HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL HOLDS GENERAL DEBATE ON THE UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW MECHANISM

The Human Rights Council this afternoon held a general debate on the Universal Periodic Review mechanism and adopted the outcome of the Universal Periodic Review process of Tuvalu.

During the general debate on the Universal Periodic Review mechanism, speakers said that the Universal Periodic Review was one of the most important innovations of the United Nations Human Rights Council; there was need to build a review mechanism that was open and transparent; the current working methods delivered tangible results in increasing awareness of all human rights and fundamental freedoms at the national level; the involvement of both the treaty bodies and the Special Procedures in the Universal Periodic Review process was important; and the Universal Periodic Review afforded States’ institutions the opportunity to interact with civil society and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the attainment of all human rights and freedoms of their citizens.

Among the concerns raised by speakers was the sharp increase in the number of States who would like to make statements and, as a result, even some of the Council members being unable to make statements, as well as difficulties in receiving translations of relevant documents in a timely manner; observer States should also be given opportunities to make statements to the greatest extent possible; States should cooperate and support one another to ensure the process was not politicized; a request for the extension of the speakers list should not come down on the opportunity of NGOs to contribute; and it was regrettable that the input of NGOs had been marginalized in the process. Speakers observed that it was important to ensure that the Universal Periodic Review retained its vigour and publicity as well as its constructiveness, and that after one’s own review as well as that of others, that human rights issues were not put aside for the next four years.

Speaking in the discussion on the consideration of the Universal Periodic Review mechanism were representatives of the Czech Republic on behalf of the European Union, Egypt on behalf of the African Group, Cuba, Canada, Nigeria, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Japan, Malaysia, Chile, Germany, France, China, Russian Federation, Republic of Korea, Kuwait, Morocco, Turkey, Austria, Bhutan, Czech Republic, Poland, Tunisia, Portugal, Algeria and Australia.

Representatives of the following non-governmental organizations also took the floor: Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Indian Council of South America, International Service for Human Rights, Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, Arab Commission for Human Rights OCAPROCE International, Liberation and North-South XXI.

Guatemala spoke in a right of reply.

In the consideration of the outcome of the Universal Periodic Review of Tuvalu, Filiga Niko, Crown Counsel in the Office of the Attorney General of the Government of Tuvalu, said Tuvalu expressed its deep appreciation and thanks to those who had provided much needed support to Tuvalu during the preparation phase of the national report and who had made it possible for Tuvalu to attend this consideration session. The Universal Periodic Review had given Tuvalu an opportunity to not only tell the international community the state of its compliance and realisation of human rights at the ground level, but also for Tuvalu to know where it stood in the fulfillment of its obligations as a United Nations Member State in the area of human rights. Tuvalu supported the ten recommendations made. Tuvalu required the financial and the technical support of the international community in the fulfillment of these recommendations.

During the discussion on Tuvalu, speakers welcomed that Tuvalu had given the Universal Periodic Review high priority, with the preparation of a comprehensive State report, and the input of a number of non-governmental organizations. It was also noted that climate change was one of the major threats to the human trafficking of the population of Tuvalu, and as a result, Tuvalu was encouraged to promote access to information, education and public participation in environmental and climate change matters.

Speaking in the discussion on Tuvalu was the United Kingdom and New Zealand, as well as representatives of the following non-governmental organizations: Amnesty International, Earthjustice, and the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network.


The Human Rights Council will hold back-to-back meetings on Monday, 23 March from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. It will meet behind closed doors from 9 a.m. until 11 a.m. on the Complaints Procedure. Starting 11 a.m., the Council will meet in public to resume the list of speakers on human rights situations that require the attention of the Council. Thereafter, the Human Rights Council will begin the general debate on human rights bodies and mechanisms. Following this, the Council will begin consideration of the human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories.



Consideration of Outcome of Universal Periodic Review Process of Tuvalu

FILIGA NIKO, Crown Counsel in the Office of the Attorney General of the Government of Tuvalu, said Tuvalu expressed its deep appreciation and thanks to those who had provided much needed support to Tuvalu during the preparation phase of the national report and who had made it possible for Tuvalu to attend this consideration session. Being among the first small island states to undertake the Universal Periodic Review process, Tuvalu encountered the challenges of under-resources in terms of technical and human expertise in this new process. With the assistance of the human rights related offices in the region, Tuvalu was able to fully participate in the review. The Universal Periodic Review had given Tuvalu an opportunity to not only tell the international community the state of its compliance and realisation of human rights on the ground level, but also for Tuvalu to know where it stood in the fulfilment of its obligations as a United Nations Member State in the area of human rights. This process was truly universal, and Tuvalu was committed to the success and continuity of this human rights review mechanism.

