Human Rights Council holds general debate on Universal Periodic Review

Human Rights Council
AFTERNOON 16 March 2012

The Human Rights Council this afternoon held a general debate on the Universal Periodic Review, in which speakers agreed that the focus now was on the implementation of the accepted commitments and in making the process less burdensome through reducing the number of recommendations and by ensuring they were precise, practical and implementable.

Delegations further noted that this mechanism had encouraged States to improve their human rights records in line with their national and international commitments.  It had created a desired environment of openness and a platform for constructive dialogue and allowed for frank, open and inclusive discussion.  The success of the Universal Periodic Review could be attributed to the equal treatment of all States which had been measured with the same yardstick.  Now was the time to strengthen this mechanism by focusing on follow-up measures which had real impact on the ground.  The second cycle would really test the value and credibility of the Universal Periodic Review mechanism, speakers said, agreeing that it should be guided in a transparent, cooperative and non politicized manner.  The second cycle should also consider the effectiveness of the implementation of accepted recommendations and focus on sharing best practices so that all States could benefit and improve.  

The exercise of naming and shaming should be purged as it represented a barrier in addressing real challenges in the realization of all human rights, a speaker noted.  Several countries encouraged more meaningful participation of national human rights institutions and civil society organizations in the Universal Periodic Review process.  Technical assistance by the international community would be of great importance to States that participated in the process in a sincere manner despite human rights challenges they faced.  States need to stop all acts of reprisals on individuals and civil society actors that cooperated with the Human Rights Council and United Nations human rights mechanisms.  This was an absolute prerequisite for the effective functioning of the Council, its mechanisms and the United Nations system as a whole.  

Speaking in the general debate on the Universal Periodic Review were Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, Denmark on behalf of the European Union, Algeria on behalf of 40 countries, the Russian Federation, United States, Spain, Republic of Moldova, Cuba, Hungary, Costa Rica, the Czech Republic, Bangladesh, Uruguay, Colombia, Azerbaijan, Morocco, Slovenia, Sudan, Bahrain, Portugal, and the Republic of Korea.  Council of Europe and the Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie took the floor, as did the following non-governmental organizations: International Service for Human Rights, Action Canada for Population and Development, United Nations Watch and Sudwind.

The Council will resume its work at 10 a.m. on Monday, 19 March to start its consideration of reports of the High Commissioner and the Secretary-General on the human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories.

General Debate on the Universal Periodic Review

Pakistan, on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, said that the success of the Universal Periodic Review could be attributed to equal treatment of all States which had been measured with the same yardstick.  This mechanism had encouraged States to improve their human rights records in line with their national and international commitments.  The basic idea behind the Universal Periodic Review was to guide States in the promotion and protection of human rights and not to load them with a long list of recommendations.  The second cycle should be guided in a transparent and non politicized manner, taking into account national realities.

Denmark, on behalf of the European Union, said that it was now up to the Council and the States to make a difference on the ground through meaningful implementation of recommendations; this would be a litmus test for the subsequent cycles.  The European Union welcomed all voluntary commitments by States and encouraged more meaningful participation of national human rights institutions and civil society organizations in the Universal Periodic Review process.  States needed to stop all acts of reprisals on individuals and civil society actors who cooperated with the Human Rights Council and United Nations human rights mechanisms.

Algeria, on behalf of 40 States, said that the Universal Periodic Reivew process should not be overly burdensome and should be conducted in a transparent, constructive and non-politicized manner to give States the best chance to successfully implement the recommendations.  The Group of 40 States voluntarily committed themselves to exercise restraint on the number of recommendations and to make a maximum of two per State to bring the total number of recommendations to a manageable level; to always give high quality recommendations by ensuring they were precise, practical and implementable; and to continue to support the Universal Periodic Review as a unique and universal mechanism which allowed for an open dialogue on human rights.

Russian Federation said that over the past four years the Universal Periodic Review had been a unique mechanism for the promotion of human rights.  The effectiveness of the Universal Periodic Review was guaranteed by objectiveness and universality and should not be transformed into a review of human rights dominated by topical ideas.  The next cycle of the review should consider the effectiveness of the implementation of accepted recommendations.  The Russian Federation had already begun an interim report on the adoption of its accepted recommendations.

