HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL ADOPTS OUTCOMES OF UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW ON ROMANIA AND MALI

The Human Rights Council this afternoon adopted the outcomes of the Universal Periodic Review process on the reports on Romania and Mali and held a general debate on the Universal Periodic Review.

Ghergohe Magheru, Director General at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Romania, said that the Universal Periodic Review had offered them a good opportunity to undertake a comprehensive review of the current implementation status of Romania’s commitments in the human rights field. It had also helped them to get a bigger picture of areas in need of remedies. With two exceptions, Romania accepted all recommendations received. They had undertaken resolute action in all human rights sectors. The national agency for Roma people was also working towards improving the condition of the Roma minority in the country.

In the discussion, speakers said that Romania had furthered their work on the promotion and protection of human rights through national legislation, policies, programmes and the establishment of human rights institutions. The Government should however continue its efforts in combating discrimination and ensure that transgender people were explicitly protected by law.

Speaking in the discussion on Romania were the delegations of China, the United Kingdom and Algeria. Also speaking was a representative of the European Region of the International Lesbian and Gay Association.

Sekou Kasse, Charge D’Affaires of the Mission of Mali to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said that following the Universal Periodic Review Mali sent out replies to a number of recommendations made. Mali was ready to cooperate with all Special Procedures of the Council. With regards to female genital mutilation, Mali had adopted legislation preventing all forms of this phenomenon, introduced information campaigns to educate the community, and drafted legislation to ban and criminalize all acts of female genital mutilation. Mali’s criminal code condemned all acts of violence. Mali’s Constitution and legislation already prohibited forced labour.

During the discussion, speakers noted with satisfaction Mali’s determination to promote an understanding of human rights in the country. Mali had exhibited a strong commitment to upholding human rights standards. This commitment was commended. The Government of Mali had made substantial progress in the promotion of human rights although constrained by limited resources. The international community was encouraged to support the Government of Mali’s initiatives to improve the socio-economic situation of its people.

Speaking during the discussion on Mali were the delegations of Tunisia, Philippines, Senegal and Algeria.

In the general discussion on the Universal Periodic Review, delegations said that the completion of the first two rounds of the Universal Periodic Review was an important milestone in the development of the United Nations human rights system. It would take time for the Universal Periodic Review to reach its potential. The Universal Periodic Review was, and should be considered, a work in progress. This process was a powerful and effective tool to promote human rights. It was important that good will was shown by States to conduct this process and thus guarantee the success of this work in the future. The Universal Periodic Review was not a tool to settle political issues. Politicisation and double standards must be excluded and not be accepted. The significant role that civil society made was also essential. Their reports were valuable. The use of recommendations to force any regional concepts on the entire world or to force concepts not acceptable to one culture was strongly objected. Also, some had asked to see results in the implementation of recommendations before the end of the four year round, this was not acceptable as no rule requested this.

At the end of the general debate, Doru Romulus Costea, the President of the Council underlined that the new Universal Periodic Review included positive points. Some aspects could of course be changed and others kept, but one had to foremost ask oneself how the whole process could be better used. The process should help each State to improve the human rights situation on the ground. The President further underlined that the Universal Periodic Review was a fundamental tool of the Human Rights Council and asked all members of the Council not to destroy it. He insisted that they were in the process of building something.

Speaking during the general debate were the delegations of Canada, Russia, Malaysia, Switzerland, China, Brazil, Slovenia on behalf of the European Union, Egypt on behalf of the African Group, Cuba, Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie, Turkey, New Zealand, Algeria and Morocco.

Also speaking were the representatives of the Latin American Committee for the Defence of Women’s Rights, International Service for Human Rights, Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development, Amnesty International, Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, International Federation of Human Rights, Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network and the Indian Council of South America.

