Source: https://www.upr-info.org/fr/upr-process/foundation/hrc-review/hrc-review-2011
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 08:41:32
Document Index: 145121406

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 1', 'art 2', 'art 3', '§3', '§2', '§11', '§7', '§9', '§16', '§17', '§18']

HRC Review 2011 - Français | UPR Info
HRC Review 2011
HRC Review 2010
UPR Info’s involvement
UPR informal consultation - 11/01/2011
Final UPR informal consultation - 21/01/2011
Organisational meeting for the 2nd session of the Working Group - 3/02/2011
2nd session of the WG - part 1 - 7/02/2011
2nd session of the WG - part 2 - 17/02/2011
2nd session of the WG - part 3 - 23/02/2011
1st Informal consultation - 27/05/2011
2nd informal consultation - 10/06/2011
3rd informal consultation - 15/06/2011
UPR informal consultation - 11 January 2011
On Tuesday, January 11, H.E. Mr. Omar Hilale, Ambassador of Morocco and Facilitator on the UPR for the Human Rights Council Review, held an informal consultation to present the progress of discussions on the UPR.
The presentation was in line with the one made in Bangkok and maintained the system of assigning a colour to each proposal according to its degree of support:
- Green for issues with a wide convergence of views,
- Orange for issues that require further discussions,
- Red for issues with deep divergences
The following issues were placed in green: extending the duration of the review by one hour; extending the duration of the plenary adoption by thirty minutes; separating the plenary adoptions from the regular HRC sessions while keeping the general debate under agenda item 6 within the HRC regular sessions; holding the UPR sessions in February, June and October and encouraging States to continue consultations with the civil society after the review.
For issues in orange, the facilitator presented two opposing views on each issue and then suggested a compromise on which the delegations will have to reflect upon in order to make the orange issues green. Some of the compromises included: adopting a 4.5 year cycle with 14 sessions and 14 States per session; holding the first session of the second cycle in June 2012; encouraging the SuR to submit an addendum to the final report clearly stating its position on all received recommendations; encouraging the SuR to submit, within a reasonable period, an implementation plan for accepted recommendations; enabling the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to prepare a compilation of received recommendations by the SuR and involving UN country teams in the implementation of accepted recommendations at the request of the SuR.
In regards to proposals in red, the facilitator announced that, unless the delegations that made these proposals came up with alternate proposals aimed at striking a compromise, no change would be effected and the status quo would be maintained as per the provisions of the Institutional Building Package. Those red issues included, inter alia: developing guidelines for national consultations; tabling reports to national parliaments; developing guidelines for reports prepared by the OHCHR; allowing the OHCHR to present its Compilation and Summary before the Working Group; using new information technologies to enable the participation of other stakeholders; giving consideration to rejected recommendations from the first cycle and using independent expertise or legal advice to ensure the conformity of the recommendations with International Human Rights Law.
The facilitator added that for some of the issues in red, such as implementing video-conferencing and using independent expertise, the problem was not the opposition showed by States but the difficulty to put them into practice and that therefore these issues could be reconsidered if further suggestions are provided.
After his presentation, the Ambassador did not open the floor for comments but gave delegations one week to consult among their groups before meeting again. He reminded States that they needed to produce a document to submit to the second session of the Working Group on the HRC review, which begins on February 7.
See the facilitator’s presentation here.
Final UPR informal consultation - 21 January 2011
On January 21, UPR Facilitator and Ambassador of Morocco H.E. Mr. Omar Hilale held a final informal consultation to hear delegations’ views on his presentation made on January 11.
Please find below a summary of States’ reactions clustered by issues as contained in this January 11 Presentation assigning a colour to each proposal according to its degree of support:
Issues in green
- Separate section in stakeholders’ summary for NHRI
Egypt, on behalf of the Non Aligned Movement (NAM), expressed its support to the proposal to have a separate section in the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) summary of stakeholders’ information for National Human Rights Institutions (NHRI). Together with Algeria and Nigeria, they also insisted on the importance to open this dedicated section to all NHRIs and not only to A accredited ones. On the contrary, the United Kingdom and Canada wanted only A status NHRI to have a dedicated section in the document. The International Coordinating Committee of NHRI (ICC) asked for the document to be longer in order not to take away space from NGOs.
- Clear responses to recommendations
Egypt, on behalf of the NAM, opposed the proposal to request from States a clear position on all recommendations. They stated that asking States to say what recommendations they accepted and did not accept was enough. The Philippines asked for clarifications on what “clear responses” meant and if States would still be allowed to “take note”. On the contrary, Hungary, on behalf of the European Union (EU), along with Norway, Austria, the Republic of Korea, the United States, Uruguay, the United Kingdom and the ICC called on States to provide clear responses to recommendations, and thereby supported this proposal. The United States went further, asking for it to be spelt out how States should respond to recommendations, Canada voiced its opinion that States should be able to simply provide a clear acceptance or rejection for each recommendation.
