22 Universal Periodic Review (UPR)

Dr. Y R S Murthy

epgp books

 

 

Table of Content

  • Introduction
  • Learning Outcomes
  • Origin of the UPR
  • Modalities of the UPR Process
  • Principles and Objectives Guiding the UPR
  • Positive Features of the UPR
  • Critical Assessment
  • Summary

The Universal Periodic Review

Introduction

The Universal Periodic Review “has great potential to promote and protect human rights in the darkest corners of the world.” – Ban Ki-moon, UN Secretary-General

The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is a unique tool to review the human rights records of all UN Member States, whether big or small, developing or developed. The UPR is a State-driven, peer-review process, carried out under the supervision of the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC). It provides an opportunity for each State to outline what actions it has taken to improve the human rights situation and to fulfil its human rights obligations. As one of the main features of the Council, the UPR is designed to ensure equal treatment for every country when their human rights situations are assessed.

Learning Outcomes

a) To give students an idea about principles, objectives underlying the UPR and its modalities

b) Critical assessment of the UPR

Origin of the UPR

The UPR was established when the HRC was created on 15 March 2006 by the UN General Assembly through resolution 60/251. This resolution required the Council to “undertake a universal periodic review, based on objective and reliable information, of the fulfilment by each State of its human rights obligations and commitments in a manner which ensures universality of coverage and equal treatment with respect to all States”. On 18 June 2007, one year after its first meeting, members of the Human Rights Council agreed to its institution-building package in resolution 5/1,2 providing a road map guiding the future work of the Council. One of the key elements of this package was the new Universal Periodic Review. The mechanism was further refined during the review process through HRC resolution 16/21 and HRC decision 17/119. These two documents provided the necessary modification of modalities for the review in the second and subsequent cycles.

Modalities of the UPR Process

The modalities of the process are outlined broadly in HRC resolution 5/1. As UPR got underway, there were gaps remaining in the working procedures that required filling in, during the course of the first cycle. A unique three dimensional approach was adopted in which three documents had to be submitted to the HRC, namely:

  • A report prepared by the state containing a self-assessment of its own human rights situation not exceeding 20 pages;
  • A compilation of information from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in relation to the Human Rights Treaty Bodies and Special Procedures not exceeding 10 pages;
  • Additional, reliable and credible information provided by other relevant stakeholders (e.g. NHRIs and NGOs) in reports and summarized by the OHCHR in not more than 10 pages.

In practice, the deadline for submissions of relevant stakeholders’ information to the OHCHR during the first cycle was six to eight months (to allow the OHCHR the opportunity to compile the submission documents).

Under the UPR mechanism, the human rights situation of all UN Member States is reviewed every 4.5 years. During the first cycle, all UN Member States have been reviewed, with 48 States reviewed each year. The second cycle, which officially started in May 2012, will see 42 States reviewed each year. Each review is carried out by a HRC Working Group, chaired by the President of the Council and composed of all 47 Member States of the Council. However, any UN Member State can take part in the discussion/dialogue with the State under Review (SuR). Each review is assisted by groups of three States, known as “troikas”, who serve as rapporteurs. The selection of the troikas for each State is done through a drawing of lots following elections for the Council membership in the General Assembly. They can be delegation members or experts nominated by the selected State. Every State under review has a different troika.

Reviews take place through an interactive discussion during a meeting of the UPR Working Group between the SuR and other UN Member States. Typically, the SuR sends a delegation of governmental officials from different ministries. The review begins with the presentation by the SuR of its National Report and of its responses to advance questions. Then, any UN Member State can pose questions, comments and/or make recommendations to the SuR on measures to improve the human rights situation in the country. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) can participate in the UPR process and can submit information which can be added to the “other stakeholders” report which is considered during the review. NGOs can attend the UPR Working Group sessions. Information they provide can be referred to by any of the States taking part in the interactive discussion during the review. At the end of the interactive discussion, the SuR presents its concluding remarks. The SuR’s overall speaking time throughout the review is 70 minutes. Other States have a total of 140 minutes. The duration of the review was three hours for each country in the Working Group during the first cycle. From the second cycle onwards the time has been extended to three hours and thirty minutes.

Following the review by the Working Group, a report is prepared by the troika with the involvement of the SuR and assistance from the OHCHR. This report, referred to as the “Outcome Report”, provides a summary of the actual discussion. It therefore consists of the questions, comments and recommendations made by States to the SuR, as well as its responses.

