HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL HOLDS ANNUAL THEMATIC DISCUSSION ON SHARING BEST PRACTICES AND PROMOTING TECHNICAL COOPERATION

The Human Rights Council during its midday meeting today held its annual thematic discussion on sharing of best practices and promoting technical cooperation: paving the way towards the second cycle of the Universal Periodic Review.

Sek Wannamethee, Deputy Permanent Representative of Thailand to the United Nations Office at Geneva, moderator of the discussion, said it was important for the Council to discuss technical cooperation as it was part of its mandate and was well recognised in the review process as an important tool to help countries, especially those with a willingness but lack of resources to overcome their challenges. In particular they should discuss practical aspects such as what kind of cooperation was needed and how the relevant United Nations agencies could do better in providing assistance. The discussion today would focus on technical cooperation for the implementation of the accepted Universal Periodic Review recommendations.

Navi Pillay, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, said the challenge of the second cycle of the Universal Periodic Review would be the implementation of accepted recommendations and other commitments made in the first cycle. States should prepare themselves, in line with existing good practices, such as the setting up of senior level coordination mechanisms for implementation of recommendations, or provision of mid-term reports or action plans. The Office was developing its global policy for the follow-up, which would meet with vast challenges: the stretched operational capacity of the Office and limited resources, and 193 States and over 20,000 Universal Periodic Review recommendations.

The Panellists were; Shireen Said, Policy Advisor – Human Rights, Democratic Governance Group, Bureau for Development Policy, United Nations Development Programme in New York; Ridha Bouabid, Permanent Representative of the Organisation Internationale de La Francophonie to the United Nations Office at Geneva; Victore Bwire, the Kenya Stakeholders Coalition for the Universal Periodic Review; and Etta Rosales, Chairperson of the National Human Rights Commission of the Philippines.

Ms. Said said the United Nations Development Programme had individually and in partnership with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and others actively supported several regional and national Universal Periodic Review processes.

Mr. Bouabid said the Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie had a process of exchange with its 75 Member States that were involved in the Universal Periodic Review process and had held three international seminars since 2008 to create a platform at the national level which allowed for a fruitful exchange, cooperation and awareness between different actors at the various stages of the implementation of recommendations.

Mr. Bwire said the best way to engage with the Government was constructive advocacy and the project was going on well despite challenges including fatigue of members, fall off by stakeholders, a lack of resources to support training, competing interest from other initiatives, and the technical capacity of actors to implement, monitor and document impact.

Ms. Rosales said the Universal Periodic Review process provided an opportunity for shared learning and added a dimension to the typical monitoring functions carried out by national human rights institutions. The process could also serve as an entry point for mainstreaming human rights into various areas of government and strengthening human rights indicators.

In the discussion, speakers said follow-up would be the most important factor in this process and there was a need to create human rights benchmarks. Effective implementation was crucial on the ground. One speaker was concerned about the number and quality of recommendations made during the first cycle. Recommendations should be precise, constructive and implementable, while their number should be manageable. Technical assistance could be an important tool when countries, despite their own best efforts and political will to improve the human rights situation, faced difficulties because of the lack of resources or know-how. The United Nations Trust Fund was an essential instrument to assist States in the implementation and should function on the basis of full transparency.

Speaking in the discussion were Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, European Union, Morocco, Mauritius, Kenya, Norway, Maldives, United Kingdom, Japan, Algeria, Paraguay, Ecuador, Barbados, Indonesia, Senegal on behalf of the African Group, Mauritania on behalf of the Arab Group, Switzerland, Turkey, Cuba, United States, Sudan, Sri Lanka, Austria, Costa Rica, Australia on behalf of Canada and New Zealand, Qatar, Honduras, Brazil, Georgia, Chile, and Mexico.

Inter Parliamentary Union also took the floor as did the non-governmental organizations: Regional centre for Human Rights and Gender Justice and International service for Human Rights.

