Informal Meeting on the UPR - March 26th - JM

The issues discussed today concerned :

I. Basis of Review

States agreed to base the UPR on
- the United Nations Charter
- the UDHR
- all human rights intstruments to which a State is party
- voluntary pledges and commitments made by States, including those undertaken when presenting their candidatures for election to HRC
- international humanitarian law, as and where applicable (this element constitute a revised compromise proposal by the facilitator)
- commitments undertaken in relevant UN conferences and summits (idem)

II. Principles and Objectives

The main elements of convergence stated that UPR should :

- be a cooperative mechanism based on objective and reliable information and on interactive dialogue
- promote universality, interdependence, indivisibility and the interrelatedness of all human rights
- not to be overly burdensome to the reporting State or to the agenda of the Council
- complement and not duplicate other human rights mechanismes, thus representing an added value
- ensure equal treatment of all States
- fully involve the country under review
- be conducted in an objective, transparent, non-selective, constructive, non-confrontational and non-politicized manner
- ensure participation of all relevant stakeholders, including non-governmental organizations (NGO’s) and national human rights institutions, in accordance
- with General Assembly Res. 60/251 and ECOSOC 1996/31

III. Periodicity and Order of Review

It appeared that reviews shall begin after adoption of the UPR mechanism by the Council. It seemed to the facilitator that all member States of the Council shall be reviewed durinf thier term of membership.
Notice that the first member and observer States to be reviewed will be chosen by drawing of lots. Alphabetical order will then be applied beginning with two countries, with the exception of those who volunteer to be reviewed (= compormise proposal by the Facilitator).
The periodicity of the review will be either four years (48 countries per year) or five years (39 countries per year) to be decided. The duration of the review is three hours.

IV. Process and Modalities of Review

The review will be based on a report prepared by the State concerned on the basis of General Guidelines to be adopted by the Council, and any other information considered relevant by the State concerned. In addition, compilation by OHCHR (information contained in the reports of treaty bodies, special procedures, including observations and comments by the State concerned, and other official United Nations documents) is to take into account.

V. Outcome of the Review

Mainly, the reviewed country should be FULLY involved in the outcome. Furthermore, the State concerned should be offered the possibility to present replies to questions or issues that were not sufficiently addressed during the interactive dialogue.

VI. Follow-up of the Review

The outcome of UPR, as a cooperative mechanism, should be implemented primarily by the State concerned and, as appropriate, by other relevant stakeholders.

After exhausting all efforts to encourage a State to cooperate with the UPR mechanism, the Council will address, as appropriate, cases of persistent non-cooperation with the mechanism.

Comments.

USA insisted that the HRC should keep the outcome and the follow-up to the review as light as possible. Reports should be summaries including recommendations.
Japan stressed the importance of the follow-up system.
Algeria, in the name of the African Group, reminded that the HRC should avoid politicization in the selectivity process of the country to be reviewed and double standards as well.
UK put forward there should not be an obligation to the State to produce a report. For UK such procedure implies delays in the UPR process (there are already reports in the other review mechanisms).