Keynote Address for the 2021 Padova Model Universal Periodic Review

H.E. Ms. Nazhat Shameem Khan, President of the Human Rights Council

Bula Vinaka and Good Afternoon,

It is my great pleasure to speak and interact with you all in advance of the Padova Model Universal Periodic Review for 2021.

By way of introduction, my name is Nazhat Shameem Khan, I am the Permanent Representative of the Republic of Fiji to the United Nations in Geneva and this year I have the great honour to serve as President of the Human Rights Council this year.

Before I begin, I would like to thank all those who are making the Padova Model UPR possible, specifically the organisers, an international team of students and former delegates, with the coordination of Professors from the Human Rights Centre at the University of Padova and the Master Degree Programme in Human Rights and Multi-Level Governance, and supported by the University of Padova’s Department of Political Science, Law and International Studies and the Archive Peace Human Rights as well as officers from the United Nations and non-governmental organizations.

This is a wonderful opportunity for the leaders of the future to immerse themselves in the Universal Periodic Review process, especially given that the UPR is a particularly effective mechanism to promote and protect human rights around the world.

If I may, I would like to provide a brief overview of the Universal Periodic Review.

As you all know, when the United Nations General Assembly established the Human Rights Council through the unanimous adoption of General Assembly resolution 60/251 in March 2006, the General Assembly also provided that the Council shall “undertake a universal periodic review” on every State’s fulfilment of its human rights obligations and commitments and “develop the modalities” for the mechanism.¹ This importantly provided for the establishment of the Universal Periodic Review and mandated that the Human Rights Council determine how the mechanism will function.

Subsequently, the Council unanimously adopted Human Rights Council resolution 5/1 in June 2007, which reiterates that the UPR should be a cooperative mechanism based on objective and reliable information and interactive dialogue and treat all States equally, with the objective of improving the human rights situation on the ground of States under Review.²

Resolution 5/1 also specifically lays out the way the UPR will function.

First, every State will undergo a Universal Periodic Review, during which the State under Review will offer an assessment of its own human rights situation while also receiving recommendations from other Member States on how to improve their human rights situation during an interactive dialogue.

Second, and following the Review, the State under Review will choose which recommendations to accept and implement. For example, a State might receive a recommendation to provide better maternal health services to disadvantaged communities in a specific region. If the State under Review accepts this recommendation, it will work to implement the recommendation through relevant government ministries and other stakeholders. If the State under Review does not accept the recommendation, it is considered “noted”.

Third, the Council will adopt the outcome of the Universal Periodic Review of the State under Review, consisting of “a summary of the proceedings of the review process”, which will have the recommendations received and accepted as well as the voluntary commitments of the State under Review.³ And, per resolution 5/1, subsequent Universal Periodic Reviews should focus, inter alia, on the implementation of the recommendations received and accepted.

As President, I can unreservedly state that the UPR has been an exceptionally effective mechanism for the promotion and protection of human rights. This is also evidenced by the fact that the mechanism will complete its third four-year cycle in January 2021, meaning that all countries will have completed three Universal Periodic Reviews by that time, and will commence its fourth four-year cycle in October-November 2022.

If I may, I would like to offer some of the reasons why I find the UPR to be a particularly effective mechanism.

First, the Universal Periodic Review provides all States with an opportunity to offer one-another recommendations on how to improve their human rights situations. As we all know, States have diverse views and priorities on human rights issues. As we also know we all have blind spots and hearing these diverse perspectives on human rights issues helps States to identify and address the areas in which they have human rights challenges.

Second, and closely related to the first reason, the Universal Periodic Review places all States on an equal footing. Indeed, all States undergo the Review process and any State may offer recommendations to any State undergoing its Review. The fact that the mechanism treats all States equally encourages less politicised discussions during Reviews and more substantive recommendations that will actually, if accepted, promote and protect human rights.

Third, the Universal Periodic Review is a cooperative mechanism that enjoys the participation and support of all States. Indeed, this buy-in ensures that States take seriously the implementation of the recommendations they accept and work in a concerted manner to improve human rights.

Given all of these advantages I strongly commend you all, organisers and participants alike, for taking the time to learn more about this mechanism. And I am eager to hear about how the model Universal Periodic Review goes.

Before concluding, if I may, I will take the opportunity to offer a two pieces of advice regarding how all participants can effectively engage with the Model Universal Periodic Review.

First, closely study the human rights challenges of the State for which you will be offering recommendations. Often times, of course, the most effective recommendations will be those that address the most pressing human rights challenges in a country.

Second, craft very specific, actionable recommendations. Instead of offering a recommendation that says “Improve educational services for children” or “Work to increase protection for the right to freedom of religion or belief”, offer recommendations that say “Increase funding for education materials to benefit students, including for school supplies and continuing education programmes for teachers, in the XYZ region of State X”  or “Coordinate a public information campaign, including via traditional media mediums like newspapers and radio as well as via emerging media, like social media, to educate the public on the importance of respect for diverse religious belief”.This will help guide States under Review to take specific actions to improve their human rights situation.

With this, I would like to wish you all the best of luck in your upcoming Model Universal Periodic Review and reiterate that I can’t wait for to hear your comments and answer your questions.

Vinaka Vakalevu and I thank you.