The Council will meet on Monday, 16 June 2008 at 10 a.m., when it is scheduled to consider the human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, by hearing a statement by the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the newly appointed Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

Consideration of Outcome of Universal Periodic Review for Report on Romania

GHEORGHE MAGHERU, Director General at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Romania, said that the Government of Romania welcomed the recommendations that had been made in the course of the Universal Periodic Review. Romania intended to make the best use of this process in order to further consolidate its national system of human rights protection. The Universal Periodic Review had offered them a good opportunity to undertake a comprehensive review of the current implementation status of Romania’s commitments in the human rights field. It had also helped them to get a bigger picture of areas in need of remedies. With two exceptions, Romania accepted all recommendations received. The two recommendations which Romania was not ready to accept referred to the ratification of the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families and to the need to further harmonize its legislation in the field of religious freedom with international standards. At present Romania considered that the rights of migrant workers were adequately protected by the European Union law and existing national legislation. Romania accepted the recommendation to become a party to the Convention for the Protection of All Persons against Enforced Disappearances, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture. Regarding religious freedom, Romania considered that its law was in line with international standards, as it established a transparent system for the recognition of religious denomination and regulated the institution of religious associations.

Mr. Magheru noted that Romania had undertaken resolute action in all human rights sectors. Many of the Universal Periodic Review recommendations were already a work in progress. On recommendation three it was noted that in the past years, successive legislative amendments in the public safety area had also generated changes in the working methods of the law enforcement personnel. Concerning recommendation eight, this year, as in previous ones, the Romanian police had taken adequate measures to ensure the organisation of the Gay parade in good conditions and no incident had been registered. Concerning recommendations four and five, Romania was determined to continue its effort to combat any form of discrimination; they had already built up an efficient advanced legislative and institutional framework in this area. The national agency for Roma people was also working towards improving the condition of the Roma minority in the country.

Concerning the situation of HIV/AIDS infected persons, Mr. Magheru said that it was one of the priorities of the Ministry of Public Health. The survival rate of infected persons was one of the highest in Europe. There was no obligation for HIV testing upon employment. Improving the situation of women and children in the rural areas fell under the current preoccupation of relevant ministries and agencies in Romania. The problem of domestic violence was being addressed through a strategic action plan. Romania was also fully committed in combating trafficking in persons. A decrease trend in trafficking had been recorded in the past two years. Further, the law on the protection and promotion of the rights of the child expressly prohibited corporal punishment. Romania was pleased to have their Universal Periodic Review outcome adopted shortly before the end of its mandate as Member of the Human Rights Council and before the end of the presidency of the second cycle of the Council.

ZHU YANWEI (China) welcomed that Romania had held the interactive dialogue in a cooperative manner. Romania had worked on the promotion and protection of human rights in the country through national legislation, policies, programmes and the establishment of human rights institutions. Romania had also outlined the challenges ahead. China welcomed the latest information presented which further highlighted that Romania was committed to its human rights obligations. Further, China noted that Romania would underscore new improvements in human rights and fulfil their commitments.

MELANIE HOPKINS (United Kingdom) said that the Government of Romania had admitted frankly both the key areas where progress had been made and where further efforts were needed. The United Kingdom thanked Romania for the detailed responses that it had provided to all of the recommendations. The detailed responses further showed that the Universal Periodic Review could provide challenging suggestions to countries which needed consideration by a number of different domestic ministries. The United Kingdom was gratified to see that its recommendations were accepted.

IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria) thanked Romania for its acceptation of recommendation 10, which had been proposed by Algeria. It was noted that, in the presentation, Romania had indicated that they had reservations on recommendation 1 and 18 but had not given explanations for this nor on recommendation 14, proposed by Algeria. Was this just an omission in the oral presentation?

ADRIAN COMAN, of European Region of The International Lesbian and Gay Association, in a joint statement with Canadian HIV/Aids Legal Network, said that the Universal Periodic Review gave everyone an opportunity to look at the future and identify how to better respect, protect, and fulfil the human rights of all, including lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. In line with recommendation 4, they encouraged the Romanian Government to continue its efforts in combating discrimination and to take additional measures, which they believed should include: strengthening the anti-discrimination mechanism, in particular the National Council for Combating Discrimination; gender identity and expression in addition to sex among the non-discrimination criteria of Ordinance 1372000, so that transgender people were explicitly protected by law; raising awareness about discrimination of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in the education and health systems and lastly eliminating discrimination in regards to rights accessed through the institution of marriage, which was currently available only to heterosexual couples.

