WG on UPR - Feb. 13th - ALG

Report of the meeting of the 13th of February 2007, 10-13h:

Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review Mechanisms

of the Human Rights Council


The facilitator, the distinguished ambassador of Morocco, Mr. Mohammed Loulichki, divided the meeting in two sections; the first section, to discuss the periodicity and order of the review, the second section, to discuss the process and modalities of the review.


Section
Germany, speaking on behalf of the EU, Argentina, Chile, Brazil, Germany, Colombia, Norway, Canada, Switzerland, Ecuador, Mexico, UK, New Zealand, Netherlands and the Maldives are for an equal treatment of States, which means a fix periodicity (of every 3 years) for every State. They prefer a higher frequency of UPR, but a light and effective one, so that States can improve their HR situation in little steps.

But, they all agree that, to compromise, instead of 3 years, the periodicity could be of 4 years.

Germany makes the proposition to create a framework for technical assistance to support delegations that have difficulties with a high frequency of the UPR.

Brazil pledges as well for a short, continuous and effective monitoring system. To avoid selectivity and politicalization, Brazil suggests that one third of the members and two thirds of non-members are reviewed per year.


India, Guatemala, Malaysia, Russia, Azerbaijan, Cuba, China, USA, Japan and Indonesia prefer a 4 or 5-year-periodicity, but not all of them want a differentiation of developing and developed countries.

Pakistan, Bangladesh and Algeria are for different treatment according to the developing status of a country.


Thailand suggests having a 3-year periodicity for members of the Council and a 5-year-periodicity for non-members.


In the question of the order, the delegations are quite open. Often the suggestion of alphabetical order is made, but they also want to include a geographical balance and some want to give the priority to States that want to be reviewed voluntarily. Cuba has a special opinion on this, they suggest reviewing only States that are volunteer, and not according to on an alphabetical order. Some States reject the volunteer question as a whole, because it would create a lack of previsibility.



Section
Here the points of discussion are if the self-assessment report is based on a standardized or individualized questionnaire, if the UPR is conducted on a plenary meeting or in working groups, if experts and country rapporteurs should be involved and if there should be a prior review by a regional group.


On these matters we have all kinds of possibilities suggested. Often States are for a main standardized questionnaire, which can be extended by individualized questions (Philippines, Australia, Liechtenstein, Mexico and Japan).

A lot of States pronounce their wish that the review takes place in working groups (Australia, USA, Belgium, Liechtenstein, Switzerland and Japan). Some suggest to make the outcome public in the plenary, but to do the process of review in working groups (Mexico, Guatemala, Azerbaijan, Iran and Canada). Cuba is for a plenary UPR.


Malaysia, USA, Colombia, China are against involving special rapporteurs and country experts in the UPR. Australia, Germany, Belgium, Switzerland and Canada welcome them.


Concerning a prior regional review, Japan, Iran, Switzerland, Ecuador, China pronounce themselves against it. As far as I heard, nobody welcomes it.