WG on UPR - Feb. 15th - LR&CN

Report of the Meeting of the 15th of February 10h-13h
Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review Mechanisms of the Human
Rights Council

The facilitator, the distinguished ambassador of Morocco, Mr. Mohammed Loulichki,. presented to the Members State three different options regarding the periodicity and the constitution of the Working Group (WG).


The first option:

In the first option there is three sources of information:

1) self assessment report based on standard questionnaire
2) OHCHR compilation
3) additional information by other relevant stakeholders

All information will go to the plenary of the Human Rights Council (HRC).

For the periodicity, there is two possibilities:

1) 5 years frequency, 39 countries per year review, 4 weeks of plenary meetings needed
2) 4 years frequency, 48 countries per year review, 5 weeks of plenary meetings needed


The second option:

In the second option, the sources of information are the same. However, there is an intermediary stage between the information stage and the plenary of the HRC.

Four (4) working groups (12 members per group except one with 11 members, with respect to geographical distribution, each Members State could be represented in only one working group) are involved in this intermediary stage. The question is who would make up the working group: either experts nominated by Members States or independent experts or an hybrid option.

Each working groups will report to the plenary of the HRC.

Moreover there is a choice between a specific questionnaire + response by the State concerned and a report of the review + response and commentary by the State concerned.

For the periodicity, there are two options:
1) 5 years periodicity, 39 countries per year, each WG meet for 1 week, total of 4 weeks for four WG
2) 4 years periodicity, 48 countries per year, each WG meet for 1 week, total of 4 weeks for four WG
The number of weeks of plenary meetings will depend on the time allocated for consideration and adoption of outcome by the plenary.

The third option:

In the third option, the sources of information are the same. The difference is that there would be 2 WG (24 members, 23 members) instead of 4 WG.

For the periodicity, there are two options:

1) 5 years period, 39 countries, each WG meet for 2 weeks (total 4 weeks)
2) 4 years period, 48 countries, each WG meet for 2 weeks (total 4 weeks)


The floor is now open for comments.

The USA took the floor. The representative suggested another option with only one (1) WG to conduct the UPR before its referred to the plenary of the HRC. Indeed with 4 WG meeting at the same time it would be very difficult and resources-consuming. The WG has to be made with government delegates and there is no need for independent experts.

The Facilitators added that we can not impose one approach or another concerning independent experts or governmental delegates. So we have to leave it up to the Member States.

Regarding the three options:

Colombia, Bangladesh, Algeria in the name of the African Group, Russian Federation, China, Guatemala, India, Cuba, Chile, Iran, Pakistan, Philippines, Senegal, Ghana and Malaysia favour the first option. For most of them, the reason for choosing this option is that it is a more practical and manageable option than the second option. Moreover it is less costly to conduce the review in the plenary session.

Germany in the name of the European Union, Sweden, Czech Republic, Argentina, Brazil, Norway, United Kingdom, New Zealand, Liechtenstein, Canada, Korea, Belgium, Mexico, Denmark and Ecuador favour the second option. The WG allow an interactive dialog.

Regarding experts’ issue, the Members State which chose the first option did not see the need for independent experts. The UPR is an intergovernmental process and so it has to be made by the Member State themselves.

The States which chose the second option were in favour of independent experts or an hybrid composition of experts. In their view the participation of independent experts could reduce the politicization of the HRC.


The NGO, “International Service for Human Rights” and the International Coordination of National Human Rights Institution were in favour of the second option with the participation of independent experts in the UPR. Moreover, for the process to be constructive it should be open to all stakeholders, including NGO’s.