upr manual en

guide pratique pour participer à l’examen périodique universel (EPU)

michaël mutzner

Practical Guide For participating in the

Universal Periodic Review(UPR)

So that the most vulnerable may not be forgotten

Published by Franciscans International Geneva Office rue de Vermont 37-391211 GenevaSwitzerland

© Franciscans InternationalALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Photographs: Br. Bernd Beermann, OFMCapMr. Yao Agbetse

Franciscans InternationalSwift: UBSWCHZH80ASwiss Francs (CHF) IBAN: CH6900240240357384.01F US Dollars (USD) IBAN: CH8500240240357384.60Z Euros (EUR) IBAN: CH8500240240357384.61WBank: UBS SARoute de Florissant 59CH-1206 GenevaSwitzerland

www.franciscansinternational.org

pRaCtICal gUIDE FoR paRtICIpatIng In tHE UnIvERSal pERIoDIC REvIEw (UpR)So that the most vulnerable may not be forgotten

aUtHoR : MICHaël MUtznER

EDItoR: gotzon onanDIa-zaRRabE

EnglISH tRanSlatIon: bR. EUnan MCMUllan, oFM

layoUt anD gRapHICS: DanIEla vaRano

FEbRUaRy 2010

pUblISHED by FRanCISCanS IntERnatIonal

Supported by:

4 practical guide for participating the Universal periodic Review

pRaCtICal gUIDE FoR paRtICIpatIng In tHE UnIvERSal pERIoDIC REvIEw (UpR)

pREFaCE 7

DEFInItIonS anD aCRonyMS 8

IntRoDUCtIon 11

I. wHat IS tHE UnIvERSal pERIoDIC REvIEw? 12 History, origins and objectives of the UPR History and origins Aims and objectives of the UPR Basis of the UPR

Overview of the UPR process: Phase 1: The preparation of the 3 basic reports The National report The compilation of information contained in official UN documents The summary of information received from civil society Phase 2: The examination by the UPR Working Group – interactive dialogue Phase 3: The adoption of the final document by the Human Rights Council Phase 4: Follow-up to the UPR

II. tHE UnIvERSal pERIoDIC REpoRt (UpR): How to paRtICIpatE? 28 Phase 1: The preparation of the 3 basic reports Civil society reports National consultation

Phase 2: The examination by the UPR Working Group Phase 3: The adoption of the final document by the Human Rights Council Phase 4: Follow-up to the UPR

ConClUSIon 40

appEnDICES

annExES 41 - Appendix I: Resolution 5/1 of the Human Rights Council, Institution-Building

- Appendix II: Calendar for the first cycle (2008-2011) - Appendix III: Information and Guidelines for Relevant Stakeholders on the UPR (OHCHR) - Appendix IV : Useful internet sites

of the United Nations Human Rights Council, 18th June 2007, Annex, §§ 1-38 (Universal Periodic Review Mechanism)

practical guide for participating the Universal periodic Review 5

appEnDICES


pREFaCE

The Franciscan Family, following the tradition of St. Francis and St. Clare is engaged all over the world in trying to alleviate the suffering of those who are most vulnerable and most in need. In every country, the challenges and difficulties they face and the circum-stances in which they live are different. Franciscans International (FI), is a nongovernmen-tal organisation (NGO) which works at the United Nations (UN) on behalf of all Francis-cans. We bring to the UN the concerns and issues that are not being addressed within countries or regions to bring about systemic change that will alleviate those who suffer injustice. The Universal Periodic Review (UPR), a relatively new mechanism of the Human Rights Council is proving to be a key instrument in this regard.

In the last two years, the UPR mechanism has allowed FI to focus on the specific human rights concerns raised by the Franciscan Family in each country and formulate concrete recommendations to address them. Some of the issues FI and its partners have drawn at-tention to through the UPR process are: the Roma people in Slovakia; the administration of justice and conditions of detention in Burundi; violence against children and young people in Guatemala; migrants and asylum seekers in Italy and human trafficking in Can-ada; street children in Zambia; health and forced marriages in Cameroun; and education issues in Vanuatu.

The UPR process provides the opportunity for Franciscans and concerned persons to highlight the situation of the most vulnerable and those who are forgotten in their own country. In the UPR report they identify which human rights are being breached and those that are not enjoyed effectively. It is an opportunity to inform the international community about the daily challenges faced at national level and to press for specific solutions.

Franciscans and everyone committed to seeking justice, should grasp this opportunity to collaborate in using the UPR process to bring international pressure on individual coun-tries through the UN, to alleviate the suffering of the forgotten and most vulnerable. The UPR provides the possibility of transforming a society, when all concerned people work together to bring about effective and lasting change. Through carefully documenting the reality of the human rights situation in which they live and work, Franciscans working with FI are capable of increasing the impact of their work at national level.

Franciscans International prepared this booklet with a view to encouraging the participa-tion of the Franciscan Family and their colleagues in the UPR process. We hope that the booklet will prove helpful in explaining the UPR mechanism and identifying how to engage in the process. It is therefore a guide for the Franciscan Family, our partners (Fondazione Marista per la Solidarietà Internazionale and Edmund Rice International) and other civil society organisations who want to take part in this collective effort. Our hope is that the booklet will raise awareness about the UPR and make the mechanism accessible, thereby facilitating the participation of anyone who is interested in engaging in the process.

The publication of this UPR booklet is possible through the generosity of Fastenopfer, for which we are very grateful. A particular word of thanks is due to Michael Mutzner, who wrote the booklet in conjunction with the Advocacy Team of FI.

“Let us begin, for up to now we have done so little…” St. Francis of Assisi.

Denise Boyle fmdmExecutive Director FI


DEFInItIonS

Civil society: civil society brings together the social and civil body which is autonomous of the State. Civil society essentially includes a large spread of non-governmental and non-profit organizations which animate public life and defend the interests and values of their members and others, based on ethical, cultural, political, scientific, religious or philosophical considerations. They are community groups, non-governmental organizations (NGO), trade unions, native population associations, charitable organizations, religious groupings, professional associations and private foundations. (See World Bank Definition)

Human Rights Council: It is the chief body of the United Nations system in charge of the promotion and protection of human rights in the world and the examination of those instances where rights have been violated. It is an intergovernmental body, composed of 47 States and elected by the General Assembly of the United Nations. The Human Rights Council was established by Resolution 60/251 of the General Assembly dated 15th March 2006.

See the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights’ (OHCHR) internet site on the Human Rights Council: www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/index.htm

office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (oHCHR): This is a UN agency with a mandate to promote the enjoyment and the application of those rights proclaimed in international human rights law. The High Commissioner is working under the Secretary General. In the UPR framework, the Office of the High Commissioner:- Prepares a compilation of the information contained in United Nations’ official UN documents (second of the three basis report for the UPR);- Makes a summary of the information received from civil society (third of the three basis reports for the UPR);- Facilitates the preparation of the UPR Working Group report.

See the OHCHR’s internet site: www.ohchr.org

Ratification: “the international act (…) whereby a State establishes on the international plane its consent to be bound by a treaty” (Art. 2§1, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties). The terms “acceptance”, “approval” and “accession” like ”ratification” of a treaty mean that the State has voluntarily accepted that it is bound by that treaty.

Resolution: the text with which an assembly or body expresses an official decision. Some bodies, such as the General Assembly of the United Nations, or the Human Rights Council adopt resolutions. In this case, they are negotiated between the members which make up these bodies and adopted, either by way of a vote or by consensus.

Special procedures: mechanisms put in place by the Human Rights Council (or by its predecessor, the Commission on Human Rights) for which the responsibility falls on one or more independent experts mandated to deal with a particular thematic issue (e.g. the Independent Expert on human rights and extreme poverty) or a particular country (e.g. the Independent Expert on human rights in Burundi).

See the OHCHR’s internet site on special procedures: www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/chr/special/index.htm

treaties: “international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation” (Art. 2 § 1, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties). A treaty, as opposed to a declaration or resolution, binds the parties under international law. Treaties may take the name of ”Convention”, “Pact” or “Protocol”.

treaty bodies: committees of experts made of independent people, nominated to oversee the application of international human rights treaties. These committees in particular examine the periodic reports submitted by the High Contracting Parties to the treaties and publish their recommendations. In order for a Committee to have the legal basis to examine a State the latter must have ratified the treaty in question. An example of a treaty body would be the Committee for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which is the responsible body under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966).

