Universal Periodic Review & Special Procedure Mechanisms

By

Subhas Gujadhur

Director, Universal Rights Group

In 2007, the Council adopted its "Institution-building package"to guide its work and set up its procedures and mechanisms

The package is made up of three components:1) The Universal Periodic Review (UPR)2) The Advisory Committee3) The Complaint Procedure

UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW

The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) was created through the UN General Assembly on 15 March 2006 by Resolution 60/251.

Under the auspices of the Human Rights Council, the UPR is a unique, State-driven process which involves a voluntary periodic review of the human rights records of all 193 UN Member States.

UPR is based on the principles of the UN Charter, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the human rights instruments to which the state under review is party.

Currently, no other universal mechanism of this kind exists.

UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW

Ultimate Aim:To improve the human rights situation in all countries andaddress human rights violations wherever they occur.

The Sessions:According to the Human Rights CouncilΩs άinstitution-building packageέ,

the UPR Working Group would hold three two-week sessions per yearduring which each session would see 16 counties reviewed.

The reviews are conducted by the UPR Working Group which consists of the 47 members of the Council. Each review would be facilitated by groups of three States, or άtroikasέ, who act as rapporteurs.

By October 2011, the UPR Sessions had reviewed the human rights records of all 193 UN Member States.

UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW

On what documents is the Review based?The documents on which the reviews are based are:

1) Information prepared by the State concerned;

2) Information contained in the reports of treaty bodies,special procedures;

3) Information provided by άother relevant stakeholdersέ.

UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW

What happens next?Having accepted any recommendations made during the Final Outcome,

the State is chiefly responsible for the implementation of these recommendations.

The UPR ensures that all countries are accountable for progress or failure in implementing these recommendations.

If necessary, the Council will address cases where States are not co-operating.

Important fact about the UPR MechanismAfter the first four year UPR Cycle is completed, the Council will review

the process to identify best practices and lessons learnt.

UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW

It is a on-going process made up of 4 phases:1. Phase 1: This part of the process aims at developing the information

needed for the review. (SuRs must describe their human rights framework as well as implementation practice and challenges in a report prior to their review.)

2. Phase 2 of the process contains the reporting that the State under Review (SuR) as well as other national stakeholders engage in and submit to the OHCHR.

3. Phase 3 describes the international review sessions (including inter-state dialogue in the Working Group and the HRC Plenary Session) which take place at the UN Premises in Geneva. (During this phase the SuR must listen to comments, questions and recommendations relating to reports, and subsequently state which recommendations it supports)

4. During Phase 4, the state should ensure that it implements the recommendations it accepted from the UPR Process in Geneva.

UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW

STATE

Phase 1: National

Consultations

Phase 2: International

Reporting

Phase 3: International

Review

Phrase 4: National

Implementation

NGOsGOs

NHNRIs

Special Proceduresprocedures

NHRIHRC

WG

NGOs

OHCHR

CIVIL SOCIETY

Resolution 16/21 of the HRC

All states are encouraged to proceed to larger National consultations involving a wider range of stakeholders.

All states are encouraged to submit a mid-term report to the HRC, inclusive of recommendations to improve, develop and advance the UPR Process.

All states can ask the UN at a national or regional level ,to help with the implementation of recommendations made during the state reviews. The HRC can be the key contact point for this issue.

THE SECOND CYCLE: FROM IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF FIRST CYCLE TO PREPARATIONS ON

SECOND CYCLE

NATIONAL PROCESS(REPORTS AND

CONSULTATIONS)

FOLLOW UP TO RECOMMENDATIONS OF

FIRST CYCLE(VOLUNTARY MID TERM REPORTS AND CONSULTATIONS)

REVIEW UNDER 2ND CYCLE

The existence of SPs has always been, and will always be, a given

• Determined stand of a group of newly independent states from Africa, Asia and the Caribbean that the ‘no power to act’ doctrine was simply not good enough

• The international community – the UN - must have the power to act in the face of grave human rights violations, such as those committed in Apartheid South Africa

• Hence: series of resolutions in the CHR and ECOSOC asserting that the UN had the authority to act on the question of ‘the violation of human rights…in all countries’, and establishing the first county SP mandates: on Apartheid South Africa

SPECIAL PROCEDURES

• since 1993, massive relative decline in country mandates compared to thematic. Thematics passed country in 1995 and today there are 39 thematic and only 13 country mandates. (Contrary to 60/251)

• Since 1967, 79 SP mandates have been established – while country mandates have been terminated on 23 occasions, thematics have only been discontinued on one occasion – with a merger in the year 2000

• So skewed growth likely to continue. URG estimates 100 mandates by 2030!

SPECIAL PROCEDURES

Profile of Mandate Holders (Jan 2014)

The ‘Lone Ranger’ syndrome

• SPs often portrayed as UN equivalent of the Long Ranger, riding in to bring justice to recalcitrant states

• Yet the reality is that the ability of a mandate-holder to secure the cooperation of a state, and the willingness of a state to work with the Special Procedures are crucial determinants of influence

• But what about when states do not do so?

• Answer: transparency and public accountability – leveraging information on standing invitations, responses to visit requests, replies to Urgent Appeals

• SP Communication report: a good example

Cooperation with Country Visit Requests by Regional Group & Standing Invitations

Petitions Flow Chart

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION

I welcome your questions and any other comments