GHEORGHE MAGHERU (Romania) said in concluding remarks that Romania was grateful to all Member States and non-governmental organizations for taking an interest in human rights in Romania. The Universal Periodic Review mechanism was a useful tool for reassessing and reasserting the importance of the promotion and protection of human rights. Romania had accepted recommendation 14. He thanked the representatives of civil society who worked on the report and spoke today. Romania would continue this fruitful dialogue. He thanked the members of the troika.

Consideration of Outcome of Universal Periodic Review for Report on Mali

SEKOU KASSE, Charge D’Affaires of the Mission of Mali to the United Nations Office at Geneva, in opening remarks said that Mali regretted the fact the report was distributed 20 minutes ago, and expressed thanks to Mauritius, Japan and Brazil, who were the members of the troika and to all Member States who participated in the interactive dialogue. Following the Universal Periodic Review Mali sent out replies to a number of recommendations made. Mali was ready to cooperate with all Special Procedures of the Council. With regards to female genital mutilation, Mali had adopted legislation preventing all forms of this phenomenon, introduced information campaigns to educate the community, and drafted legislation to ban and criminalize all acts of female genital mutilation. It was noted that female genital mutilation was a profound cultural practice that was deeply rooted in society and the Government was committed to establishing legislation to stop it.
In 2002 a campaign was launched to combat the excision rate. A national inquiry into excision had also been launched.

Mali’s criminal code condemned all acts of violence. There were programmes in place to assist victims and to educate the community about such acts. Mali had established full legal equality to end all violence between men and women, abolishing domestic violence. National consultations with respect to the draft had already begun and it would soon be adopted.

Mali’s Constitution and legislation already prohibited forced labour. They noted that certain cultural practices continued, but increasing school enrolment in the community was decreasing the incidents. The ending of sanctions against journalists was recommended by Canada. Mali was already working on establishing legislation on freedom of expression. The criminal code provided for sanctions in that regard and the trend was decriminalization. Mali had ratified, signed, or acceded to international instruments on human rights freedoms and the promotion and protection of human rights. Mali was the first country to present a report on the rights of migrants and their families to the Committee on the Rights of Migrant Workers. Inter alia, a national commission on human rights was created.

Mali affirmed the separation of powers. In 1994 Mali adopted a unique mechanism for the promotion of human rights and an opportunity for appeals. Every year on 10 December a forum was chaired by a distinguished jury, where citizens would have the opportunity to address the Government with concerns and questions they had. The Constitution reaffirmed the secular status of Mali, allowing for freedom of opinion, the right to assembly and the right to vote. Mali had 30 private newspapers and 150 radio stations which were all independent. The national legislation also provided for legal aid. Article 1 enshrined that the human person was sacred. The death penalty had been enforced since 1984 and the national assembly was considering a bill for the abolition of it. Mali was a member of many intergovernmental mechanisms on the promotion and protection of human rights.

It was in those traditions that Mali sought the membership of the Human Rights Council. Once elected, Mali would stress dialogue with members to continue the work and build capacity to continue with the promotion and protection of human rights. Mali supported the participation by non-governmental organizations, civil society and other stakeholders in the process. Strengthening democracy, good governance and rule of law through bilateral and multilateral cooperation was of interest to Mali.

Mali was strengthening institutional support and the granting of status of crediting national institutions for human rights, implementation of other programmes for the promotion and protection of human rights, women’s rights, promoting equality between men and women, establishing a child court and education centres and the establishment of a medical assistance fund.

As noted earlier in the report, support and assistance from the international community would strengthen the harmonization of human rights mechanisms in the country. The strengthening of institutional capacity, justice institutions, training of judges, and capacity for the preparation of human rights reports was underway in furthering efforts in the field of human rights.

