Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Statements Human Rights Council
Address by Mr Bacre Ndiaye Director, Human Rights Procedures Division Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
01 September 2006
Share
United Nations Human Rights Council: Informal Seminar on the Human Rights Country Situations and the Universal Periodic Review
Geneva, 28 August 2006
Excellencies,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I am very pleased to participate in this important discussion which, I am convinced, will contribute solid scaffolding to bolster the modus operandi of the Human Rights Council.
Our overall aim should be directing efforts and resources to help fill implementation gaps which impair and prevent the effective protection of all human rights on the ground
To better serve this purpose, it is important to maximize resources and methods so as to attain synergy, rather than overlap, among the human rights mechanisms. The Universal Periodic Review was conceived precisely to complement the work of the Treaty Bodies and special procedures. Collectively, the interaction and combined outcomes of these three sets of protection mechanisms are designed to help—and when necessary persuade—States to fulfil their human rights obligations and responsibilities, and to offer a comprehensive understanding of country situations.
A considerable amount of thought has already been devoted to grapple with the UPR’s lineaments and methods of work; States in a variety of groups and fora have already covered much ground in developing the options and laying the groundwork for the debate to come. Let me now offer some observations drawn from reflections and discussions that OHCHR for its part has conducted on this challenging issue.
The UPR’s crucial elements reside in the universality of its coverage and equal treatment of all member States of the United Nations with a view of providing not only an overall picture of the human rights situation in a country, but also and crucially, constructive, practical and actionable recommendations. In and of themselves, these ambitions are daunting but attainable. To make the magnitude of the review task manageable, an incisive, lean, equitable, and interactive review process should be put in place. Various formulas have been proposed and are currently debated. All these visions have merits and present challenges. In the end, the solution that will emerge should be inclusive, result-oriented, well structured and transparent.
No matter what kind of technical shape the UPR will take, I believe that some key elements presented in the debate should be preserved. One of them remains of paramount importance for the success and effectiveness of the UPR: the willingness of countries under review to be open to genuine scrutiny which, in turn, guides remedial action. Countries should be assessed on the basis of existing human rights instruments, treaties and other obligations, as well as the 2005 Summit Outcome Document and States’ voluntary pledges and commitments to the Human Rights Council. The outcome of such a structured, interlocutory process should both yield a full factual picture of a country’s human rights situation, and prompt states to take ownership of the process. At the same time, the review could help to identify and help address gaps that may require concerted efforts to improve protection capacity.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
The Human Rights Council has a precise stake in ensuring, to the fullest extent possible, universal coverage of human rights issues while focusing on those human rights situations that warrant special attention. To this effect, special procedures mandate holders provide the indispensable universal scrutiny that helps to identify and address such situations.
Their independent and impartial vigilance ensures that a broad spectrum of rights affecting all groups is constantly monitored. Their contribution has helped shape a culture of rights in many countries and has seen them as first responders in human rights crises since they can be easily activated and dispatched. Crucially, mandate holders contribute to increase the understanding of all stakeholders of how human rights norms are applied in practice on the ground. This ability to provide practical information based on directly observed situations or diligently researched data and public reports complement the work of other human rights institutions. Moreover, mandate holders can identify emerging trends and areas in need of improvement in relation to thematic issues or countries visited. They can also provide thematic expertise and advice for capacity building in the field of human rights.
Thematic mandates can broadly reflect the equal importance of civil and political, and economic, social and cultural rights and attempt to ensure that there is balanced geographic coverage. At the same time, there is a need to help identify gaps in protection, for example in relation to specific groups of persons, or specific countries that present major challenges. In order to support this universal coverage and close any protection gap, the Human Rights Council could encourage States to increase their cooperation, and to regularly extend invitations, in particular standing invitations, to mandate holders.
It follows that the special procedures can and should be helpful to the Universal Periodic Review. The UPR could not only make use of their findings, conclusions and recommendations, but also ensure that mandate holders are involved in its deliberations and are closely associated with any follow-up.
Further interaction and closer coordination could also be encouraged between different mandate holders. Good practices in this area already exist, and include joint visits, joint communications and joint reports. To facilitate internal communication and collaboration, mandate holders have established a Coordination Committee at their annual meeting in 2005. For its part, the OHCHR has already undertaken internal measures to harmonize and streamline the work of special procedures to ensure its maximum efficiency and visibility. We will continue to do our utmost to provide and enhance support to the special procedures and to facilitate and contribute to the discussion and reflection process.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
To promote implementation of human rights obligations at the national level, let me recall the importance of the reporting system to the Treaty Bodies that has stimulated the creation of domestic constituencies for human rights. The process of reporting provides a platform for national dialogue on human rights among the various stakeholders, and an opportunity for public scrutiny of government policies. The recommendations contained in the concluding observations offer a framework for joint action by Governments, United Nations entities, civil society and others, while the views adopted in individual complaints procedures have often resulted in individual relief for victims. The work of treaty bodies has furnished direct input to the development of new laws, policies and programs. National and regional courts also refer to the jurisprudence of treaty bodies developed through the consideration of individual complaints and reports.
However, it is almost universally acknowledged that the system faces significant challenges, not least because many States parties fail to report in a timely fashion, or at all. Good progress has been made in addressing these challenges over the last four years. The seven committees have intensified efforts to coordinate their working methods and activities, with the Inter-Committee and Chairpersons’ meetings being key in this context. The acceptance of the guidelines on the common core document and treaty-specific documents and their implementation by the treaty bodies should result in simplified reporting requirements.
By making the system more predictable, and by enabling the existing committees and those which will be created in the future to function in a unified manner, as well as facilitating reporting, particularly by small States, these measures can also help the UPR process.
