HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL DISCUSSES MODALITIES OF ITS UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW MECHANISM

The Human Rights Council this afternoon discussed the modalities of its Universal Periodic Review mechanism. It also heard an address by the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Côte d’Ivoire, and announced the results of its closed 1503 procedure.

Youssouf Bakayoko, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Côte d’Ivoire, said the new Council had drawn its first breath in a context that was marked by a number of new challenges and dangers, which threatened the developing world as they did the developed world. These on the one hand included threats to national and world security, such as the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the nuclear threat, and the threat represented by failing States and terrorism, and on the other hand the challenges which were the great environmental and climactic changes, poverty, famine, great lacunae in education and training, as well as the other side of globalization, the flows of refugees, illnesses and epidemics. These threats weighed on security and stability, had numerous victims and caused grave human rights violations. There should therefore be an active discussion on the way in which the Council could function, in order to give it the required efficiency to contribute to the fight against these new challenges.

Mohammed Loulichki, Permanent Representative of Morocco to the United Nations Office at Geneva and facilitator of the Working Group to develop modalities of the Universal Periodic Review mechanism, said that one of the most important tests for the Council to work effectively and credibly would be the establishment of the new mechanism by which States would be subject to a periodic review of the fulfilment of their human rights obligations and commitments. While it was clear that many complex issues, both of a conceptual and practical nature, remained to be addressed and decided on by the Council in the future, Council Members had to feel some satisfaction with the progress they had achieved in their thinking and discussions, as well as with the productive efforts they had all exerted. Discussions to date had allowed the Council to consolidate a shared and common understanding of the objectives and aims of the Universal Periodic Review mechanism, namely that the mechanism should ensure universality of coverage and equal treatment with respect to all States, that the review should 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, and that the mechanisms should complement and not duplicate the work of other human rights mechanisms.

In the debate on the Universal Periodic Review mechanism, there were common themes which speakers raised, including that the mechanism should be transparent; should not duplicate work of other bodies; should be action-oriented; should be non-selective and universal; should be able to provide technical assistance to help countries build their human rights infrastructure; and that the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review should coordinate with the Working Group on the review of the mandates of the Special Procedures because both functions were interrelated.

Participating in the discussion were representatives of Finland (on behalf of the European Union), Pakistan (on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference), Saudi Arabia (on behalf of the Asian Group), Mexico, Switzerland, Russian Federation, Brazil, Indonesia, Republic of Korea, Argentina, Malaysia, India, Bangladesh, Algeria (on behalf of the African Group), Cameroon, Peru, Canada, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Maldives, Iran, Chile, Colombia, Norway, Liechtenstein, United States and Australia.

Also speaking were non-governmental organizations from : International Women's Rights Action Watch in a joint statement with severals NGOs1, International Federation of University Women in a joint statement with severals NGOs2, Amnesty International in a joint statement with Human Rights Watch, International Federation of Human Rights Leagues, World Organization against Torture and International Commission of Jurists, Pax Romana in a joint statement with Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development, International Alliance of Women and International Federation of University Women, Moument contre le racisme et pour l’amitié entre les peuples, International League for the Rights and Liberation of peoples, Lutheran World Federation in a joint statement with severals NGOs3, United Nations Watch and Japan Federation of Bar Associations.

At the beginning of the meeting, the President of the Council, Ambassador Luis Alfonso de Alba of Mexico, made a statement relating to the conclusion of the consideration of reports under the 1503 procedure by the Council in the morning meeting in closed session. He announced that the Council had examined the human rights situation in Iran, Kyrgystan and Uzbekistan, and that it had decided to discontinue consideration of the human rights situation in Kyrgyzstan.

When the Council meets at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, 3 October 2006, it will consider the progress report of the Working Group on the review of the mandates of the Special Procedures of the Council as well as the reports of the facilitators on expert advice and on the complaint procedure.