The Council today is holding a full day of meetings from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. During its afternoon meeting, the Council will conclude its general debate on the reports of the Office of the High Commissioner and the Secretary-General, and will then hold a general debate on technical cooperation. The Council might also start to take action on draft decisions and resolutions.

Opening Statements

SEK WANNAMETHEE, Deputy Permanent Representative of Thailand to the United Nations at Geneva and Moderator, said it was important for the Council to discuss technical cooperation as it was part of its mandate and was well recognised in the review process as an important tool to help countries, especially those with a willingness but lack of resources to overcome their challenges. In particular they should discuss practical aspects such as what kind of cooperation was needed and how the relevant United Nations agencies could do better in providing assistance. The discussion today would focus on technical cooperation for the implementation of the accepted Universal Periodic Review recommendations, which had increased human rights awareness among civil society and empowered them to protect their own rights. This success needed to be nurtured as they approached the second cycle and this panel discussion was an opportunity for all relevant actors to engage and learn with and from each other. Ultimately the panel could also help to increase opportunities for States to get assistance needed and allow all relevant parties to be better informed to deliver assistance in a better, more coordinated and more efficient and effective manner.

NAVI PILLAY, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, said that the Universal Periodic Review had opened unprecedented opportunities to initiate or strengthen dialogue and cooperation on human rights at all levels and with all countries. It was an opportunity for the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to strengthen its action, and a source of considerable challenge, as resources remained limited in view of the magnitude of the tasks and expectations. The challenge of the second cycle would be the implementation of accepted recommendations and other commitments made in the first cycle. States should prepare themselves, in line with existing good practices, such as the setting up of senior level coordination mechanisms for the implementation of recommendations, or provision of mid-term reports or action plans. The Office was developing its global policy for the follow-up, which would meet with vast challenges: the stretched operational capacity of the Office and limited resources, and 193 States and over 20,000 Universal Periodic Review recommendations.

The Office was defining its role in a strategic manner and would use its resources as “seed investment” in countries. It was developing capacity to provide effective support to States by producing and disseminating information, producing tools to assist States and stakeholders in their efforts, and documenting creative initiatives by States and other actors to implement human rights recommendations. A key challenge in this process would be assessing the impact of the Universal Periodic Review at the country level. The aim for the Office was to provide timely and quality support, through technical and other assistance, to States and stakeholders in their effort to implement their human rights obligations and commitments. Technical cooperation was one of the means to bring about greater compliance with the human rights standards. The purpose of the programme was to facilitate constructive change at the country level, so that individuals and communities were able to exercise and enjoy human rights in their lives, and could fully participate in the development of a stable and peaceful society.

Discussion

Pakistan, on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, emphasized that the promotion and protection of human rights should be based on genuine dialogue and international cooperation must be aimed at strengthening national efforts as any outside agenda to human rights reforms was bound to make no difference on the ground. European Union was fully committed to implementing the Universal Periodic Review recommendation programme and listened carefully to requests for technical assistance articulated during the Universal Periodic Review and tried to factor them into its bilateral programmes with the relevant country. Morocco said dialogue could only work adequately when the beneficiaries received appropriate funds and so access to this needed improvement. Morocco was a main donor to the South-South fund and called on other nations to make larger donations

Mauritius said follow-up would be the most important factor in this process and there was a need to create human rights benchmarks. Mauritius was confident that its own successful implementation of such proposals could serve as good practice in this process. Kenya said that as a country that had cooperated and seen benefits in implementing the Universal Periodic Review recommendations, it was ready to share best practices with other States. Norway said the Universal Periodic Review provided a unique and constructive system and it actively used the recommendations as part of the dialogue and raised them in their relations with concerned countries. This had been helpful in improving their work with those nations. Maldives said as a small State with limited resources, the challenges of implementation were daunting and it was clear that the support of the United Nations and larger States was vital. The Maldives expressed deep disappointment in the advice and assistance offered by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights which they believed would hold it back and other small island States on their return to Geneva for the second cycle.