- Mid-term reports
According to Egypt, on behalf of the NAM, Azerbaijan and China, the follow-up mid-term reports should remain voluntary. Uruguay and the Philippines supported the proposal. The Russian Federation stated that this issue was not necessarily in green. Algeria noted that mid-term reports should be voluntary and that they need not be in written form, as they could be presented orally under item 6, at the high level segment or at the general segment of the HRC. On the contrary, Hungary, on behalf of the EU, as well as Canada, called for a stronger language on mid-term reporting and the latter asked for guidance and tools.
- Follow-up Consultations
In regards to the proposal to hold consultations with the civil society on the follow-up, Egypt, on behalf of the NAM, expressed the view that there was no need to mention it as the IB text already provides for national consultations. Algeria stated that those consultations should not necessarily include civil society.
- Length of the Interactive dialogue
Hungary, on behalf of the EU, the Republic of Korea, Azerbaijan, Canada and the ICC supported the proposal to allocate more time for the interactive dialogue. The United States opposed to the idea of proportionality between the State under Review and other States in the extension of the duration of the length of the interactive dialogue. Uruguay supported the extension by half-an-hour of Working Group adoptions at HRC plenary sessions.
- Focus of the second cycle
Hungary, on behalf of the EU, the United States and Canada objected to the proposal that the second cycle should also focus on the assessment of the assistance received. Hungary added that they did not recall any agreement on this issue. Norway suggested that the scope of the second cycle of the UPR be the same as the one for the first cycle. Austria called for a clear focus on the implementation.
- OHCHR operating as a Clearing house
Hungary, on behalf of the EU, was against the OHCHR operating as a clearing house as it would shift it from its mandate. Brazil, on the contrary, supported the proposal.
Issues in orange
- Periodicity of the cycle
Hungary, on behalf of the EU, the Republic of Korea, Argentina, Japan and Canada asked for the four-year cycle to be maintained. Turkey, the Maldives and Uruguay supported the current proposal. Nigeria and Algeria stated their support of a five-year cycle. The Philippines declared that it was flexible on this issue.
- Gap between the first and second cycle
Hungary, on behalf of the EU, expressed its willingness to consider the compromise solution. Turkey and the Republic of Moldova supported the proposal.
- Addendum containing responses to recommendations
Egypt, on behalf of the NAM, agreed to keep the addendum to the final report optional. Japan stressed the importance of the addendum. Maldives was in favour of a mandatory addendum ,which China opposed.
- Implementation plan
Egypt, on behalf of the NAM, as well as the Philippines agreed to keep the implementation plan voluntary. Nigeria opposed the entire idea of an implementation plan. The Maldives stated that this could overburden States. China was against a mandatory implementation plan. On the contrary, Norway, Japan, the United Kingdom and the ICC welcomed the current proposal of having a voluntary implementation plan.
- Report by OHCHR
Egypt, on behalf of the NAM, was against the proposal to have a compilation of received recommendations prepared by the OHCHR, arguing that the Council already had to prepare two reports. Algeria considered that the OHCHR should not be overloaded with the compilation. Japan expressed doubt about the proposal.
- Role of United Nations Country Teams (UNCT)
Egypt, on behalf of the NAM, recalled that countries tend to work with UNCTs on the preparation of reports but that the process itself was state-driven. Algeria expressed that UNCTs should be involved as stated under paragraph 36 of resolution 5/1. Nigeria agreed with Egypt and Algeria.
Issues in red
On video conferencing, Hungary, on behalf of the EU, explained that the use of new information technologies would allow grassroots NGOs to meaningfully contribute to the review. Argentina was also in favour of video-conferencing.
On the issue of the linkage with other UN mechanisms, Hungary, on behalf of the EU, stressed that it was in the interest of the whole UN system.
Mexico, Turkey and the Maldives stated that the compromises were acceptable.
Egypt, on behalf of the NAM, the Russian Federation and China expressed concern about the possibility during the UPR adoption to hold special sessions or discussions after each Working Group session.
The Russian Federation supported the approach put forward by the facilitator that if there was no consensus on a certain issue, the Council should revert to practices and procedures for that issue as outlined in resolution 5/1.
Algeria supported the strengthening of the Voluntary Fund for financial and technical assistance by creating a Board.
Norway called to keep the three plenary sessions of the HRC implying not to move the adoption of working group reports from HRC plenary session to UPR working group session.
Norway and Azerbaijan expressed their support for maintaining the current role of the troika.
Concerning the list of speakers, the Republic of Korea stressed the need to accommodate all delegations while Uruguay called for a new methodology. Switzerland expressed its support of the Bureau’s proposal.
The United Kingdom wanted to clarify that States can raise any issue at the second cycle and not only about accepted recommendations and new developments.
After hearing States’ positions, the facilitator explained that he would prepare a document for the HRC President by the end of January reflecting what had been said today. With the help of the Secretariat, he would draft proposals , which he would give to the President so that they could be annexed as proposals to improve the UPR.
Organisational meeting for the 2nd session of the Working Group - 3 February 2011
On February 3rd, the President of the Human Rights Council (HRC), H.E. Mr. Sihasak Phuangketkeow, held an organisational meeting to prepare the second session of the Working Group on the HRC review to be held on 7, 17, 18, 23 and 24 February.
The President presented a Compilation of contributions containing papers prepared by the five facilitators. Those papers were drafted following the informal consultations each of the facilitator held between November 2010 and January 2011. This Compilation will be discussed by States and other stakeholders during this second Working Group session starting Monday 7th.