Statement by Minister for Foreign Affairs of Côte d’Ivoire

YOUSSOUF BAKAYOKO, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Côte d’Ivoire, said the reform that had allowed the creation of the Council was at the heart of the larger reform of the United Nations system, called for by the Secretary-General in his report “In Larger Freedom”, which clearly established the critical links between development, security, and the rights of the person. This approach answered the expectations of States throughout the world, and placed human rights at the heart of human security and economic development. The new Human Rights Council had drawn its first breath in a context that was marked by a number of new challenges and dangers which threatened the developing world as they did the developed world. These on the one hand included threats to national and world security, such as the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the nuclear threat, and the threat represented by failing States and terrorism, and on the other hand the challenges which were the great environmental and climactic changes, poverty, famine, great lacunae in education and training, as well as the other side of globalization, the flows of refugees, illnesses and epidemics. These threats weighed on security and stability, had numerous victims and caused grave human rights violations, as many Special Rapporteurs had noted during the session.

There should therefore be an active discussion on the way in which the Council could function, in order to give it the required efficiency to contribute to the fight against these new challenges. The Government of Côte d’Ivoire appreciated the successful work of the first and second sessions of the Council. This confirmed the ability of the Council to assume in a positive way the mantle of the old Commission. A Universal Periodic Review mechanism of the situation of human rights in every Member State was upheld, as this “dialogue among equals” was an interactive dialogue which would be an additional instrument for promoting transparency and accountability. It should be made viable through means which should guarantee the clarity of this process and the equal evaluation of States performances with regards to their obligations, taking into account their needs in capacity-building to improve the effective protection of all human rights. Civil society should be involved in the process. The resolution of conflicts was also an essential condition for the improvement of human rights.

Progress Report by Facilitator of Working Group on Universal Periodic Review Mechanism

MOHAMMED LOULICHKI (Morocco), Facilitator of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review Mechanism, submitted to the Council the report on progress of the Inter-sessional open-ended intergovernmental Working Group to develop modalities of the Universal Periodic Review mechanism. Following the decision taken by the Human Rights Council at its first session in June 2006 to establish the Working Group, the Council had taken its initial yet crucial steps to exchange views and address the many complex substantive and procedural issues that accompanied the establishment of this new mechanism.

While it was clear that many complex issues, both of a conceptual and practical nature, remained to be addressed and decided on by the Council in the future, Council Members had to feel some satisfaction with the progress they had achieved in their thinking and discussions, as well as with the productive efforts they had all exerted. Discussions to date had allowed the Council to consolidate a shared and common understanding of the objectives and aims of the Universal Periodic Review mechanism, namely that the mechanism should ensure universality of coverage and equal treatment with respect to all States, that the review should 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, and that the mechanisms should complement and not duplicate the work of other human rights mechanisms.

More importantly, however, the discussions had allowed Member States, individually and collectively, to move beyond general statements of principles and objectives and to formulate more concrete proposals for the functioning of the Universal Periodic Review, with a range of options presented on such issues as periodicity of review, sources of information for review, process, mechanism and actors to conduct the review, as well as outcomes and follow-up.

One of the most important tests for the Council to work effectively and credibly would be the establishment of the new Universal Periodic Review mechanism by which States would be subject to a periodic review of the fulfilment of their human rights obligations and commitments. Modalities of discussion should continue to be inclusive, results-oriented, well structured and transparent. Further, the work should not be conducted in isolation and should proceed at a similar pace and in a similar manner to the work of the inter-sessional intergovernmental Working Group on the issue of reviewing and, when necessary, improving and rationalizing all mandates, mechanisms, functions and responsibilities of the former Commission on Human Right, given the necessary inter-linkages between the two processes. Only if they proceeded in this manner would they be able to collectively develop a strong and functioning mechanism that would address the criticisms of over-politicization and selectivity that had plagued the former Commission on Human Rights.

Debate on Universal Periodic Review Mechanism

KATRI SILFVERBERG (Finland), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the European Union attached great importance to advancing the establishment of a system for a Universal Periodic Review. It constituted one of the innovative instruments at the disposal of the Council. The European Union believed that the universal periodic report should aim at establishing a meaningful, transparent, and effective system, focusing on implementation and follow-up. It would neither duplicate the work of the treaty bodies nor substitute the work of the Human Rights Council or its special procedures. The European Union would continue to play an active role to that effect. During the facilitation process leading up to the establishment of the Working Group, the European Union had expressed its views on the modalities of the Universal Periodic Review, as well as offered a possible model for the functioning – laying down the guiding principles and more precise parameters of the procedure and preparation of the review, as well as its outcome and follow-up. A key to an effective periodic review should be that the outcome would lead to concrete improvements on the ground.

