Universal Periodic Review debate at the Human Rights Council

The Human Rights Council this afternoon discussed the modalities of its Universal Periodic Review mechanism.

Mohammed Loulichki, Permanent Representative of Morocco to the United Nations Office at Geneva and facilitator of the Working Group to develop modalities of the Universal Periodic Review mechanism, said that one of the most important tests for the Council to work effectively and credibly would be the establishment of the new mechanism by which States would be subject to a periodic review of the fulfilment of their human rights obligations and commitments. While it was clear that many complex issues, both of a conceptual and practical nature, remained to be addressed and decided on by the Council in the future, Council Members had to feel some satisfaction with the progress they had achieved in their thinking and discussions, as well as with the productive efforts they had all exerted. Discussions to date had allowed the Council to consolidate a shared and common understanding of the objectives and aims of the Universal Periodic Review mechanism, namely that the mechanism should ensure universality of coverage and equal treatment with respect to all States, that the review should 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, and that the mechanisms should complement and not duplicate the work of other human rights mechanisms.

In the debate on the Universal Periodic Review mechanism, there were common themes which speakers raised, including that the mechanism should be transparent; should not duplicate work of other bodies; should be action-oriented; should be non-selective and universal; should be able to provide technical assistance to help countries build their human rights infrastructure; and that the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review should coordinate with the Working Group on the review of the mandates of the Special Procedures because both functions were interrelated.

Participating in the discussion were representatives of Finland (on behalf of the European Union), Pakistan (on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference), Saudi Arabia (on behalf of the Asian Group), Mexico, Switzerland, Russian Federation, Brazil, Indonesia, Republic of Korea, Argentina, Malaysia, India, Bangladesh, Algeria (on behalf of the African Group), Cameroon, Peru, Canada, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Maldives, Iran, Chile, Colombia, Norway, Liechtenstein, United States and Australia.

Statements have been agreed among NGO representatives and delivered at this afternoon’s HRC segment on Progress report of WG on the Universal Periodic Review.

• Joint statement: Amnesty Int’l, Human Rights Watch, Int’l Federation of Human Rights Leagues, World Organization Against Torture, Int’l Commission of Jurists & Int’l Service for Human Rights
• Statement by the International Women’s Rights Action Watch (IWRAW), a non-governmental organization in special consultative status
• A joint statement of Pax Romana with International Alliance of Women, Forum Asia, International Women Rights’ Action Watch
• Statement by the Lutheran World Federation

Any organisation can join any of these joint statements by contacting the person who will read it and signing the form on behalf of your organisation. For NGOs not present in Geneva, a form to join joint statements in available on line and should be sent to the Secretariat in advance of the debate: http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/2session/speakers.htm