HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL ADOPTS OUTCOME OF UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

The Human Rights Council this afternoon adopted the outcome of the Universal Periodic Review of Bosnia and Herzegovina, following which it held a general debate on the Universal Periodic Review mechanism, during which speakers said that as the completion of the first round of the Universal Periodic Review process approached, the Human Rights Council could take pride in the fact that so far, over 120 countries had made their report, and most had engaged in an open and constructive dialogue on the human rights situation in their respective countries.

The Council was also addressed by Nezar Sadeq Al Baharna, Minister of State for Foreign Affairs of Bahrain, who presented Bahrain's second annual progress report, recording Bahrain's progress on its pledges. He said the report would hopefully provide insight into the progress since the adoption in 2008 of the Universal Periodic Review outcome of Bahrain. Since then, Bahrain had sought to implement the recommendations made, as well as its own voluntary commitments and pledges. It had created a human rights database, implemented its human rights obligations, applied a human rights-based approach to the development programme, and set up a national body for the protection and promotion of human rights, and strengthened this.

Saliha Djuderija, Assistant Minister of Human Rights and Refugees of Bosnia and Herzegovina, said Bosnia and Herzegovina had received 125 recommendations, of which it fully accepted 26, partially accepted 58 and rejected 46. The fully accepted recommendations were related to capacity building for cooperation with associations of people with disabilities, enhancement of the protection of children, and capacity building of the Children’s Council. Other accepted recommendations were those made with a view to more efficiently suppress racial discrimination and capacity building of human rights institutions. Bosnia and Herzegovina was fully dedicated to fulfil its international obligations and commitments on a permanent basis.

In the discussion on Bosnia and Herzegovina, speakers voiced concerns related to press freedom in the country. Some media outlets had challenged the authority of the Press Council, a self-regulatory body for print media, and had tried to influence its work. Political pressures on state-level broadcast media continued. Children's health and education in general, and children victims of antipersonnel mines in particular were, and should remain one of the most delicate and important concerns for the authorities. A speaker welcomed the achievements of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the field of law and human rights and encouraged the Government to make further efforts to come to grips with refugees displaced by war.

Speaking in the general debate on the Universal Periodic Review of Bosnia and Herzegovina were Qatar, Algeria, United States, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and the United Kingdom. Also taking the floor were the following non-governmental organizations (NGOs): Amnesty International, Verein Sudwind Entwicklungspolitik, Interfaith International, International Lesbian and Gay Federation, International Save the Children Alliance and Association for Democratic Initiatives.


The Council then held a general debate on the Universal Periodic Review mechanism, in which speakers said the main trade of the Universal Periodic Review was a spirit of cooperation and mutual understanding. This spirit existed to a large extent thanks to the inter-Governmental nature of the review. The Universal Periodic Review was an innovative mechanism that enabled States to honestly discuss, question and find practical ways of ensuring compliance with their international human rights obligations and find ways to further improve the situation on the ground. The credibility of the process was in the commitment of the States under review to provide clear and precise responses in writing and prior to the adoption of the outcome document.

Noting that the Universal Periodic Review was an evolving process, speakers said it was essential that the Council review the modalities and the periodicity of this mechanism, based on best practices and lessons learned. All parties should be as objective as possible in their assessment and in formulating recommendations - only then would a dialogue be possible. It was a great concern that many States under review had failed to live up to their obligations to provide adequate follow-up on outstanding recommendations, or even entirely fail to take a position on the recommendations. The current situation regarding the speakers’ list was a major obstacle to a transparent and inclusive dialogue and the new approach to the list of speakers was needed in order for the Universal Periodic Review to maintain its credibility. States should implement the recommendations that enjoyed their support - the effort would be hollow if all that resulted was a presentation in Geneva with no follow-through.

Speaking in the general debate were representatives of Bahrain, Spain on behalf of the European Union, France, Russian Federation, Norway, Republic of Korea, Japan, South Africa, Netherlands, Kyrgyzstan, Cuba, United States, Brazil, Algeria, Singapore, Morocco, Switzerland, Turkey, Israel, Finland, Canada, Australia, Austria, Colombia Iran, and Cyprus.

Also speaking were the following NGOs: Asia Pacific Forum of National Human Rights Institutes, Colombian Commission of Jurists, United Nations Watch, Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, Institute for Women's Studies and Research, Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch.

The next meeting of the Council will be at 9 a.m. on Monday 14 June, when it is scheduled to hold an interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights Palestinian Territories occupied since 1967, following which it will hear a progress report of the High Commissioner on the follow up to the Fact-Finding Mission, after which it will hold a general debate.