The Universal Periodic Review mechanism should follow a relatively light procedure. To that effect, the new mechanism should be based on existing information and recommendations, in particular, the findings of treaty bodies and special procedures. The European Union was also in favour of establishing a separate intersessional working group or sub-committee responsible for undertaking the review, in order to ensure that the Council would not become over-burdened with the review.

ABDULWAHAB A. ATTAR (Saudi Arabia), speaking on behalf of the Asian Group, said the Asian Group realised the importance of the institution-building process of the Human Rights Council, and looked forward to constructive, consensual outcomes that would determine the future work of the Human Rights Council. The Universal Periodic Review should seek incremental improvement in the human rights situation of all Sovereign States by enhancing their capacities to protect and promote human rights. The social and cultural specificities, domestic law, the universality of human rights, as well as the level of development, should be taken into consideration throughout the Council’s deliberations. Furthermore, the Review should not be overly burdensome, and the discussion should be a non-adversarial process that should be conducted in a fair, constructive and cooperative spirit.

The setting-up of the Universal Periodic Review as well as the review of the Special Procedures were widely considered as crucial elements in the endeavour to ensure a positive orientation of the new Council. The Asian Group was following all discussions closely, and supported the emerging view that the two processes were and should be complementary and of equal importance, and both discussions should follow a parallel track. The Group would continue its cooperation, and would engage fully in the endeavours and deliberations aimed at reaching constructive outcomes to the process, and would contribute to the process of developing the modalities for the mechanism, as well as the review of mandates.

RODRIGO LOMBARDINI (Mexico) said with reference to the structure and composition of the Universal Periodic Review mechanism, the debate had shown that there was an increasing understanding over the role of sub-groups, as well as the role of the plenary of the Council in the process of the review, in particular with relation to decision-taking. Mexico viewed the periodicity of reviews as an important matter, and it was convinced of the relevance of having sub-groups be in charge of reviews, thus ensuring frequent reviews, every three or four years.

MASOOD KHAN (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Conference, said the normative and legal basis of the Universal Periodic Review was all universal human rights under the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, conventions and treaties, domestic laws, commitments and obligations. It would be necessary to stay within the broad parameters of the General Assembly resolution 60/251. One needed not to reinvent the wheel. Six principles should guide all the Council’s deliberations: objective and reliable information, universality of coverage and equal treatment, cooperative mechanism, interactive dialogue with the full involvement of the State concerned, capacity building, non duplication with the treaty bodies and it should be a member-driven exercise. The Universal Periodic Review would involve all Council members. If a committee considered it, it should be a committee of the whole. Observer States and non-governmental organizations with the ECOSOC consultative status should be able to observe the proceedings.

The presentation should be prepared and presented by the States themselves. The treaty bodies and other UN sources could present additional information. The presentation should have basic facts, institutional infrastructure, ratifications, affirmative programmes, and the role and independence of the media and civil society. The Council each year should approve a standard questionnaire along with a list of countries to be reviewed.

JEAN-DANIEL VIGNY (Switzerland) said Switzerland gave particular importance to the Working Groups set up by the Council in order to define the modalities for the functioning of the Universal Periodic Review, and to re-examine the mandates of the Commission. Although the work of the two Working Groups was on two different subjects, the thematic links between the Universal Periodic Review and the re-examination of the mandates lay in the improvement of the universal system of protection and promotion of human rights, founded on objectivity, universality, non-selectivity and transparency. However, these links should not stop each Working Group from progressing separately.

It was important to put in place a Universal Periodic Review mechanism which was efficient and included all from the start. All actors concerned by the consultations, including Observer States, Special Rapporteurs, non-governmental organizations and national human rights bodies, should be invited to participate actively in the debates. The more the preparation phase was inclusive and based on objective and transparent information, then the more efficient the examination would be. The Universal Periodic Review was a key element to the examination of country-specific situations by the Council, and therefore all delegations should make a particular effort in favour of the new mechanism’s setting-up.

GALINA KHVAN (Russian Federation) welcomed the specific timeframe set up for the Working Group to carry out its mandate. The Russian Federation did not object to holding informal consultations within the Working Group as it promoted effective and focus-oriented work. Nevertheless, the Russian Federation was of the view that the Working Group should be reporting directly to the Council rather than the facilitator.