United Kingdom said effective implementation was crucial on the ground. The United Kingdom was concerned about the number and quality of recommendations made during the first cycle. Recommendations should be precise, constructive and implementable, while their number should be manageable. Japan said that technical assistance could be an important tool when countries, despite their own best efforts and political will to improve the human rights situation, faced difficulties because of the lack of resources or know-how. The United Nations Trust Fund was an essential instrument to assist States in the implementation and should function on the basis of full transparency; Algeria was providing $ 500,000 to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights for purposes of technical assistance. Paraguay had accepted all the recommendations in its Universal Periodic Review and said that international cooperation was essential in their implementation. Ecuador had been one of the first countries to undergo the review and had had support from the High Commissioner for a number of years; this support was critical in the implementation of the recommendations and in transmitting good practices to other States.

Constraints of small States were evident in case of Barbados, where limited resources put in danger the implementation of the recommendations of the Universal Periodic Review; the support of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights was critical. The work of the Human Rights Council was little known by Parliaments, even though very little work on the ground could be achieved without their involvement; Inter Parliamentary Union would encourage Parliaments to take active part in Universal Periodic Review process by their States. One of the best practices Indonesia wished to share with other countries was the inclusive approach to the preparation of the national report.

Statements by the Panellists

SEK WANNAMETHEE, Deputy Permanent Representative of Thailand to the United Nations Office at Geneva, Moderator, said so far there had been many interesting comments and questions from developing and developed countries. The provision of technical assistance via south-south cooperation was raised, particularly challenges shared by certain groups of countries of varying development levels, such as small island developing States and least developed countries. One of the key challenges mentioned was resource constraints.

SHIREEN SAID, Policy Advisor – Human Rights Democratic Governance Group, Bureau for Development Policy, United Nations Development Programme New York, said the discussion was opportune in view of the upcoming events of Rio+20 and the post-2015 agenda for the mutual reinforcement of the human rights architecture and development discourse. The United Nations Development Programme’s human rights policy advice, technical support and capacity development reached over 100 countries. The United Nations Development Programme had individually and in partnership with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and others actively supported several regional and national Universal Periodic Review processes. The design of the Universal Periodic Review process, especially the peer-to-peer component, translated into informal peer-to-peer support for governments. National human rights institutions were key in conducting dialogue on the effective implementation of recommendations. The quality of the process was enhanced where civil society members formed coalitions and initiated national consultations. Another major factor was political will and the leadership of governments. This ensured more sustainable outcomes. The Universal Periodic Review was viewed as somewhat disconnected from other United Nations processes, and this needed to be discussed further. Ultimately, the Universal Periodic Review encouraged and enabled joint planning, programming and inter-disciplinarity.

RIDHA BOUABID, Permanent Representative of the Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said the Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie had a process of exchange with its 75 Member States that were involved in the Universal Periodic Review process and had held three international seminars since 2008 to create a platform at the national level which allowed for a fruitful exchange, cooperation and awareness between different actors at the various stages of the implementation of recommendations. This identified factors that affected implementation such as the degree of precision in recommendations and the category in which it may be placed, the means needed to put in place the recommendations, and how these functioned in the constitutional and legal framework of a country. These were merely examples, and may be used to predict what was required and set out timetables as well as needs and requests for support to the international community. The role of stakeholders in the Universal Periodic Review was also considered, and their input in follow-up should not be overlooked. The second cycle of the Universal Periodic Review was to be crucial and the Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie remained dedicated to supporting nations in their obligations.