See the OHCHR’s internet site on treaty bodies: www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/Pages/HumanRightsBodies.aspx

the United nations (Un): founded in 1945 at San Francisco on the conclusion of the Second World War, the UN is the most important international organization in the world. One of its aims is to develop and encourage respect for human rights (United Nations Charter, Art. 1§3). The UN is composed of 192 Member States, which makes the organization almost universal. It is constituted by 5 principal bodies: the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council, the Secretariat and the International Court of Justice. The Human Rights

DEFInItIonS


DEFInItIonS


Council is a subsidiary body of the General Assembly.

See the official UN website: www.un.org

Un human rights mechanisms: the entire body of UN organs which oversee the application of human rights norms by the Member States of the United Nations. These mechanisms include some inter-governmental bodies made up by States such as, for example, the Human Rights Council and some bodies composed of experts such as the treaty bodies (see definition below) and the special procedures.

UpR working group: It is an organ of the Human Rights Council responsible for conducting the UPR. It is composed of 47 States who are also the members of the Human Rights Council. The other Member States of the UN, as well as Palestine and the Holy See (Vatican) can actively participate in the Working Group as observers. The examination takes the form of a dialogue between the State that is being examined and the other States; the latter ask questions on the human rights situation in the country concerned, and make recommendations. The Working Group subsequently adopts a report, which summarizes the substance of the discussions and the recommendations made. International organizations, UN agencies, the national human rights institutions, the NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations) and the media may be present at the examination which takes place at the United Nations Building in Geneva.


IntRoDUCtIon

When speaking about UN human rights mechanisms to persons involved in protecting or giving aid to vulnerable people, there is the risk that they may be perceived as complex and inaccessible. Some may even doubt the usefulness of these mechanisms, so distant are they from the real concerns on the ground.

Faced with these legitimate questions, what is it that the Universal Periodic Review (UPR), this new mechanism put in place by the UN Human Rights Council (the principal UN body charged with the promotion and protection of human rights), has to offer? It is assuredly an innovation with the most promising potential. However, in order for its potential to be fully exploited the participation of those who know where the real challenges lie in realizing human rights on the ground is indispensable. Without it this procedure will become deaf and blind to the real world and will lose a lot of its capacity to bring about real changes.

The aim of this manual is thus to make the UPR accessible to all and to facilitate the participation of “civil society”, that is the non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the members of the Franciscan family in particular.

This manual describes first of all the mechanism itself, its historic roots, how it functions and the four phases of the process which all the Member States must pass through in the four-year cycle. Later on it will explain how the members of civil society can take an active part in the process and what tools are available to them to make their voices heard so as to bring about a change for the better in the lives of the most vulnerable.

IntRoDUCtIon

IntRoDUCtIon

1


HIStoRy anD oRIgInS

In 2006, the General Assembly of the United Nations voted for the creation of the Human Rights Council1, to replace the Human Rights Commission. The latter body had in truth lost credibility because it was the general opinion that the Human Rights Commission where the States sat was “politicized” and selective in realizing its mandate to promote and protect human rights in the world. Indeed this body had not fully assumed its responsibility of its role as promoter of human rights in the world, refusing to denounce on numerous occasions situations where human rights were not being respected. The reason for this was that certain States were able to find sufficient political allies among the 53 Member States of this Commission to avoid being bothered by it. What is more, those States whose human rights practices were far from exemplary succeeded in getting themselves elected to the body thus reducing its effectiveness and credibility even further.

Consequently when the General Assembly took upon itself the task of creating the Human Rights Council, it attempted to remedy the previous selective approach by creating a mechanism for a universal review, from which no State could escape, with the aim of treating all Member States equally as regards the evaluation of the efficacy of human rights in the various jurisdictions. It was thus that the UPR was born.1 Human Rights Council: see Definitions,

p. 9

HIStoRy, oRIgInS anD objECtIvES oF tHE UpR

wHat IS tHE UnIvERSal pERIoDIC REvIEw (UpR)?

official document: Extracts from Un general assembly Resolution 60/251

The General Assembly decided that the Human Rights Council should have a particular mandate “to undertake a universal periodic review, based on objective and reliable information, of the fulfillment by each State of its human rights obligations and commitments in a manner which ensures universality of coverage and equal treatment with respect to all States; the review shall be a cooperative mechanism, based on an interactive dialogue with the full involvement of the country concerned and with consideration given to its capacity building needs; such a mechanism shall complement and not duplicate the work of treaty bodies.”

UN General Assembly Resolution A/RES/60/251, 15th March 2006, §5 e) 2

The new Human Rights Council was charged with putting the modalities of the UPR in place. After intense negotiations the Council decided 3 that the UPR was an inter-governmental process which means that the review is principally conducted by the Un Member States themselves. However, although civil society organizations are not directly active in the review per se, they play an indispensable role as regards the supply of information which provides the basis for the review, its evaluation and follow-up. a) aims and objectives of the UpR

the aim of the UpR is to examine the level of respect for, and implementation of human rights in all the States of the world, and to make recommendations so that effective changes may be made in those States where rights are not fully recognized.

The starting principle is that no State in the world completely respects the rights of the people within its jurisdiction and that all can make progress in this respect.

The UPR is based on the principle set out at the Vienna Conference in 1993, which declares that “the promotion and protection of human rights is a matter of priority for the international community” (Declaration and Programme of Action, Preamble). When the rights of the person are not fully respected somewhere in the world, the international community in its entirety is concerned, because all are part of the human family. It is therefore legitimate for the entire international community to take part in the examination of each State and make recommendations so that the latter can progress in the implementation of human rights.

practical guide for participating the Universal periodic Review

2 this resolution was approved by 170 votes in favour, 3 abstentions (belarus, Iran, venezuela), et 4 votes against (United Sates, Israel, the Marshall Islands and palau)3 Israel, the Marshall Islands and palau) See annex I: Resolution 5/1 of the Human Rights Council, Institution-building of the Human Rights Council, 18th june 2007, annex, §§ 1-38 (Universal periodic Review mechanism)


As well as the overall aim of the UPR, three further objectives can be highlighted, which equally find their place in Resolution 5/1 of the Human Rights Council (Annex 1, §4):

- the improvement of the human rights situation on the ground is the first objective of the UPR according to the same Council resolution;- the fulfillment of the State’s human rights obligations and commitments;- the sharing of best practice in terms of human rights promotion and protection. b) basis of the UpR The review is based on the international human rights obligations applicable to the State being examined. Consequently the review is based on: 4 - The United Nations Charter;- The Universal Declaration of Human Rights;- The international instruments relating to human rights to the which the State concerned is party;- The obligations and undertakings subscribed to voluntarily by the States, especially when they present their candidature for election to the Human Rights Council; 5 - The applicable international human rights law.

ovERvIEw oF tHE UpR pRoCESS

The UPR is a process which spreads out over a 4 year cycle, in the course of which the 192 members of the UN are examined (see Appendix II). This means that 48 States are examined each year, divided into 3 sessions of 2 weeks each. It is a procedure that is marked by its predictability and rigidity, since the order of the reviews is established for the whole of the 4 year cycle and this order cannot be changed. It is therefore possible to know well in advance that a particular State will be examined.

4 Resolution 5/1, §1. 5 the voluntary pledges made by the States when they present their candidature for election to the Human Rights Council can be consulted on the web page: www.un.org/aboutun/mainbodies.htm > Human Rights Council – Candidacies.


The phases of The universal periodic review for each counTry examined

phase 1

preparation of the 3 basic reports for the UpR:

(1) national Report(2) Compilation of official Un documents(3) Summary of civil society input (including ngo’s).

phase 2

actual Review (by the UpR working group): 6 States ask questions and make recommendations to the State under review. ngos attend and advocate ensuring key issues are raised. However they cannot directly participate in the Review.

phase 3

Final adoption of Report:

the working group Report (from phase 2) is adopted by the Human Rights Council. ngos may comment on the outcome during the Human Rights Council session.

phase 4

SFollow-up:

all relevant stakeholders, including ngos, participate in making sure that the accepted recommendations are adequately implemented.

UpR working group Reportthe State under review takes position regarding the recommendations made during the Review

phase.