The key aspects of the review process should be based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other relevant human rights treaties. The periodic review should cover all countries to avoid any geographic imbalance. The review process should take place during the regular sessions of the Council, preferably during the first week, thus devoting three hours per State and ensuring a review periodicity per State every six and a half years. Discussions should be open to Members of the Council and the country under review. Other participants should be allowed to attend as observers without the right to speak. Results of the review procedures should be arrived at by consensus, including recommendations. If requested, the Council should be able to provide technical assistance to the country under review. Conclusions should be adopted before the end of the regular session of the Council.

SERGIO ABREU E LIMA FLORENCIO (Brazil) said the Universal Periodic Review mechanism was an important instrument for the Council. The mechanism should avoid duplication and function in a transparent and universal manner to meet the needs of States. An international body should be sought to replace the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. The experts of the Universal Periodic Review should address a list of issues to a concerned State beforehand so that the State would prepare its report on the basis of the questions. The Universal Periodic Review experts should first review the report before passing it to the Council for its consideration. The capacity of States should be taken into consideration during the review. Cooperation should be extended to States should assist them to prepare their reports. The Universal Periodic Review mechanism should enable States to build their capacity and should fix the periodicity of the presentation of the reports.

WIWIEK SETYAWATI (Indonesia) said a number of open-ended informal consultations had been held to date to receive delegations’ inputs and suggestions in the process currently underway to define the future operating methods of the Universal Periodic Review. The final modalities and working methods of the Universal Periodic Review would be instrumental in achieving a close and proactive interchange between the Council and the Governments of Member States. This close relationship, built on trust, would be crucial in propagating the concept of the protection and promotion of human rights to all parts of the world.

The Universal Periodic Review should be based on objective and reliable information; it should respect the principle of universality of coverage and equality of treatment; and it should take into account the capacity building needs of the countries under review. There should further be no duplication between the Universal Periodic Review and the treaty bodies: they should be complementary but separate. The process of constructing the modalities for the Universal Periodic Review on one hand and the review of special procedures mandates on the other hand should be done in parallel.

HYUCK CHOI (Republic of Korea) said the Republic of Korea underlined the importance of the universality of coverage and equal treatment with respect to all States within the Universal Periodic Review. This should not be a mere exercise, but a meaningful dialogue enabling the international community to identify those areas in which the country under review might need assistance in capacity building. It was also important, as the High Commissioner had stated, to maximize existing resources in the Special Procedures and Treaty Bodies, and ensure that the Universal Periodic Review mechanism did not overburden the system. The periodic review should take place at regular but reasonable intervals. The Republic of Korea attached great importance to follow-up, and the role of an interactive dialogue in the pursuit of those follow-up activities. The participation of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) should be encouraged in the follow-up process. The modalities of the Universal Periodic Review mechanisms had to be conducted through formal and informal meetings, in a transparent fashion, and with inclusions of all stakeholders, including NGOs and other United Nations bodies. In terms of setting up the schedule of the Working Group, it was important to develop a long perspective and also consider the link to the work of the inter-sessional intergovernmental Working Group on the review of mandates.

SERGIO CERDA (Argentina) said the delegation of Argentina had participated in the consultation process for the Universal Periodic Review mechanism. The letter and spirit of the Universal Periodic Review should be based on the General Assembly resolution on the issue. The independent experts should establish a dialogue with the States on the human rights situation. The modalities of the Universal Periodic Review should be defined in the timeframe fixed by the Council. The result of the review should be action-oriented and all States should be able to benefit from concrete recommendations, and if they request, should benefit from technical assistance provided by the Council. Argentina hoped that the mechanism could be agreed upon as soon as possible so that it would be able to be reviewed before its mandate to the Council expired in 2007.

HSU KING BEE (Malaysia) said the deliberation this afternoon was timely as it would permit the Council to take stock of the work carried out to date on this important issue. The extensive discussions undertaken by the Working Group during the inter-sessional period had revealed the convergence of views on some elements of the Universal Periodic Review, as well as divergence on others. For the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review to conclude its work on the modalities and time allocation for the mechanism within one year after the Council’s first session, then the divergence of views should be narrowed and bridged.

The Universal Periodic Review should only undertake review of the fulfilment by each State of human rights obligations and commitments it had undertaken. As a cooperative mechanism based on interactive dialogue, the country reviewed should be fully involved and consideration should be given to its capacity-building needs. The review should take full account of the religious, historical and cultural specificities of the country, as well as its laws. Only then would the review result in a practical outcome, facilitating improvements of the human rights situation of the State concerned.

