Human Rights Council holds general debate on universal periodic review

MORNING
 
GENEVA (27 June 2016) - The Human Rights Council this morning held a general debate on the Universal Periodic Review. 
 
In the general debate, speakers underlined that the Universal Periodic Review should be conducted in an objective, non-biased, constructive, non-confrontational and non-politicized manner.  They all stressed that the implementation of recommendations was the key challenge of the Universal Periodic Review process, noting that some sort of monitoring for the implementation should be set up at the national level.  Some delegations also urged the international community to take into account different levels of development that influenced the ability of States to implement the recommendations, depending on the availability of means and resources.
 
Speaking were Qatar on behalf of the Arab Group, Netherlands on behalf of the European Union, Nauru on behalf of a group of countries, Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, Maldives, Morocco, Namibia, Georgia, China, Portugal, India, Venezuela, Sierra Leone, Iran, Samoa, Belize, Tonga, Nauru, Libya, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Uruguay, and Sudan.
 
Also taking the floor were the following non-governmental organizations: Centre for Global Nonkilling, Iraqi Development Organization, Africa Culture International, Centre catholique international de Genève, China NGO Network for International Exchanges, Sudwind Entwicklungspolitik, Americans for Democracy and Human Rights in Bahrain Inc., Alsalam Foundation, Rencontre Africaine pour la defense des droits de l’homme, United Nations Watch, International Educational Development, Association Solidarité Internationale pour l’Afrique, UPR Info, Society for Development and Community Empowerment, and International Service for Human Rights.
 
The Council will next meet at 11 a.m., to hold a general debate on the human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories. 
 
Documentation
 
The Council has before it Operations of the Voluntary Trust Fund for Participation in the Universal Periodic Review - Report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (A/HRC/32/27).
 
The Council has before it Operations of the Voluntary Fund for Financial and Technical Assistance in the implementation of the universal periodic review - Report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (A/HRC/32/28).
 
General Debate on the Universal Periodic Review
 
Qatar, speaking on behalf of the Arab Group, noted that the Universal Periodic Review was one of the main achievements of the Human Rights Council.  It was important that the international community provide mechanisms to ensure that existing human rights were upheld, to avoid confrontation, and to ensure cooperation among States.  The Arab Group urged all stakeholders to continue their work to ensure the success of the Universal Periodic Review, namely through the implementation of recommendations.
 
Netherlands, speaking on behalf of the European Union, underscored the European Union’s support for the Universal Periodic Review, which addressed all human rights and applied to all States.   It encouraged States to strengthen the focus on the implementation of Universal Periodic Review recommendations to better measure the progress made.  It remained concerned by reported incidents of reprisals towards civil society, and it called on all States to enable and encourage their legitimate participation in the Universal Periodic Review.
 
Nauru, speaking on behalf of a group of countries, thanked to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights for the assistance provided to small island countries to be able to participate in the current session of the Human Rights Council.  The Council had to address their specific development issues in order to foster discussion and cooperation with those countries.  It noted that small island countries would make sure that the promotion of human rights in those countries would be upheld, and it called on donor countries to continue providing them with assistance for all other Council sessions.
 
Pakistan, speaking on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, said that one of the successes of the Human Rights Council was the Universal Periodic Review mechanism, which was supported by the Organization’s Member States.  Recommendations made under the Universal Periodic Review should remain within reasonable expectations, and should be consistent with Review mechanisms.  The staff of the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights was thanked for its hard work.
 
Maldives welcomed the important action taken by States in voluntarily complying with the Universal Periodic Review, noting that as the second cycle came to a close, the Review had succeeded due to being a State-driven process.  Maldives was one of the world’s smallest countries, but despite that stood committed and resilient in implementing the international standards of human rights in its society.  The Universal Periodic Review would remain a strong force for the promotion of democracy if it was not used to attack countries with which other countries had differences of opinion. 
 
Morocco said the success of the Universal Periodic Review was undeniable; over the past 10 years, it had become a key plank in the human rights system.  The Review needed to be a forum for constructive dialogue; it had, among others, allowed Morocco to step up its national human rights architecture.  The international community was encouraged to use the mid-term review, which had many advantages.  The Universal Periodic Review had achieved its goal in upholding human rights and collective mobilization for human rights.
 
Namibia underlined the importance of conducting the Universal Periodic Review in a conducive, non-confrontational manner.  It reiterated the importance of the participation of all States during the actual Working Group sessions, independent of the status of the State that was being reviewed.  It urged the international community to take into account different levels of development that influenced the ability of States to implement the recommendations, depending on the availability of means and resources.
 
Georgia voiced its strong support for the Universal Periodic Review.  All actors should follow the established rules and guidelines and do their best to prevent every attempt of deviation in order to preserve the universal nature of the process.  Georgia fully acknowledged the importance of the participation of civil society at every stage of the Universal Periodic Review while assessing the situation on the ground.
 