ALI CHERIF (Tunisia) thanked Mali for its participation in the Universal Periodic Review. Tunisia encouraged Mali to continue with its democratic choice. It noted with satisfaction Mali’s determination to promote an understanding of human rights in the country.

ERLINDA F. BASILIO (Philippines) said that the delegation of Mali had exhibited a strong commitment to upholding human rights standards. This commitment was commended. The Government of Mali had made substantial progress in the promotion of human rights although constrained by limited resources. The international community was encouraged to support the Government of Mali’s initiatives to improve the socio-economic situation of its people. The Philippines appreciated that Mali had accepted a number of the recommendations.

PIERRE DIOUF (Senegal) welcomed the fact that Mali had accepted the overall majority of the recommendations. That position was not at all surprising; this was a new manifestation of Mali’s commitment to protecting human rights. The progress made by Mali with regard to education and healthcare as well as the protection of women and children was noted. Senegal was optimistic with regard to the implementation of the recommendations that Mali had approved. Senegal also underlined that for the implementation of some of the recommendations, the Government might need assistance from the international community.

IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria) thanked the delegation of Mali for the additional responses they just gave. Algeria welcomed Mali’s acceptance of 21 recommendations. It had reservations on only one recommendation and would continue discussion on five. Mali had requested support from the international community. Algeria said that the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights should support Mali. Mali had accepted efforts to continue discussion with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Algeria asked for technical assistance for Mali.

SEKOU KASSE, Charge D’Affaires of the Mission of Mali to the United Nations Office at Geneva, in concluding remarks, thanked all Member States that had spoken to give Mali advice and to reiterate their support to Mali. He also thanked the President of the Council for his work and the staff of the Secretariat and the Human Rights Council for their efforts.

General Debate on the Universal Periodic Review

DORU ROMULUS COSTEA (Romania), President of the Council, said that all had to realise what they had done 30 seconds ago: they had closed a new cycle of a new mechanism of the new Council. This was something which would remain, not only in record, but also in a more or less spoken history.

JOHN VON KAUFMANN (Canada) said the completion of the first two rounds of the Universal Periodic Review was an important milestone in the development of the United Nations human rights system. It would take time for the Universal Periodic Review to reach its potential. The Universal Periodic Review was, and should be considered, a work in progress.

Canada was pleased with the open and constructive manner in which most States approached the 32 reviews to date. A number of reviews could have benefited from a more rigorous examination. The best reviews were those in which countries took full advantage of the process to address directly the challenges all countries faced.

Canada placed great importance on the active involvement of civil society in all phases of the Universal Periodic Review. National human rights institutions should also seize the Universal Periodic Review as a method to engage governments on human rights.

There was room for improvement on the modalities, such as ensuring that all recommendations were listed in full in the outcome reports as per the Institution Building Text, also that the modalities provided no further opportunity after the Working Group report was adopted for any Council member or observer state, national human rights institution, or other stakeholders to influence the Universal Periodic Review outcome adopted in the plenary. The primary obligation to ensure respect for human rights lay with individual States. The Universal Periodic Review brought that obligation home to each and every State that underwent the review. The real value of the Universal Periodic Review lay in the preparation and follow up in each State. Like the Council, the Universal Periodic Review would be a function of individual States’ commitments to human rights. Canada would continue to ensure that this innovative tool advanced the promotion and protection of human rights.

EKATERINA SYVOROTKINA (Russian Federation) said that they had just completed one of the most important landmarks in human rights. The Russian Federation sincerely congratulated the States which had been the first to undergo the Universal Periodic Review process. This process was a powerful and effective tool to promote human rights. It was important that good will was shown by States to conduct this process and thus guarantee the success of this work in the future. The Universal Periodic Review was not a tool to settle political issues. Politicisation and double standards must be excluded and not be accepted. Further, the adoption of the final outcomes had to happen in strict compliance with the rule of standards, this included the proper translation of documents in all the United Nations languages.