The paper presented by the UPR Facilitator focused mainly on the issues with large convergences and on which consensus seemed possible. Those issues were identified in his presentation made on January 11th and during the last informal consultation held on January 21st.
On the issue of the adoptions of the Working Group reports at the HRC plenary, the facilitator stated that it needed to wait for the other clusters to progress further. On the issue of the list of speakers, the paper asks the HRC to adopt a solution by the 18th session of the HRC.
Second session of the Working Group - Mini session 1 - 7 February 2011
On February 7, the Human Rights Council (HRC) began the second session of the Open-ended Working Group on the HRC review. This second session will be divided into three mini sessions which will be held on February 7, 17-18, and 23-24.
On Monday the 7th, HRC President H.E. Mr. Sihasak Phuangketkeow invited delegations to react to the Compilation of contributions presented on February 3 during an organisational meeting. Many States and other stakeholders took the floor to state their position.
Below is a summary of reactions of delegates to the paper on the UPR contained in the Compilation. Those discussions were similar to the ones held on January 21 during the last informal consultation on the UPR. Delegates re-stated their positions on each proposal instead of giving new proposals aimed at reaching a compromise.
In general, Cuba, Turkey, Guatemala and Chile supported the paper.
Periodicity of the subsequent cycles
Egypt, on behalf of the Non-aligned Movement (NAM), suggested maintaining a full-year cycle in order to avoid costs. Indonesia, on behalf of the ASEAN, and the Philippines expressed their flexibility on the issue of periodicity The latter also supported the extension of the cycle to five years. Thailand declared its preference for a cycle of at least 4.5 years. Algeria was in favor of a five-year cycle. Guatemala and CIVICUS supported the current proposal of 4,5 years.
Hungary, on behalf of the European Union (EU), was of the opinion that extending the length of the cycle would weaken the process. France also opposed the extension. Turkey declared its preference for a four-year cycle. The United Kingdom and the Republic of Korea expressed that there was no need to extend the cycle. Switzerland would not support the extension of the length of the cycle unless other progresses were made in the review.
Gap between the first and second cycle
Austria and the Republic of Korea, preferred to have no gap between the two cycles. On the contrary, the Russian Federation believed that a gap between the UPR cycles would allow for the development of new guidelines for the drafting of the three documents which would serve as the basis of each review and help countries to prepare for the review.
Focus of the second cycle
According to Nigeria, on behalf of the African Group, Pakistan, on behalf of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), and Myanmar, the focus of the second cycle should only be solely on the accepted recommendations and should not include the rejected ones. Guatemala specified that the focus should also be on the assistance received.
Hungary, on behalf of the EU, and Denmark were opposing the inclusion of the assessment of the technical assistance received. Austria was of the view that the second cycle should be on the actual situation of human rights in the country as well as on all accepted recommendations. France suggested that the second cycle should also address the rejected and noted recommendations. Finally, Canada suggested the second cycle must also focus on new recommendations made during this second cycle.
UPR plenary adoptions
Nigeria, on behalf of the African Group, Egypt, on behalf of the NAM, Pakistan, on behalf of the OIC, Algeria and the Philippines asserted that that if the UPR adoptions in plenary sessions were to be held immediately after the UPR working group sessions, they should not be used for purposes other than the UPR, such as reacting to urgent situations.
On the contrary, Hungary, on behalf of the EU, Japan, Ireland and Canada said that those adoptions could also be used to address human rights situations in countries.
According to the Republic of Korea, the State under Review (SuR) should clearly express its position on all received recommendations. The Netherlands stressed the importance for clear responses and clear positions of acceptance or rejection. Canada voiced the idea that very recommendation that is not rejected formally should be considered as accepted. Australia suggested adopting a standard format for the responses.
Hungary, on behalf of the EU, France, Norway and CIVICUS believed that States under Review should provide their views in writing on all recommendations submitted in advance . France also believed, together with the United Kingdom, that the wording of the proposal “encouraging” States could be stronger.
Implementation plan for recommendations
Nigeria, on behalf of the African Group, declared it was not “subscribing” to idea of an implementation plan. Moldova and the Russian Federation also expressed their reluctance to producing a voluntary plan. Egypt, on behalf of the NAM, said that the plan should not be compulsory and Pakistan, on behalf of the OIC feared that it would add a burden on States. Indonesia, on behalf of the ASEAN, expressed its belief that the implementation plan should remain strictly voluntary in nature and not formalised in the agenda.
On the other hand, Turkey and the Republic of Korea considered the implementation plan very important. The inclusion of the proposal about an implementation plan in the paper was also welcomed by Austria. Japan stated that even if voluntary, the implementation plan should be the basis for receiving technical assistance. Finally, Honduras added its support to the proposal encouraging States to submit a plan.
According to Egypt, on behalf of the NAM, States have no obligation to submit a mid-term report and Indonesia, on behalf of the ASEAN, Thailand and Guatemala expressed that the mid-term report should remain voluntary. The Republic of Moldova and the Russian Federation did not support the proposal to encourage States to submit mid-term reports.
On the contrary, this proposal was welcomed by Austria and supported by Honduras.