Tuvalu supported the ten recommendations made. Recommendations two and six required careful consideration and broad consultation at the national level with relevant stakeholders in the incorporation of the Conventions on the Rights of the Child, Elimination of Discrimination against Women, and Elimination of Discrimination. Some of the recommendations raised such as children with no parental care and asylum were not relevant to Tuvalu, but Tuvalu confirmed its support and stood ready to consider these recommendations. Tuvalu required the financial and the technical support of the international community in the fulfilment of these recommendations. Tuvalu was committed to the successful continuity of the Universal Periodic Review not only in the reporting element of the process, but more importantly in the implementation of these recommendations at the ground level, and sought the support and assistance of the international community in the implementation of the recommendations.

VICTORIA FORMAN HARDY (United Kingdom) said the United Kingdom recognized the capacity constraints that the Government of Tuvalu encountered when preparing for the review. It was commendable that despite these constraints the Government of Tuvalu was represented in Geneva in December and was also here today to adopt the report. The United Kingdom congratulated Tuvalu.

MICHAEIL MCBRYDE (New Zealand) said Tuvalu was the second country in the South Pacific region to go through the Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review process. New Zealand welcomed the presence of a Tuvalu delegate in Geneva to take part in this adoption phase of the review process. Tuvalu had given the Universal Periodic Review high priority, with the preparation of a comprehensive State report, and the input of a number of non-governmental organizations. The quality of Tuvalu’s preparation for the Review resulted in a wide-ranging discussion in December, in which a number of delegations participated fully. For the small island States of the Pacific, participation in the review was a major undertaking. New Zealand recognized the practical difficulties faced by the smallest island States in meeting their Universal Periodic Review obligations. For that reason New Zealand convened last month in Auckland a seminar to assist officials of Pacific Island Governments in working through the Universal Periodic Review process. Tuvalu contributed greatly to making the seminar a success, said New Zealand.

MARGARETA PLODER, of Amnesty International, said Amnesty International welcomed many of the recommendations made by States to Tuvalu, including cooperating with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to strengthen legislation related to family, land and sexual offences against children, to establish a national human rights institution based on the Paris Principles, and to develop a comprehensive strategy to reduce domestic violence. Prevailing cultural notions of women's status continued to be a key factor in perpetuating violence against women in Tuvalu, and it should therefore support recommendations to eliminate legislation that had a discriminatory effect against women and amend the Constitution to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex and gender. Gender violence could not be eradicated without addressing the underlying factors that caused or contributed to gender discrimination.

YVES LADOR, of Earthjustice, welcomed and encouraged the positive responses of Tuvalu to continue its efforts to ratify all major human rights treaties and to establish a national human rights institution respecting the Paris Principles. Climate change was one of the major threats to the human trafficking of the population of Tuvalu. Unfortunately, Tuvalu was a good example of the rights affected by climate change, such as the right to food, the right to water or the right to adequate housing, which were described in the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights report on the impact of climate change on human rights. Earthjustice encouraged the Government of Tuvalu to promote for its population a strong access to information, education and public participation in environmental and climate change matters.

JOHN FISHER, of Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, warmly welcomed the delegation of Tuvalu. With respect to the discussion during the Working Group on the rights of persons of all sexual orientations, the Network appreciated that Tuvalu was open to discussion on gender identity and grounds for protection for same-sex relationships. Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network welcomed the openness with which the delegation was willing to consider those issues.

FILIGA NIKO, of Crown Counsel in the Office of the Attorney General of the Government of Tuvalu, said Tuvalu wished to thank Member States and stakeholders who had made valuable contributions in the session. Many of these issues had already been explained and discussed in December 2008. Tuvalu was committed to the success and continuity of the Universal Periodic Review, not only in the reporting elements of the process, but in the implementation of these recommendations at the ground level, and therefore sought the assistance of the international community in implementing these recommendations, and looked forward to submitting its report to the Human Rights Council in four years.

The Council then adopted the outcome of the Universal Periodic Review process of Tuvalu.