RAJIV CHANDER (India) said India viewed the Universal Periodic Review as a mechanism to review human rights situations in countries in a positive manner with the primary objective of identifying areas of cooperation with the country concerned with a view to enhancing its capacity for promotion and protection of human rights. The Universal Periodic Review could also serve as a useful forum for exchanging best practices and identifying specific options for technical cooperation. The Council needed to keep in mind the progress of the work of the inter-sessional intergovernmental Working Group on the review of mandates and mechanisms. The process of development of the Universal Periodic Review would necessarily raise overlapping issues that would have a bearing on the review and rationalization of mandates and mechanisms and therefore these two Working Groups should progress in tandem.

MUSTAFISUR RAHMAN (Bangladesh) said the Universal Periodic Review would make the Council different from its predecessor, if one could make it effective and functional. Now, there was a broad understanding among the States that the Universal Periodic Review should be a light exercise and that it should not duplicate the works of treaty bodies or other mechanisms. States had human rights obligations emanating from their respective constitutions or fundamental documents. At the same time, they had obligations and commitments under international instruments to which they were party, as well as broader obligations under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. All those needed to be taken into consideration in reviewing a country. The Council would need to determine the time-allocation for review. Not more than one half-day session, three hours, should be devoted to one country’s review. The periodicity of the review would depend on the time the Council would like to devote to that process.

IDRISS JAZAÏRY (Algeria) speaking on behalf of the African Group, said the Universal Periodic Review should draw from the experiences of other international institutions. The objective was to promote cooperation amongst Member States, in order to protect and promote human rights through an evaluation of the implementation of the human rights obligations agreed upon by each State. The mechanism should not assume the functions of a tribunal: it should promote the recognition of the principles of universality, interdependence and indivisibility of the core values shared by the international community, taking the level of development of each country into consideration, and respecting their specificities. It should avoid confrontation, politicisation, double standards, and selectivity.

The Universal Periodic Review should be based on an equal, just, and equitable treatment of States. It should be based on objective, credible and reliable information. The Council should conduct the Review in plenary session, and adopt conclusions, and the plenary should be public and open to all to ensure transparency. Following discussions, which should be participated in only by members of the Council, the Council would adopt conclusions in respect of the programmes supporting the action recommended to the reviewed States, at their request. An ad hoc fund should be established that would guarantee the provision of technical assistance services and the development of national capacities towards the implementation of the conclusions of the Council.

BERTIN BIDIMA (Cameroon) said Cameroon believed that the Universal Periodic Review mechanism should not depart from the General Assembly resolution 60/251 of 15 March 2006, as it constituted its point of departure. The implementation of the Universal Periodic Review should have as its objective the fulfilment of human rights obligations and commitments by all States, taking into account the respective culture and particular features of the country under review. Cameroon supported the setting up of an ad-hoc fund to provide technical assistance and promote capacity building of the country being reviewed.

ALEJANDRO NEYRA (Peru) said Peru supported the universality and non-duplication of the Universal Periodic Review as well as its transparency and the elimination of duplicating the work of other bodies. In order to ensure the goal of the review mechanism, it was important that all the concerned actors should take part in the process. Following the review of a country, a programme of cooperation to improve national institution and national capacity should be recommended and implemented to enable citizens to fully enjoy their human rights.

TERRY CORMIER (Canada) said the consensus on the new tool for the Human Rights Council was heartening. The basic consensus included principles of universality of coverage, equal treatment of all States, dialogue, and consideration given to a country’s technical assistance needs, and others. The objective of the Universal Periodic Review should be to contribute to the improved implementation of human rights standards and commitments of all United Nations Member States. The periodicity of the Review should be three years, during terms of membership of the Council, and all States should be reviewed with sufficient frequency to have a beneficial impact on capacity building.

Four dedicated Universal Periodic Review Committees should be established to conduct the review, and they would review 16 countries each year. The process for Review would be that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights would compile a country dossier, from existing information, and make this publicly available. National human rights organizations and institutions should have an opportunity to provide input. An interactive debate would take place, and each Review Committee would provide a summary to the Council. Follow-up to the process was also very important.