6 UpR working group: see Definitions, p. 9



pHaSE 1: tHE pREpaRatIon oF tHE 3 baSIC REpoRtS

before a properly called examination can take place the UpR begins with the preparation of reports which will constitute the background documentation for the review. It is in fact on the basis of the information contained in these 3 reports that the review is founded. these basic reports as well as all official documents prepared for the UpR are public and available on the internet: see www.ohchr.org/En/HRbodies/UpR/pages/Documentation.aspx (oHCHR) as well as www.upr-info.org (UpR-Info). these reports contain a wealth of information and summarize in a few pages the principal facts relative to human rights in the State concerned.

a) the national Reportthe national Report is prepared by the State under review itself. the State gives an overview of the level to which human rights are realized for people within its jurisdiction, in a written document of no longer than 20 pages.

the national Report generally contains the following elements: 7

- the constitutional and legislative framework put in place, so that the international treaties which are ratified become an effective reality in national law;- the national mechanisms of human rights promotion (institutional framework), and particularly the existence of an independent national human rights institution;- the general political measures put in place to fulfill the international human rights obligations; - the programmes and other concrete measures to promote and protect human rights on the ground. the State can mention best practice and successes achieved whilst indicating the fields in which further progress is still to be made;- the essential national priorities for the realization of human rights;- beginning with the second cycle of reviews (from 2012) the State will also have to indicate the measures taken to implement the recommendations of the previous review;- the strengthening of its capacity in realizing human rights, particularly through the provision of “technical assistance“. this technical assistance can be given by the office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights 8 and includes programs aimed at facilitating the incorporation of international human rights law norms into internal law, strengthening an independent national human rights institution, formulating plans of action, providing formation relative to the promotion and protection of

7 See also Decision 6/102 of the Hu-man Rights Council8 office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights: see Definitions p. 8


human rights, etc.- the methodology used to prepare the national report, and in particular to what extent civil society was involved in the preparation of the report.

It is to be noted that after the first 6 sessions practically all the States reviewed9 have submitted written national Reports, even though theoretically the State can also comply by way of an oral presentation. (Resolution 5/1, §15). If a State refuses to submit its national Report the review will take place in any event; it is therefore in the State’s interest to defend its record in terms of human rights by submitting its written national Report within the stipulated time limits.

In the framework of preparation of the national Report “States are encouraged to prepare the information through a broad consultation process at the national level with all relevant stakeholders”, which includes civil society organizations.10 In certain cases, these national consultations have succeeded in stimulating dialogue between the State and civil society, a positive result generated by the UpR process.

b) the compilation of information contained in official Un documents

this second report which must be no longer than 10 pages is prepared by the office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights 11. It is a report that summarizes the information and recommendations already contained within official Un documents, and which relate to the State being examined. this report thus brings together the details contained in:- the reports of the treaty bodies;11 - the reports of special procedures;12 - other official United nations documents.13

Firstly this compilation is very useful because it gives an excellent summary of the international obligations the State should be doing better at implementing. It is also a good indicator of the level of cooperation with the human rights mechanisms. 14 the following information is to be found in this report:

- The list of the principal treaties ratified by the State;- The level of cooperation with special procedures ( for instance: what responses has the State given to requests from special procedures wanting to undertake a mission (“visit”) in their country; has the State replied to the allegations of violations of human rights addressed to it

9 Cape verde in the 3rd session and the Comoros in the 5th didn’t submit a written report for the UpR.

10 Resolution 5/1, §15

11 office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights: see Definitions, p. 8

12 treaty bodies: see Definitions, p. 9

13 Special procedures: see Definitions, p. 9

14 Un human rights mechanisms: see Definitions, p. 10



(in particular “letters of allegations” and “urgent appeals” from special procedures); has the State replied to the questionnaires sent by the expert ? …) – See Example 1 below;- The assiduousness with which the State submits its periodic reports to the treaty bodies – See Example 2 below;- The level of State collaboration with the regional and national branches of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Example 1: Information concerning cooperation with special procedures

Extract from the compilation made by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights in respect of Canada (A/HRC/WG.6/4/CAN/2, p.5)

This table indicates the extent to which Canada cooperated with United Nations special procedures. It is to be noted that Canada issued a “standing invitation” to visit the country. This means that Canada undertook to welcome any expert coming from the United Nations Human Rights Council to carry out a mission on its territory. The table also indicates however that Canada has not yet organized the visit of the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, who made a request


for such a visit three years earlier.Example 2: Information as regards cooperation with treaty bodies

Extract from the compilation ordered by the High Commissioner for Human Rights in respect of guatemala (a/HRC/wg.6/2/gtM/2, p.4)15

From this document one sees that in 2008 when guatemala was being reviewed in the context of the UpR mechanism, it was 4 years late in respect of its report to the Committee on Migrant workers (CMw), 3 years late in respect of the one to the Human Rights Committee (HR Committee) and 2 years late in respect of the one for the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC).

Secondly this compilation allows also for the obtaining of a summary of the

recommendations that United Nations human rights mechanisms, such as the

treaty bodies 16 or the special procedures 17, have so far directed to the

State (see Example 3 below). This gives the opportunity to do a follow-up to

these recommendations and invites an evaluation on whether the State has

effectively sought to implement them.

15 available at: www.ohchr.org/En/HRbodies/




Example 3: Summary of the recommendations of United nations human rights mechanisms18

Extract from the compilation ordered by the High Commissioner for Human

Rights, in respect of benin (a/HRC/wg.6/2/bEn/2, §12):19

“12. In 2007, while taking note of the efforts made by benin notably through

legislative measures to eradicate ill-treatment against children, Cat was

alarmed by reports on trafficking, exploitation, prostitution, genital mutilation,

rape and infanticide. It recommended that benin take necessary measures to

prohibit and eradicate torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment

or punishment of children as well as investigate and bring perpetrators to

justice. In 2006, the CRC was concerned that infanticide of so-called “sorcerer’s

children” motivated by traditional beliefs continues to be practised in certain

communities and on infants with disabilities, and recommended to benin to

take measures, including legislative ones, to prevent and stop infanticide. In

2004, the HR Committee raised similar concerns.”

this paragraph summarizes the recommendations which have been issued

before 2008 on the matter of cruelty towards infants and touch particularly

upon the problem of the killing of newly born children wrongly considered

as “witches”. It is a problem which Franciscans International drew to the

attention of the benin authorities and was equally referred to in the context

of the UpR.

Thirdly and finally, this report gathers together the commentaries of other

United Nations organs, such as the ILO (International Labour Organization),

UNICEF, UNIFEM (United Nations Development Fund for Women), UNAIDS

(Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS), UNDP (United Nations

Development Programme), the IMF (International Monetary Fund), the UNHCR

(United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees), United Nations Office on

Drugs and Crime (UNODC) etc.

18 Un human rights mechanisms: see Definitions, p. 10

19 available at: www.ohchr.org/En/HRbodies/UpR%5CpagES%5CbjSession2.aspx


c) the summary of information received from civil society 20

Here, too, it is the office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights 21 that is in charge of preparing this third basic report for the UpR. this report is made up of a summary of 10 pages, based on information arriving from the different reports submitted by other “relevant stakeholders” (Resolution 5/1, §15 c)), i.e. mainly the civil society. this summary thus mainly includes the reports prepared by non-governmental organizations (ngos)22 for the UpR. the reports of the national human rights institution, of non Un international organizations – for example regional organizations, such as the Council of Europe – or of individuals who have a strong expertise on the matter (professors or others) are equally included in this summary.

by the end of 2009, after 6 sessions (or 96 States reviewed), the civil society organizations have submitted an average of over 15 reports for each State reviewed, which demonstrates the interest of civil society in the UpR.23 we will come back in detail to the issue of the reports of the ngos in the second half of this manual.

the essential role of this summary for the review is to be highlighted:

- It marks what the principal matters of concern for civil society are as regards the human rights situation in the State being reviewed. It is a rare occasion for ngos to draw the attention of the international community to certain human rights problems which might otherwise be “forgotten”;- the information presented in this summary is widely used by the State delegations for the actual review. Indeed, during the examination (see phase 2: Examination by the UpR working group, p. 23), the States are going to draw on the reports of civil society in order to find additional information with regards to the situation in the concerned country. as a result the quality of the review also depends on the quality of the reports presented by the ngoS.

20 Civil society: see Definitions, p. 8


22 It is to be noted that this summary includes the ngo reports, whether they are officially recognized or not by the United nations. In other words an ngo which is not accredited by the United nations Economic and Social Council can nonetheless submit a report within the UpR framework.