Universal Periodic Review of Bosnia and Herzegovina

SALIHA DUDERIJA, Assistant Minister of Human Rights and Refugees of Bosnia and Herzegovina, said that Bosnia and Herzegovina had received 125 recommendations, of which it fully accepted 26, partially accepted 58 and rejected 46. The fully accepted recommendations were related to capacity building for cooperation with associations of people with disabilities, enhancement of the protection of children, and capacity building of the Children’s Council. Other accepted recommendations were those made with a view to more efficiently suppress racial discrimination and capacity building of human rights institutions. Bosnia and Herzegovina also fully accepted the recommendation for the removal of the death penalty from the entity of Republika Srpska legislation, the need to establish and improve capacities for prevention of hate speech, provide support to women victims of war and wartime rapes, ensure support to victims and witnesses in war crimes cases, and others. Bosnia and Herzegovina was fully dedicated to fulfil its international obligations and commitments on a permanent basis. Bosnia and Herzegovina partially accepted recommendations concerning the fight against exploitation and poverty reduction, and concluding the activities on designing the strategy for social inclusion and eradication of any form of discrimination of education of children. In recent years Bosnia and Herzegovina had been intensively working on the suppression of discrimination and human rights capacity building and was aware that there was a need to continue fulfilling the obligations.

With regard to gender equality and sexual orientation, Bosnia and Herzegovina had already developed an institutional mechanism, strategies and plans for improvement of gender equality, protection from domestic violence and protection on the grounds of sexual orientation. Bosnia and Herzegovina had continuously been working on the implementation and monitoring of a War Crimes Prosecution Strategy and a supervisory body had been established, while development of transitional justice strategy was underway. Through its institutional and legal framework Bosnia and Herzegovina allowed national minorities, especially the Roma, to initiate and implement their own initiatives and had continued to eradicate the phenomenon of avoidance of registration of Roma children at birth. Bosnia and Herzegovina had been constantly carrying out activities to curb trafficking in children, children prostitution and child pornography, and had made efforts to gradually implement recommendations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child. Appropriate legislation had been adopted to ensure equality of women. Human rights education was present in the curricula and educational standards in all primary and secondary schools. Reproductive health services and other health services during pregnancy, child birth and after birth were available to all women. Bosnia and Herzegovina considered the Universal Periodic Review process very useful as it enabled the monitoring and improvements of the human rights situation. Finally, Bosnia and Herzegovina said that recommendations that were cited as partially accepted were in fact accepted, because they were already implemented.

ALI AHMED AL-KHULAIFI (Qatar) stressed the sincere political will of the Government to promote and protect human rights in the legislative area, and in reality. Qatar welcomed the achievements of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the field of law and human rights and encouraged the Government to make further efforts to come to grips with refugees displaced by war, and to favour their social and economic integration.

NADIA LAMRANI (Algeria) said Algeria was pleased to hear that Bosnia and Herzegovina had accepted Algeria’s three recommendations. Algeria hoped that the return of the three Algerian nationals would be resolved as soon as possible. Algeria was also encouraged by Bosnia and Herzegovina’s efforts to promote and protect human rights and wished it full success in implementing the recommendations. Algeria hoped that the report would be adopted.

JOHN C. MARIZ (United States) said the United States encouraged Bosnia and Herzegovina to accept the recommendation to improve training for police and detention centre personnel, and to modernise its facilities to meet the needs of all prisoners. The United States aligned itself with the concerns voiced by Member States related to press freedom in the country. Some media outlets had challenged the authority of the Press Council, a self-regulatory body for print media, and had tried to influence its work. Credible experts reported that political pressures on state-level broadcast media continued. The United States was encouraged that Bosnia and Herzegovina was studying the recommendations made to strengthen the Communications Regulatory Agency, and noted that efforts to undermine the independence of the Agency continued, and its authority was regularly challenged on political grounds.

AZIZ POLOZHANI (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) said the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia stressed its appreciation for the openness, cooperation, and fruitful dialogue in the Universal Periodic Review process, as well as the appropriate and sincere responses to the recommendations and questions addressed. Children's health and education in general, and children victims of antipersonnel mines in particular were, and should remain one of the most delicate and important concerns for the authorities. They needed continuous and concrete active policies, and the authorities of all levels and entities should continue to follow these issues as a priority.