JESUS ENRIQUE GARCIA (Philippines) said the Universal Periodic Review should be held every five to six years. It might consist of three phases, namely the preparatory stage, an interactive dialogue and an outcome. The preparatory phase could involve the drafting of a questionnaire and transmittal of this questionnaire to the country under review well in advance of the interactive dialogue to give the country sufficient time to prepare its replies. The interactive dialogue should be held in a private session that could last two to three hours, and should be conducted by experts to be designated by the Council’s Member States. Discussion of a State’s replies to the questionnaire should form the core of the interactive dialogue. The outcome phase of the Universal Periodic Review should take the form of a summary of proceedings and recommendations emanating from the interactive dialogue focused on capacity-building and/or voluntary pledges and commitments made by the State under review. These recommendations should be at a general policy level and drafted in full consultation with the State under review. They should not duplicate the outcomes of other human rights mechanisms, and the Council should adopt the outcome in a plenary session.

FAITH GAN (Singapore) said that the Universal Periodic Review was meant to be a cooperative mechanism. It was not and could be a tribunal. Nor should its objective be to name and shame. Accordingly, the outcome should be one that the State under review agreed with, so that the State itself would be fully committed to its implementation, and one could truly achieve improvement in the human rights situation of the people on the ground. The creation of the Universal Periodic Review mechanism and the review of mandates and mechanisms were inextricably linked and equally important in the larger picture of improving the overall UN human rights system. Hence, work on both should proceed in parallel so that the final outcome was an enhanced and coherent human rights system.

CHAIYONG SATJIPANON (Thailand) said the Universal Periodic Review should assess the overall actions taken by States in implementing their commitments with regards to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and treaties or instruments to which they were parties. The overall process should also take into account the different levels of development, as well as their religious and socio-cultural specificities. All United Nations Member States should be equally reviewed with the same frequency. The Universal Periodic Review should comprise three stages: preparation, interactive dialogue with the country, and outcome and follow-up.

The Universal Periodic Review should be a light process, and should be conducted in the plenary to avoid selectivity and to enhance transparency. Principles of constructive dialogue and close consultation with all countries concerned should be applied and upheld. The outcome should lead to concrete and effective improvements of the human rights situation on the ground. It should identify needs and opportunities to assist the country under review through capacity-building and technical cooperation, and recommend practical measures to the States concerned.

HASSAN SOBIR (Maldives) said that the Universal Periodic Review must aim at improving the implementation and fulfilment of the States’ human rights obligations on the ground. The Universal Periodic Review should be based on reliable information and should also be conducted in a constructive way. The review should enhance the capacity of the State under review to promote and implement its human rights’ obligations, provide technical assistance and strengthen the country’s capacity building. The Universal Periodic Review mechanism should not create new modalities but rather should complement the existing mechanisms of review of other treaty bodies and Special Procedures. It should be based on the principle of equality of treatment. The periodicity of the review mechanism should strike a realistic balance between practicality and the maintenance of legitimacy.

MOSTAFA ALAEI (Iran) stressed that the function of the Universal Periodic Review was not to assume the functions of a tribunal. The idea was to avoid politicization and confrontation. It was a mechanism designed for cooperation. It should not duplicate the outcome of other mechanisms and bodies. Standardized questionnaires should be established for distribution for all States. The review process should take place in public and the outcome should be made public. Iran believed that the review process would only be effective if it was based on cooperation and dialogue. The review should be conducted on the basis of response of the country concerned to a standardized set of questions. The review nature of the mechanism suggested an intergovernmental process. To ensure transparency, the interactive dialogue with the country under review should be conducted within the Council in a plenary session which was public.

JUAN MARTABIT (Chile) said the utmost importance was attached to the development of the Universal Periodic Review, as the appropriate use of the mechanism could bring about a substantial change in the system for the protection and promotion of human rights. The Council should schedule this to allow the most extensive participation of delegations. It was of utmost advisability to have an agenda for the debates in advance. The mechanism should be one of the tools whereby the new Council tackled the study of human rights in the field, helping to reduce selectivity and politicisation. It should be oriented towards dialogue and cooperation, aiming to help States to improve their living-up to their commitments.

For the information underlying the Review to be objective and reliable, it should come from a broad array of sources. There should be a large number of actors implicated in the Review, including national human rights institutions, non-governmental organizations and civil society, among others, each with different roles to play in each phase. The Review should include an efficient follow-up mechanism.