MOKTAR IDHAM MUSA (Malaysia) said that the spirit of openness as well as the readiness for constructive engagement that had characterized the exercise of the Universal Periodic Review Working Group and the Council plenary augured well for the future of the Universal Periodic Review process. Malaysia looked forward to the forthcoming session of the Universal Periodic Review, including the review of Malaysia at the fourth session of the Working Group early next year. Malaysia had learned a great deal about achievements in the field of human rights in the countries which had been reviewed. Malaysia understood the many challenges confronted by them. Malaysia also learned about the countries commitments and their expectations, as well as the expectations voiced by other countries. The Universal Periodic Review was an important platform for all States and other stakeholders to share experiences and best practices so that the whole process brought about the desired positive impact in the improvement of human rights protection everywhere. All efforts should be made to ensure that these objectives were met and the Universal Periodic Review became a successful mechanism of the Council. In that context, it was crucial for the Council to continue to be guided by the agreed principles and modalities of the Universal Periodic Review and to further advance the process in a spirit of promoting genuine dialogue and cooperation for the cause of human rights.

On the technical side, and while they were fully cognisant of the reasons, it was regrettable that a number of documents constituting the basis of the Universal Periodic Review were not available in time in all six official languages of the United Nations in accordance with paragraph 17 of the Council’s institutional-building text. Malaysia hoped that the necessary corrective measures were being taken to avoid recurrence of this situation.

MURIEL BERSET (Switzerland) noted that the first two sessions of the Universal Periodic Review had been completed. The Human Rights Council had to set the highest possible standards. Switzerland thanked the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights for the outstanding job it did in preparing the process. Switzerland welcomed that it was one of the first countries to go under review. The Universal Periodic Review process was good but would need modifications. The process was aided by the business like way it was undertaken. The commitment of the countries reviewed by the Working Group was noted. The significant role that civil society made was also essential. Their reports were valuable. The exchanges outside the Council hall enriched the discussion. Switzerland would be working with the Academy on Human Rights to organize a workshop on the Universal Periodic Review. The workshop would take place on July 3. It was intended for Ambassadors and human rights specialists.

KE YOUSHENG (China) said that up to now, the Human Rights Council had accepted the outcome of 32 countries and had completed the two first rounds of the Universal Periodic Review. Congratulations were expressed to the countries involved in this process. The Human Rights Council should become a platform for dialogue and cooperation on the basis of principles of non-confrontation, non-selectivity and non-politicisation. Also, as the review mechanism was at its beginning stage, it would further improve.

MURILO VIEIRA KOMNISKI (Brazil) congratulated the 32 countries involved in the first round of the Universal Periodic Review. The Universal Periodic Review was one of the core instruments of the Human Rights Council. It was a privilege for Brazil to present the human rights situation in their country under this review. The examination of other countries under the review was fruitful. It was a great honour to be a part of the first reports considered by the Universal Periodic Review. Brazil was convinced that the Council managed to achieve the first goal of the cycle. Brazil also noted that the Universal Periodic Review was deeply connected to the human rights system of reform. The Universal Periodic Review mechanism was an innovative framework to deal with human rights defences in a multilateral framework. It was now evident that non-selectivity and transparency were key to true cooperation and dialogue with other countries and stakeholders alike. The process was not about accusations, tribunals and high selectivity. Brazil encouraged the Council and members to continue in trying to guarantee human rights for all.

ANDREJ LOGAR (Slovenia), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the Council had been an early and steady supporter of the Universal Periodic Review. The institution-building package had a number of key elements for addressing human rights situations in all Member States: even handedness, universality, credibility, transparency and accessibility to the Universal Periodic Review, the Working Group and plenary proceedings. The European Union had approached the Universal Periodic Review in good faith seriously and without complacency. It was important to reflect on what had been achieved. It was important to base work on broad and objective assessments concerning achievements, challenges, and the need to fulfil human rights. The European Union gave special credit to contributions by non-governmental organizations. The European Union was grateful for the level of delegations that were sent by the States under review and the work of the troikas. The majority of States under review reacted in a very constructive way to recommendations made during the interactive dialogue. The European Union noted the commitment of States under review in working with civil society. Dialogue on follow up was of essence and the European Union hoped that the implementation of commitment would enhance the cooperation between States and United Nations mechanisms in the field of human rights. The first 32 reviews undertaken had not been disappointing. While the Universal Periodic Review addressed human rights situations in all countries, this clearly should not prevent the Council from looking into situations that due to their urgency or severity demanded the Council’s attention outside the Universal Periodic Review’s framework.