Funds for participation and for financial and technical assistance
A strong appeal was made by Nigeria, on behalf of the African Group, Pakistan, on behalf of the OIC, Indonesia, on behalf of the ASEAN, Turkey, Brazil, Peru and South Africa to strengthen the two funds for participation and for the follow-up. The organisation CIVICUS asked for the participiation fund to also provide support for NGOs.
Algeria wanted non-A Status accredited NHRIs to be able to participate fully in the UPR while the United Kingdom, Peru, Brazil and Norway wanted to have the role of A-status NHRIs strengthened. Australia suggested that A-status NGOs should be able to speak immediately after the SuR at the plenary adoption of the Report of the Working Group.
The International Coordinating Committee of NHRIs reminded the council of its support for a dedicated section to NHRIs in the OHCHR summary of stakeholder information if the length of this summary were extended. The Asia Pacific Forum supported the proposal to dedicate a section of the summary to NHRIs.
Cuba specified that the HRC does not hold the mandate to follow-up on the implementation of recommendations.
Austria and Brazil welcomed the extension in time of the interactive dialogue.
The United States suggested that OHCHR prepare a report for each country on the implementation status of its recommendations for the second cycle .
Denmark was opposed to the idea of the OHCHR acting as a clearing house in with respect to the follow-up.
CIVICUS presented for the second time its proposal to introduce the OHCHR compilation of UN information and summary of stakeholders’ information at the stage of the working group.
Second session of the Working Group - Mini session 2 - 17-18 February 2011
On February 17 and 18, the Open-ended Working Group on the Human Rights Council (HRC) review held the second part of its second session. States and other stakeholders were given the opportunity to react to the HRC President’s Negotiating text circulated on Monday 14.
The discussion on the UPR parts of this Negotiating text was held on Thursday 17 from 10 am to 1 pm. Following the positions expressed on February 7th, delegations suggested concrete amendments to the text:
A. Basis, principles and objectives of the review
The United Kingdom suggested introducing a 1 bis and 1 ter which would read as follow:
“1. bis. Reaffirms that no recommendation, nor State’s response thereto, may be interpreted to limit the scopes of any state’s obligations under international human rights law.”
“1. ter. States are encouraged to ensure that recommendations are focused, action oriented, implementable, consistent with international human rights law and designed to improve the human rights situations in the State under Review.”
These suggestions were supported by Canada, New Zealand, Norway and the United States.
B. Periodicity and order of the review
2. The second cycle of the review shall begin in June 2012.
3. The periodicity of the review for the second and subsequent cycles will be of four years and half. This will imply the consideration of forty-two States per year during three sessions of the working group to be held, preferably, in February, June and October.
Egypt, on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), Indonesia, on behalf of ASEAN, and China requested to explore the option to move to a five year cycle which would lead to cost savings and less workload for the Human Rights Council.
Hungary, on behalf of the European Union (EU), believed that extending the duration of the cycle would weaken the system and would consider accepting the 4,5 year cycle if other elements in this or other clusters are significantly improved.
Nigeria, on behalf of the African Group, stated that they wanted a five year cycle.
4. The order of review established for the first cycle of the review shall be maintained for the second and subsequent cycles.
5. The plenary sessions of the Human Rights Council for the consideration of the outcome of the review will be held together with the UPR working group sessions.
Egypt, on behalf of the NAM, Indonesia, on behalf of ASEAN, Pakistan, on behalf of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), and China suggested adding “held solely” between “Council” and “for the consideration”.
Nigeria, on behalf of the African Group, suggested adding the words “directly after” after “will be held” instead of “together with” and adding “and should be focus only on the adoption of the UPR Working Group Report”
Bangladesh suggested replacing the word “together” by “one after another”.
Norway suggested inserting the word “three” and the phrase “and have a duration of up to three days”.
C. Process and modalities of the review
Focus and documentation
6. The review during the second and subsequent cycles will continue to be based on the three documents identified in paragraph 15 of the annex to Council resolution 5/1.
7. The second and subsequent cycles of the review should focus, inter alia, on:
a) The follow-up and implementation of the outcome of the preceding cycle, including, as appropriate, the technical and financial assistance received.
Egypt, on behalf of the NAM, Indonesia, on behalf of ASEAN, Pakistan, on behalf of the OIC, and China suggested deleting the words “as appropriate” and add “in terms of accepted recommendations and voluntary pledges” after “preceding cycle”
Hungary, on behalf of the EU, suggested deleting the rest of the sentence after the word “cycle”. On the contrary, Brazil wanted to keep the reference to the technical and financial assistance.
Nigeria, on behalf of the African Group, and the Russian Federation suggested replacing the word “outcome” with “accepted recommendations of the State under Review”
Peru suggested adding an “s” at the end of the word “cycle”. This amendment was also supported by France, the United Kingdom and Chile.
b) The developments of the human rights situation in the State under review since its preceding review.
Egypt, on behalf of the NAM, Indonesia, on behalf of ASEAN, Pakistan, on behalf of the OIC, and China suggested adding “including territories under its control” after “in the State under Review”
8. The general guidelines for the UPR reports adopted by Council decision 6/102 shall be adjusted to the focus of the second and subsequent cycles before the Council’s 18th session.