China underlined that the Universal Periodic Review treated all countries on an equal footing and should be used as the mechanism for the promotion of human rights in all States.  It should be conducted in an objective, non-biased, constructive and non-politicized manner.  China reiterated its intention to continue conducting constructive dialogue with all countries in order to promote and protect human rights.
 
Portugal stated that its universal and equal treatment of all countries made the Universal Periodic Review the right kind of mechanism to promote human rights worldwide.  One of the main challenges was the follow-up to the implementation of recommendations.   Portugal supported the traffic light system in order to ensure the implementation element.   The implementation of recommendations in Portugal was ensured by Parliament. 
 
India said the Universal Periodic Review was a unique mechanism which set the Human Rights Council apart from its predecessor.  It was in the international community’s collective interest to keep the process relevant.  India remained appreciative of the Office’s technical support for capacity building, and reiterated that continued success depended on adherence to rules and regulations of the Universal Periodic Review process.  India intended to remain an active participant.
 
Venezuela said the Universal Periodic Review had shown effectiveness in the promotion and protection of human rights.  Under the principle of universality, the Review was an exercise among equals whose success depended on its universal nature and which covered the interdependence of all human rights, including the right to development.  Venezuela rejected the imposition of interference in mechanisms and procedures promoted by some powers, allegedly to address human rights situations in sovereign States.
 
Sierra Leone called for a thorough evaluation of the results and impact of the Universal Periodic Review during its first two terms.  The next cycle should look closely at the implementation of legislation emanating from Universal Periodic Review recommendations.  It would be useful for States to prioritize the accepted recommendations and classify them into short-, medium- and long-term when preparing amendments to Universal Periodic Review reports. 
 
Iran said the Universal Periodic Review sought to ensure universality, objectivity, non-selectivity and impartiality in the work of the Council.  It was a transparent mechanism based on cooperation, interactive dialogue and equal treatment of all States.  Iran underlined the importance that all Member States continued supporting this mechanism, and should observe its constructive and healthy atmosphere. 
 
Samoa said that it had set up a national monitoring framework, including a sustainable website application, to coordinate its reporting and implementation obligations.  Samoa welcomed the continuous assistance by the Universal Periodic Review Working Group and by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to all Pacific island developing States in furtherance of their obligations on human rights issues. 
 
Belize said that its participation in the Universal Periodic Review had provided an unparalleled opportunity to assess its human rights situation.  Although Belize was not in a position to submit a mid-term intervention, it explained that it had recently ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances, the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness and the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. 
 
Tonga acknowledged the Voluntary Assistance Trust Fund, which had facilitated the participation of small island countries in the current session of the Human Rights Council.  Tonga supported the Universal Periodic Review as a mechanism that enabled the promotion and protection of human rights at the national and international level.  Tonga had made progress in gender equality, access to health and education, but it would not stop there.
 
Nauru noted that to date it had made considerable progress in legislative reforms concerning child protection and welfare, abolition of the death penalty, family protection and violence against women, and the fight against torture.  It would continue upholding human rights despite limited resources.  Nauru called on the international community and all donor States to continue supporting its representation at the United Nations.
 
Libya highly appreciated the role of the Universal Periodic Review in the cooperation and exchange of views among countries.  Transparency and non-selectivity should underpin that mechanism.  Libya would continue participating in the Universal Periodic Review and it would strive to implement recommendations.  The Government would be reviewing several initiatives as the outcome of those recommendations was relying on the technical assistance provided by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
 
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines said it had presented its second Universal Periodic Review to the Council in May 2016, and had since then established a national mechanism for reporting and follow-up on the recommendations as well as for national human rights treaty body reports.  Profound gratitude was expressed to the donors of the Trust Fund in enabling least developed countries and small island developing States’ participation in the thirty-second session.
 
Uruguay said the experience of all countries could help the international community move ahead to ensure the full enjoyment of all human rights, and underlined the important role of civil society in that process.  Uruguay had just submitted its mid-term report after its 2014 Review, which was the result of full participation, together with civil society.  The report provided details on levels of implementation.
 
Sudan expressed appreciation for the role of the Universal Periodic Review mechanism and the promotion and protection of human rights in a spirit of transparency and non-politicization.  Sudan had received 244 recommendations and accepted 139 on the basis of its second report, and the country’s final position on remaining recommendations would be reviewed and presented during the September meeting.  The importance of assistance in implementing accepted recommendations was underlined.
 
Centre for Global Nonkilling underlined the importance of the right to life, which preceded other human rights.  It called on States to uphold it in their Constitutions, and recommended that the right to life became a full chapter in Universal Periodic Review reports.  It also called for an improvement in the statistics of work casualties, presently held by the International Labour Organization. 
 
Iraqi Development Organization regretted the Yemeni Transitional Government’s inability to implement Universal Periodic Review recommendations, in particular the recommendation to ratify the Rome Statute, which was essential to establish the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court over crimes committed within Yemen.  The Council should therefore set up an independent and impartial investigation into crimes committed there, with a view to provide long-awaited redress for victims. 
 