AMR ROSHDY HASSAN (Egypt), speaking on behalf of the African Group, said that the African Group welcomed the conclusion of the first cycle of the Universal Periodic Review and the participation of non-governmental organizations and all relevant stakeholders. Further, the African Group would continue to support the working methods of the Universal Periodic Review process. The use of recommendations to force any regional concepts on the entire world or to force concepts not acceptable to one culture was strongly objected. Also, some had asked to see results in the implementation of recommendations before the end of the four year round, this was not acceptable as no rule asked for this. Further, the adoption of the Universal Periodic Review was not a second layer of review; thanks to the President such attempts had not been successful. The fact remained that finally they had achieved to start a process whereby any country could be reviewed; the practice itself was an important process. The President was thanked for his sincere work; they had always respected the integrity he had shown.

RODOLFO REYES RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said that the Council had gone through and witnessed a historic moment. They had seen various serious activities take place where the spirit of non-confrontation and dialogue had prevailed. They had all learned and given thought to the incorporation of the lessons learned of the first 32 countries. They congratulated the Bureau for the way they presided over the work of the first cycle of the Universal Periodic Review process, the Secretariat and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights who provided the documentation. They had proved they could meet the needs and expectations. Cuba flagged its concern with respect to what had been overcome in the Council that whenever a special session or critical issue was raised there was always a way to discuss. They urged all countries and all parts of the world to avoid transferring this right to the Third Committee of the General Assembly.

MARC GAMBARAZA, of the Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie, expressed gratitude for the commitment expressed to the Universal Periodic Review, this new process. They welcomed the mobilization of the national human rights institutions throughout the process of drafting and presentation of national report. The participation of civil society in the process was also noted. They reiterated support for the process. They looked forward to the next stage in the view of improving human rights around the world.

AHMET UZUMCU (Turkey) said the Universal Periodic Review was a new instrument that provided for each country to evaluate its own performance with the contribution of all stakeholders, including non-governmental organizations. The mechanism had already played a catalyst role in the universalisation of certain rights. Turkey believed that the Universal Periodic Review would gradually become a routine process. The overall atmosphere had been so far very good. The tone of discussions had been positive and should remain as such. They had been able to avoid politicisation of the process. States under review had demonstrated their openness to constructive criticism. The merit of the Universal Periodic Review was in its equal treatment for all.

AMY LAURENSON (New Zealand), speaking also on behalf of Norway, said that they had participated actively in the negotiations on the Universal Periodic Review mechanism during the negotiations on the institution building package. They remained committed to the effective, inclusive and transparent implementation of the Universal Periodic Review. Today marked an important milestone for the Council. The fundamental operational principles of transparency, consultation, and inclusivity of all stakeholders at each step of the process were already in place. Chapter 1 of the institution-building package provided the reference point as to the instruments and documents that formed the basis of the Universal Periodic Review. The effectiveness of the Universal Periodic Review depended on the willingness of countries to be open to scrutiny and the transparent nature of the process. New Zealand and Norway welcomed the readiness of those States that had been reviewed to engage in the Universal Periodic Review process in a cooperative and constructive manner. They were confident that, if there was genuine support for an open and inclusive Universal Periodic Review process and if it was given an opportunity to prove its value, the result could be concrete and constructive improvements in the promotion and protection of human rights in every State.

New Zealand and Norway would continue to work constructively with their Pacific friends and recognized the importance of supporting efforts to engage all stakeholders in the process, in both the preparation and the implementation of the Universal Periodic Review. They welcomed the delegation of Tonga’s strong commitment to the Universal Periodic Review and the example it had set for other in the Pacific region. To support work in the Pacific region, New Zealand would look into hosting a seminar on the Universal Periodic Review early next year for the Pacific region.

IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria) said the completion of this experiment had yielded positive results. This exercise had to be cooperative. Some Member States said that cooperation may not be productive. There were other fora where some interventions were more appropriate. At the Human Rights Council and through the Universal Periodic Review Member States exchanged experiences and best practices. Recommendations were offered and accepted. It was actually working. Algeria was energized by the Working Group’s work and consideration of the report of Algeria. So much for the nay sayers and advocates of doom and gloom. Algeria asked that the Council provide positive response to those Member States that had asked for technical assistance. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights should provide support and report back to the Human Rights Council on progress. It was an honour to be one of the architects of the text and one of the first countries to undergo the Universal Periodic Review.

MOHAMMED LOULICHKI (Morocco) said that the Universal Periodic Review had given rise to many hopes, but it had been accompanied by many fears also. The first round of the Universal Periodic Review showed how far the international community could go to ensure the success of a mechanism which everyone supported. Like every human construction, the Universal Periodic Review was by its essence and by its nature, an evolving process; this had to be kept in mind. They had to try to continue to improve the mechanism. The Universal Periodic Review had showed that it was possible to address the human rights situation with a spirit of understanding of the situation of other countries.

ALEJANDRA SARDA, of Latin American Committee for the Defence of Women's Rights (CLADEM), in a joint statement with Action Canada for Population and Development; Federation for Women and Family Planning; and International Women's Rights Action Watch, said that concerning the mainstreaming of gender issues during the first two sessions in the Universal Periodic Review, 10 of the 32 countries had women among members of the delegations, 35 per cent of statements referred to women in the first round and 43 per cent in the second round. There were 152 references to violence against women and 79 references to human trafficking. A big silence applied to reproductive rights, which occupied a marginal place in the Working Group. This should be modified in the next Universal Periodic Review round. Vulnerable groups needed protection. States should incorporate women’s and girls rights and help to ensure gender equality within their delegations.

ISABELLE SCHERER, of International Service for Human Rights, in a joint statement with several NGOs1, said the Universal Periodic Review was set up with the main objective of improving human rights. On the Universal Periodic Review Working Group, they noted the value of a cooperative approach but expressed serious concern at the practice of some States which had been lining up only to praise their allies. They were concerned that often the final report of the Universal Periodic Review and the interactive dialogue during the review did not reflect information contained in the summary documents. The plenary session provided the only opportunity for non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to participate in the Universal Periodic Review process at the international level. Concerning the content of NGO statements made during the present session, Council Resolution 5/1 clearly stated that NGOs may make general comments before the adoption of the report. The credibility of the Human Rights Council rested on its ability to meaningfully engage with civil society and produce a Universal Periodic Review process that improved the human rights situation on the ground.

GEORGINA STEVENS, of Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA), in a joint statement with several NGOs2, said that the first two rounds of the Universal Periodic Review had seen the consideration of a number of Asian States. FORUM ASIA had welcomed this important opportunity to review the overall human rights situation in individual countries in the region. Civil society groups in Asia had sought to contribute to the enhancement of the Universal Periodic Review process by actively engaging in domestic preparations. It was regretted that in many Asian countries, States had not undertaken broad-ranging consultations. It was hoped that consultation processes would be improved with upcoming Universal Periodic Review reviews. It was believed that the true value of the Universal Periodic Review began now, and would be seen only where States were committed to the effective implementation of recommendations accepted. The Human Rights Council should encourage the regular reporting of the follow up by the countries to the commitments made.

PETER SPLINTER, of Amnesty International, said that the Universal Periodic Review was off to a good start. The progress and future success of the Universal Periodic Review demanded long-term vision, sustained focus and good will on the part of all governments. Its greatest potential value was as a catalyst to a national process of self-examination and improvement of respect for human rights. For the Universal Periodic Review to lead to improvement on the ground it must be firmly anchored at the national level. Consultation with civil society throughout the process was one essential element of the anchoring. Amnesty International encouraged all States coming up for review to hold inclusive broad national consultations. They should be attentive to reaching out to parts of civil society that did not usually have access to governmental decision-makers, such as the poor, minorities and, too often, women.