9. Other relevant stakeholders are encouraged to include in their contributions to the review information on the follow-up by the State under review of the outcome of its preceding review.
Nigeria, on behalf of the African Group, and the Russian Federation suggested replacing the word “outcome” with “accepted recommendations”.
The United Kingdom suggested adding the words “themselves and” after “follow-up by”.
Bangladesh suggested adding the phrase “on the basis of accepted recommendations by the State” at the end of the paragraph.
10. The summary of the information provided by other relevant stakeholders should contain, where appropriate, a separate section for the contributions by the National Human Rights Institutions of the State under review which are consistent with the Principles relating to the
status of national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights annexed to the General Assembly resolution 48/134 (the Paris Principles).
Nigeria, on behalf of the African Group, suggested deleting everything after “State under Review”.
Peru suggested replacing the words “consistent with” with “in accordance with”. This amendment was also supported by the United States. On the contrary, Costa Rica wanted to keep “consistent with”.
Algeria suggested replacing the word “which” (third line) with “indicating whether such institutions”.
11. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights is encouraged to make available and easily accessible all relevant information and reports from the preceding reviews of the State under review.
12. The role of the Troikas shall be maintained as set forth in the annex to Council resolution 5/1 as well as the President’s Statement 8/PRST/1.
13. One additional hour will be added to the review. Thus, the total of four hours of the review will be divided as follows:
a) One hour and twenty minutes for the State under review.
b) Two hours and forty minutes for member and observer States of the Human Rights Council wishing to take the floor during the review.
14. One additional half hour will be added to the consideration of the outcome of the review by the plenary of the Human Rights Council. Thus, the total of one hour and half of the consideration of the UPR outcome by the plenary of the Human Rights Council will be divided as follows:
a) Thirty minutes for the State under review.
b) One hour for the members and observers of the Human Rights Council
Egypt, on behalf of the NAM, Indonesia, on behalf of ASEAN, Pakistan, on behalf of the OIC, and China suggested adding “as well as other stakeholders” after “Council”. This amendment was supported by Hungary on behalf of the EU, France, the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa, Australia and the International Coordinating Committee of National institutions.
Algeria was of the view that National Human Rights Institutions should be able to speak just after the State under Review at the adoption of the Working Group Report at the plenary session.
15. The modalities for establishing the list of speakers shall ensure the principles of universality, equal treatment and transparency. Such modalities are defined in Appendix 1.
The Republic of Korea, Israel, Chile, New Zealand and Australia supported the proposal for the modalities of the list of speakers as contained in Appendix 1.
16. The Universal Periodic Review Voluntary Trust Fund established by Human Rights Council resolution 6/17 should be strengthened and operationalized in order to ensure a significant participation of developing countries, particularly least developing countries and small island states, in their review.
Egypt, on behalf of the NAM, Indonesia, on behalf of ASEAN, Pakistan, on behalf of the OIC, and China suggested adding after the last sentence “The Council shall formulate by its 18th session the governance structure and disbursement modalities for this Fund.”
Nigeria, on behalf of the African Group, suggested replacing the word “operationalized” with “the modalities to operationalize the fund should be finalised by the 18th session”.
Nepal suggested replacing the words “least developing countries and small island states” with “Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and Small Island Developing States (SIDs)”
D. Outcome of the review
Israel suggested introducing the following paragraph:
“A recommendation and the response of a State thereto must fall in line with the object and purpose of the UN Charter, the language of resolutions 60/251 and the principles and objectives contained within the Annex to resolution 5/1”.
17. The recommendations contained in the outcome of the review should be clustered thematically with the full involvement and consent of the State under review and the States that made the recommendations.
Egypt, on behalf of the NAM, Indonesia, on behalf of ASEAN, Pakistan, on behalf of the OIC, and China suggested adding the word “preferably” after “should”.
18. The State under review should provide the Human Rights Council with its views on all received recommendations, in accordance with the provisions of the institution-building package annexed to Council resolution 5/1. The State under review is also encouraged to provide such information, as well as its voluntary pledges and commitments, in a written format prior to the Human Rights Council plenary for the adoption of the outcome of its review.
Nigeria, on behalf of the African Group, suggested replacing the words “in accordance” with “consistent with”. They also proposed to delete the last sentence.
Japan suggested replacing the word “provide” by “communicate to” and deleting the whole paragraph after “Council” on the first line and replace it with “in written form prior to the Human Rights Council plenary for the adoption of the outcome of its review whether it supports or decline to support each of the recommendation it has received”. This amendment was supported by Canada.
France suggested replacing the word “should” in the first line with “will”.
Switzerland suggested replacing the word “encouraged” with “obliged”.
Ireland suggested replacing the word “encouraged” with “expected”.
The Republic of Korea suggested a new wording for the paragraph: “The State under Review shall provide its clear position on all the recommendations received, stating whether they enjoy its support or not”.
Canadian HIV/Aids Legal Network suggested replacing the words “should” and “is also encouraged to” with “shall”.