ETTA ROSALES, Chairperson, National Human Rights Commission of the Philippines, said in 2008 the Commission had substantially engaged in the Universal Periodic Review process. The Commission held the Government of the Philippines to its commitment to play a role in the Human Rights Council and participate in the Universal Periodic Review. Subsequent to the adoption of the report, the Commission had collaborated with civil society in rolling out the Universal Periodic Review recommendations. The recommendations provided a significant basis for mainstreaming human rights into the presidential elections. Mainstreaming human rights into the National Philippine Development Plan and a wide range of other activities was conducted with technical and financial support from the United Nations Development Programme. About 75 non-governmental organizations played a part in the consultation process that led to the Commission’s submission to the Universal Periodic Review process. The Universal Periodic Review process provided an opportunity for shared learning and added a dimension to the typical monitoring functions carried out by national human rights institutions. The process could also serve as an entry point for mainstreaming human rights into various areas of government and strengthening human rights indicators.

VICTOR BWIRE, Kenya Stakeholders Coalition for the Universal Periodic Review, said the key guiding principles of the Coalition’s approach had been that Government support was critical as the lawmaker, public understanding and acceptability were of key importance, and strategic thinking was required. The Universal Periodic Review process should not be isolated from normal and ongoing government plans; it required resources and needed cooperation from development partners. A team from the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights had assessed and determined strategies to come up with a work plan to be presented to stakeholders and prepared an advisory to the Government. This included a Universal Periodic Review implementation and monitoring strategy, a stakeholder plan of action, ways of engaging with the Government, ensuring demands were clear, and mapping out stakeholders and actors to be targeted. This process had showed that the best way to engage with the Government was constructive advocacy and the project was going on well despite challenges including fatigue of members, fall off by stakeholders, a lack of resources to support training, competing interest from other initiatives and the technical capacity of actors to implement, monitor and document impact.

Discussion

Senegal, on behalf of the African Group, suggested exploring some good practices related to actions bringing together all parties concerned by a recommendation and developing associated plans of action. Mauritania, on behalf of the Arab Group, said implementing recommendations was desirable and encouraged all countries to develop fora at the regional and national levels for this purpose. Switzerland asked what suggestions the panel could make regarding ensuring the Universal Periodic Review was instilled in national dialogue and reinforced States’ international obligations. Turkey said to increase efficiency, universality and credibility, the huge discrepancy between demands and the logistical and financial capabilities of the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights and the Human Rights Council had to be dealt with. Cuba said within each country a process should be developed involving all government institutions and civil society, particularly those that bore the responsibility for implementing recommendations. United States said the honest exchange of ideas, resources and constructive criticisms would ensure the United States stayed focused on the goal of not just checking boxes for the next review, but pursuing tangible improvements on an ongoing basis. Sudan said recommendations should be objective, well-defined, avoid politicization and aimed mainly at assisting States to identify issues requiring review or further attention.

Sri Lanka said to give true meaning to the Universal Periodic Review process, which had opened great vistas and unprecedented opportunities to strengthen human rights dialogue, there must be more than lip service to the rules as there could not be mechanisms outside the procedures established and it must be waited for and generously resorted to. Austria said over a third of Austrian development programmes aimed at actively promoting human rights as they, together with good governance, were essential for human development and poverty reduction, alongside a transparent public sector and the development of democratic institutions and processes. Costa Rica said its main challenges lay in implementing national recommendations. A commission had been created to become a permanent mechanism which addressed Costa Rican human rights obligations; it would prepare a national plan to tackle racism which was a Universal Periodic Review recommendation. Australia, also on behalf of Canada and New Zealand, valued efforts to engage in the first Universal Periodic Review cycle, called on States to positively respond to requests for technical assistance, and said they were pleased to contribute funding to support small and developing States through the United Nations Voluntary Fund for participation in the Universal Periodic Review mechanism. Qatar said international cooperation was vital in supporting human rights efforts and the impact of the Arab Spring would likely require intense activities and efforts from the new United Nations Human Rights Training and Documentation Centre for South-West Asia and the Arab Region, based in Qatar, and so it must have better resources to perform its functions.