During the Working Group session, half an hour is allocated to adopt each of the Outcome Reports for the States reviewed that session. These take place no sooner than 48 hours after the country review. The SuR has the opportunity to make preliminary comments on the recommendations. According to HRC Resolution 5/1, States can accept or “note” recommendations but they cannot reject them. Response to each recommendation must be clearly explained in writing in a specific document of up to 2,675 words called an “addendum”. This addendum should be submitted to the HRC in advance of the adoption of the report at the HRC session. Both accepted and noted recommendations are included in the report. After the report has been adopted, editorial modifications can be made to the report by States on their own statements within the following two weeks.

The report then must be adopted at a plenary session of the HRC. During the plenary session, the SuR can reply to questions and issues that were not sufficiently addressed during the Working Group session and respond to recommendations that were raised by States during the review. Time is also allotted to member and observer States who may wish to express their opinion on the outcome of the review and for National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs), NGOs and other stakeholders to make general comments. The Outcome Report is adopted by a resolution or decision, preferably by consensus to underline the cooperative nature of the mechanism.

After the adoption of the Outcome Report at the HRC, which concludes the “Geneva stage”, the follow-up begins. This is the stage where the SuR has to “implement” the recommendations and improve the human rights situation in the country before the second review. The OHCHR has set up a Voluntary Fund for Financial and Technical Assistance to help States implement the recommendations. If necessary, the HRC “will address […] cases of persistent non-cooperation with the mechanism”.

HRC Resolution 5/1 further elaborates on the modalities and process of the review:

  1. States are encouraged to prepare the information they submit “through a broad consultation process at the national level with all relevant stakeholders” (Annex, para. 15(a));
  2. “Additional, credible and reliable information provided by other relevant stakeholders to the universal periodic review” will be summarized by the OHCHR in a summary which shall not exceed 10 pages (Annex, para. 15(c));
  3. Other relevant stakeholders may attend the review in the Working Group (Annex, para. 18 (c ));
  4. Before the adoption of the outcome by the HRC plenary, the SuR should be offered the opportunity to present replies to questions or issues; other relevant stakeholders will have the opportunity to make general comments before the adoption of the Outcome Report by the plenary (Annex, paras. 29 and 31).
  5. The outcome of the universal periodic review, as a cooperative mechanism, should be implemented primarily by the State concerned and, as appropriate, by other relevant stakeholders  (Annex, para. 33).

The UPR is thus a full-circle process comprising of various stages:

  • Review of the human rights situation of the SuR;
  • Implementation between two reviews (4.5 years) by the SuR of the recommendations received and the voluntary pledges made;
  • Reporting at the next review on the implementation of those recommendations and pledges and on the human rights situation in the country since the previous review.

In the following diagram, the UPR process is explained with the help of the Australian country situation. It is important to note that there is a sequencing of steps in this cyclical process with each stage leading to the other, starting with the preparation of the country report until the adoption of the report and follow up process.

5. Principles and Objectives Guiding the UPR

HRC Resolution 5/1 has outlined the following principles which shall underpin and guide the UPR through its various stages. It must:

  • Promote the universality, interdependence, indivisibility and interrelatedness of all human rights;
  • Be a cooperative mechanism based on objective and reliable information and on Interactive dialogue;
  • Ensure universal coverage and equal treatment of all States;
  • Be an intergovernmental process, United Nations Member-driven and action-oriented;
  • Fully involve the country under review;
  • Complement and not duplicate other human rights mechanisms, thus adding value;
  • Be conducted in an objective, transparent, non-selective, constructive, non-confrontational and non-politicized manner;
  • Not be overly burdensome to the concerned State or the agenda of the Council;
  • Not be overly long; it should be realistic and not absorb a disproportionate amount of time, human and financial resources;
  • Not diminish the Human Rights Council’s capacity to respond to urgent human rights situations;
  • Fully integrate a gender perspective;
  • Take into account the level of development and specificities of countries; and
  • Ensure the participation of all relevant stakeholders, including NGOs, in accordance with General Assembly resolution 60/251 and

Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) resolution 1996/31, as well as any decisions that the Human Rights Council may take in this regard.