E. Follow-up of the review
19. States have the primary responsibility for the implementation of the outcome of their review.
Egypt, on behalf of the NAM, Pakistan, on behalf of the OIC, Indonesia, on behalf of ASEAN, and China suggested deleting the word “primary” and adding “in terms of accepted recommendations and voluntary pledges” at the end of the sentence. On the contrary, Chile and New Zealand expressed their wish to keep the word “primary”.
The Russian Federation suggested replacing the word “outcome” with “accepted recommendations”
Bangladesh suggested adding the phrase “on the basis of accepted recommendations by the State” after “outcome”.
20. States are encouraged to conduct broad consultations with all relevant stakeholders on the implementation of the outcome of their review.
Egypt, on behalf of the NAM, Pakistan, on behalf of the OIC, Indonesia, on behalf of ASEAN, and China suggested adding “in terms of accepted recommendations and voluntary pledges” at the end of the sentence.
Nigeria, on behalf of the African Group, suggested merging paragraph 19 and 20. They also suggested adding the words “in consistence with paragraph 32 of the Institutional Building Package” after “stakeholders”.
21. States are encouraged to provide the Human Rights Council, on a voluntary basis, with:
Egypt, on behalf of the NAM, Pakistan, on behalf of the OIC, Nigeria, on behalf of the African Group, China, Saudi Arabia and Bangladesh suggested replacing the words “are encouraged to” with “may”.
Hungary, on behalf of the EU, and Japan suggested adding the word “strongly” before “encouraged”.
France suggested deleting the words “on a voluntary basis”.
The United Kingdom and the Canadian HIV/Aids Legal Network suggested replacing the word “encouraged” by “expected”.
Canada suggested introducing the word “strongly” after “are”.
Norway suggested replacing the words “are encouraged to” with “will”.
a) An implementation plan for the outcome of their review, within a reasonable timeframe.
Egypt, on behalf of the NAM, Pakistan, on behalf of the OIC, Indonesia, on behalf of ASEAN, China and Bangladesh suggested deleting the whole sentence.
The United Kingdom suggested replacing “a reasonable timeframe” with “one year”.
b) A midterm report on the follow-up of the outcome of their review.
Egypt, on behalf of the NAM, and Pakistan, on behalf of the OIC, Indonesia, on behalf of ASEAN, Nigeria, on behalf of the African Group, China, Nepal, Saudi Arabia and South Africa suggested replacing the word “report” with “update”.
Nigeria, on behalf of the African Group, also suggested replacing the word “outcome” with “accepted recommendations”.
The United Kingdom suggested adding “two years after the review”.
The Russian Federation suggested deleting the whole paragraph 21.
22. The Voluntary Fund for Financial and Technical Assistance established by Human Rights Council resolution 6/17 should be strengthened and operationalized, as soon as possible, in order to provide a source of financial and technical assistance to help countries implement the recommendations emanating from their review, including by designating the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights as a clearing house for such assistance.
Egypt, on behalf of the NAM, Pakistan, on behalf of the OIC, Indonesia, on behalf of ASEAN, China and the Maldives suggested adding the words “in particular LDCs and SIDS, upon their request, to” after “to help countries”.
Hungary, on behalf of the EU, and Japan were opposed to designate the OHCHR as a clearing for assistance because it would shift the focus of its mandate. It proposed an alternative wording for this paragraph:
“Expenditures from the Voluntary Fund for Financial and Technical Assistance established by Human Rights Council resolution 6/17 should be operationalized, as soon as possible, in order to provide a source of financial and technical assistance to help countries implement the recommendations emanating from their review. To this end States applying for assistance will be requested to submit an implementation plan on recommendations they intend to implement.”
On the contrary, Brazil insisted on keeping the reference of the OHCHR as clearing house and explained that “clearing house” means facilitating discussions between donor and receiving country.
Nigeria, on behalf of the African Group, suggested deleting the word “operationalized”.
Nepal suggested adding the phrase “in particular Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and Small Island Developing States (SIDs)” after “countries”.
Bangladesh suggested adding the word “developing” before “countries” (third line) and adding “specially, LDCs and SIDs” after “countries”.
23. States may request the United Nations representation at the national or regional level to assist them in the implementation of the follow-up of their review.
Egypt, on behalf of the NAM, Pakistan, on behalf of the OIC, Indonesia, on behalf of ASEAN, China and the Maldives suggested adding the words “subject to the allocation of incremental resources for this purpose” at the end of the sentence.
Hungary, on behalf of the EU, and the United States expressed its preference to revert to the original language of the IB package paragraph 36 which had a broader scope and referred to the international community rather than only to the UN.
Nigeria, on behalf of the African Group, suggested deleting the whole paragraph.
The Philippines suggested making a reference to paragraph 36 of the Institutional Building Text in this paragraph.
Second session of the Working Group - Mini session 3 - 23-24 February 2011
On Thursday, February 24, the Open-ended Working Group on the Review of the Human Rights Council (HRC) concluded its second session with the adoption of an Outcome of the Review of the Work and Functioning of the United Nations Human Rights Council. This outcome contains modifications to Resolution 5/1 as well as new modalities for the work and functioning of the HRC.