MARIA TODD (United Kingdom) thanked Bosnia and Herzegovina for its continued participation in the Universal Periodic Review and was pleased to see it had accepted a number of important recommendations, such as repealing the death penalty from the Constitution of Republika Srpska. The United Kingdom noted that Bosnia and Herzegovina had partially accepted the recommendation to strengthen capacity of human rights ombudsmen. The United Kingdom drew attention to the effective implementation of the justice sector reform, especially war crimes prosecution strategy, which was particularly important in view of the number of cases to be brought to trial.

MARIANNE LILIEBJERG, of Amnesty International, welcomed the Government’s commitment to address the situation of women who were victims of war crimes of sexual violence during the 1992-1995 war. Amnesty International also appreciated the efforts to draft a State law and a national programme for repatriation for all civilian victims of war crimes and called on the Government to ensure that both were adopted with no further delay. Amnesty International welcomed the commencement in the last six months of several new trials related to war crimes of sexual violence before the State Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina and emphasized the importance of Government support for the recommendations to establish a comprehensive witness protection schemes for cases involving war crimes.

HASSAN NAYEB HASHEM, of Verein Sudwind Entwicklungspolitik, said the safety of returning refugees must urgently be improved. They must be guaranteed civil and political rights, without discrimination, as well as economic, social and cultural rights. The material basis for well-being in the place of origin of refugees might be helped by special social security and a state-run system of human security. International aid should actively be sought, with all additional resources to be integrated in local efforts, following a comprehensive national plan. Human rights defenders must also be properly protected, and impunity must end for their violent past and present antagonists. A new State should rest on the people’s trust in the justice of the basic institutions of State and society.

JOHN FISHER, of European Region of the International Lesbian and Gay Federation (ILGA-EUROPE), welcomed Bosnia and Herzegovina’s positive response to recommendations to guarantee effective protection against all discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, to publicly condemn all acts of violence connected with such discrimination and prosecute the responsible, to take the measures necessary to combat discrimination on these grounds and to strongly commit to protecting and advocating the fundamental human rights of members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities as equal citizens. There were concerns by stakeholders at ongoing discrimination faced by marginalised groups, as well as hate crimes and violent attacks. The Government should implement increased measures to combat hate crimes, to develop public education and awareness programmes, including on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity, and to provide sensitivity training on these grounds to law enforcement, judicial and other authorities.

DAVINIA OVETT BONDI, of International Save the Children Alliance, said International Save the Children Alliance welcomed the strong focus on violence against women and children throughout the Universal Periodic Review interactive dialogue, and highly appreciated efforts made in Bosnia and Herzegovina to combat violence against children, and to sign and ratify the Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual Abuse and Sexual Exploitation. The Government should implement the Committee on the Rights of the Child's recommendations relating to the administration of juvenile justice. International Save the Children Alliance regretted the limited focus in the Universal Periodic Review on the protection of children without parental care.

NEDIM JANIC, of International Association of Democratic Lawyers, said the fragmented legal system in Bosnia and Herzegovina caused by the existence of different levels of government implied the simultaneous existence of four criminal codes, while sanctions and criminal policies were not harmonised. Citizens were therefore not treated equally and their position before the justice was determined by their place of residence. The Association for Democratic Initiatives recommended to the authorities to harmonise criminal legislation at all levels. Courts were financed from 14 different sources which jeopardized the independence of the judiciary from executive and legislative branches of government. The Association for Democratic Initiatives demanded that the Government took steps to ensure equal access to justice regardless of origin, cultural heritage or belief of citizens.

BIRO DIAWARA, of Interfaith International, said the Deyton Agreement had brought peace to Bosnia and Herzegovina, but there was enormous delay in the implementation of Annex VII concerning the return of refugees. Interfaith International recommended that the Government promote a culture of tolerance on the basis of peaceful coexistence.

SALIHA DUDERIJA, Assistant Minister of Human Rights and Refugees of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in concluding remarks, said the Universal Periodic Review was a process that enabled countries to focus on the effective implementation of human rights. That process had been a huge challenge for Bosnia and Herzegovina, who had taken it as a great chance to review its achievements as well as the challenges ahead, but the outcome and results would be worthwhile. The Universal Periodic Review had allowed identifying the Government’s current and future priorities in the area of human rights.