CLEMENCIA FORERO UCROS (Colombia) said that the Universal Periodic Review should be conducted in parallel and in a synchronic manner with reference to the work of the inter-sessional intergovernmental Working Group on the review of mandates. It was important to have a global vision of the review and reforms, and to coordinate those common elements present in both review processes to ensure the coherence of the whole system. The Universal Periodic Review should be an intergovernmental process, and should be conducted in a plenary session of the Council or through the setting up of committees composed of Members chosen taking into account the principle of rotation and an equitable geographical distribution. The main aim should be to attain a tangible improvement of the human rights situation of the country under review by conducting a constructive dialogue that bore in mind the international obligations of the country and its particular situation.

WEGGER STROMMEN (Norway) said within the framework of the consultative process leading to the establishment of the Working Group, much attention had been given to how the modalities of the Universal Periodic Review could look like. More attention was needed to a discussion on the objectives of the mechanism. Before agreeing on the modalities, they should need to agree on the aim. They should be careful to overburden neither the Council nor the Secretariat with the implementation of the Universal Periodic Review. Norway supported a light vision of the mechanism aiming first and foremost at strengthening States cooperation and engagement with all parts of the human rights machinery.

PATRICK RITTER (Liechtenstein) said a detailed proposal was submitted quite some time ago, and this was based on the principle of universality not only in geographic terms, but also that each State should be measured against the others, in a reasonable manner. The Working Group should structure its work in accordance with the main elements of the review, and there was therefore no need for point 2 of the proposed agenda. The Working Group should allow enough time for discussion of input of Experts, as this would be central for success. Decision-taking by consensus would run counter to the principle of equal treatment, and the decisions taken in the framework of the review process should be taken in the same manner as the other decisions of the Council.

JEFFREY KOVAR (United States) said that the secret of the success of the Universal Periodic Review would lie in its openness and care in the review process. It was important to avoid duplication of work. The Universal Periodic Review should be conducted by a peer review group, which would be composed of two members from each region. Taking full account of limited resources, the peer review group would conduct 40 meaningful reviews a year during a four-week period, and that would enable a country to be reviewed every five years. The review process should start with the drafting of a factual questionnaire, in addition to soliciting information from observer States, treaty bodies and NGOs. There should also be a two-hour public session to hold a dialogue to integrate the diverse information. The aim of the Universal Periodic Review should be to reach concrete results and provide technical assistance to the country under review. In addition, there should be a follow-up through an annual report by the peer review group to take appropriate action.

ROBYN MUDIE (Australia) said Australia welcomed the progress report submitted by the Working Group and the intensive consultations conducted by the facilitator. The Working Group should start its work as early as possible to identify means to the process. It was hoped that during its November session, the Working Group would advance its work. The Universal Periodic Review should give due regard to the other mandates and mechanisms. Australia supported a process that was based on transparency and no-duplication of mandates.

ANURADHA RAO, of International Women's Rights Action Watch in a joint statement with severals NGOs1, said at this pivotal moment of adopting good practice, the Council was uniquely placed to truly integrate women’s rights and protection from multiple forms of discrimination into every step of the process. The Universal Periodic Review should be a comprehensive and rigorous process, assessing compliance with human rights on the ground. It should develop indicators on various democratic issues including the freedom of the press and a vibrant civil society. Transparency throughout the process was supported. A sufficient number of experts on gender equality and women’s rights should be involved.

CONCHITA PONCINI, of International Federation of University Women in a joint statement with severals NGOs2, said that the architecture for gender equality, the protection and promotion of women’s rights and the improvement of their status in society, had at present been largely designed and virtually completed by various normative instruments, states declarations, platforms for action, such as CEDAW and the Beijing Plan of Action. Unfortunately, the architecture remained virtual. It had yet to become a reality by resolving asymmetries through political will of States to implement these normative instruments in their national legislations, policies and more concretely to fill the gaps specifically through the Universal Periodic Review mechanism and others.

PEGGY HICKS, of Amnesty International in a joint statement with Human Rights Watch, International Federation of Human Rights Leagues, World Organization against Torture and International Commission of Jurists, said the Universal Periodic Review was among the most important innovations associated with the new Council. If properly designed, the review would help remedy the selectivity problems that beset the Commission on Human Rights and would provide an effective foundation for much of the Council’s work. The review should be a continuous process with distinct stages: preparation by independent experts, the interactive dialogue itself, and response by the Council to the outcome of the review, and follow-up to the recommendations arising from the review.

