Universal Periodic Review

Last updated

The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is a mechanism of the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council (HRC) that emerged from the 2005 UN reform process. [1] Commonly referred to as the UPR, it was established by General Assembly resolution 60/251 of 3 April 2006, the UPR periodically examines the human rights performance of all 193 UN Member States. [2] It is intended to complement, not duplicate, the work of other human rights mechanisms, including the UN human rights treaty bodies. This is the first international human rights mechanism to address all countries and all human rights. The Working Group on the UPR, which is composed of the HRC's 47 Member States and chaired by the HRC President, conducts country reviews.

Contents

Principles and objectives

HRC Resolution 5/1 of 18 June 2007 and HRC decision 6/102 of 27 September 2007 elaborated on the UPR's functions in its first cycle from 2008 - 2012. For the second and subsequent cycles, a few amendments were introduced to the UPR by HRC Resolution 16/21 of 12 April 2011 and HRC decision 17/119 of 19 July 2011, after a review by the HRC (for further details, see HRC review process below). HRC resolution 5/1 provides that the UPR should: [3]

The objectives of the UN-UPR are: [4]

HRC resolution 16/21 further provides that the second and subsequent cycles should focus on the implementation of the accepted recommendations and the developments of the human rights situation in the State under review.

Procedure

UPR cycle

While the first UPR operated on a four-year cycle, the second was extended to four and a half years, and the third lasts five years. Forty-two States are now reviewed each year during three sessions of the HRC's Working Group on the UPR, with 14 States reviewed at each session. The HRC determined the order of review for the first UPR cycle (2008-2012) on 21 September 2007 through the drawing of lots [5] and the same order will be maintained during the second and subsequent cycles. The first order of review was instructed by the resolution 5/1 requirements [6] that all 47 member States of the HRC be reviewed during their term of membership, in addition to a few other criteria.

Basis of country reviews

The basis of country reviews is: (a) the Charter of the UN; (b) the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; (c) human rights instruments to which a State is party; and (d) voluntary pledges and commitments made by the State, including those undertaken when presenting their candidature for election to the HRC. Country reviews also take into account applicable international humanitarian law. [7]

Documentation upon which country reviews are based

Country reviews are based on three documents: [3]

In decision 6/102, the HRC provided guidelines for the preparation of information under the UPR. It specifies that States, in preparing national reports, should address/provide:

Working Group on the UPR

The Working Group on the UPR is composed by the 47 Member States of the HRC, chaired by the HRC President and conducts country reviews. The Working Group held its first review in 2008. It allocates three and a half hours to each review, 70 minutes of which is given to the State under review to discuss its domestic human rights framework, measures taken to promote and protect human rights in country, human rights issues of particular national pertinence, and steps taken to address and redress violations. It is also an opportunity for the State to present voluntary human rights pledges and commitments. An interactive dialogue of 140 minutes follows the State's presentation, during which UN member States question the State and make recommendations towards the improvement of its human rights situation and performance. It is worth noting that all 193 UN member states (both HRC members and not) can take the floor.

A wide variety of issues have been addressed during the country reviews and potentially all human rights issues could be addressed during this session. While the counting of the actual number of recommendations is complicated by the fact that they are clustered together in the Working Group report, the NGO UPR Info has calculated the first cycle of the UPR to have provided a total of 21,356 recommendations and 599 voluntary pledges. [8]

The role of the Troika and drafting of the Working Group report

Each review is facilitated by a group of three States, known as the “troika”, that serve as rapporteurs. The troika is responsible for receiving the advanced questions from UN member States to the country under review. The second role of the troika is to prepare an outcome document on the review, which includes a summary of the review proceedings, recommendations suggested by States, conclusions, and voluntary commitments presented by the State under review. The outcome document is prepared with the assistance of the UPR secretariat and the recommendations contained in the outcome of the review should preferably be clustered thematically with the full involvement and consent of the State under review and the States that made the recommendations. [9]

Adoption

Thirty minutes are allocated to the adoption of the outcome document at a later stage in the same Working Group session, during which the State under review is given a preliminary opportunity to indicate whether it supports the recommendations suggested to it by States as well as the conclusions reflected in the outcome document. Once adopted, the outcome document is transferred to the HRC for discussion and adoption in plenary. In the intervening period between the Working Group and plenary sessions, the reviewed State is expected to confirm which UPR recommendations it accepts and does not accept.