General Debate on the Universal Periodic Review

TOMAS HUSAK (Czech Republic), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that the Universal Periodic Review was one of the most important innovations of the United Nations Human Rights Council, which was why they all needed to build a review mechanism that was open and transparent. In order to ensure that the Universal Periodic Review fulfilled its mandate and was a truly universal process, Member States of the European Union should continue to participate actively in every review. A good review allowed countries to take a self-critical look at their own human rights situation, to discuss the challenges they faced with their peers and to take steps to improve the situation in their countries. States should neither use the Universal Periodic Review to name and shame nor to seek to manipulate the process for a good review. A successful review was not one in which no criticism was made since every State had human rights challenges.

AMR ROSHDY HASSAN (Egypt), speaking on behalf of the African Group, said the African Group shared the importance all other regions attached to the role of the Universal Periodic Review as a useful mechanism for the promotion and protection of human rights. The inception of the Universal Periodic Review was a turning point in the United Nations efforts in this regard. The African Group believed that the current working methods of the Universal Periodic Review were delivering tangible results in increasing awareness of all human rights and fundamental freedoms at the national level. The African Group remained committed to the process and to ensuring its success. The involvement of both the treaty bodies and the Special Procedures in the Universal Periodic Review process was both important and appreciated. It was important to maintain this involvement as stipulated in the institution building text that clearly outlined the timing and manner of the participation of both mechanisms in the process.

JUAN ANTONIO FERNANDEZ PALACIOS (Cuba) said that some matters of great importance should be considered and analysed together to ensure that the Universal Periodic Review became the mechanism that all wished it to be. One third of the United Nations' membership had been reviewed, an unprecedented event, clearly marking the difference with the now-discredited Commission. The greater visibility which the issue of human rights assumed in a country under review and the strengthening of the link between the Government and institutions was an additional benefit of the process. The process was only a year old, and it required the support of all, with strengthening and respect, dialogue and non-politicisation. What model was used by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights for giving priority in the compilation of the views of one special mechanism over another, and who was responsible for only negative allegations and criticisms. Why were the views of a small group of transnational NGOs given priority over the views of those who lived in the country, and how could cronyism be rooted out, Cuba wondered. There was a clear legal void which the Council should now fill. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights should be equipped with a transparent and appropriate methodology for the creation of these important documents.

TERRY CORMIER (Canada) said that the Universal Periodic Review offered a valuable new tool to the international community to promote and protect the rights of all people everywhere. Canada was cognizant that this new tool had been and would continue to evolve. Canada would like to register its serious concern about the procedure used in the adoption of the outcome of Israel’s Universal Periodic Review. Canada considered the procedural maneuvers used in the adoption of the Israel Universal Periodic Review report to be objectionable. Canada considered the universality and non-selectivity of the Universal Periodic Review process to be key to its success. Singling out one country was unacceptable. Canada called upon all Member States, observers and civil society partners to cooperate fully with the Universal Periodic Review process.

IFEANYI NWOSU (Nigeria) said the Universal Periodic Review was a unique mechanism under which States submitted voluntarily to the assessment of their human rights records and obligations. Its approach needed to ensure universality, transparency and all-inclusiveness. Since April 2008, 64 States had been reviewed. This represented one third of the entire United Nations membership. The Universal Periodic Review afforded States’ institutions the opportunity to interact with civil society and non-governmental organizations in the attainment of all human rights and freedom of their citizens. The Universal Periodic Review had been very well delineated in the institutional building text. This should not be manipulated under any guise. The process had all it took as an effective and preventive human rights mechanism, unique in the United Nations system. Nigeria called for the support and cooperation of all States to ensure that this unfolding process was not politicized.

JURG LAUBER (Switzerland) said over the past year, one third of the Member States of the United Nations had undergone the Universal Periodic Review. The presentation took the form of a package of three reports, with a few pages giving a complete picture of the human rights situation in a country. The State report had undeniable added value, and was based on broad-based consultation with many stakeholders. The Universal Periodic Review for some countries had been a catalyst, as it had begun, instigated, or precipitated a dialogue with civil society. It had also hastened in some cases the signature or ratification of international human rights instruments. As regarded the downstream effects, this would be seen during the second cycle of the process. There should be high-level delegations to submit their perspective of human rights to the international community, as this would have a positive impact. The time given over to dialogue should actually be given over to a constructive exchange of views. There should be time for a dialogue - this was the Review's real advantage.