According to Resolution 5/1, the objectives of UPR are:

  • The improvement of the the human rights situation on the ground;
  • The fulfilment of the State’s human rights obligations and commitments and assessment of positive developments and challenges faced by the State;
  • The enhancement of the State’s capacity and of technical assistance, in consultation with, and with the consent of, the State concerned;
  • The sharing of best practice among States and other stakeholders;
  • Support for cooperation in the promotion and protection of human rights;
  • The encouragement of full cooperation and engagement with the Council, other human rights bodies and OHCHR.

6. Positive Features of the UPR Process

While it is premature to assess the ultimate success of the UPR process until the completion of the second cycle, some analysis can be made on the basis of the completion of the first cycle.

In a comprehensive analysis of the first cycle, the reputable NGO UPR Info points out that 75% of all recommendations were accepted, 15% were rejected and there was 10% where no clear position was taken or a response remains pending.

Human Rights Watch has highlighted the success in curing the “selectivity syndrome”: “UPR has also shown that the problem of selectivity and double standards can be tackled by developing a more universal approach to the examination of specific situations, rather than avoiding engagement altogether.”

Jean-Louis Roy, of the Global Observatory on Human Rights, points to the interactive discussion which forms part of the review as having given new life to national and global debates on human rights, since it involved every UN Member State, as well as NGOs, NHRIs and intergovernmental organizations. He concludes that “it seems reasonable to contend that the UPR mechanism contributes to the strengthening of the UN human rights system’s universal dimension as well as the strengthening of the Organization’s obligations in that regard.”

Emma Hickey, in a comprehensive analysis of the first cycle, concludes that “UPR has the potential to serve as a mechanism through which human rights situations of concern can be addressed, and accountability and co-operation amongst States can be increased”. She relates this to the test laid down by Louise Arbour, then United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, of whether the mechanism would “help bridge the gap between the lofty rhetoric of human rights in the halls of the United Nations, and its sobering realities on the ground”.

On the basis of an analysis of the follow-up of the first review cycle, UPR Info identified the following best practices:

States under Review

  • Work towards the implementation of all UPR commitments: voluntary pledges, accepted and noted recommendations.
  • Collaborate with national and international partners to implement UPR recommendations.
  • Write a mid-term report to update national and international actors on progress.

Recommending States

  • Consult with civil society organizations to collect information before, during and after the UPRs of the States under review.
  • Make SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound) recommendations to facilitate implementation and reiterate recommendations from the previous cycle that have not been implemented.
  • Follow up on recommendations during the implementation period by not only collecting information about implementation, but also offering technical or financial assistance.

Civil Society Organizations

  • Work in coalitions with other human rights defenders to increase impact and efficiency through the sharing of resources and knowledge.
  • Monitor implementation and write a mid-term report. When possible, work with the government to ensure that implementation of recommendations is effective and sustainable.
  • Raise awareness about the government’s commitments at the national level and involve recommending states in implementation activities.
  • NHRIs bring the government together with civil society organizations before, during and after the review to encourage a collaborative approach to the UPR process.
  • Provide information about UPR implementation at the national and international levels through mid-term reports and awareness-raising activities. United Nations entities.
  • Incorporate the UPR commitments into thematic, regional, and country activities.
  • Work with national actors (the State, civil society and the NHRI) and international actors (other UN offices, international organizations, and recommending states) to increase the impact of implementation.

7. Critical Assessment

States’ reaction to recommendations

UPR Info identifies over half of the recommendations rejected as requiring the most action to be taken and therefore with the greatest value from the perspective of actual improvement in the human rights situation. Moreover, as pointed out by the NGO International Service for Human Rights (ISHR), a further unsatisfactory custom apparent amongst some of the SuRs has been that in order to avoid criticism, they advise that implementation is underway. This means that while the recommendation “enjoys the support” of the SuR, it is not registered as having been accepted by the State.

Emma Hickey points to some examples of reactions of SuRs to recommendations:

“SuRs have invoked a whole host of reasons for defending their rejection of certain recommendations. Iran, for example, stated that it considered 28 of the recommendations submitted to be inconsistent with Resolution 5/1, or not to be internationally recognised human rights, or not in conformity with its existing laws, pledges and commitments. Gambia used an argument based on traditional values to reject a recommendation that it decriminalise homosexuality. And in the most extreme case of all, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea rejected outright all of the 50 recommendations submitted, and merely took note of the remaining 117 that it had left for consideration.” [footnotes omitted]

The Imprecise Nature of Recommendations

Aside from the difficulties in encouraging states to actually accept concrete recommendations, another obstacle hampering implementation of reform is the imprecision of many of the recommendations. Jean-Louis Roy argues that “during the first cycle, encouragements, general suggestions, comments and recommendations were all mixed up. Recommendations were even accepted despite the fact that they contradicted the states’ international human rights obligations. That way of doing things is unacceptable. It led to the multiplication of recommendations so vaguely worded that their implementation is unverifiable.”