In sum, we are in the process of updating and upgrading the human rights machinery. This is an effort that requires the efficient use of all the tools at our disposal. It also requires an investment in imagination and a clear sense of historical achievements upon which to build our future work.
Geneva, 28 August 2006
Excellencies,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I am very pleased to participate in this important discussion which, I am convinced, will contribute solid scaffolding to bolster the modus operandi of the Human Rights Council.
Our overall aim should be directing efforts and resources to help fill implementation gaps which impair and prevent the effective protection of all human rights on the ground
To better serve this purpose, it is important to maximize resources and methods so as to attain synergy, rather than overlap, among the human rights mechanisms. The Universal Periodic Review was conceived precisely to complement the work of the Treaty Bodies and special procedures. Collectively, the interaction and combined outcomes of these three sets of protection mechanisms are designed to help—and when necessary persuade—States to fulfil their human rights obligations and responsibilities, and to offer a comprehensive understanding of country situations.
A considerable amount of thought has already been devoted to grapple with the UPR’s lineaments and methods of work; States in a variety of groups and fora have already covered much ground in developing the options and laying the groundwork for the debate to come. Let me now offer some observations drawn from reflections and discussions that OHCHR for its part has conducted on this challenging issue.
The UPR’s crucial elements reside in the universality of its coverage and equal treatment of all member States of the United Nations with a view of providing not only an overall picture of the human rights situation in a country, but also and crucially, constructive, practical and actionable recommendations. In and of themselves, these ambitions are daunting but attainable. To make the magnitude of the review task manageable, an incisive, lean, equitable, and interactive review process should be put in place. Various formulas have been proposed and are currently debated. All these visions have merits and present challenges. In the end, the solution that will emerge should be inclusive, result-oriented, well structured and transparent.
No matter what kind of technical shape the UPR will take, I believe that some key elements presented in the debate should be preserved. One of them remains of paramount importance for the success and effectiveness of the UPR: the willingness of countries under review to be open to genuine scrutiny which, in turn, guides remedial action. Countries should be assessed on the basis of existing human rights instruments, treaties and other obligations, as well as the 2005 Summit Outcome Document and States’ voluntary pledges and commitments to the Human Rights Council. The outcome of such a structured, interlocutory process should both yield a full factual picture of a country’s human rights situation, and prompt states to take ownership of the process. At the same time, the review could help to identify and help address gaps that may require concerted efforts to improve protection capacity.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
The Human Rights Council has a precise stake in ensuring, to the fullest extent possible, universal coverage of human rights issues while focusing on those human rights situations that warrant special attention. To this effect, special procedures mandate holders provide the indispensable universal scrutiny that helps to identify and address such situations.
Their independent and impartial vigilance ensures that a broad spectrum of rights affecting all groups is constantly monitored. Their contribution has helped shape a culture of rights in many countries and has seen them as first responders in human rights crises since they can be easily activated and dispatched. Crucially, mandate holders contribute to increase the understanding of all stakeholders of how human rights norms are applied in practice on the ground. This ability to provide practical information based on directly observed situations or diligently researched data and public reports complement the work of other human rights institutions. Moreover, mandate holders can identify emerging trends and areas in need of improvement in relation to thematic issues or countries visited. They can also provide thematic expertise and advice for capacity building in the field of human rights.
Thematic mandates can broadly reflect the equal importance of civil and political, and economic, social and cultural rights and attempt to ensure that there is balanced geographic coverage. At the same time, there is a need to help identify gaps in protection, for example in relation to specific groups of persons, or specific countries that present major challenges. In order to support this universal coverage and close any protection gap, the Human Rights Council could encourage States to increase their cooperation, and to regularly extend invitations, in particular standing invitations, to mandate holders.
It follows that the special procedures can and should be helpful to the Universal Periodic Review. The UPR could not only make use of their findings, conclusions and recommendations, but also ensure that mandate holders are involved in its deliberations and are closely associated with any follow-up.
Further interaction and closer coordination could also be encouraged between different mandate holders. Good practices in this area already exist, and include joint visits, joint communications and joint reports. To facilitate internal communication and collaboration, mandate holders have established a Coordination Committee at their annual meeting in 2005. For its part, the OHCHR has already undertaken internal measures to harmonize and streamline the work of special procedures to ensure its maximum efficiency and visibility. We will continue to do our utmost to provide and enhance support to the special procedures and to facilitate and contribute to the discussion and reflection process.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
To promote implementation of human rights obligations at the national level, let me recall the importance of the reporting system to the Treaty Bodies that has stimulated the creation of domestic constituencies for human rights. The process of reporting provides a platform for national dialogue on human rights among the various stakeholders, and an opportunity for public scrutiny of government policies. The recommendations contained in the concluding observations offer a framework for joint action by Governments, United Nations entities, civil society and others, while the views adopted in individual complaints procedures have often resulted in individual relief for victims. The work of treaty bodies has furnished direct input to the development of new laws, policies and programs. National and regional courts also refer to the jurisprudence of treaty bodies developed through the consideration of individual complaints and reports.
However, it is almost universally acknowledged that the system faces significant challenges, not least because many States parties fail to report in a timely fashion, or at all. Good progress has been made in addressing these challenges over the last four years. The seven committees have intensified efforts to coordinate their working methods and activities, with the Inter-Committee and Chairpersons’ meetings being key in this context. The acceptance of the guidelines on the common core document and treaty-specific documents and their implementation by the treaty bodies should result in simplified reporting requirements.
By making the system more predictable, and by enabling the existing committees and those which will be created in the future to function in a unified manner, as well as facilitating reporting, particularly by small States, these measures can also help the UPR process.
In sum, we are in the process of updating and upgrading the human rights machinery. This is an effort that requires the efficient use of all the tools at our disposal. It also requires an investment in imagination and a clear sense of historical achievements upon which to build our future work.