BOB LAST (United Kingdom) said that the United Kingdom made a voluntary commitment in June 2008 to provide a full progress report to the Human Rights Council next year on work the United Kingdom had done to implement the various recommendations that it had accepted. The United Kingdom would deliver on that pledge and offer a full mid-term report next year. The United Kingdom wished to inform the Human Rights Council that it had implemented one of the recommendations that it had rejected at the time of the adoption of their Universal Periodic Review report in June 2008. As recommended by Indonesia, the United Kingdom had lifted two reservations to the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

AKIO ISOMATA (Japan) said Japan appreciated the successful start which the Universal Periodic Review had enjoyed with an active interactive dialogue on each country’s human rights situation since the first session last April. Japan continued to be fully engaged in the Universal Periodic Review process with a view to developing it into an effective system to address human rights situations around the world. At the same time, there were some issues or challenges which needed to be addressed appropriately, such as the sharp increase in the number of States which would like to make statements and, as a result, even some of the Council Member States were unable to make statements, as well as difficulties in receiving translations of relevant documents in a timely manner. Japan observed that while Member States of the Council should basically be given priority in delivering statements, observer States should also be given opportunities to make statements to the greatest extent possible.

ANIZAN SITI HAJAR ADNIN (Malaysia) said with the conclusion of the Fourth Session of the Universal Periodic Review Working Group of the Council, one third of the total United Nations membership had undergone the review process, and the international community was closer to achieving the goal of institutionalising a truly universal, non-confrontational, inclusive and transparent mechanism, as envisaged by the institution-building text. Malaysia was committed to upholding the principles of objectivity, impartiality and non-selectivity which served as a guide in approaching the Review. The Universal Periodic Review would and should complement the work of the Council in fulfilling its mandate to improve the protection and promotion of human rights in all States. In order for it to be effective and meaningful, countries participating in the process should approach this important exercise in a spirit of sincerity, openness and transparency. Recommendations raised during the session should be addressed in a constructive manner. Malaysia was committed to engaging constructively with all delegations within the framework of the Council and the Review process to elevate understanding of and appreciation for the human rights situation not only in Malaysia but around the world.

CARLOS PORTALES (Chile) said that the Universal Periodic Review mechanism should be a key part in the United Nations system to promote and protect all human rights based on the principles of universality, indivisibility and interrelatedness of all human rights. In the four Universal Periodic Review exercises, the degree of preparation of the 65 countries reviewed had testified to the importance that those countries attached to the Universal Periodic Review. The participation of non-governmental organizations had to be ensured. The timely availability of all documents in translation would contribute to appropriate discussions. The Universal Periodic Review should not become a quadrennial ritual and that was why the follow-up to the recommendations was extremely important. The Council had the possibility to hold Special Sessions or establish Special Procedures. The Universal Periodic Review presented one stage; the other was the timely response to questions asked by other States and the implementation of recommendations made.

KONRAD MAX SCHARINGER (Germany) said Germany shared the overall positive assessment of the new Universal Periodic Review procedure as practiced during the first four rounds. While States under review had shown varying degrees of openness and constructiveness regarding the state of human rights in their countries, there had not as of yet been any serious “road accidents” – rather, Germany said, all States under review had attended the procedure and thus demonstrated their willingness to accept this new mechanism. This was an important success in itself, especially in view of the deliberate public exposure created by the Universal Periodic Review, and had probably only been possible due to the constructive framework within which the Universal Periodic Review was set. What was important now was to make sure that the Universal Periodic Review retained its vigour and publicity as well as its constructiveness, and that after Germany’s own review as well as that of others, that human rights issues were not put aside for the next four years.

DANIEL VOSGIEN (France) said the Universal Periodic Review was quite rightly regarded as the central innovation of the Human Rights Council, and consequently evaluation of its usefulness was an assessment of the Council itself. It was too early to determine whether it would fulfil what was expected of it. There had been many States who engaged in preparations in a very serious way, with broad consultation of civil society, with a lucid and honest picture of the human rights situation in their country, with obstacles and challenges encountered as well as successes. The credibility of the process called for transparency at all levels. States should be able to apply recommendations, which should in their turn focus on ways and means in improving the human rights situation in the country. Contributions by treaty bodies and Special Procedures created a synergy between the Universal Periodic Review and the human rights mechanisms. The Review was still under construction and still on a learning curve, thus all should still seek to protect its credibility, transparency and effectiveness.