The outcome was adopted by consensus in the late hours of Thursday, February 24, the last day of the Working Group after several months of negotiations and meetings. However, many States, such the United States, Argentina, Israel, France, Mexico, Australia, Canada and Japan, the European Union, as well as NGOs such as the International Service for Human Rights, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch expressed their disappointment in regards to the content of the document. Their main critic was the failure of the Working Group to create trigger mechanisms enabling the HRC to react to urgent country situations and allowing for other stakeholders such as the United Nations Secretary-General, the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the HRC President to bring particular country situations to the HRC’s attention.
This outcome will be adopted by the HRC at its 16th session, which is currently held until March 25 and then sent to the General Assembly in New York.
The changes brought by this outcome on the UPR modalities are limited. Here are the main ones:
1. The length of the cycle will be 4,5 years instead of 4 (§3).
2. The first session of the second cycle will start in June 2012 (§2).
3. The list of speakers will now open on the Monday of the week preceding the beginning of the Working Group session. Delegations inscribed on the list of speakers will be arranged in alphabetical order of the county names in English. On the Friday morning preceding the beginning of the session, the President will draw by lot the first speaker on the list. The list of speakers will continue from the State drawn onward. States will be able to swap place on the speakers list with other States (§11).
4. The general guidelines (HRC Decision 6/102) for the drafting of the three reports forming the basis of the review (National report, compilation of UN information and summary of stakeholders’ information) will be modified for the second cycle by the HRC 18th session to be held in September 2011 (§7).
5. National Human Rights Institutions with A status will have a dedicated section in the summary of other stakeholders’ information prepared by the Office of the High Commissioner. They will also now be given the floor directly after the State under Review during the adoption of the Report of the Working Group at the HRC plenary session (§9 and 13).
6. States should submit its responses in a written format to all recommendations received during their review (§16).
7. States are encouraged to conduct national consultations on the follow-up with the civil society (§17).
8. States are encouraged to provide mid-term updates on the implementation of their recommendations between two reviews (§18).
Informal consultation on the follow-up to the Review on the UPR - 27 May 2011
On Friday 27 May, the President of the Human Rights Council (HRC) held an informal consultation on follow-up to the HRC Review on the Universal Periodic Review (UPR).
The aim of this consultation was to discuss the different issues pending from the HRC Review in relation to the second cycle of the UPR: order of review, duration of the Working Group review, list of speakers, adjustment of general guidelines 6/102 and revision of the Terms of References for the Funds for participation and the technical and financial assistance. Read more about those issues here.
In preparation for this meeting, the following documents were circulated:
- a Draft decision on those pending issues to be adopted by the HRC in June;
- three options of timetables for the Working Group sessions (option A, B, and C);
- the list of all States in order of review of the first cycle.
A total of eleven States took the floor to express their views on the different issues. A majority supported a 3.5 hour Working Group review and option B for the timetable.
India questioned the usefulness, through this meeting, to re-discus ideas shared during the HRC Review and to isolate the UPR from the other clusters.
In conclusion, the President announced that he will hold another consultation soon to continue the discussion.
1. Order of review
Argentina expressed its support of maintaining the same order as during the first cycle.
The Draft decision sent to delegations before the meeting contains proposals to adjust the General guidelines 6/102.
Egypt, on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), suggested removing the word “new” at the beginning of paragraph B. This was also supported by Nigeria on behalf of the African Group, the United States, Canada and Morocco.
Switzerland expressed its satisfaction with the modification brought in the draft decision.
Hungary, on behalf of the European Union (EU), suggested making reference to publication of an implementation plan in relation to the reception of technical assistance. In reaction to this proposal, Nigeria stated that this informal consultation was not the occasion to reopen the Outcome of the Review and add new wordings in the text. Similarly, Morocco firmly opposed to include this reference.
Canada, supported by Argentina, suggested adding the words “specifically on accepted recommendations” at the end of paragraph C.bis.
3. Duration of each Working Group review
The President explained that option A was similar to the first cycle with fourteen States per session whereas Options B and C were increasing the review to 3.5 hours. Option B was offering 3.5 hours for every country while option C was providing flexibility among reviews. If the time was extended, States would need to decide how to divide the additional thirty minutes between the State under Review (SuR) and the participating States. Another issue with the extension was that conferences services function by blocks of three hours and therefore could not work 3.5 hours in a row within the same resources.
Egypt, on behalf of the NAM, expressed its support for option A.
Option B enjoyed the support of Hungary on behalf of the EU, Nigeria on behalf of the African Group, India, Japan and Argentina.
Option C triggered numerous questions from delegates. The question of the predictability was mentioned as a SuR could be moved from one day to another depending on the length of the speakers’ list. Also concerns over potential cost implications of having a review over two days and a session longer than two weeks were shared.
The United States stated that they had been hoping for a four hour review. Canada suggested modifying option B in that sense. Reviews would be held from 9am to 1pm and then 2pm to 6pm. Working Group adoptions would be held during lunch breaks. To this proposal, the Secretariat answered that a four hour review was not possible within existing resources.
On the issue of how to divide the additional thirty minutes, Egypt, on behalf of the NAM, Nigeria on behalf of the African Group and India wanted to keep the proportionality giving ten minutes to the SuR whereas the United States were of the views to give the entire thirty minutes to participating States.
