Submitted by crinadmin on
[GENEVA, 28 June 2006] - At 10am, Ambassador Luis Alfonso de Alba called to order today's meeting, resuming discussions on item 4 of the agenda: the Implementation of General Assembly Resolution 60/251 of 15 March 2006. Today, the Council will discuss more particularly the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) mechanism set out in Resolution 60/251, operational paragraph 5 (e): "The Council shall inter alia (...) undertake a universal periodic review, based on objective and reliable information, of the fulfilment 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; the Council shall develop the modalities and necessary time allocation for the universal periodic review mechanism within one year after the holding of its first session" Paragraph 9 furthermore stresses that: "members elected to the Council shall uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights, shall fully cooperate with the Council and be reviewed under the universal periodic review mechanism during their term of membership" Ambassador de Alba announced that the aim of today's discussion was to identify measures to be taken to ensure that the UPR mechanism becomes a reality within the time frame set up by the GA Resolution (a year). Discussions should also take place on the estalishment of an inter-sessional working group in charge of holding consultations on the elaboration of UPR modalities, as suggested by the Mexican Ambassador himself. Statements by permanent representatives The following delegations delivered statements on the UPR mechanism: Uruguay, Switzerland, Malaysia, Mexico, Austria/EU, India, Canada/Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Indonesia, Brazil, Russian Federation, Algeria, Algeria/African group, Republic of Korea, South Africa, Philippines, Japan, Ghana, Poland, China, Cuba, Sri Lanka, Romania, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Azerbaijan, Zambia and Ukraine. An instrument reflecting a new culture All delegations welcomed the UPR mechanism as the most important and most innovative feature of the Human Rights Council and of the reform of the UN human rights system. All of them expressed the hope that this new mechanism would enable the Council extricate itself from the politicisation, double-standards, and political selectivity displayed by the defunct Commission on Human Rights. UPR, they said, is an "instrument reflecting a new culture" (Uruguay) and therefore should not allow exceptions or excuses based on the idea of infringement of domestic sovereignty. The new mechanism must place all countries on an equal footing and therefore be based on universality, impartiality, objectivity, non-selectivity, and inclusiveness. It must use similar parameters for all States and ensure coverage of all human rights issues. How should UPR be established? Paragraph 5(e) of Resolution 60/251 left to the Council the task of determining the modalities for the elaboration of the UPR mechanism. All delegations expressed their wish for an inclusive consultation process, whose outcome would enjoy the trust of all. However, slight disagreement was sometimes expressed regarding the nature of consultations and the consultations time frame. Although a suggestion was made for an infomal process to start the UPR consultations (Switzerland), most countries favoured the establishment of an inter-governmental open-ended working group that would consider relevant procedural questions and submit its recommendations to the Human Rights Council. The working group would meet between HRC sessions and update the Council regularly on progress made. Consultations within the working group would involve all stakeholders, i.e. Council member States, observer States, UN agencies, representatives from Treaty Bodies, NGOs and Nationals Human Rights Institutions. Many delegations suggested that the president of the UPR working group should be a Council member. Time frame Two different views were expressed with regards to the pace the consultation process should take, although most agreed that the working group should be established and start its work immediately after the first HRC session ends. Some speakers insisted that time constraints set out in Resolution 60/251 should not be sacrifice the effectiveness of the consultations, and the process is too important to be rushed (Uruguay, Malaysia, EU). Cuba also called on the Coucnil to be cautious and not show too much haste in wanting to finish UPR talks by December 2006, as suggested by many delegations, so as not to transmit the Commission's vices not the Council. Indonesia also suggested that there should be no additional deadlines introduced to the process of the elaboration of the UPR modalities other than the one mentioned in the GA Resolution, as the Council needs to take its time. Most speakers, however, expressed their wish to see the UPR mechanism fully operational within one year, as specified by Resolution 60/251 (Switzerland, Republic of Korea, South Africa, etc). They suggested consultations should end by December 2006, in order for the Council to finalise the mechanism as early as possible and start the review process next year. Suggestions on the modalities of the UPR mechanism itself FAIRNESS: All delegations expressed the view that the UPR modalities should be agreed upon by consensus and applied uniformally to all countries, in a non-selective and impartial manner. However, many stressed that the Council should also take into account the specific capacity needs and level of development of every country concerned, and provide assistance accordingly (Brazil, Algeria/African group). CAPACITY BUILDING: Many delegations said UPR should be viewed as an opportunity for States to assess their performance and needs with respect to human rights protection, not as a tribunal-like instrument (Brazil, Sri Lanka, Algeria, Republic of Korea). Thus, through UPR the Council was encouraged to do more than simply criticise governments and rather identify failures in order to facilitate support from the international community where it is needed. SIMPLICITY: All delegation specified that the process should not be burdensome, and impose additional reporting duties on States, especially for developing countries, which lack the required capacity. It should be an efficient and meaningful system but with a reasonably light procedure (Indonesia, Canada/Canada, Australia, NZ) - hrc should not place heavy reporting burden on countries. EFFICIENCY: Most delegations were adamant that the UPR mechanism not duplicate but rather complement the work of other mechanisms such as Treaty Bodies. However, they believed that Treaty Body mechanisms, the ILO's Trade Policy Review Mechanism or regional peer review mechanisms such as NEPAD's (the New Partnership for Africa's Development (Sri Lanka) should be used and drawn upon when setting up the HRC's UPR (India, Sri Lanka, etc). On the subject of Treaty Bodies, a few speakers suggested that UPR should be a way to encourage States to ratify the main human rights treaties, especially those States that have made such pledges in order to be elected to the new HRC (Romania). RELATIVISM: A few delegations insisted that UPR should not become a tool for the HRC to impose any values. Accorind to them, the UPR mechanism must be able to take into account, respect and reflect the diversity and complexity of UN member States (Brazil, Algeria, China). REGULARITY: Many States suggested reviews should be carried out regularly, and some put forward a proposal of UPR being carried out every three year for each State. UPR follow-up Finally, a few speakers suggested that UPR could serve as an input for a global report to be prepared by the Office of the High-Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) on the human rights situation in each UN members State. Other statements Statements were then made by the following non-Council member States: Thailand, Liechtenstein, Chile, Colombia, Nepal, Bhutan, Singapore, Vietnam, Cote d'Ivoire, Islamic Republic of Iran, Macedonia, US and Armenia. And the following NGO representatives: Human Rrights Watch (on behalf of 5 NGOs), the Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development, the Mouvement contre le racisme et pour l'amitie entre les peuples. NHRI: Commission on Human Rights Philippines. The meeting ended at 1pm and the Council will resume discussions at 3pm in order to consider the review of mandates and mechanisms.