The Difficulty in Evaluating Implementation

In addition to the problem of following up vague recommendations, there is no system to measure even those that require specific action. The UN, and in particular the OHCHR, currently does not have the resources to undertake such a mammoth task and thus the process is very much reliant on the cooperation of the States themselves and the pressure of civil society.

Nonetheless, the UPR Info study shows that 48 percent of UPR recommendations triggered action by midterm, meaning that the recommendations were either fully or partially implemented only 2.5 years after the initial review. The regional group that was most successful at midterm is the Eastern European group, while some difficulties were perceived in Asia. The initial response of the State under review to the recommendations, accepted or noted, influenced the implementation of the recommendations in favour of accepted recommendations, with 55 percent of accepted recommendations triggering action by mid-term. However, 19 percent of noted recommendations also triggered action by midterm, indicating that noted recommendations should not be disregarded in the implementation phase. Issues such as women’s rights, international instruments, and children’s rights had the overall highest number of recommendations that triggered action, but the issues with the highest percentage of implementation within the issue categories were HIV-Aids, human trafficking, and people with disabilities.

8. Summary

The UPR is a State-driven, peer-review process, carried out under the supervision of the Human Rights Council. It provides an opportunity for each State to outline what actions it has taken to improve the human rights situation and to fulfil its human rights obligations.

A unique three dimensional approach was adopted in which three documents had to be submitted to the HRC at least six weeks in advance of the review namely:

  1. A report prepared by the state containing a self-assessment of its own human rights situation not exceeding 20 pages;
  2. A compilation of information from the OHCHR in relation to the Treaty Bodies and Special Procedures not exceeding 10 pages;
  3. Additional, reliable and credible information provided by other relevant stakeholders (e.g. NHRIs and NGOs) in reports and summarized by the OHCHR in not more than 10 pages.

Emma Hickey concludes that “UPR has the potential to serve as a mechanism through which human rights situations of concern can be addressed, and accountability and co-operation amongst States can be increased”.

In summary, in the words of UPR Info:

“Through engagement with the UPR, even more human rights progress is possible, but whereas civil society organizations have the will, they do not have the resources. And whereas states have the resources, they do not always have the will. The UPR must bridge the will and the resources – the success of the mechanism depends on it.”

you can view video on Universal Periodic Review (UPR)

Reference

  1. Universal Periodic Review of Human Rights: Towards Best Practice, Edited by Dr. Purnima Sen, Commonwealth Secretariat, 2009.
  2. Working with the United Nations Human Rights Programme; A Handbook for Civil Society, OHCHR, 2009.
  3. A Practical Guide to United Nations Universal Periodic Review, Human Rights Project at the Urban Justice Centre, January 2010.
  4. The Universal Periodic Review Information for NGOS, Fact Sheet 1, UPR-info.org
  5. ISHR, Universal Periodic Review: Examining the opportunities following the first cycle, Human Rights Monitor 2 (2012), p. 25.
  6. UPR Info, “Beyond Promises, The Impact of UPR on the Ground: Follow up Programme”, available at
  7. http://www.upr-info.org/sites/default/files/general-document/pdf/2014_beyond_promises.pdf
  8. Jean-Louis Roy, Global Observatory on HRs, 2011, “The Review of the Human Rights Council”, available at http://www.upr-epu.com/medias/The_Review_of_the_Human_Rights_Council-19_recommendations_for_a_credible,_coherent_and_efficient_system.pdf
  9. Emma Hickey, “The UN’s Universal Periodic Review: Is it Adding Value and Improving the Human Rights Situation on the Ground? A Critical Evaluation of the First Cycle and
  10. Recommendations for Reform”, ICL Journal Vol. 7, available at https://www.icl-journal.com/download/a671e91c60a30231e1067f41ba849986/ICL_Thesis_Vol_7_4_13.pdf
  11. Human Rights Watch, “Curing the Selectivity Syndrome”, available at https://www.hrw.org/report/2010/06/24/curing-selectivity-syndrome/2011-review-human-rights-council