BUDI TJAHJONO, of Pax Romana in a joint statement with Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development, International Alliance of Women and International Federation of University Women, said the Universal Periodic Review should be all embracing and all-encompassing, it should be a continuous endeavour, and should go beyond scrutiny, including outcomes that had to be accompanied in a spirit of solidarity for any given country. In carrying out the review exercise, any form of expert advice through an independent collegial body would be valuable at all stages, prior to members of the Council becoming fully involved. In being participatory, the Universal Periodic Review could achieve a better public profile with definite prospects of achieving its purpose and objectives. Currently, existing mechanisms did not command the mobilisation of public opinion in order to achieve results.

GIANFRANCO FATTORINI, of Moument contre le racisme et pour l’amitié entre les peuples, said that it was important to consider in the creation of the Universal Periodic Review the participation of States, national institutions and non-governmental organizations - international, regional and national - to assure the authentic dialogue and the effective and universal exercise of human rights for all; the new mechanism, which should be based on the universality, indivisibility and interdependence of human rights, had to ensure the respect of civil, political, economic and social rights, both individually and collectively, including the right to self determination and the right to development.

ROMUALD PIAL MEZALA, of the International League for the Rights and Liberation of Peoples, said the Universal Periodic Review was a major element susceptible to allow the Council to fulfil its mission which was assigned to it by the international community under the General Assembly resolution 60/251. The principles of universality, impartiality, objectivity and non-selectivity would allow the Council to avoid politicisation and double standards, which marked the former Commission on Human Rights. The process of the review should be conducted by independent expert groups, with the participation of all parties.

PETER PROVE, of Lutheran World Federation in a joint statement with severals NGOs3, said the Universal Periodic Review was the single most significant, and perhaps the only novel element of the emerging structure of the Human Rights Council. Its significance for the effectiveness of the new system could however be very positive or very negative, depending on the modalities defined for its operation, and the most important issues in this regard were those of preparation and follow-up. Proposals for the review to be based on the State’s own report offered little assurance of self-critical objectivity. There should be an independent expert role in information analysis and preparation for the review, which should result in the identification and articulation of a very limited number of key issues and recommendations both for discussion and for follow-up.

BERRIT GERRITZEN, of United Nations Watch, said that the Universal Periodic Review was the Council’s major innovation and its best hope to escape the selectivity and politicization of its predecessor. UN Watch urged the Council to create a system that fairly subjected every United Nations Member State to careful scrutiny of it human rights record. This review should be based on a wide range of objective and reliable information from a variety of sources, allow for non-governmental organizations’ participation, and should lead to concrete conclusions and recommendations that could be effectively followed up on.

SHUNJI MIYAKE, of Japan Federation of Bar Associations, drew attention to the need for the Working Group to develop the modalities of the Universal Periodic Review mechanism to have the pre-sessional working body meet on a regional basis. The implementation of the human rights norms in a region would significantly increase if an international gathering of the Member States, non-governmental organizations, civil society organizations and professionals were held in the region concerned.


1Joint statement: International Women's Rights Action Watch, Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development, Center for Women's Global Leadership, International Alliance of Women, World Union of Catholic Women's Organizations, Pan Pacific and South East Asia Women's Association, Worldwide Organization for Women, Zonta International, Canadian HIV/Aids Legal Network and Pax Romana.

2Joint statement: International Federation of University Women, Pan Pacific and South East Asia Women's Association, Inter-African Committee on Traditional Practices affecting the Health of Women and Children, Worldwide Organization for Women, World Movement of Mothers, Women's International Zionist Organization, Femmes Africa Solidarité, African Commission of Health and Human Rights Promoters, Institute for Planetary Synthesis, International Federation of Business and Professional Women, Soroptimist International, Women's Federation for World Peace International, Women's World Summit Foundation, World Union of Catholic Women's Organizations, International Council of Women, Interfaith International, Zonta International, Federation of American Women's Clubs Overseas and International Alliance of Women.

3Joint statement: Lutheran World Federation, International Council of Jewish Women, Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development, International Movement against all Forms of Discrimination and Racism, World Union of Catholic Women's Organization and International Alliance of Women.

For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC06055E