United States said it was heartened that a number of States had gone beyond the minimum requirements of the Universal Periodic Review Process and had integrated it into ongoing domestic efforts to promote human rights.  States should promote the increased involvement of civil society in the review.  The United States was pleased that as a result of the 2011 review, new procedures for determining Working Group speaker lists would now deliver on the promise of universal participation.  A randomly determined order of speakers would contribute to the overall credibility of the process.  

Spain said that the second cycle of the Universal Periodic Review should focus on sharing best practices so that all States could benefit and improve their reports.  The Government of Spain had sent to the Office of the High Commissioner a follow-up report on the implementation of accepted recommendations.  Spain had signed the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the third Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.  Spain had worked hard for the abolition of the death penalty and had introduced new regulations on foreign minors to foster their inclusion into society.  

Republic of Moldova said the Republic of Moldova’s submission to the Universal Periodic Review and the adoption of the report by the Council was an enriching, introspective exercise.  It was an opportunity to take stock of the human rights situation in the country and demonstrate the Government’s commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights.  The Republic of Moldova had benefitted greatly from the experience.  It had accepted a total of 122 recommendations, of which only five were accepted partially.  The second cycle of the Universal Periodic Review should concentrate on the implementation of recommendations, which would lead to the mobilization of national institutions.  

Cuba said that with the adoption of the report on Antigua and Barbuda, the Council had completed the first cycle of the Universal Periodic Review.  No one could question its usefulness, although the Council had not eliminated selectivity and politicization.  The Universal Periodic Review had shown itself to be a productive and useful tool.  The vast majority of States were in favour of preserving and consolidating its functions.  Improving the institutional capacity of the High Commissioner’s Office was needed in order to provide prompt responses to the needs of States.  

Hungary said the Universal Periodic Review had the potential to make a real difference on the ground if recommendations were implemented.  Since its principles were applicable to all Member States without discrimination, the Universal Periodic Review was a real success story.  It allowed for frank, open and inclusive discussions.  Hungary considered its Universal Periodic Review as the beginning of a long-term engagement to strengthen its human rights record.  Fighting against reprisals against individuals or groups who cooperated with the United Nations was an absolute prerequisite for the effective functioning of the Council, its mechanisms and the United Nations system as a whole.  

Costa Rica said that the Universal Periodic Review provided a real impetus to the development of human rights and national institutions.  Costa Rica had established a permanent unit for consultation to ensure direct and effective participation of civil society for more effective implementation of the accepted recommendations. Costa Rica was taking all the recommendations in a serious manner, especially those related to vulnerable categories and combating discrimination in the country.  

Czech Republic underlined the importance of the effective implementation of the Universal Periodic Review recommendations which included the reconsideration of those recommendations that had been rejected.  In the Czech Republic, efforts were ongoing to eliminate discrimination against the Roma minority and to combat social exclusion; the general inspection of security forces was established; and the National Strategy for the Protection of the Rights of Children was adopted in 2012.

Bangladesh said that the Universal Periodic Review had created a desired environment of openness and a platform for constructive dialogue.  The promotion and protection of human rights should be based on the principles of cooperation and genuine dialogue and should aim to strengthen capacities of Member States to comply with their human rights.  In Bangladesh the process had enhanced the awareness of human rights and strengthened the efforts in their realization.  The exercise of naming and shaming should be purged as it represented a barrier in addressing real challenges in the realization of all human rights.

Uruguay said that the Universal Periodic Review had successfully completed its first cycle and hoped that the second cycle would be geared toward a further embedding of human rights.  Uruguay valued those recommendations that made it possible to improve the human rights situation on the ground and which ensured full cooperation with the Office of the High Commissioner.  Uruguay had accepted all 88 recommendations and in 2011 had established an inter-ministerial commission to follow-up on the recommendations.  In June 2012 the Government would present a mid-term report on the status of the recommendations.  

Colombia said that the voluntary commitments it had made in its first cycle would contribute in a positive way to the second cycle.  Colombia had implemented specific actions and programmes to promote the rights of persons of African descent, persons with disabilities, minorities and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons.  Law 1453 criminalized behaviours that violated trade union freedoms.  The Government had developed on a protection programme for human rights and land defenders which Colombia hoped would cover up to 400 defenders.  

Azerbaijan said the Universal Periodic Review process had improved the human rights situation in a number of countries because it was based on open dialogue.  States under review should focus exclusively on the human rights situation in their own territories and not accuse other States of violations which only increased polarization in the Universal Periodic Review process.  Azerbaijan hoped its mid-term update would help consolidate human rights in the country.  