The Council then adopted the outcome of the Universal Periodic Review of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

General Debate on the Universal Periodic Review


Statement by the Minister of State of Bahrain

NEZAR SADEQ AL BAHARNA, Minister of State for Foreign Affairs of Bahrain, said he was presenting Bahrain's second annual progress report, recording Bahrain's progress with regard to its pledges. Human rights were an integral part of Bahrain's vision 2030. Bahrain aspired to shift from an economy built on oil wealth to a productive globally competitive economy, and their only asset was their human capital. The report would hopefully provide insight into the progress made since the adoption in 2008 of the Universal Periodic Review outcome of Bahrain. Since then, Bahrain had sought to implement the recommendations made, as well as its own voluntary commitments and pledges. It had created a human rights database, implemented its human rights obligations, applied a human rights-based approach to the development programme, and set up a national body for the protection and promotion of human rights, and strengthened this. The national human rights institution was set up according to the Paris Principles, and it would surely strengthen the protection and promotion of human rights in Bahrain. Bahrain also recently launched the report of the National Committee to Combat Trafficking. In the past years, it had worked on capacity-building programmes, including with the support of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, UNESCO, the World Health Organization and other organizations. The report was a compilation of the efforts made to improve, protect and promote human rights with the ambition of achieving further in the year to come.

General Debate

JAVIER GARRIGUES (Spain), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that the Universal Periodic Review was an innovative mechanism that enabled States to honestly discuss, question and find practical ways of ensuring compliance with their international human rights obligations and finding further ways to improve the situation on the ground. The European Union deeply deplored that this principled approach to the Universal Periodic Review was not universal, and called on all States reviewed to take all necessary steps to implement their recommendations. States must be allowed sufficient time to inform the wider public and civil society on the content of the reports and involve them in the follow up to the Universal Periodic Review. The European Union called on States under review to give justifications for rejection of certain recommendations. It was a great concern that many States under review failed to live up to their obligations to provide adequate follow-up on outstanding recommendations, or even entirely fail to take a position on the recommendations. The European Union supported the efforts to improve the modalities and working methods of the Universal Periodic Review and said that States must abide by the institutional building package and implement its provisions in good faith.

FRANCOIS ZIMERAY (France) said in 2008, France had volunteered to undergo the Universal Periodic Review as one of the first countries. Today, the delegation would present what France had undertaken to follow-up on the commitments made on that occasion. Since 2008, many measures had been adopted to combat discrimination and racism, including the strengthening of the cooperation between State agencies and associations to detect human rights violations in terms of racial discrimination more effectively. France had also mobilized to abide by its commitments in the field of women's rights and, in 2010, combating violence against women had resulted in redoubled efforts for awareness-raising. A law which was being adopted would further strengthen both existing protections as well as repression of violence. In addition, the penitentiary reform, launched in 2009, offered a new legal basis for the improvement of detention conditions and ensured that penitentiary administrations respected the dignity and rights of detainees.

ALEXEY GOLTYAEV (Russian Federation) said Russia attached crucial importance to the Universal Periodic Review mechanism, which had shown its effectiveness as one of the international mechanisms for human rights monitoring, as it was crucial to stimulate States to work further for the respect of human rights. The main trade of the Universal Periodic Review was a spirit of cooperation and mutual understanding. This spirit existed to a large extent thanks to the inter-Governmental nature of the review. In the upcoming revision of the Council, the basic postulate of the review, namely a peer review, should be maintained. Some of this mechanism required fine-tuning, however - States could not always express their views, and this and other technical difficulties which hindered the work of the review should be remedied through a structured dialogue. The documents which were being prepared for each country's review should reflect reality, be objective, and should be based on reliable sources. All parties should be as objective as possible in their assessment and in formulating recommendations - only then would a dialogue be possible.

GEIR SJOBERG (Norway) said Norway was a strong supporter of the Universal Periodic Review mechanism as a vital institution of the new Human Rights Council. It represented a unique opportunity to undertake a general, critical review of the human rights situation in all countries and should be approached in a serous manner. An important feature of the Human Rights Council was that all countries seeking membership must be committed to upholding the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights. Norway was particularly concerned about the development that an increasing number of candidate countries were not submitting pledges prior to the elections and the Council should take an initiative to change this development. The current situation regarding the speakers list was a major obstacle to a transparent and inclusive dialogue and the new approach to the list of speakers was needed in order for the Universal Periodic Review process to maintain its credibility. The country under review was free to decide which recommendation to accept or reject and Norway strongly believed that the credibility of the process was in the commitment of the States under review to provide clear and precise responses in writing and prior to the adoption of the outcome document.

KIM DONG-JO (Republic of Korea) said the Universal Periodic Review mechanism had provided a very valuable opportunity to review the human rights situation in many countries, but some shortcomings must be addressed to make the process indeed a major success. In particular, the recommendations should be considered seriously, the States under review should clearly and explicitly indicate whether or not they accepted the recommendations, and such indication should be made as early as possible, and at least some time before the final report was adopted, to allow other States to respond accordingly. The problems related to the speakers’ list must also be addressed. Due to the time limitation during the Working Group sessions, and the consideration of reports at the Council session, standing in long lines outside the plenary had become a customary practice before these sessions.