HRC plenary session

The UPR is a standing item on the HRC's agenda (item 6). At each HRC session, time is allocated to the consideration and adoption of the outcome documents transferred from the Working Group on the UPR. An hour is allocated to the adoption of each document, during which the reviewed State is offered the opportunity to present replies to questions or issues not sufficiently addressed during the interactive dialogue at the Working Group. [10] HRC member and observer States are also given the opportunity to express their views on the outcome of the review before the HRC takes action on it. [11] NHRIs with ‘A’ status [12] and NGOs in consultative status with the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) have the opportunity to make ‘general comments’ before the adoption of the outcome report. [13] This is the only opportunity for civil society to take the floor during the UPR.

Follow-up to UPR outcome

While the outcome of the review, as a cooperative mechanism, should be implemented primarily by the State concerned, States are encouraged to conduct broad consultations with all relevant stakeholders in this regard.

States are encouraged to provide the Council, on a voluntary basis, with a midterm update on follow-up to accepted recommendations. As of 20 February 2013, 28 countries so far have provided the HRC with an implementation report. [14]

According to Resolution 16/21, other relevant stakeholders are encouraged to include information on the follow-up to the preceding review in their contributions. The summary of the information provided by other relevant stakeholders should contain, where appropriate, a separate section for contributions by the national human rights institution of the State under review that is accredited in full compliance with the Paris Principles.

The Voluntary Fund for Financial and Technical Assistance, established by the Council in its resolution 6/17, should be strengthened and operationalized in order to provide a source of financial and technical assistance to help countries to implement the recommendations emanating from their review.

States may request the United Nations representation at the national or regional level to assist them in the implementation of the follow-up to their review. Financial and technical assistance for the implementation of the review should support national needs and priorities, as may be reflected in national implementation plans. [9]

The NGO UPR Info has from 2011 to 2014 undertaken 165 assessments at a two-years distance after the review in order to see how the recommendations (the main UPR outcome) are implemented, [15] and what is the real effect of the UPR on the ground. In 2012 it published its first study on the assessment of these implementations by 66 countries. A second publication followed in 2014, titled Beyond Promises, assessed 165 countries and shared best practices observed from States, NHRIs, and NGOs. A third publication, released in 2016 and dubbed The Butterfly Effect, aimed to spread UPR best practices and inspire all actors.

State non-cooperation with the UPR

After exhausting all efforts to encourage a State to cooperate with the UPR mechanism, the HRC will address, as appropriate, cases of persistent non-cooperation with the mechanism. [16]

The first case where persistent non-cooperation was discussed is Israel's UPR. Israel was not reviewed as scheduled on 29 January 2013. [17] As a consequence, the HRC discussed in March [18] and June [19] 2013 the issue of "persistent non-cooperation". Eventually, Israel resumed its cooperation with the HRC and was reviewed on 29 October 2013, [20] but the HRC missed the opportunity to define what "persistent non-cooperation" is. [21]

Stakeholders UPR contribution opportunities

The rules governing the participation of NHRIs and NGOs at the HRC, and therefore in the UPR mechanism, are prescribed by resolution 5/1, which states that their participation shall be based on the 'practices observed by the [former] Commission on Human Rights, while ensuring the most effective contribution of these entities'. [22]

While the UPR is an intergovernmental process, a number of opportunities for contribution are available to non-governmental stakeholders. These include:

HRC review process

In resolution 60/251, the General Assembly required the HRC to review and report on its work and functioning after its first five years. [23] In October 2009, the HRC established the open-ended intergovernmental working group on the review of the work and functioning of the HRC (composed by the 47 member States of the HRC) to lead its review process. [24] Chaired by the then HRC President (Ambassador Sihasak Phuangketkeow of Thailand), the Working Group met for two substantive sessions. The first Working Group session took place on 25–29 October 2010; the second session was held on 7, 17-18, and 23–24 February 2011.

On 25 March 2011, the HRC adopted as resolution 16/21 the outcome of its review of the work and functioning of the HRC, later followed by HRC decision 17/119 of 19 July 2011 with the following changes to the UPR: [25]

Related Research Articles

The United Nations Human Rights Committee is a treaty body composed of 18 experts, established by a 1966 human rights treaty, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The Committee meets for three four-week sessions per year to consider the periodic reports submitted by the 173 States parties to the ICCPR on their compliance with the treaty, and any individual petitions concerning the 116 States parties to the ICCPR's First Optional Protocol. The Committee is one of ten UN human rights treaty bodies, each responsible for overseeing the implementation of a particular treaty.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">World Evangelical Alliance</span> Global organization

