The Universal Periodic Review

A Critical Analysis Following the First Session

A new human rights mechanism, the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) completed its first session in April and the second is currently underway at the UN in Geneva.  Like any new initiative, it can be undertaken in a spirit of good faith or stage-managed to give a favourable impression.  The UPR requires that States under Review (SuR) submit a report on the fulfillment of its human rights obligations that, along with reports of the OHCHR and stakeholders (including NGOs) forms the basis for a dialogue with the SuR, in which questions are asked and recommendations are made by member States.

SuRs trying to give good impressions tend to deal with soft issues such as education rather than hard issues such as extra-judicial killings and impunity.  There has also been a tendency for allies to avoid putting difficult questions to each other and to ask “patsy” questions that give SuR's the opportunity to showcase their positive achievements.  Nevertheless, there are always States that do ask meaningful questions to SuRs. 

Unfortunately, most of the questions asked were based on state reports.  The OHCHR and stakeholders reports were not referred to as frequently.  NGOs need to push for member states to refer to all three documents when preparing questions and recommendations.  Moreover, the questions need to be accompanied by concrete recommendations, as the SuR will examine the recommendations rather than the questions when formulating a follow-up plan of action.  Additionally, the recommendations need to be more specific, for example, “increase funding on x, y, and z by 4%”, rather than “improve work on women’s rights”.

All States referred to the fact that they had consulted widely with civil society in the preparation of their report.  While this demonstrates States understand it is necessary to consult with NGOs, some have not held valid consultations.  For example, NGOs from the Philippines revealed that their government refused to listen to them in the consultations, in fact, they used the opportunity to tell NGOs to stop complaining.  As NGOs may not speak during the UPR Session it is difficult to challenge this; however, the issue may be raised during the adoption of the report at the following Human Rights Council plenary meeting, where NGOs will enjoy (limited) speaking time.

On the positive side, although the quality of the dialogue is sometimes questionable, never before have three hours been spent focusing exclusively on the human rights situation of one country.  Under Item 4 (country specific situations) of the Human Rights Council, there are not specific recommendations for every country mentioned as there are in the UPR.  Additionally, issues have been raised in the UPR that would not be raised under Item 4, for example the Dalit issue has never been raised by a State under item 4, but was raised by 11 countries during the UPR.  Another advantage is that it is easier to hold a State to account for a promise that it has made than to a recommendation made by an expert, such as a special rapporteur.  This is good for NGOs who can publisise such promises and work on holding their governments to account.  Recommendations made that were not accepted by the SuR could also be useful as a tool of advocacy back home, raising awareness of the fact that the state is unprepared to undertake certain measures.

Burundi, Colombia and Israel will undergo the UPR in December, the deadline for NGO submissions is 14 July, 2008.  There is more information on the UPR including links to SuR reports and submission guidelines at http://www.wilpf.int.ch/humanrights/UPR_index.html

Posted by Kirsty Mckay
8 May, 2008