4. Modalities for the list of speakers
The President explained that the proposal contained in Resolution A/HRC/RES/16/21 on the Outcome of the HRC Review intended to answer two problems: to allow all States willing to speak to do so and to avoid long queues.
Hungary, on behalf of the EU, the United States and Japan expressed their support to the proposal. Morocco stated that the shortness of the statement should not be a problem as the Interactive dialogue should not be used to praise the SuR but to make questions and recommendations.
5. Funds for participation and financial and technical assistance
Morocco expressed its confidence in the work of the Secretariat to present revised Terms of Reference.
Second informal consultation on the follow-up to the Review on the UPR - 10 June 2011
On Friday 10 June, the Human Rights Council (HRC) President organised a second informal consultation on the follow-up to the HRC Review on the Universal Periodic Review.
This consultation followed the one held on 27 May during which States and other stakeholders discussed the different issues pending from the HRC Review in relation to the second cycle of the UPR: timetable for each Working Group session, the order of review, the list of speakers, the general guidelines for the three documents and the Funds.
In preparation for this second consultation, the following documents had been circulated:
- New version of the draft decision to be adopted by the HRC at its current 17th session
- New option for the Working Group timetables.
This new version of the draft decision introduced a few changes from the previous version:
- Paragraph II. B: the word “new” was taken, as many States asked during the first informal;
- Paragraph III. The duration of each Working Group Review was set on 3.5 hours;
- Paragraph V: The Secretariat was requested to present annual written reports to the HRC on the operations of the funds and the resources available to it.
According to this option D, seven States would be reviewed per week and the Working Group adoptions would be held on Thursday and Friday afternoon of each week and not throughout the week any more.
The consultation was brief as only a handful of countries took the floor. Hungary, on behalf of the European Union, supported both the draft decision and option D.
Part II. Paragraph E: Egypt on behalf of the NAM and Nigeria on behalf of the African Group suggested deleting the newly added words “in relation to the implementation of accepted recommendations and the development of human rights situations in the State” while Switzerland wanted to keep them.
Part III: No comments were made against a 3.5 hour Working Group review. As for how to distribute the additional 30 minutes, Egypt on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), Switzerland and Nigeria on behalf of the African Group were in favour of the proportionality, that is allocating ten minutes to the State under Review and twenty minutes to the participating States. Asked by the HRC President, the Ambassador of Morocco explained that during the HRC Review, the majority of States supported the proportionality.
Option D triggered intense discussions because not all States would have 48 hours between their review and the adoption of the draft Report of the Working Group. India stated preferring going back to option A, that is a three hour review.
The HRC President therefore suggested taking a decision on the other issues at this HRC session and leaving the issue of the timetable to the next HRC session in September. But Pakistan and India did not agree.
In conclusion, the President proposed to hold a third informal consultation. This will take place on Wednesday 15 June from 10 am to 12 pm.
Third informal consultation on the follow-up to the Review on the UPR - 15 June 2011
On Wednesday 15 June, the Human Rights Council (HRC) President convened a third informal consultation to reach an agreement on the format of the timetable for the UPR working groups of the second cycle.
Two previous informal consultations were held on Friday 27 May and Friday 10 June to discuss the different issues pending from the HRC Review in relation to the second cycle of the UPR: the order of review, the list of speakers, the general guidelines for the three documents, the revised terms of reference of the Funds and the timetable for each Working Group session.
The format of the timetable was the last issue on which agreement had not been reached yet. As the HRC President was in New York, the Ambassador of Morocco, former facilitator on the UPR during the HRC Review, was entrusted to find a new template for the timetable and lead the discussions at this third informal.
His Excellency Omar Hilale made a detailed Powerpoint presentation recalling the different options discussed before as well as their strengths and weaknesses: A, B, C and D. He then presented a new option, E, elaborated to answer the four concerns expressed by States during the previous consultations:
- Equal treatment among States under Review
- 48 hours between the review and the adoption for all States under Review (regardless of when the report would be adopted, the reports for all States would be distributed exactly 48 hours after each review)
- No more than seven hours of meetings per day
- No financial implication
His Excellency said that this solution E was pending confirmation from financial services but he was hoping this would be accepted. The only disadvantage according to him was the long period for certain countries between the review and the adoption and the difficulty for small States to stay up to five days in Geneva. However, a study made demonstrated that only 12.5% of head of delegations have stayed for the adoptions during the eleven first sessions of the UPR so the number of States affected would be limited.
The United States, Egypt on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), Hungary on behalf of the European Union, the Russian Federation, the Philippines, the Republic of Moldova, Algeria, Azerbaijan and Brazil took the floor to express their support in this new option.
India disagreed with the Ambassador of Morocco who assumed that they had been an agreement during the two previous informals on adding thirty minutes to the current three hours of review and stated that option A should not be ruled out.
Egypt on behalf of NAM and the Russian Federation, asked for the paragraph V. 10. of the latest draft decision to state that the Secretary-General of the United Nations should appoint the board of trustees of the Voluntary Fund for financial and technical assistance. Algeria wanted to make a reference to the geographical repartition of the composition of the future board of trustees.
The final draft decision and the option E should be presented in the coming days to the HRC for adoption.