The World Evangelical Alliance (WEA) is an interdenominational organization of evangelical Christian churches, serving more than 600 million evangelicals, founded in 1846 in London, England, United Kingdom to unite evangelicals worldwide. WEA is the largest international organization of evangelical churches. The headquarters are in Deerfield, Illinois, with UN offices in New York City, Geneva, and Bonn. It brings together 9 regional and 143 national evangelical alliances of churches, and over one hundred member organizations. Moreover, the WEA includes a certain percentage of individual evangelical Christian churches. As of March 2021, the Secretary General of the WEA is German theologian Thomas Schirrmacher.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United Nations Human Rights Council</span> United Nations body tasked with the promotion of human rights

The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) is a United Nations body whose mission is to promote and protect human rights around the world. The Council has 47 members elected for staggered three-year terms on a regional group basis. The headquarters of the Council are at the United Nations Office at Geneva in Switzerland.

A national human rights institution (NHRI) is an independent state-based institution with the responsibility to broadly protect and promote human rights in a given country. The growth of such bodies has been encouraged by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), which has provided advisory and support services, and facilitated access for NHRIs to the United Nations (UN) treaty bodies and other committees. There are over one hundred such institutions, about two-thirds assessed by peer review as compliant with the United Nations standards set out in the Paris Principles. Compliance with the Principles is the basis for accreditation at the UN, which, uniquely for NHRIs, is not conducted directly by a UN body but by a sub-committee of the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI) called the Sub-Committee on Accreditation. The secretariat to the review process is provided by the National Institutions and Regional Mechanisms Section of the OHCHR.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United Nations special rapporteur</span> United Nations title

Special rapporteur are titles given to independent human rights experts whose expertise is called upon by the United Nations to report or advise on human rights from a thematic or country-specific perspective. Depending on the specific mandate, there can also be working groups composed of an independent expert from each of the five UN regional groupings. Their work falls within the scope of "special procedure" mechanisms under the United Nations Human Rights Council, and their contributions can advance human rights through a variety of activities, including, but not limited to improving access to redress, policy reform, mainstreaming human rights, raising human rights awareness, and acting to prevent or cease rights violations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women</span> International bill of rights for women

The Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) is an international treaty adopted in 1979 by the United Nations General Assembly. Described as an international bill of rights for women, it was instituted on 3 September 1981 and has been ratified by 189 states. Over fifty countries that have ratified the Convention have done so subject to certain declarations, reservations, and objections, including 38 countries who rejected the enforcement article 29, which addresses means of settlement for disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the convention. Australia's declaration noted the limitations on central government power resulting from its federal constitutional system. The United States and Palau have signed, but not ratified the treaty. The Holy See, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, and Tonga are not signatories to CEDAW.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Human rights in Switzerland</span> Overview of the observance of human rights in Switzerland

Human rights are largely respected in Switzerland, one of Europe's oldest democracies. Switzerland is often at or near the top in international rankings of civil liberties and political rights observance. Switzerland places human rights at the core of the nation's value system, as represented in its Federal Constitution. As described in its FDFA's Foreign Policy Strategy 2016-2019, the promotion of peace, mutual respect, equality and non-discrimination are central to the country's foreign relations.

The International Service for Human Rights (ISHR) is an independent, non-profit organization with offices in Geneva and New York which promotes and protects human rights by supporting human rights defenders, strengthening human rights standards and systems, and leading and participating in coalitions for human rights change.

The Paris Principles were defined at the first International Workshop on National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights held in Paris on 7–9 October 1991. They were adopted by the United Nations Human Rights Commission by Resolution 1992/54 of 1992, and by the UN General Assembly in its Resolution 48/134 of 1993. In addition to exchanging views on existing arrangements, the workshop participants drew up a comprehensive series of recommendations on the role, composition, status and also functions of national human rights institutions (NHRIs). These built on standards previously adopted by the 1978 Geneva Seminar on National and Local Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights’, which produced the ‘Guidelines on the Structure and Functioning of National and Local Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights’. The 1993 Paris Principles regulate to the status and functioning of national institutions for the protection and promotion of human rights known as National Human Rights Institutions.

Human rights in Bhutan are those outlined in Article 7 of its Constitution. The Royal Government of Bhutan has affirmed its commitment to the "enjoyment of all human rights" as integral to the achievement of 'gross national happiness' (GNH); the unique principle which Bhutan strives for, as opposed to fiscally based measures such as GDP.