The Regional Centre for Human Rights and Gender Justice said that following up was the most important stage and so voluntary reports on recommendations could give each State the opportunity to identify problems in implementation. This was ideal for coming up with remedies. To achieve this, consultations should be held on these reports with civil society as part of a fluid dialogue. International Service for Human Rights said effective human right change happened at the national level and for the Universal Periodic Review to be successful it was important to differentiate between countries that showed serious engagement from those that did not, a judgment that could be based on a willingness to accept uncomfortable recommendations, take on board constructive criticism and where human rights defenders need not fear reprisals.

Honduras welcomed the fact that the first cycle of the Universal Periodic Review had included the participation of all 193 Member States. Developing countries faced significant challenges in the implementation of recommendations and required technical assistance. Brazil said the strengthening of technical cooperation in the Council was essential to ensure that States implemented their human rights obligations. Brazil had established a monitoring tool to track implementation. Georgia said that States required a systematic interagency team with the involvement of the national human rights institution to facilitate the implementation of Universal Periodic Review recommendations. Recommendations should be linked to treaty body obligations. Chile said that mid-term reports were important in the Universal Periodic Review process because they incorporated the views of civil society and informed States on the implementation process. Mexico said it had offered cooperation in electoral management and the enhancement of the rule of law through training programmes provided to more than 30 countries in Latin America and Asia. How could the mechanisms of the Human Rights Council assist countries to pursue technical cooperation?

Concluding Remarks

SHIREEN SAID, Policy Advisor – Human Rights Democratic Governance Group, Bureau for Development Policy, United Nations Development Programme New York, said, with respect to mainstreaming, the United Nations Development Programme had actively supported human rights mechanisms and would engage in a discussion in the upcoming weeks on the Universal Periodic Review and United Nations support for the process. A holistic approach was required for conducting development-oriented programming and investment in stakeholders was required. The Universal Periodic Review had proven to be a mechanism for change. The fact that other inter-governmental process were looking at the peer review mechanism showed it had made a difference in global development discourse.

RIDHA BOUABID, Permanent Representative of the Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said the Universal Periodic Review was a recent mechanism and was not well-known in many countries. There was a lot to be done in terms of awareness-raising, which was a long-term task. There were unprecedented opportunities for improving human rights in the field. It was necessary to respond to the expectations of countries, especially developing countries, small island developing countries, and least developed countries in particular. Capacity building of national institutions, whether governmental or non-governmental, was required in follow-up to the Universal Periodic Review to ensure it had a lasting impact. This would also take time. It was essential that more emphasis be placed on the inclusive nature of the Universal Periodic Review and the need to involve all concerned national stakeholders in technical assistance and support programmes.

ETTA ROSALES, Chairperson of the National Human Rights Committee of the Philippines, expressed her deep appreciation for the hope and constructive criticism she had heard and said it was important to involve stakeholders at the local, national and international levels as they all encouraged the advancement of human rights on a daily basis.

VICTOR BWIRE, Chairperson of the Kenya Stakeholder’s Committee for the Universal Periodic Review, said the international community should help civil society to come to the table and the support given to this group in the Universal Periodic Review process should be better balanced.


GIANNI MAGAZZENI, Chief of the Americas, Europe & Central Asia Branch, Field Operations and Technical Cooperation Division, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, said Norway had made a contribution to the trust fund of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. All field offices were engaged in implementation and planning, with 151 activities across multiple countries, including in 14 African countries. Best practices included where Member States established senior level coordination with Government agencies and with stakeholders across civil society. Other good practices included the clustering of recommendations, the use of mid-term reports and the creation of action plans at the country level with benchmarks and timelines. The Arab Spring had shown that without a solid respect for human rights there could be no sustainable economic development. The deployment of human rights officers in countries would help to mainstream human rights. The High Commissioner looked forward to visiting Barbados and hoped it would provide a strong impetus for technical cooperation in the Caribbean region.


For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC12/049E