23 In the exceptional case of Cuba (4th session, 2009), no less than 326 reports were submitted, which constitutes the numerical record by distance large margin. Up to now there have been at least 2 reports submitted by ngos for each State examined.



type of Structure used for the UpR reports:

these 3 reports follow a more or less identical structure as provided for in the general guidelines on the subject (Decision 6/102). the general structure of these reports is set out below. 24

1. Methodology : Description of the methodology and the general process of national consultation followed in order to obtain the details provided in the universal periodic review;

2. background to the country under review and normative and institutional framework: general overview of the country under review and its normative and institutional framework, in particular that concerning the promotion and protection of human rights:

a. Scope of international obligationsb. Constitutional and legislative frameworkc. Institutional and human rights infrastructure d. policy measurese. national Case law

3. promotion and protection of human rights on the ground:

a. Cooperation with human rights mechanismsi. Cooperation with treaty bodiesii. Cooperation with special proceduresiii. Cooperation with the office of the High Commissioner for

Human Rights

b. Implementation of international human rights obligationsi. Equality and non-discriminationii. Right to life, liberty and security of the personiii. administration of justice, including impunity, and the rule of

lawiv. Right to privacy, marriage and family lifev. Freedom of movementvi. Freedom of religion and belief, expression, association and

peaceful assembly and the right to participate in public and political lifevii. Right to work and to just and favourable conditions of workviii. Right to social security and to an adequate standard of livingix. Right to education and to participate in the cultural life of the

communityx. Minorities and indigenous peoplesxi. Migrants, refugees and asylum seekers

24 the structure set out above corresponds particularly to the structure adopted by the office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights for reports 2 and 3. as far as Report 1 is concerned (the national report), the structure varies from one report to another, while adhering generally to the principal points set out in the general guidelines.


xii. Internally displaced personsxiii. Human rights and counter-terrorismxiv. Situation in or in relation to specific regions of territoriesxv. …4. achievements, best practices, challenges and constraints

5. Key national priorities, initiatives and commitments

Specific recommendations for follow-up

6. Capacity-building and technical assistance

7. Starting from the 2nd cycle (from 2012) : presentation by the State concerned regarding its the follow-up to the previous review

pHaSE 2: tHE ExaMInatIon by tHE UpR woRKIng gRoUp – IntERaCtIvE DIalogUE

the second phase of the UpR is that of the review, properly called. 25 It is conducted by the UpR working group which meets at the United nations buildings in geneva (Switzerland). 26 the review, facilitated by the president of the Human Rights Council, lasts a maximum of three hours. It consists of a sort of interactive dialogue between the State under review and the other State delegations. the following entities are present for this part of the review:- the State under review: the State generally opens the review with an initial presentation, in the course of which it replies in particular to the written questions which some States will have submitted in advance, giving responses to oral questions posed during the course of the review and terminating the session with concluding remarks. In total the State must not exceed its allotted time of sixty minutes;- other States: all the States of the world may be present and take part as “examiners”. 27 During the course of the interactive dialogue with the State under review the State delegations make comments, pose questions and make recommendations to the State concerned, 28 on the basis of the three above-mentioned reports;- Civil society organizations, including ngos: they can be present at the review without however having the right to intervene. we will come back in greater detail in the second part of the Manual as to the role of the ngos during the working group review;- International or regional organizations and UN agencies, who wish to attend.

25 For details of the review procedure, see §§18-25 of Resolution 5/126 UpR working group: see Definitions, p. 10

27 the Member States of the Human Rights Council are also members of the working group. the other Member States of the United nations, to which are added palestine and the Holy See (not members of the United nations) have the status of observer but can also take part in the review.

28 generally the Member States of the working group have a 3 minute speaking slot, and observing States 2 minutes. this allows for forty or so delegations to speak for each review. However sometimes the president may choose to limit the speaking time to 2 minutes for all delegations where there are large number wishing to speak.In respect of certain reviews the State concerned uses a stratagem whereby it encourages its allies to enroll as soon as possible on the list so that the more critical delegations are not able to express their views in the course of the allotted 3 hours.



the report of the working group is adopted by it two working days after the review. 29 this report of around twenty pages is factual and contains a summary of the substance of the discussions and a list of recommendations (see Example 4 below) issued to the State under review.

the State under review then has the obligation to give its opinion on the recommendations, stating which ones it accepts and which ones it rejects. this happens between phase 2 and 3.the State must express its position, at the latest, before the adoption of the final document. 30 this is without doubt one of the strong points of the review. In fact, rejecting a recommendation publicly can sometimes be embarrassing, whilst committing to implement it implies that the State will later have to give an account as to what it has done to keep its word.

the Universal periodic Review is a public process and can be followed live on internet (webcast): www.un.org/webcast/unhrc/index.asp. 31

Example 4: UpR recommendations

All of the bellow mentioned recommendations are amongst those Burundi undertook to implement following the review by the UPR Working Group (A/HRC/10/71, §80):32 The name of the State issuing the recommendation is indicated in brackets.

“4. Establish an independent national human rights commission (South Africa, Malaysia) in compliance with the Paris Principles (Portugal, Australia, United Kingdom, Egypt, Republic of Korea) with a strong mandate (Portugal) and finalize the submission of the required bill to the Parliament for adoption (Egypt)

29 this report is prepared by a group of three rapporteurs (called the troïka), drawn from amongst the Human Rights Council members and representing different regional groups. It was originally envisaged that this group would be composed of experts, who would not be restricted to making solely a factual report of the discussions. at the end, the troïka seems to play what is in essence a secretarial role.

30 we note also that the legal force of the UpR recommendations, once the working group Report is officially adopted by the Human Rights Council, remains to be clarified. are they Human Rights Council recommendations or else recommendations binding only on the State who suggested them during the course of the review? and what of the recommendations publicly accepted by the State under review? are they simple declarations of intention on the part of the State, a non-binding public commitments, or do they constitute unilateral acts which have binding force?

31 Realplayer software needs to be installed.

32 available at: www.ohchr.org/En/HRbodies/UpR%5CpagES%5CbISession3.aspx


5. Strengthen measures to raise awareness on the situation of albinos prevent crimes against them and ensure material assistance to the victims (France); (…)21. Ensure that training programmes focusing on human rights are mandatory for all judges, lawyers and police officers (Netherlands);22. Prioritize national consultations to establish transitional justice mechanisms to ensure that reconciliation and justice address allegations of the most serious crimes, including war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide ( United Kingdom) ;23. Use consultations to ensure that a truth and reconciliation commission and a special tribunal be established as soon as possible (Ireland); (…)29. Set up hosting and reintegration structures for HIV/AIDS orphans (Luxembourg); (…)39. Continue its efforts to address the challenges it faces, with the support of the States Members of the United Nations (Benin)40. Continue its efforts for the promotion and protection of human rights with the support of the international community at the bilateral and multilateral (Rwanda);41. Fully promote the protection of human rights in the country (Nigeria).”

The majority of these recommendations are strong, pertinent and precise, so that putting them into effect is not only desirable but also verifiable. Paragraphs 39 to 41 on the other hand are examples of extremely vague recommendations which do not obligate the State to put any concrete changes into effect in respect of its human rights policy. This illustrates the importance of substantive recommendations that require real responses on the part of the State.

It also happens that certain States make recommendations which constitute a regression in respect of existing norms. This was the case for example when Egypt recommended to the Netherlands to initiate a public debate on the matter of the re-introduction of the death penalty (A/HRC/8/31, §23 and 78.2).



pHaSE 3: tHE aDoptIon oF tHE FInal DoCUMEnt by tHE HUMan RIgHtS CoUnCIl

Some months later the report of the working group is submitted to the Human Rights Council,33 which, in plenary session, adopts the final UpR document for the State concerned. the Council allots one hour per State, during the course of which:

- the State under review can reply to the points which have not been sufficiently elaborated during the review and finally declare its acceptance or rejection of the recommendations which have been submitted to it; 34 - the other State delegations may similarly express their opinion on the results of the review; - then, most importantly, the non-governmental organizations are also given an opportunity to comment on the review of the State concerned. this is the only occasion for civil society to speak officially during the course of the review. the ngos are given the opportunity here to publicly comment on the manner in which the review has been carried out and can also comment upon the attitude of the State concerned according to whether it accepted or rejected the recommendations that were made to it.

the Human Rights Council is responsible for deciding the follow-up measures which should be put in place with regard to the State reviewed. 35 It should be possible for the Council to recommend the use of a special procedure, or send an expert to follow the implementation of the UpR recommendations at close hand. For the moment however the Council has limited itself to adopting a standard resolution for each State, without resorting to particular follow-up measures.

the Human Rights Council adopts what is called “the final document”, which is in fact made up of 3 distinct documents:

1) the report of the UpR working group (elaborated during phase 2);36

2) the final written commentary that the State under review communicated (between phase 2 and 3), presenting its position on the recommendations made to it. In other words the document which states which recommendations were accepted and which were rejected;3) the replies and additional comments of the State at the time of the adoption of the final document by the Human Rights Council (during phase 3).