AKIRA MATSUMOTO (Japan) said Japan fully supported the Universal Periodic Review mechanism and intended to spare no efforts in further enhancing its effectiveness. Regarding the speakers' list, Japan regretted that the Council could not reach a consensual solution, even as an interim measure, prior to the previous session of the Working Group. Careful deliberations should continue on the matter, and the solution should ensure equitability for all States. Noting that the Universal Periodic Review was an evolving process, it was essential that the Council review the modalities and the periodicity of this mechanism, based on best practices and lessons learned. Given that follow-up to the Universal Periodic Review was essential to enhance the credibility of the Universal Periodic Review mechanism, implementation of the recommendations provided during the first cycle could be the focus of the session, with such continuity ensuring the cooperative spirit and interactive nature of this peer-review mechanism.

JAN SIEBEN (Netherlands) said that the human rights situation in the Netherlands had been reviewed during the very first session of the Working Group of the Universal Periodic Review in April 2008 and the Netherlands then promised to provide an interim report about the implementation of recommendations. This report was submitted in April this year. In 2008 there were no examples the Council could follow and it was then decided that the best approach to the Universal Periodic Review was to be open, outright and transparent about the human rights situation, especially on sensitive areas. The current interim report had been made in this spirit and was prepared in cooperation with civil society. The Universal Periodic Review process was a learning process for the Council and the Netherlands hoped that their interim report would help to make the Universal Periodic Review more robust and so strengthen the promotion and protection human rights.

RESFEL PINO ALVAREZ (Cuba) said the Universal Periodic Review was emblematic of how things had changed since the Commission had become the Council. The founding countries had been looking to avoid that politicization. Nevertheless, four years after the adoption of resolution 60/251, and in spite of important progress of the Council, politicization, double standards and selectivity had not been completely done away with. In discrediting and undermining the Universal Periodic Review, some powers had been trying to deal with situations in certain countries by hypocritically repeating that the Council had a diminished capacity to deal with such situations. Those who had put forward such statements were the same powers who had not shared the full reality on phantom flags and secret detention, which was still a practice used in the fight against terrorism. Cuba appealed to preserve the Universal Periodic Review and the Council’s activities as effective and legitimate instruments for dialogue and the promotion and protection of human rights in all parts of the world.

JOHN C. MARIZ (United States) said as the completion of the first round of the Universal Periodic Review process approached, the Human Rights Council could take pride in the fact that so far, over 120 countries had made their report, and most had engaged in an open and constructive dialogue on the human rights situation in their respective countries. It had become clear over the course of the first round sessions that the success of the Universal Periodic Review depended on the sincere commitment of both States under review and participants in the Working Group to participate in the process in a productive and open-minded manner and to treat the recommendations process in a meaningful way. States under review should conscientiously address each recommendation made and clearly identify each one that enjoyed their support. Some States had inaccurately said that some recommendations submitted to them were contrary to international law or human rights standards. Avoiding recommendations through specious reasoning diminished the credibility of the Universal Periodic Review process. States should implement the recommendations that enjoyed their support - the effort would be hollow if all that resulted was a presentation in Geneva with no follow-through.

MARIA NAZARETH FARANI AZEVEDO (Brazil) said that the Universal Periodic Review provided the Council with elements to engage in a respectful dialogue on country situations. The practices of selectivity and double standards had decreased and the bar set for one country should be the same for all other States under review. The non-selective nature and the universal scope of the Universal Periodic Review also laid the basis for an interaction among equals and enhanced the participation of other stakeholders. However, the Universal Periodic Review itself was not a solution for all existing challenges in the area of human rights, but was a point of departure towards creation of an environment of confidence among members. The Council must work as a forum for dialogue and was a political space to bring to the attention of the international community and of the State concerned the problems all States faced when implementing their human rights obligations. The Council needed to engage in dialogue with all concerned parties, and must be open to discuss and to address the root causes of human rights violations. Brazil firmly encouraged Member States that had gone through the Universal Periodic Review to take this opportunity to inaugurate a cycle of dialogue and real improvements on the ground.

BOUALEM CHEBIHI (Algeria) said the Universal Periodic Review gave countries the opportunity to express their views on human rights situations throughout the world. This procedure strengthened cooperation between countries and Algeria expressed its commitment to that mechanism. Algeria had made every effort to avoid double standards and selectivity and had organized a seminar in Algeria to strengthen this mechanism. At that occasion, significant ideas had been expressed, and it was important to implement these. The delegation further stressed that the recommendations made by the troikas were important, and that the documents prepared by the Office should reflect the achievements of countries under review.