Morocco said all United Nations members had had their situations scrutinized according to the Universal Periodic Review and thus it was possible to say it had been a success story.  The fact that members were preparing for their second Universal Periodic review reflected their great engagement.  One weak point was technical assistance and capacity building.  Donor countries should strengthen their support to the Assistance Fund for the Universal Periodic Review.  The High Commissioner for Human Rights should also facilitate better access to the Fund and develop clear modalities so that States could benefit from it.  

Slovenia said that as part of the follow-up to the recommendations in its Universal Periodic Review report, in 2010 the Government had adopted the National Programme of Measures for Roma and passed a law regulating the status of the so-called erased persons.  In 2011, the Slovenian Parliament adopted a Declaration on the Situation of Persons Belonging to Ethnic Groups from the Former Yugoslavia.  A new Family Code was adopted by Parliament, equalizing same-sex partnerships with the union between a woman and a man.  It was a positive sign for the fight for gender equality that almost 36 per cent of all members of Parliament were now women.  

Sudan said Sudan looked forward to the second cycle of the Universal Periodic Review.  Sudan had given effect to 13 recommendations and had set up a National Commission for Human Rights in accordance with the highest international standards.  The Constitution contained provisions on the protection of human rights.  A conference had been organized with the United Nations Development Programme to hold a dialogue on human rights.  In order to promote peace in Darfur, the State was taking steps to promote the peace process, including the creation of a transitional authority and improvements to the judiciary to prevent impunity.    

Bahrain said that the Universal Periodic Review was an ongoing process which excluded discrimination.  Bahrain had constantly striven to implement the accepted recommendations in association with all stakeholders, governmental and civil society organizations.  The Universal Periodic Review presented challenges but it was also an opportunity to improve human rights.  

Portugal made a very positive assessment of the first cycle of the Universal Periodic Review which had put human rights on top of national agendas.  The challenge for the future was the implementation and monitoring of the commitments.  Portugal had accepted 86 out of 89 recommendations which demonstrated its commitment to the process.  The implementation of those recommendations was as priority for the country and gave impetus to the cooperation between the Government and civil society actors.

Republic of Korea said that the Universal Periodic Review mechanism had raised the level of cooperation between Member States and gave them tools to improve their own human rights situation through dialogue with their peers.  Now was the time to strengthen this mechanism by focusing on follow up measures which had real impact on the ground.  The second cycle would really test the value and credibility of this mechanism.  The technical assistance by international community would be of great importance to States that participated in the process in a sincere manner despite the challenges they faced.

Council of Europe said there was a gradual tendency towards a better balance between civil and political rights on one side and economic, social and cultural rights on the other in the Universal Periodic Review process.  The European Convention of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights were the essential benchmarks in the assessment of the human rights performance of European countries.  The Council of Europe praised the Republic of Moldova and Georgia for organizing Universal Periodic Review workshops on strengthening national implementation of recommendations.  

Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie said that it had held three international seminars in 2008, 2010 and 2011 on the Universal Periodic Review that had established a high level multi-stakeholder dialogue to bring together Government representatives and civil society organizations.  Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie would continue to support States and national human rights institutions in their implementation of accepted recommendations and in March it would host another conference with the Mission of Thailand on best practices in implementation to support the second cycle.

International Service for Human Rights said that the second cycle of the Universal Periodic Review should pay systematic attention to reprisals, harassment or intimidation against those who cooperated with the Human Rights Council and United Nations human rights mechanisms.  In future cycles, both the stakeholder summary and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights compilation should be presented orally during the Universal Periodic Review Working Group.  There should be an improvement in the quality of questions and recommendations.

Action Canada for Population and Development said it was not helpful to focus exclusively on the accepted recommendations from the first cycle.  Many types and forms of violations were not addressed consistently or rejected outright.  States reviewed at the beginning of the first session received fewer recommendations than those reviewed later.    

United Nations Watch was deeply concerned about the reviews of the worst abusers.  Placing on record many false statements harmed the cause of human rights.  This provided a seal of international legitimacy used gleefully by repressive regimes.

Verein Sudwind Entwicklungspolitick hoped for more vigorous and powerful reviews with more targeted questions and realistic recommendations.  Important human rights issues remained unmentioned.  Final reports should focus on issues not already covered by treaty bodies.