33 Human Rights Council: see Definitions, p. 8

34 a maximum time of 20 minutes is allowed.35 Resolution 5/1, §37



pHaSE 4: Follow-Up to tHE UpR

the follow-up phase is absolutely essential, and cannot be neglected. It is here that the UpR recommendations are meant to be implemented and where the investment of effort made in the UpR should translate into concrete changes. the follow-up particularly concerns the following protagonists:

- the State examined: 37 it is the State that has the primary responsibility to implement the recommendations made on the completion of the UpR;- the Human Rights Council: 38 the Human Rights Council is going to focus on the implementation of the recommendations made in the UpR at the time of the next State review some four years later.

Can the Council verify the implementation of the UpR recommendations at an earlier date, without having to wait for the next UpR? the matter divides Council members, some of whom wish that the follow-up would be discussed in the framework of the plenary sessions of the Council, whilst others insist on the fact that an examination should not be launched outside of the stipulated timetable.39 Some States have thus decided to show good example by voluntarily informing the Council as to the implementation of the recommendations;- the other human rights mechanisms of the Un (particularly the special procedures and the treaty bodies) can effect a form of follow-up, for example by suggesting measures to implement UpR recommendations or highlighting an unfulfilled commitment;- Civil society: it plays an essential role in this follow-up, overseeing the implementation of the undertakings given by the State and suggesting concrete measures to improve the human rights situation. we will come back to the different ways for members of civil society to engage in the follow-up in the second part of the Manual.


37 Resolution 5/1, §33.


39 the controversy surrounds the general debate under item 6 of the agenda of the Human Rights Council, entitled “Universal periodic Review“.


paRtICIpatIng to tHE UpR

although the role of civil society organizations plays out in the wings rather than on centre stage, it remains an indispensable one. their participation in the examination brings an essential added value to the process. Civil society presses for key challenges to the realization of human rights to be addressed in the course of this process and for the situation on the ground to effectively change. In this second part of the Manual, we intend to look at the different phases of the UpR, pointing out at each phase how opportunities exist for civil society to make its concerns known. pHaSE 1: tHE pREpaRatIon oF tHE 3 baSIC REpoRtS

two opportunities for civil society during the preparation of the basic reports must be mentioned here: - one is direct: it is the submission of reports by civil society (see below p. 29), in light of their inclusion in the summary of information coming from civil society (i.e. in the second of the three basic reports, prepared by the office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights). - the second is indirect: it involves influencing the content of the national report particularly by taking an active role in the process of national consultation (see below p. 33) that the State concerned is encouraged to carry out in preparation for the review.


tHE UnIvERSal pERIoDIC REvIEw (UpR): How to paRtICIpatE?2

guide pratique pour participer à l’EpU 29

tHE UnIvERSal pERIoDIC REvIEw (UpR): How to paRtICIpatE?

as far as the participation of Franciscans International in the UpR is concerned, the support of the Franciscan family and our other partners on the ground is indispensable. without their contribution at this stage Franciscans International will not engage in the process of the particular State being reviewed.

Civil society reports

we suggest that the preparation of reports from the Franciscan family and/or those of our partner organizations follow the steps set out below. these indications must of course be adapted on a case by case basis according to the national context.

1. Identification of human rights situations to tackle in the report

the selection of topics for this report should be made up ideally by consulting with the persons concerned. For Franciscans International this means the Franciscan family in its entirety in the country under review. two strategy options are open:- one may decide to concentrate on a single issue;- or chose to deal with several issues, whether they are directly connected or not.

Several elements have to be taken into account in choosing the themes to develop in the report, in particular:- about which situations do you have direct knowledge? about which situations are you well informed and can speak about better because they affect persons who you know / work with?- what are the human rights situations that need priority action in your country?- what are your principal matters of concern in respect of human rights? who are the persons most vulnerable to violations of human rights?- which situations are at risk of being forgotten in the “review”, without your intervention in the process, and which situations should be brought to the attention of the international community?- Have you or can you find data, sources, figures ---- which enable you to verify the reality and the extent of the problems you raise?as far as reports prepared by Franciscans International are concerned,

40 the deadline for submission of civil society reports are set out on the website of the office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights: www.ohchr.org/En/HRb odies/UpR/pages/ngosn hr is .aspx (<Deadlines for submission of stakeholders’ information for the xth UpR session); as well as on the UpR-Info website : www.upr-info.org/-ngos-.html

wHEn? they should be submitted 6 to 8 months before the review 40

30

it is desirable that the Franciscan family designate one person, or a committee, to be in charge of coordinating the collection of information. It may be necessary, according to the situation in the country, to discuss the risks engendered on the security level of persons involved in the process so that in collaboration with Franciscans International the best approach can be taken to guarantee their safety.

2. Identify potential partners

Finding partners and allies can bring numerous advantages. It allows for the topics to be dealt with in the report in a complementary way and have more facts available to support the report. Moreover a report jointly submitted by a number of ngos can have more weight and credibility.

It’s worth taking the trouble therefore to identify potential partners who would take common cause with you. these partners could be other local, national or international ngos, religious communities or experts in one of the fields raised. Franciscans International often works in partnership for the submission of the reports in particular with Edmund Rice International (ERI) 41 and the Foundation for Marist Solidarity International (FMSI).42

3. Collection of data and research

the report should be based chiefly on facts and observations on the ground. that is the added value of civil society reports. The problems presented can often benefit, according to the subject matter and the available resources from:

- Figures, statistics, and estimates;- A case study;- An analysis based on a questionnaire from persons involved or witnesses;- If you wish to highlight deficiencies in the legal system it is also useful to quote legal articles that discuss the problem;- Information coming from other sources43 is useful for confirming your own observations on the ground. This complementary data can come from official government documents, international organizations, or from other UN bodies or NGOs. The recommendations from special procedures 44 and from treaty bodies 45 are equally useful to cite in support of your points, in particular if these recommendations have been made but not put into practice.

In any case it is essential that the information put into the report is checked, justifiable and true.

41 www.edmundriceinternational.org

42 www.fmsi-onlus.org

43 as far as information coming from other sources is concerned, Franciscans International is completely at the service of its members to help them to find the necessary information which is available. 44 Special procedures: see Definitions, p. 9


practical guide for participating the Universal periodic Review


It is good to take the time to reflect and to articulate clearly what the nub of the problem is that you wish to highlight, and to identify in particular:- The causes and the consequences in terms of the enjoyment of human rights as regards the problem you are raising;- How the attitude of the State is a problem and how it is contrary to its human rights obligations,46 without forgetting to mention at the same time positive facts and real progress;- The measures which, in your opinion, the State should put in place to remedy the situation and which will constitute the recommendations of your report.

we would like to emphasize that a simple report, limited in what it aims to achieve can be very useful and it is not at all necessary to make an exhaustive report if human resources do not permit it. a simple report of several paragraphs can sometimes have a real impact. one can choose, for example, to confine oneself to a single, well defined problem in order to ask the government to make an undertaking in a precise field.

Example 5: Research methodology for the UPR report by Franciscans International and the Marist International Solidarity Foundation in respect of the right to education in Vanuatu :

“In order to gain a current and contextual understanding of the issues facing students a recent survey and consultation was conducted with students at a Diocesan College in Vanuatu. In consulting the students there it is hoped that this report captures some of the ‘voices’ of the young people this submission concerns. School experiences for students and their siblings aged between 4 and 32 years were considered. Data was collected from 489 people. The students surveyed may not be a ‘typical’ sample of Ni-Vanuatu students as they are already fee-paying secondary students in a private school. However some of their data and their reflections are useful in supporting this submission.” 47

4. Editing 48

the individual ngo reports must not be longer than 5 pages. (Times New Roman, 12). In the case of a joint report submitted by a coalition of ngos the limit is 10 pages. It is possible to give further details in appendices to the report. these annexes will not however be considered when the summary of the information emanating from civil society is made, but will serve all the same as a reference for those wishing further information on the topics raised in the report itself. In respect of the report structure, we suggest that – whenever relevant – the following structure is more or less followed, with the themes you

46 Franciscans International is at its member’s service in respect of giving details on the international obligations binding upon the State under review.