YORK CHOR TAN (Singapore) said the Universal Periodic Review had been rightly described as one of the major achievements of the Human Rights Council. All States had treated the Universal Periodic Review very seriously thus far, but efforts needed to be undertaken to ensure that things stayed that way. Sometimes delegations had already prepared their responses in advance and responses had been inaccurate. Lacking participation at the meetings of the Council was another issue, and greater attention needed to be given to how statements were prepared. Also, only if more senior delegates participated, and if they actually listened to what was being said, could there be true results.

OMAR RABI (Morocco) said Morocco had organised, in conjunction with the Organization Internationale de la Francophonie, a human rights seminar, bringing together representatives of 80 French-speaking countries and non-governmental organizations specialised in Universal Periodic Review matters. This was an opportunity for participants to learn about the modalities and purposes of the new mechanism, follow-up, and the implementation of the results of the review. The second seminar focused on an assessment of the Universal Periodic Review, as well as sharing experiences, and a discussion of the means and measures to ensure follow-up to the review including cooperation and technical assistance. The holding of the Expert Seminar coincided with consultations in the Human Rights Council about the reform of the body. Participants formulated proposals to improve the efficiency of the Universal Periodic Review.

MURIEL BERSET (Switzerland) said a group of recommendations adopted by Switzerland during its Universal Periodic Review related to the signature and ratification of international instruments. As for accession to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Convention on the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearances, consultations were underway. Many programmes of education had been set up to continue to combat xenophobia and strengthen action to ensure equality of opportunity on the labour market. Regarding recommendations on combating discrimination against migrant women, legislation now in place covered the issues raised in the report.

ALI ONANER (Turkey) said that the Universal Periodic Review was one of the most important mechanisms of the Council and had been successfully implemented over the past three years. It has also been instrumental in raising awareness on the human rights situation in some countries, and would be one of the main chapters on the review of the Council itself. The collective commitment to preserve the mechanism should enable States to improve what did not work. The speakers’ list should be addressed as soon as possible, even before the review of the Council. Another issue was the preparation of the Universal Periodic Review Working Group report, whereby some States tried to interfere with statements. To avoid such interferences in the future, Turkey invited all States to participate in briefings on the rules of the Universal Periodic Review that the Secretariat organised on a regular basis. Turkey said that providing interim reports on a voluntary basis was a good practice and reiterated its commitment to submitting an interim report in two years time.

WALID ABU-HAYA (Israel) said that States under review may accept, reject or take note of any recommendation, however, the language used for rejecting must adhere to the principles found in the international and human rights instruments to which a State was a party. In stark defiance of the objectives of the review, a State under review had summarily rejected recommendations, including under vague terms such as “inconsistent with the institution building text and/or not internationally recognised human rights, or not in conformity with its existing laws”, clearly and intentionally misrepresenting the institution building text. Some States’ approach to the Universal Periodic Review seriously undermined the entire review process and in particular critically obstructed the attainment of the Universal Periodic Review objectives.

PEKKA METSO (Finland) said the establishment of the Universal Periodic Review had created an important new tool for the promotion and protection of human rights at the country level. Some lessons could be drawn from the experiences gathered so far. The wide range of consultations among the Government, as well as civil society and national human rights institutions, had been encouraging. Increased awareness on human rights, resulting from those consultations, had enabled domestic actors to engage in more sustained monitoring and to find more effective ways of solving problems. Nevertheless, the reviews should remain focused on the human rights situation in the State under review, and the objective of the dialogue, which was to assist the State under review, must be kept clear. Finland supported the idea of States providing mid-term reports on the progress they had made and was of the view that - to ease the workload and allow more time for the interactive dialogue - the review cycle could be prolonged to five years. That could be one of the outcomes of the next year’s review of the Council’s activities.

ALISON LECLAIRE CHRISTIE (Canada) said she wished to provide an update on the achieved progress since the adoption of the outcome of Canada’s Universal Periodic Review at the Council’s eleventh regular session. While many recommendations would take some time to implement, some steps had already been made, including the ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities on 11 March 2010. With regards to the recommendations that Canada effectively engage with civil society, which had been accepted by Canada, the delegation said civil society continued to be consulted on human rights priorities. The Government was also examining the broad spectrum of action on issues related to the implementation of international human rights instruments, and how those could be enhanced. As for the Universal Periodic Review process in itself, while it was still early in the history of this new mechanism, it had already positively contributed to the promotion and protection of human rights in a number of countries, including Canada.