Defamation of religion is an issue that was repeatedly addressed by some member states of the United Nations (UN) from 1999 until 2010. Several non-binding resolutions were voted on and accepted by the UN condemning "defamation of religion". The motions, sponsored on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), now known as the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, sought to prohibit expression that would "fuel discrimination, extremism and misperception leading to polarization and fragmentation with dangerous unintended and unforeseen consequences". Religious groups, human rights activists, free-speech activists, and several countries in the West condemned the resolutions arguing they amounted to an international blasphemy law. Critics of the resolutions, including human rights groups, argued that they were used to politically strengthen domestic anti-blasphemy and religious defamation laws, which are used to imprison journalists, students and other peaceful political dissidents.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions</span>

The Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI), formerly known as the 'International Coordinating Committee of National Human Rights Institutions', is a global network of national human rights institutions (NHRIs) – administrative bodies set up to promote, protect and monitor human rights in a given country. The GANHRI, whose full legal title is the "Global Alliance for National Human Rights Institutions", coordinates the relationship between NHRIs and the United Nations human rights system, and is unique as the only non-UN body whose internal accreditation system, based on compliance with the 1993 Paris Principles, grants access to UN committees. Institutions accredited by the Subcommittee for Accreditation (SCA) of the GANHRI with "A status", meaning full compliance with the Paris Principles, are usually accorded speaking rights and seating at human rights treaty bodies and other UN organs, mainly to the Human Rights Council. The GANHRI representative often presents statements on behalf of individual NHRIs or the regional groups.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">LGBT rights in Samoa</span>

Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people in Samoa face legal challenges not faced by non-LGBT people. Same-sex sexual acts are illegal, punishable by up to seven years imprisonment, but the law is not enforced.

The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is a state monitoring mechanism of the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC). It was established by General Assembly resolution 60/251 in 2006 to periodically review the protection and promotion of human rights in each of the 193 United Nations (UN) Member States. New Zealand has been reviewed twice via the UPR in 2009 and 2014.

The Republic of Vanuatu is a parliamentary democracy with a population of approximately 326.000. The Constitution of Vanuatu is supreme law and sets out the legal framework which deals with the respect of human rights.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Human rights and development</span>

Development is a human right that belongs to everyone, individually and collectively. Everyone is “entitled to participate in, contribute to, and enjoy economic, social, cultural and political development, in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms can be fully realized,” states the groundbreaking UN Declaration on the Right to Development, proclaimed in 1986.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">UPR Info</span>

UPR Info is a non-governmental organisation (NGO) headquartered in Switzerland. The organisation main goal is to raise awareness and provide see capacity-building tools to the different actors of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process, such as United Nations Member States, NGOs, National Human Rights Institutions (NHRI) and civil society actors. It was established in 2008.

The proposed Convention on the Rights of Older Persons (UNCROP) is likely to be the next major human rights treaty adopted by the United Nations. The proposed treaty will seek to remedy the fragmented human rights structure for Older Persons, and will focus on reaffirming critical human rights which are of concern to older persons. The focus of the treaty will be persons over 60 years of age, which is a growing demographic worldwide due to increased population ageing. The treaty follows from the success of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which has seen near universal acceptance since 1989. Where the UNCRC focuses on the rights of younger persons, the UNCROP will address those who form the older portion of society, who according to United Nations reports, are becoming increasingly vulnerable as a group without applicable normative standards of human rights law. Support for a Convention is becoming increasingly popular, as human rights groups including the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), HelpAge International, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, the International Labour Organization, and many other NGOs and states have expressed support for a universal instrument. A raising number of NGOs from across the world have joined forces in advocating for a Convention in the Global Alliance for the Rights of Older Persons (GAROP) which has been set up out of the need to strengthen the rights of older persons worldwide. With population ageing, the human rights of the growing number of older persons have become an increasingly important issue. Among the human rights issues faced by older persons are ageist attitudes leading to discrimination, exclusion and constraints on the legal capacity, autonomy and independent living of older people. Existing human rights violations have been further exacerbated and put on the spotlight by the COVID-19 pandemic. Older people have been denied access to health services and became prone to physical and social isolation. The stigmatisation of older people and ageist images of older persons have also become more evident. The debate surrounding the convention focuses on the implementation and safeguarding of older persons’ human rights aiming to set normative standards of human rights for older persons in an international legally binding instrument. An underlying common factor and root cause of many of human rights violations experienced by older persons, along with its ubiquitous, prevalent, and surreptitious nature, is ageism. Ageism, as defined by the World Health Organization, refers to the stereotypes, prejudice and discrimination towards others or oneself based on age. A UNCROP would go a long way to tackle ageism. Individual relationships generally fall outside of current human rights law, which seeks to present standards of relations between states and individuals. Therefore, it has been suggested that the proposed human rights convention for older persons ought to be drafted as an anti-discrimination convention. However, this would not be consistent with other multilateral human rights conventions such as the ICCPR and ICESCR which set normative standards.