JEREMIE SMITH, of the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, said the first session of the Universal Periodic Review included four States from the Arab region. As such, Governments for the region were in a strong position to contribute to the establishment of positive procedural and working method precedents of the Universal Periodic Review process. Unfortunately this had not been the case. Some Governments and their allies chose to propose procedural regulations and establish working modalities which had the effect of shielding these four governments from specific regions from undergoing a genuine and open evaluation and recommendation process. As a result the general precedents set during the review of some countries had the potential to greatly undermine the effectiveness and legitimacy of the Universal Periodic Review process and the Human Rights Council if propagated in the future. The most damaging precedent set was what appeared to be an attempt by some States to coordinate agreement to conduct the Universal Periodic Review interactive dialogue. As a result the Universal Periodic Review had assumed a politicized character of regional or organizational in-group favouritism that lacked an objective, balanced and constructive considerations of the human rights situation in some countries under review.

JULIE GROMELLON, of the International Federation for Human Rights Leagues, said that the first two sessions of the Universal Periodic Review had shown the positive aspects and some of the limits of the new mechanism. Each commitment was seen as progress. The universality of human rights had been strengthened. The Universal Periodic Review was not without risk and a phenomenal effort was required by delegations participating in the Working Group when they had to analyse three reports each half day. Also, the recommendations made were sometimes in contradiction with treaty body recommendations. Certain categories of rights had also not been mentioned enough.

JOHN FISHER, of the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, said that the Universal Periodic Review offered a significant opportunity for genuine dialogue to strengthen the human rights situation in countries around the world. The universality of the process ensured that no State was exempt from scrutiny, and the high-level participation by many States under the review was a welcome indicator of the seriousness with which the process was taken. One matter of serious concern was that some States delivered general presentations but failed to give a clear response on which recommendations were accepted and which were not. In the cases where clear State responses were provided, they were not often circulated in the room until the adoption of the report. They urged that these responses be finalized and circulated in advance in future to enhance transparency and assist both States and civil society in formulating their comments. They were encouraged that a broad range of human rights issues were able to be explored through the Universal Periodic Review, including some which had not yet been sufficiently addressed by the Council itself.

RONALD BARNES, of the Indian Council of South American Indigenous Peoples and Nations Coalition, thanked States that had demonstrated their willingness to cooperate constructively in the Universal Periodic Review process. They commended States and non-governmental organizations which had worked together to make very worthwhile efforts to improve the overall exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all stakeholders in their countries. There were relevant treaty bodies which identified self determination. This Universal Periodic Review system must be based upon the universal application of the rights of all peoples and for those indigenous peoples that had the right to pursue their status under the Charter of the United Nations and international law. If it was the desire that indigenous peoples created a constitutional relationship with the State, the State should be willing to inscribe within their constitutional system of Government the rights in a non-discriminating manner. For indigenous people with the rights based under the Charter and international law, the level of relationship must first obtain the consent to be annexed into their State under the international procedures of any peoples exercising their right to self determination.

DORU ROMULUS COSTEA, President of the Human Rights Council, invited States to make their own conclusions out of the 32 reviews undertaken. He underlined that this new process included positive points. Some aspects could of course be changed and others kept, but one had to foremost ask oneself how the whole process could be better used. The process should help each State to improve the human rights situation on the ground. The President further underlined that the Universal Periodic Review was a fundamental tool of the Human Rights Council and asked all members of the Council not to destroy it. He insisted that they were in the process of building something.

1Joint statement on behalf of: International Service for Human Rights; Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA); Pax Romana; Baha'i International Community; and Human Rights Watch.

2Joint statement on behalf of: Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA); International NGO Forum on Indonesian Development; International Movement against all Forms of Discrimination and Racism; Asian Legal Resource Centre; and Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development.



For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC08074E