ROBYN HODGKIN (Australia) said the Universal Periodic Review had the potential to advance human rights in all countries, provided States participated constructively in their reviews. There was therefore concern that some States had not fully engaged with the Universal Periodic Review process by refusing to address all recommendations presented during the review. Each State's appearance before its peers was challenging. However, States must approach the review process in good faith, giving due consideration to all recommendations presented. It was the right of each State to determine which to accept and which to reject, however, there was an obligation on States to address each recommendation individually, and where it was rejected, put on record a rationale for its decision. The Universal Periodic Review was a unique opportunity to reflect on how to improve human rights in each country. All States should keep this in mind when considering their approach to the review.

CHRISTIAN STROHAL (Austria) said eight rounds of the Universal Periodic Review had taken place so far and had clearly demonstrated the value of this new mechanism in reviewing the fulfilment of the human rights obligations of States. This peer review could become a real success if it contributed decisively to improvements on the ground. For the Universal Periodic Review to be a real success, every State had to participate in a spirit of openness, honesty and sincerity, not only in the Council, but also at home. Most States had so far done so, and they should be commended. On the other hand, there was serious concern that this approach was not universal - there were some recommendations that clearly undermined international human rights law and were not in line with the universality, indivisibility, interdependence and interrelatedness of all human rights. The Universal Periodic Review must remain a cooperative mechanism that was universal, transparent, objective and non-selective, but at the same time all States had to take the process seriously, and accept a thorough and transparent assessment of their human rights situation as a point of departure for a crucial self-reflection and effective implementation.

ALVARO ENRIQUE AYALA MELENDEZ (Colombia) said that thanks to the Government’s efforts, acts of terrorism in Colombia had decreased from over 1,600 in 2002 to 486 in 2009, and improvement was also noted in kidnappings and in homicide rates. The Government of Colombia gave due priority to indigenous people, without forgetting the fact that there were still many challenges to overcome. With regard to the fight against racial discrimination, Colombia had adopted in May a new policy for the promotion of rights of Afro-descendants that included, among others, education and training, with a focus on a scholarship programme for low income Afro-descendants. The promotion of the law on justice and peace had cleared more that 45,000 crimes. It was important to mention the progress in the fight against impunity. It was with great satisfaction that Colombia was fully supporting freedom of expression, which was seen in more than 15 million Colombians exercising their right to vote in national elections. The Universal Periodic Review really functioned and it was reflected in real improvements in the human rights situation in each of the countries.

MOHAMMED ZARAN (Iran) said the Universal Periodic Review mechanism constituted a forum for dialogue, cooperation and positive-minded engagement, the aim of which was to contribute in a meaningful way to the promotion of human rights all over the world. The Human Rights Council yesterday adopted the outcome report of Iran and welcomed the innovative approaches of Iran to enhance the situation of the country and to fulfil the wills and aspirations of the people in all civil, political, economic, social and cultural areas. Iran expressed its dismay at the inexcusable behaviour of a few who had not observed the governing principles and ethics of the Universal Periodic Review. There was every reason to believe that the Universal Periodic Review would be subjected to the risk of being perverted, over time, if all safeguards to protect the system were not identified and implemented.

MARIA MICHAEL (Cyprus) said through the experience of the first eight Universal Periodic Review sessions it had become quite apparent that a good review depended on proper peer behaviour. It rested on the seriousness by which the State under review took a self-critical look at its own human rights situation, accepted to discuss the challenges it faced, and took steps to improve the human rights situation on the ground. No party in the Universal Periodic Review should endeavour to manipulate the process for promoting political positions. Cyprus regretted that during its own review by the Working Group, during the sixth session of the Universal Periodic Review, its very existence was questioned, and its sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and unity challenged, allowing a worrying precedence to be set. Cyprus strongly believed that all States should strive to sustain the universal, transparent, objective and non-selective, constructive, non-confrontational and non-politicized nature of the mechanism. That was of utmost importance for its credibility.

KATHARINA ROSE, of Asia Pacific Forum of National Human Rights Institutions, said national human rights institutions made important contributions at each stage of the Universal Periodic Review process. In an effort to identify and emphasise these various entry points, the Asia Pacific Forum of National Human Rights Institutions had hosted a workshop on the Universal Periodic Review in March 2010. The chief outcome of that workshop, which had been attended by representatives of the national institutions of various countries, was the adoption of a “Universal Periodic Review good practice compilation”. That compilation had identified some 31 contribution opportunities across all stages of the Universal Periodic Review process, and had addressed the important ways that national institutions could work with Governments and civil society through the Universal Periodic Review.

