be sincere. Finally, Bangladesh urged countries to put forward realistic recommendations and refrain from recommendations that were unnecessarily politicized or out of context.

TARA FOLEY (United States) was encouraged by the example set by many Governments which had undertaken the Universal Periodic Review with the utmost respect, seriousness of purpose and sincerity. However, the United States had been concerned that some aspects of the current review procedures did not adequately allow for full participation by United Nations Member States. The United States would like to explore ways to facilitate the true universality of the review. When the number of delegations wishing to speak exceeded the given limit, then the allotted time should be divided equally between all speakers. Further, civil society involvement enhanced the Universal Periodic Review process.

VERONIQUE BASSO (France) said, with regard to the translation of all the reports into all official United Nations languages before their adoption by the Council, France had accepted the ad hoc, pragmatic solution which had been applied during the adoption of two of the reports during this session. However, it should be clear that those exceptions did not constitute a precedent, and all concerned parties should work towards a durable solution to that problem.

ELMAN PIRAR (Turkey) said that Turkey welcomed the different points of views expressed on some of the technical challenges regarding the process of the Universal Periodic Review. The proposition included in the non-paper of 28 August 2009 was not a final solution to the difficulties but left the responsibility with the regional groups. Turkey was of the view that there was a less arbitrary way to address this issue, and that the total time that was available to States should be divided by the number of States that wished to take the floor, which could provide an equal chance to each State. Based on this method, it could be expected that the time of speech for each State would not be less than one minute. Turkey would share the details of its suggestion with the Secretariat and other interested parties.

ANGELINO GARZON (Colombia) said that after having presented voluntarily itself to the Universal Periodic Review, Colombia had started the process of implementing the recommendations it had accepted, as well as the voluntary commitments it had taken. Up to now and during the current year, three Special Procedures had visited Colombia; namely the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the Special Rapporteur on human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people and the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders. They also hoped to receive the visit of the Special Rapporteur on the independence of the judiciary. In the words of Colombia’s President, the defence of human rights was a necessary and legitimate action for democracy and Colombia was ready to come under national scrutiny in this regard. A fund had also been established for victims of violence, and the fight against impunity had been stepped up.

GARETH SWEENEY, of International Service of Human Rights, said the general debate at recent Council sessions had witnessed a near-uniform praise of the success of the Universal Periodic Review process. In many, although not all cases this was merited, as there had been reviews where political will had allowed States to affirm their commitment to contribute to the Universal Periodic Review's primary objective of improving the situation of human rights on the ground. A number of States continued to make recommendations that ran contrary to treaty-body obligations of the State under review, did not comply with international law, or contributed nothing to meeting the objectives of the Review. There was also a worrying practice by States to perceive their responsibility in the review process as ending at the point of making recommendations. States should ensure that States under review provided clear responses to all pending recommendations in accordance with the institution-building text. The task of real follow-up should not be left to non-governmental organizations, but was the responsibility of the Human Rights Council as a whole.

JOHN FISHER, of Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, said that the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network welcomed the fact that increasing numbers of States under review were providing clear responses to each recommendation put to them. To further enhance the process, the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network urged all States under review to circulate their positions in writing, as far in advance as possible. The Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network was saddened yesterday to see some delegations return to the practice of using excessive points of order to advance a narrow interpretation of the institution-building text, which would limit the scope of what non-governmental organizations may address. Of course, general comments should relate to the Universal Periodic Review for the State under review, but nothing in the institution-building text required that non-governmental organizations directed their comments to a specific recommendation in the outcome document. The suggestion that ”general comments” precluded specific examples would, if accepted, make a mockery of the process.


For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC09115E