47 Complete report available at: www.franciscansinternational.org/fr/upr508/vanuatu

48 to consult the reports of Franciscans International on internet: www.franciscansinternational.org/fr/statementspage or www.upr-info.org/-Franciscans-International,509-.html. the reports of the other ngos are equally available on the web: www.ohchr.org/En/HRbodies/UpR/pages/Documentation.aspx (by country) or www.upr-info.org (UpR-Info)


wish to expand upon developed under the following sections; 49

1. Introduction : the organizations responsible for the reportthe methodology followedthe topics dealt with in the report

2. promotion and protection of human rights on the ground

3. achievements, best practices, challenges and constraints

4. Key national priorities, initiatives and commitments: Franciscans International’s recommendations

although this structure may be at times limiting and not necessarily easy to follow, it facilitates the work of the office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights,50 because it follows the same structure as the summary of information.

So that the report might be submitted in the name of Franciscans International (FI) a first version of the report needs to reach the FI advocacy team in geneva six weeks before the time limit fixed by the office of the High Commissioner. FI is entirely at the service of the Franciscan family to assist them in the editing of reports and proposing modifications.

5. Circulation and publication

It is often useful to think about a wide circulation of the report prepared, throughout the Franciscan family and its parishes, to your partners, and depending on the context in which you find yourselves to public authorities concerned by the problems raised as well as to the media. this may sometimes require a translation of the report into the national or local language. Such wide circulation can draw attention at the national level to the problems raised and the recommendations made, and induce the government to consult you in the framework of their participation at the UpR.


49 this structure is based on the general Directives of Decision 6/102 of the Human Rights Council. See also p. 21


a) national Consultation

the State under review is strongly encouraged to engage in widespread consultation on the national level with all stakeholders including the ngos in particular, in the UpR preparation.

In order to obtain details about the dates, and modalities of these consultations and to be in a position to take part, one should enquire from:- the government ministries concerned (Ministry / Department of Human Rights, Ministry of justice, , Ministry / Department of Foreign affairs…);- the national Human Rights Institution, where it exists;- the ngos involved in the UpR. as far as members of the Franciscan family is concerned, they can for example ask Franciscans International to enquire on their behalf at the permanent mission of the State concerned at the United nations in geneva.

the aim of these consultations is to allow the State to take the concerns of civil society into account in the elaboration of its national report.

For civil society, national consultations have several advantages. they allow ngos to:- Invite the State to participate in the UpR in an open, transparent and constructive manner, recognizing the fields in which there is progress to be made and making concrete pledges;- Invite the government to put sufficient resources into the process, in particular envisaging a high level delegation attending the review in geneva;- ask to obtain up to date official information on the problems that ngos plan to raise in their own reports;- put in place a dialogue between the government and the ngos. this dialogue should continue for the entire UpR process, particularly in the follow-up.

pHaSE 2: tHE ExaMInatIon by UpR woRKIng gRoUp 51

During the course of the review itself, the ngos do not have a right to speak. only the Member States of the United nations 52 can take an active part in the debates and suggest recommendations to the State being examined. the role of the ngos therefore consists in influencing the substance of discussions indirectly at the time of the review. ngos can present their concerns to the States participating at the review. the aim is to encourage the State delegations to raise those points in the form of recommendations during the review. It is often possible to find delegations inclined to raise the points suggested by the ngos.

this “lobbying” work can be done, according to the circumstances, via the Embassy of the State in the country under review, at the capital or through


l’ExaMEn péRIoDIqUE UnIvERSEl (EpU): CoMMEnt y paRtICIpER?


52 as well as the two observers: palestine and the Holy See.

wHEn? Usually in the 12 months prior to the review

wHEn? 4-6 weeks before the review


its diplomatic mission in geneva. 53 the preparation of a document suggesting questions and recommendations that the States could make during the review is one of the tools that can be used to influence the recommendations made at the UpR (see Example 6 below). this document can be transmitted to the delegations that may be willing to take into account issues raised by ngos.

It is worth taking the possibility into account, during this phase, of having one or more persons who come directly from the State concerned to be there to put the case in an even more convincing manner. they can also meet with diplomatic representatives to persuade them to include their concerns in the recommendations they plan to make during the review.

Example 6: questions and recommendations suggested by Franciscans International to State delegations as regards portugal and the problem of human trafficking.

“We welcome Portugal’s effort in the fight against trafficking in persons. Measures such as the one year residence permit that is extended to all the victims of trafficking, or the recent establishment of an Observatory on Trafficking in Human Beings (2008) are commendable. The definition of human trafficking in the penal code has been extended (2007), to include not only sexual exploitation, but also forced labor and trafficking of organs. However, victims of trafficking are insufficiently identified. Between 2003 and 2007, Portugal identified only 25 adults and 12 children as victims of trafficking. In 2008, the Portuguese Association of Victim Support (APAV) identified 16 victims (10 of them were victims of trafficking for labor exploitation, and 6 for sexual exploitation. 2 victims of “sale of children/slavery” also contacted APAV).

questions:

- What is the strategy of Portugal in order to better identify victims of trafficking in persons? How many traffickers were convicted in 2008?- The National Action Plan against Trafficking in Persons 2007-2010 provided for an increase in the number of inspections in workplaces which are more susceptible to link with organized crime related with human trafficking. Have these inspections proven to be helpful in identifying victims of trafficking and their traffickers?- What are the root causes of human trafficking to and through Portugal? How does Portugal intend to address them?

Recommendations:

- Take effective measures to improve the identification of victims of trafficking in persons, including by creating a national call centre for victims of trafficking (a measure foreseen in the National Action Plan Against Trafficking in Human Beings).- Protect the right of everyone to the enjoyment of just and favorable conditions of work, by adopting better regulation of sectors where employment of victims of trafficking is suspected, including in particular the informal sector. This includes also strengthening workplace inspections in those sectors.”

53 It is also possible in certain cases to contact the personnel concerned directly at key level of the State.


l’ExaMEn péRIoDIqUE UnIvERSEl (EpU): CoMMEnt y paRtICIpER?


Even if ngos are not authorized to take an active role in debate during the review, their presence is nevertheless essential and a range of options is available to express their opinions through other channels:

- at the review, a delegation is sent to geneva by the State under review, to present its national report and to reply to questions addressed to it. It is sometimes possible for ngos to meet the State delegation and to acquaint them with their concerns;- the ngos can organize an informal parallel meeting (“side event”) the day the review takes place, in one of the United nations buildings rooms. It is often an advantage to organize such an event with other organizations involved in the preparation of reports. In the course of the meeting the panelists can bring out the human rights problems which exist in the country under review and the recommendations which can be proposed;- a press conference can also be considered, or else a press statement, to comment upon the review;- Moreover the ngos, by their presence in the room where the periodic review takes place shows that the review is being watched by civil society, and that the events taking place in the review hall will be relayed to the public in general.

the adoption of the working group Report, two days after the review, is also a stage during phase 2 at which civil society organizations might want to be present. ngos can check that the report faithfully reflects the recommendations that were issued during the course of the review. Sometimes the State concerned then declares its position on all or some of the recommendations which have been made to it, or at least informs the UpR working group about the steps it will take from then until the final adoption of the document by the Human Rights Council. 54

In the majority of cases, the State under review will not declare its position on the recommendations until several months later, before the adoption of the working group report by the Human Rights Council. It is then possible that the State will further consult with civil society, to hear its point of view on the recommendations issued in the course of the UpR.

ngos may also consider the possibility of submitting to the State reviewed a document commenting on the UpR and its recommendations, and pointing out the positions that the ngo wishes the State to adopt (see Example 7 below).

wHEn? after the review

wHEn? During the review


55 available at: www.ohchr.org/En/HR-bodies/UpR%5CpagES%5CCaSession4.aspx

Example 7: Franciscans International comments directed to Canada following its universal periodic review, to prompt the government to accept the recommendations made in respect of human trafficking:

“a) Recommendations addressed to Canada (see document A/HRC/11/17): 55

- Recommendation 39: Conduct a review of the effectiveness of its legislation relevant to trafficking in human beings and implement reforms where necessary to strengthen the protection of the rights of victims of trafficking (Slovakia);- Recommendation 16: Closely monitor the situation of other disadvantaged groups such as women migrant workers, women prisoners, and victims of trafficking (Turkey);- Recommendation 40: Strengthen enforcement legislation and programmes regarding prohibition of commercial sexual exploitation of children (Philippines).

b) Franciscans International’s comments

Franciscans International welcomes the above mentioned recommendations issued to Canada, and hopes that these will be accepted and put into effect, in particular as far as Recommendation 39 is concerned. In this respect, Franciscans International would hope that Canada might adopt measures to improve the protection and identification of victims of human trafficking as a priority, in particular by means of the adoption of the project of law S-218. Moreover, Franciscans International wishes to underline once again the importance of taking measures against the demand which favors the exploitation of persons”


pHaSE 3: tHE aDoptIon oF tHE FInal DoCUMEnt by tHE HUMan RIgHtS CoUnCIl

the adoption of the final document gives ngos their only opportunity to officially have their say in the UpR process. 20 minutes speaking time is allocated to the ngos for the adoption of the report which lasts for a maximum of one hour. this means that about 10 ngos (2 minutes maximum per ngo) will have the possibility of making a statement for each State examined.

the oral declaration that the ngos can make must concentrate on the UpR. It allows inter alia to:- Comment on the way the review proceeded and in particular the attitude shown by the State in the course of the process;- Express its appreciation for the good recommendations which have been accepted or its regrets for those which have been rejected;- Insist on the most important recommendations;- Make certain comments on the way in which the recommendations should be implemented and on the follow-up.

In conjunction with the adoption of the report by the Human Rights Council, it is good to think about informing the general public in the country concerned about the procedure in action and above all about the positions adopted by the State, preferably through the media, by way of a press statement or conference. public opinion can play a part in the attitude that the State will adopt in respect of the UpR.

pHaSE 4: Follow-Up to tHE UpR

the work of following-up the review is essential, and must never be neglected. It is here in fact that all the energy invested in the process is expected to bring about concrete changes on the human rights situation on the ground.

at national level, civil society can involve itself in several follow-up activities and thus continue its advocacy through engaging the public and/or decision makers. It can for example:

- Encourage the State concerned to create a follow-up mechanism for the UpR recommendations. this body would be charged with ensuring that the commitments made are not forgotten, but are effectively integrated within the political decisions of the government and in consultation with civil society;- Inform the ministries directly concerned by particular recommendations, so as to ensure that these ministries are fully informed

wHEn? During the adoption of the final document at the plenary session of the Human Rights Council (around 3-4 months after

the review)

wHEn? In the 4 years following the review up to the subsequent review


as regards the UpR recommendations and to suggest certain ways by which these may be put into action. as well as the ministries, there is also an advantage in informing politicians, elected representatives or experts who have the potential to communicate the concerns of civil society, and press their government to abide by their obligations;- Inform the public more widely as regards the results of the UpR, in particular via the media, by organizing a roundtable or conference, possibly in partnership with other civil society organizations. another option could be to run a campaign, or make use of symbolic actions;- Evaluate the work done following the UpR, for example, on a yearly basis and then publish this balance sheet, which would indicate the progress made and the fields in which the State has not yet fulfilled its obligations.

on the international level, even if the State is no longer on the Human Rights Council agenda in the UpR framework, there are several ways a follow-up can be made:

- Make reference to the progress made on the UpR recommendations in the oral and written statements of the ngos at the sessions of the Human Rights Council;- Inform the States as to the progress of the recommendations which they made during the course of the UpR. these States may be inclined to encourage the State in question to implement the relevant recommendations;- Refer to the UpR recommendations in front of the other human rights mechanisms, such as the special procedures 56, the treaty bodies 57 and other pertinent human rights organs, including those at regional level. by way of a follow-up to the UpR recommendations, it may be possible to set in motion a “special procedure” country visit, on one of the themes raised during the course of the UpR;- when the next UpR of the State takes place (around 4 years later) evaluate the progress on the recommendations adopted from the previous review and show whether the previous UpR has effectively brought change on the ground, as was envisaged, and consequently propose appropriate recommendations for the new review.



57 treaty bodies: see Definitions p. 9


ConClUSIon

Franciscans International, on the basis of its experience in the first six sessions of the UpR is convinced that the UpR represents a unique ad-vocacy platform, which allows the challenges faced on the ground in respect of human rights to be raised in front of an international audience, and which forces the States to make their positions clear in respect of specific problems present in their country. Sometimes the UpR allows a real dialogue to be put in place between the authorities and civil society, with the hope of a continuing engagement. but above all, the UpR gives the ngos the opportunity to see the eyes of the in-ternational community fixing their attention on a particular situation which may otherwise have been forgotten.

For the members of the Franciscan family who are daily on the side of people who suffer and whose human dignity is overlooked, it is an opportunity, following the example of Francis and Clare of assisi, to as-sume their position beside the most vulnerable and demand that their human rights be respected and enjoyed. our hope is that these people are not forgotten… and that on the ground their living conditions can really change.

ConClUSIon


appEnDIx IResolution 5/1 of the Human Rights Council, Institution-Building of the United Nations Human Rights Council, 18th June 2007, Annex, §§ 1-38

(Universal Periodic Review Mechanism)

I. UnIvERSal pERIoDIC REvIEw MECHanISM

basis of the review

1. The basis of the review is: (a) The Charter of the United Nations; (b) The Universal Declaration of Human Rights; (c) Human rights instruments to which a State is party; (d) Voluntary pledges and commitments made by States, including those undertaken when presenting their candidatures for election to the Human Rights Council (hereinafter “the Council”).

2. In addition to the above and given the complementary and mutually interrelated nature of international human rights law and international humanitarian law, the review shall take into account applicable international humanitarian law.

principles and objectivesprinciples

3. The universal periodic review should: (a) Promote the universality, interdependence, indivisibility and interrelatedness of all human rights; (b) Be a cooperative mechanism based on objective and reliable information and on interactive dialogue; (c) Ensure universal coverage and equal treatment of all States; (d) Be an intergovernmental process, United Nations

Member-driven and action oriented; (e) Fully involve the country under review; (f) Complement and not duplicate other human rights

mechanisms, thus representing an added value; (g) Be conducted in an objective, transparent, non-selective, constructive, non confrontational and non politicized manner; (h) Not be overly burdensome to the concerned State or

to the agenda of the Council; (i) Not be overly long; it should be realistic and not absorb a disproportionate amount of time, human and financial

resources; (j) Not diminish the Council’s capacity to respond to

urgent human rights situations; (k) Fully integrate a gender perspective; (l) Without prejudice to the obligations contained in the elements provided for in the basis of review, take into account the level

of development and specificities of countries; (m) Ensure the participation of all relevant stakeholders, including non-governmental organizations and national human rights institutions, in accordance with General Assembly resolution 60/251 of 15 March 2006 and Economic and Social Council resolution 1996/31 of 25 July 1996, as well as any decisions that the Council may take in this

regard.


objectives

4.The objectives of the review are: (a) The improvement of the human rights situation on the ground; (b) The fulfillment of the State’s human rights obligations and commitments and assessment of positive developments and challenges faced by the State; (c) The enhancement of the State’s capacity and of technical assistance, in consultation with, and with the consent of, the State concerned; (d) The sharing of best practice among States and other stakeholders; (e) Support for cooperation in the promotion and protection of human rights; (f) The encouragement of full cooperation and engagement with the Council, other human rights bodies and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

periodicity and order of the review

5. The review begins after the adoption of the universal periodic review mechanism by the Council.6. The order of review should reflect the principles of universality and equal treatment.7. The order of the review should be established as soon as possible in order to allow States to prepare adequately.8. All member States of the Council shall be reviewed during their term of membership. 9. The initial members of the Council, especially those elected for one or two-year terms, should be reviewed first.10. A mix of member and observer States of the Council should be reviewed.11. Equitable geographic distribution should be respected in the selection of countries for review.12. The first member and observer States to be reviewed will be chosen by the drawing of lots from each Regional Group in such a way as to ensure full respect for equitable geographic distribution. Alphabetical order will then be applied beginning with those countries thus selected, unless other countries volunteer to be reviewed.13. The period between review cycles should be reasonable so as to take into account the capacity of States to prepare for, and the capacity of other stakeholders to respond to, the requests arising from the review.14. The periodicity of the review for the first cycle will be of four years. This will imply the consideration of 48 States per year during three sessions of the working group of two weeks each.