ANA MARIA RODRIGUEZ, of Colombian Commission of Jurists, said with regard to Colombia, there had been a range of recommendations on the reduction of poverty and the improvement of the situation of indigenous populations, Afro-descendents and peasants. There was concern for the flouting of the rights of the civilian population, who were affected by the infrastructure, development and mining industries. There was a persistence of indigents and an absence of land restitution. Within the recommendations of the Council was an appeal to the State to reopen the discussion of a National Action Plan and the adoption of a proceeding to protect the civilian population in the context of the armed conflict. There was a lack of implementation of the recommendations adopted by Colombia through the review.

CINDY D. TAN, of United Nations Watch, said United Nations Watch was concerned by a deepening culture of mutual praise, where members of large voting blocs granted each other immunity. A 2009 United Nations Watch study measured how countries conducted the Universal Periodic Review, to ensure the process was helping victims. Of the 55 countries examined, only 19 had overall positive scores. Mutual praise not only denied a needed shield for victims that needed protection, it was then used as a sword in the hands of States seeking international legitimacy. To improve the Universal Periodic Review, it was vital to reflect on all uses of this mechanism, the positive as well as the counter-productive.

JOHN FISHER, of Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, welcomed the fact that an increasing number of States under review were providing clear responses to each recommendation put to them. Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network noted that some States under review still provided their responses to recommendations in oral form and reiterated the view that a clear and transparent process required the State response to be circulated in writing. Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network underlined its concern that some States continued to reject recommendations on grounds that they were not compatible with the institution building text. It was time to put an end to the embarrassing practice of States taking the floor merely to heap praise upon their regional and political colleagues. While appreciation for human rights advances was always appropriate, it was recognised that no State was perfect and that the purpose of the Universal Periodic Review was to suggest means for improving the human rights situation in the States under review. Intervention that failed to recognise this undermined the credibility of the State taking the floor, States under review and the process as a whole.

SALIMEH DAREMI, of Institute for Women’s Studies and Research, said that by the end of the session, the strong and weak points of the Universal Periodic Review would become more clear. The two groups of problems were countries approach towards human rights and the structure of the Universal Periodic Review itself. The main problem was the existence of a filter and a political presumption among all countries which resulted in the acceptance or rejection of recommendations based on their political relations with the States under review. With regard to the Universal Periodic Review process itself, the Institute for Women’s Studies and Research recommended that States under review should provide clear and transparent answers to all recommendations, and that strong and political tones in some recommendations should be omitted, since it would naturally draw political reactions by the States under review.

JEREMIE SMITH, of Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, expressed concern over the failure of the Bahraini Government to significantly implement its voluntary pledges and the recommendations it had received during its Universal Periodic Review in April 2008. Since then, the human right situation in Bahrain had deteriorated; discrimination on the grounds of gender and religion continued to occur in a wide-spread and systematic manner and Shiites faced clear and severe discrimination by Bahrain. Although they constituted the majority of the native population they occupied less than 15 per cent of senior positions in the Kingdom.


MARIANNE LILIEBJERG, of Amnesty International, said the opportunities for civil society to speak in the Council on individual country reviews were very limited – a mere 20 minutes for each review. At times the possibilities to secure a speaking slot depended more on athletic footwear and stamina than on the equal opportunity to which the Council aspired. The presence of governmental non-governmental organizations added another level of complication. This situation led to frustration and did the reputation and the effectiveness of a promising Universal Periodic Review mechanism no good. Amnesty International urged the Council to put in place arrangements for non-governmental organization oral contributions that were both effective and dignified and did justice to the positive engagement by these organizations in the Universal Periodic Review process.

JULIE DE RIVERO, of Human Rights Watch, said Human Rights Watch welcomed the update given to the Human Rights Council by Bahrain on the follow-up process established at the national level for the implementation of its Universal Periodic Review recommendations. Human Rights Watch called upon the Government of Bahrain to report on cases of torture or ill-treatment in light of its statement during the Universal Periodic Review, and was also concerned about restrictions on civil society organizations, including those working on human rights issues. Human Rights Watch also welcomed the update provided by the Chinese delegation, and noted that the failure to uphold rights that underlay the prevention of torture cast doubts on whether the Government's latest step of issuing regulations delineating the procedure to invalidate evidence obtained under torture in cases involving the death penalty would work. The Government's claims regarding the rights of ethnic minorities must also be vigorously questioned. Further repression, whether it be torture of detainees or discriminatory policies against ethnic minorities, would breed precisely the kind of instability the Government feared.


For use of information media; not an official record


HRC10/076E