Marital rape generally refers to non-consensual sexual intercourse between married spouses. In Singapore, there used to be a partial immunity for marital rape first introduced during British colonial rule because it was deemed not a criminal offence except when the wife is below 13 years of age or when any of the specific circumstances provided under section 375(4) of the Singapore Penal Code are satisfied. Since 1 January 2020, the law was repealed and its immunity lifted under the Criminal Law Reform Act 2019, criminalising marital rape.

Mihir Kanade is an author and professor of international law, human rights and development at the University for Peace (UPEACE), an international treaty-based organization and institution of higher education established in pursuance of Resolution 35/55 adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1980. He holds the concurrent positions of the Academic Coordinator of UPEACE since 2016, the Head of its Department of International Law since 2014, and the Director of the UPEACE Human Rights Centre since 2009. Kanade is best known for his contribution to the promotion of the human right to development. He chairs the drafting group appointed by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Chair-Rapporteur of the Intergovernmental Working Group on the Right to Development, for preparing the “zero draft” of a legally binding instrument on the right to development. On 13 March 2020, Kanade was elected by the United Nations Human Rights Council as a member of the Expert Mechanism on the Right to Development in representation of the Asia-Pacific region.

References

  1. ↑ ‘In larger freedom: towards development, security and human rights for all’, Report of the Secretary-General (A/59/2005), 21 March 2005; World Summit Outcome, General Assembly resolution 60/1, 24 October 2005.
  2. ↑ Cowell, Frederick (2022), Kammerhofer, Jörg; Arajärvi, Noora; Merkouris, Panos (eds.), "Identifying Custom in Universal Periodic Review Recommendations", The Theory, Practice, and Interpretation of Customary International Law, Cambridge University Press, pp. 320–344, doi: 10.1017/9781009025416.016 , ISBN   978-1-316-51689-8
  3. 1 2 Annex to resolution 5/1, para. 3.
  4. ↑ Annex to resolution 5/1, para. 4.
  5. ↑ ‘Basic facts about the UPR’, OHCHR.
  6. ↑ Annex to resolution 5/1, paras. 8-11.
  7. ↑ Annex to resolution 5/1, paras. 1-2.
  8. ↑ "UPR Info's Database on UPR recommendations". UPR Info. Retrieved 2019-06-25.
  9. 1 2 "Review of the work and functioning of the Human Rights Council" at 4.
  10. ↑ Annex to resolution 5/1, para. 29.
  11. ↑ Annex to resolution 5/1, para. 30.
  12. ↑ NHRIs accredited by the International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions(ICC) as compliant with the Principles relating to the Status of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights Archived 2011-03-26 at the Wayback Machine (Paris Principles).
  13. ↑ Annex to resolution 5/1, para. 31.
  14. ↑ "UPR Implementation"
  15. ↑ The Follow-up Programme on UPR recommendations
  16. ↑ Annex to resolution 5/1, para. 38.
  17. ↑ "Israel absent from its own UPR". UPR Info. Retrieved 2019-06-25.
  18. ↑ "The Human Rights Council discusses cases of non-cooperation". UPR Info. Retrieved 2019-06-25.
  19. ↑ "HRC President presents report on dialogue with Israel". UPR Info. Retrieved 2019-06-25.
  20. ↑ "Universality preserved: Israel expected to be reviewed on Tuesday 29 October 2013". UPR Info. Retrieved 2019-06-25.
  21. ↑ "Non-cooperation with the UPR: Paving the way". UPR Info. Retrieved 2019-06-25.
  22. ↑ Annex to resolution 5/1, at rule 7. Resolution 5/1 also stipulates that NGO participation is to be informed by Economic and Social Council resolution 1996/31 of 25 July 1996, and NHRI participation by CHR resolution 2005/74 of 20 April 2005.
  23. ↑ General Assembly resolution 60/251 at operative para. 16.
  24. ↑ HRC resolution 12/1 of 12 October 2009, ‘Open-ended intergovernmental working group on the review of the work and functioning of the Human Rights Council’.
  25. ↑ "New UPR Modalities for the Second Cycle"
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.