process and modalities of the review

Documentation

15. the documents on which the review would be based are:


appEnDIx I (a) Information prepared by the State concerned, which can take the form of a national report, on the basis of general guidelines to be adopted by the Council at its sixth session (first session of the second cycle), and any other information considered relevant by the State concerned, which could be presented either orally or in writing, provided that the written presentation summarizing the information will not exceed 20 pages, to guarantee equal treatment to all States and not to overburden the mechanism. States are encouraged to prepare the information through a broad consultation process at the national level with all relevant stakeholders; (b) additionally a compilation prepared by the office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights of the information contained in the reports of treaty bodies, special procedures, including observations and comments by the State concerned, and other relevant official United nations documents, which shall not exceed 10 pages; (c) additional, credible and reliable information provided by other relevant stakeholders to the universal periodic review which should also be taken into consideration by the Council in the review. the office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights will prepare a summary of such information which shall not exceed 10 pages.16. the documents prepared by the office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights should be elaborated following the structure of the general guidelines adopted by the Council regarding the information prepared by the State concerned.17. both the State’s written presentation and the summaries prepared by the office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights shall be ready six weeks prior to the review by the working group to ensure the distribution of documents simultaneously in the six official languages of the United nations, in accordance with general assembly resolution 53/208 of 14 january 1999.

Modalities

18. the modalities of the review shall be as follows: (a) the review will be conducted in one working group, chaired by the president of the Council and composed of the 47 member States of the Council. Each member State will decide on the composition of its delegation (b) observer States may participate in the review, including in the interactive dialogue; (c) other relevant stakeholders may attend the review in the working group; (d) a group of three rapporteurs, selected by the drawing of lots among the members of the Council and from different Regional groups (troika) will be formed to facilitate each review, including the preparation of the report of the working group. the office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights will provide the necessary assistance and expertise to the rapporteurs.19. the country concerned may request that one of the rapporteurs be from its own Regional group and may also request the substitution of a rapporteur on only one occasion.20. a rapporteur may request to be excused from participation in a specific review process.21. Interactive dialogue between the country under review and the Council will take place in the working group. the rapporteurs may

a A decision should be taken by the Council on whether to resort to existing financing mechanisms or to create a new mechanism.


collate issues or questions to be transmitted to the State under review to facilitate its preparation and focus the interactive dialogue, while guaranteeing fairness and transparency.22. the duration of the review will be three hours for each country in the working group. additional time of up to one hour will be allocated for the consideration of the outcome by the plenary of the Council.23. Half an hour will be allocated for the adoption of the report of each country under review in the working group.24. a reasonable time frame should be allocated between the review and the adoption of the report of each State in the working group.25. the final outcome will be adopted by the plenary of the Council.

outcome of the review

Format of the outcome

26. the format of the outcome of the review will be a report consisting of a summary of the proceedings of the review process; conclusions and/or recommendations, and the voluntary commitments of the State concerned.

Content of the outcome

27. the universal periodic review is a cooperative mechanism. Its outcome may include, inter alia: (a) an assessment undertaken in an objective and transparent manner of the human rights situation in the country under review, including positive developments and the challenges faced by the country; (b) Sharing of best practices; (c) an emphasis on enhancing cooperation for the promotion and protection of human rights; (d) the provision of technical assistance and capacity-building in consultation with, and with the consent of, the country concerned (e) voluntary commitments and pledges made by the country under review.

adoption of the outcome

28. the country under review should be fully involved in the outcome. 29. before the adoption of the outcome by the plenary of the Council, the State concerned should be offered the opportunity to present replies to questions or issues that were not sufficiently addressed during the interactive dialogue.30. the State concerned and the member States of the Council, as well as observer States, will be given the opportunity to express their views on the outcome of the review before the plenary takes action on it. 31. other relevant stakeholders will have the opportunity to make

b A Universal Periodic Review Voluntary Trust Fund should be established to facilitate the participation of developing countries, particularly the Least Developed Countries, in the universal periodic review mechanism.


general comments before the adoption of the outcome by the plenary.32. Recommendations that enjoy the support of the State concerned will be identified as such. other recommendations, together with the comments of the State concerned thereon, will be noted. both will be included in the outcome report to be adopted by the Council.

Follow-up to the review

33. the outcome of the universal periodic review, as a cooperative mechanism, should be implemented primarily by the State concerned and, as appropriate, by other relevant stakeholders.34. the subsequent review should focus, inter alia, on the implementation of the preceding outcome.35. the Council should have a standing item on its agenda devoted to the universal periodic review.36. the international community will assist in implementing the recommendations and conclusions regarding capacity-building and technical assistance, in consultation with, and with the consent of, the country concerned.37. In considering the outcome of the universal periodic review, the Council will decide if and when any specific follow up is necessary.38. after exhausting all efforts to encourage a State to cooperate with the universal periodic review mechanism, the Council will address, as appropriate, cases of persistent non-cooperation with the mechanism.

c a decision should be taken by the Council on whether to resort to existing financing mechanisms or to create a new mechanism.

appEnDIx I


appEnDIx II

USEFUl IntERnEt SItES

Franciscans International (FI) www.franciscansinternational.org

Here one will find the vision and the mission of FI, a note of its programmes and its activities, its communiqués, its declarations and reports. all FI UpR reports are also available on the site.

the office of the High Commissioner website: w w w . o h c h r . o r g / E n / H R b o d i e s / U p R / p a g e s / U p R M a i n . a s p x (>Documentation)this is the official site upon which you will find all the relevant documents for the UpR, including the guidelines regarding the participation of ngos, the deadline for submission of reports as well as the reports themselves, listed by country and the review timetable.

one can follow the UpR sessions either by archive material or live on this site as well. the UpR sessions are on the webcast: www.un.org/webcast/unhrc/index.asp.

UpR-Info: www.upr-info.org

this site allows you to find the official documents and reports easily. It also informs users regarding the timetable for the reviews and gives summaries of what is going on at the moment.

UpR watch: http://upr-epu.com/Eng/index.php

this site offers a follow-up, country by country, of the implementation – or lack thereof – of the recommendations received and accepted by the States under review.

ISHR (International Service for Human Rights): www.ishr.ch/

(See in particular the UpR section: www.ishr.ch/upr) the ISHR is an ngo which supports, encourages and facilitates the participation of human rights defenders with the Un human rights mechanisms. on its site one will find in particular the accounts of the UpR sessions (of the reviews carried out by the working group, as well as of the adoptions of reports by the Human Rights Council).

appEnDIx III


Franciscans International provides a large number of publications, including brochures and manuals. the following titles represent a small sample of our work and recent publications.

For more information, please visit our website:

www.franciscansinternational.org

woRlD povERty, FRanCISCan REFlECtIonS

gUIDE D’InItIatIon aU plaDoyER poUR lES DRoItS DE l’HoMME

annUal REpoRt 2008

antI-tRaFFICKIng law IntHE USa

CoMbattIng FoRCED laboUR

ElIMInatIng DISCRIMInatIon agaInSt woMEn

wESt papUa FaCtSHEEt

Franciscans International is the non-governmental organisation (ngo) with general Consultative status at the Un, uniting the voices of Franciscan brothers and sisters from around the world. we operate under the sponsorship of the Conference of the Franciscan Family (CFF) and serve all Franciscans and the global community by bringing spiritual, ethical, and Franciscan values to the United nations and international organisations.

we closely follow the tradition of Saint Francis and Saint Clare, striving to put Franciscan ideals into practice at the international level. we are guided by the Saints’ loving concern for the poor, care of creation, and peacemaking. as the poorest people are being exploited in systemic ways, and global peace is increasingly threatened, Franciscan commitment is needed more urgently than ever.

Franciscans around the world run schools, hospitals, justice and peace offices, shelters, and specialise in many services for the poor. our programmes at FI bring grassroots Franciscans to the United nations forums in new york and geneva, influencing international human rights standards and bringing witness to human rights violations. FI’s advocacy and formation programmes are designed in response to Franciscan needs worldwide.

upr manual en

Documents

universal periodic report

universal periodic reviewuprso

upr history

upr overview

upr process

upr conclusion

upr basis

human rights council