WG on UPR - Feb. 12th - AB

Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) mechanism

Monday, 12th February 2007

Palais des Nations, room XVII


ð The general purpose of this week is to discuss the modalities of the UPR mechanism, on the basis of a non-paper prepared by the Facilitator, H.E. Mr. Mohammed Loulichki, Vice-President of the Human Rights Council.


The non-paper is composed of the following chapters:

I. Basis of review

II. Principles and objectives

III. Periodicity and order of review

IV. Process and modalities of review

V. Outcome of the review

VI. Follow-up to the review


Monday morning was dedicated to the presentation of the non-paper by the Facilitator and to general comments issued by the delegations.

India, China, Malaysia, Russia, Pakistan and others emphasized the need for conducting the UPR in plenary meetings, so as to guarantee the impartiality of the process. Germany, on behalf of the European Union, and Canada argued that this would be too burdensome for the States and the Council : they proposed the process of UPR take place in reduced working groups, while only the final recommendations be adopted in plenary meetings. Guatemala and India suggested that the UPR be examined in plenary meetings in supplement of the 10 weeks ordinary sessions of the HRC, so that it does not encroach on the regular work of the HRC.
Philippines insisted that the UPR take place in “huis-clos” sessions.
Most of the States agreed that the periodicity of the review should be the same for all. However, Pakistan suggested a periodicity based on the level of development of the countries. Canada insisted that different periodicities would mean that human rights are more important in some places than in others.
China, Tunisia and Algeria proposed that each country be reviewed every 5 years (so that recommendations can be implemented effectively before the next review). Ecuador suggested a periodicity of 3 years, as well as Amnesty International, who explained that it is the only possible way of reviewing every state during its membership. Others such as Argentina, Mexico or Senegal agreed on a compromise of 4 years.
Philippines and Thailand underlined the fact that it is best to start with “rudimentary” modalities, which can be improved in subsequent years, based on experience.
China and Argentina asked that the review be only conducted if the state concerned gives its consent. Algeria said that the UPR should apply to non-HRC members on a voluntary basis.

In the afternoon, the first two chapters of the non-paper were discussed.


I. Basis of review


§ All the speaking delegations expressed their agreement with the elements of convergence regarding the basis on which the UPR should be conducted :

a) UN Charter

b) Universal Declaration of Human Rights

c) Human rights instruments to which the State is party

d) Voluntary pledges and commitments made by States, including those undertaken when presenting their candidatures for election to HRC

§ Regarding obligations arising from international humanitarian law instruments, Malaysia, Brazil, Pakistan, Algeria, Uruguay, Iran, Azerbaijan, Chile, Colombia and the human rights NGOs agreed to include them in the basis of review. Norway, Russia, Australia, USA and Indonesia refused, arguing that humanitarian law is not mentioned in resolution 60/251, is separate from other human rights and is better taken care of by other actors, such as ICRC. Germany, on behalf of EU, Switzerland and China asked for more details on what exactly is meant by the term “humanitarian law instruments”. The Facilitator concluded by saying that resolution 60/251 should not be interpreted in an “orthodox” way, and that it could possibly include humanitarian law.

§ The proposition of the Facilitator that the commitments in UN conferences and summits should also be included was refused by most of the countries. They put forward that these commitments only constituted non-binding aspirations and that considering the amount of conferences and summits taking place at the UN every year, the task of listing all the commitments would be too heavy. Moreover they said that some of these commitments could be assimilated to point d). Uruguay, Chile and Algeria agreed on including these commitments, particularly those expressed at the Vienna 1993 conference. The human rights NGOs shared this view, stressing that the UPR should not only be based on conventional law, but also on customary law.


II. Principles and objectives


§ The first point of debate was the role of the NGOs and the NHRIs during the UPR process. The non-paper suggests that there should be an “adequate participations of all relevant stakeholders, including NGOs and NHRIs”. EU, Australia, Norway, Switzerland and the human rights NGOs wanted to exchange the word “adequate”, which is too restrictive, for the word “effective”. Most states agreed on the participation of NGOs and NHRIs, but only during the report preparation phase, whereas the examination and the recommendations must be made exclusively by States. Bangladesh said that the UPR is supposed to be a review by “peers”, that is to say only by other States.

§ The proposition of the Facilitator related to the consideration of the level of development and specificities of countries was widely accepted. The phase of the UPR at which it should be taken into account was debated. Belgium, Japan, Switzerland, New Zealand suggested that it should only be considered at the last stage (redaction of recommendations), the rest of the process being the same for all countries.

§ Regarding point c) of the objectives (“enhancement of the State’s capacity and technical assistance”), Iran, China wanted to add “at the request of the State”.

§ Point j) of the objectives is to avoid “diminishing HRC’s capacity to respond to urgent human rights situations”. Iran, Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, China proposed to remove this objective, saying that emergency situations is not included in the attributions of the HRC and is better taken care of by other mechanisms, such as the complaint procedure. International Service for Human Rights indicated that the complaint procedure is intended for “gross and systematic violations” which does not mean the same as “urgent situations”. Point j) should then be maintained.