Africa Culture International advocated for an end to violence against children worldwide, and underlined civil society’s responsibility to present concrete solutions to address this issue.  It called on human rights organizations and on organizations working on child-related issues to arrange workshops and awareness-raising campaigns for parents, local leaders and government representatives.   
 
Centre catholique international de Genève, on behalf of severals NGOs1, with expressed concern with respect to the implementation of recommendations made in the framework of the Universal Periodic Review and stressed the need for a more systematic evaluation of the status of implementation of such recommendations by the States concerned.  It called on States to institutionalize at the national level a mechanism to follow up vis-à-vis relevant ministries on the implementation of recommendations
 
China NGO Network for International Exchanges appreciated the work done by the Universal Periodic Review, but noted that it was important to see that the right to exist was stressed more, and to avoid the politicization of human rights.  The development of human rights should be looked at through a historic perspective, bearing in mind minority rights.   For example, China had provided for the rights of minorities in the area of education, such as in Tibet.
 
Sudwind Entwicklungspolitik drew attention to the problem of torture and women’s rights in Iran and its failure to ratify the Convention against Torture.  Around 1.77 per cent of women worldwide lived in countries that had not signed or ratified the Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, whereas more than 61 per cent of that population lived in Iran. 
 
Americans for Democracy and Human Rights in Bahrain Inc noted that after Saudi Arabia had received its recommendations, it had said that 88 recommendations had been implemented, but had not specified its criteria.  There was repeated oppression and assassinations carried out in Saudi Arabia, as well as threats and imprisonment of those who were activists in the field of human rights.  Capital punishment was on the increase, and minors were put to death.
 
Alsalam Foundation said Bahrain was limiting freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, and freedom of religious and cultural rights.  Bahrain was ignoring recommendations and the Kingdom had tried to entrench restrictions and make them of an institutional type.  All forms of opposition had become unlawful.  Opposition parties had been closed down.
 
Rencontre Africaine pour la défense des droits de l’homme said there was timidity in implementing recommendations in many countries.  It was vital that the Human Rights Council fully involved parliamentarians in the Universal Periodic Review process to speed up legislative reforms.  The Government of Namibia was encouraged to combat a range of human rights violations, including sexual violence, and the international community was asked to support Namibia in the mitigation of climate change.
 
United Nations Watch deplored the use of the Universal Periodic Review process for mutual praise, which only obscured human rights abuses.  It referred to the recent Universal Periodic Review of Sudan, which was congratulated by many countries for its human rights record.  It also underlined that the Universal Periodic Review was not a justification to end country-specific mandates and resolutions.
 
International Educational Development regretted that countries with little commitment to human rights could simply go their merry way during the Universal Periodic Review process.  It also regretted the lack of follow-up during reviews, and that the participation of civil society organizations was limited during the review of many developing countries. 
 
Association Solidarité Internationale pour l’Afrique regretted that Sri Lanka had rejected many recommendations during its 2012 Review, including recommendations related to the Tamil people’s right to self-determination.  It said that Tamil victims required international solidarity to refer the genocide against them to the International Criminal Court. 
 
UPR Info suggested that advance questions be introduced during the Universal Periodic Review in order to ask additional information from the State concerned, that the Universal Periodic Review reports be adopted during the last week of the Council, and that the responses to recommendations be streamlined, because too many countries had distorted the system to create new categories. 
 
Society for Development and Community Empowerment reminded that Sri Lanka had rejected 100 recommendations made during its previous Universal Periodic Review in 2012.  The Government had turned down basic recommendations focusing on the need to end impunity and investigate serious allegations of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, as well as the recommendation to strengthen relevant legislative and administrative measures to ensure transparency and non-impunity in the judicial process. 
 
International Service for Human Rights criticized the lack of follow-up mechanisms, procedural weaknesses, patchy implementation and obstacles to civil society participation in the Universal Periodic Review.  It recommended that an institutionalized reprisals mechanism be established, civil society space at the Working Group stage be ensured, as well as greater follow-up and implementation of recommendations.  
 
__________  
 
1. Joint statement: Dominicans for Justice and Peace; Company of the Daughters of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul; Edmund Rice International Limited; Fondazione Marista per la Solidarietà Internazionale ONLUS; Pax Romana (International Catholic Movement for Intellectual and Cultural Affairs and International Movement of Catholic Students); International Volunteerism Organization for Women, Education and Development – VIDES; Istituto Internazionale Maria Ausiliatrice delle Salesiane di Don Bosco; International Federation of ACAT (Action by Christians for the Abolition of Torture); New Humanity; Congregation of Our Lady of Charity of the Good Shepherd; Vie Montante International (VMI); Mouvement International d'Apostolate des Milieux Sociaux Independants; Associazione Comunita Papa Giovanni XXIII; Franciscans International; and Fracarita International.

__________

For use of the information media; not an official record