QIAN BO (China) said that of the four cycles of the Universal Periodic Review that had taken place so far, the last two cycles had especially taken place in a good environment. The vast majority of the countries were very committed to the process and the implementation of the recommendations. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights needed to make sure that it played its support role and that it provided documents that laid the basis for the review. Countries could voluntarily report to the Council. China had taken part in the Universal Periodic Review. There were constructive recommendations made in the process. China’s respective departments were currently drafting the appropriate work plans. Regarding the protection of human rights, in the context of the financial crisis, China was undertaking measures to protect vulnerable persons. China was prepared to report to the Council on a voluntary basis.

SERGEY KOUDRAITEV (Russian Federation) said that the Russian Federation considered the Universal Periodic Review process to be a worthy alternative to the politicized and confrontational country reports. If the Universal Periodic Review functioned properly, it would one day be one of the main mechanisms among States in the observance of human rights. The constructive and positive atmosphere that came about in the Universal Periodic Review sessions was welcomed. The most recent Universal Periodic Review demonstrated the high level of commitment by States, and showed how much confidence was placed on the mechanism by the international community. The first stage of the review was not devoid of politicization. The Russian Federation noted that the Universal Periodic Review was a procedure for international cooperation in the human rights sphere, and was not a forum to settle political accounts. The appropriate attention should be paid to the compilation of information, among other things. Before the mechanism could be seriously analyzed the first cycle needed to be completed first, and guaranteeing its success in future would rely on the good will of all involved in the procedure.

LEE SUNG-JOO (Republic of Korea) said there had been four Universal Periodic Review sessions since its launch, and it gave an unprecedented opportunity to view the human rights situation in each country in its entirety. During the last session, there had been increased interest in the process from both Members and Observers. The Review was supposed to provide the State under consideration with as many opinions as possible - all delegations wishing to take the floor should be allowed to do so. Means of ensuring that every delegation who wished to take the floor could do so included encouraging them to get directly to the point and avoiding introductory remarks. This would ensure a more participatory Review, and this suggestion should be considered.

NAWAF AL-RUJEEB (Kuwait) said that the new mechanism was a model of cooperation between the country under review and the Council. It helped to find out to what degree the country upheld the recommendations made to it during the review. Hopes were pinned on this mechanism and Kuwait hoped that this was an opportunity to restore hope in order to deal with human rights. Kuwait also hoped that the mechanism would achieve the expectations in order to render justice to victims of crimes wherever they were committed.

OMAR HILALE (Morocco) said that the Universal Periodic Review was an innovative mechanism of the Council and had become the cornerstone of measures to promote and protect human rights. Morocco said it was an honour for them to play a role in the facilitation of arrangements for the Universal Periodic Review and in devising its guidelines. Morocco wanted to see the Universal Periodic Review as a non-confrontational process, one that gave space for respectful dialogue. Morocco was the fourth to go through the Universal Periodic Review, and as such was able to draw on conclusions in its own capacity for efforts needed in the country. The Universal Periodic Review proved to further democratize the Human Rights Council, and as a result it was clear that human rights were universal and therefore the responsibility of all to ensure. The Universal Periodic Review identified the various obstacles hindering the enjoyment of human rights at both the national and international level, and illustrated States needs via capacity building and technical assistance. Morocco said that the compilation of speakers lists needed to be revised to ensure that each State had equal access to speaking times.

ALI ONANER (Turkey) said the Universal Periodic Review was a truly universal and non-selective mechanism, and Turkey was satisfied with the generally constructive, objective, and business-like atmosphere. There were some difficulties, however, and these should be addressed and solved in accordance with the institution building text. The experience acquired during the first round would be useful for further improving this mechanism on the occasion of the review of the Council in 2011. All parties should work on a solution that would allow each State which wished to do so to make a statement. No distinction should be made between Member States and Observer States. The preparation phase by the countries under review had been particularly useful. There was a new impetus to universalisation efforts. However, the concrete result of the Review process would be the implementation of the recommendations made during the reviews.

MARGARETA PLODER (Austria) said that four rounds of the Universal Periodic Review had taken place so far and had demonstrated the great value of this new mechanism in reviewing the fulfillment of the human rights obligations of all States. The national report together with the compilations and summaries provided by the Secretariat proved to be valuable sources of information and had given a clear picture of the human rights situation in the States under review. Austria thanked the Secretariat for its excellent work and national and international human rights non-governmental organizations for their often informative and helpful contributions. The compilations of treaty bodies’ and Special Procedures ‘ observations and recommendations had also given well deserved prominence to the efforts and expertise in highlighting deficiencies as well as progress with regard to the human rights situation in the States under review.

DOMA TSHERING (Bhutan) congratulated all 16 States which had concluded their review in this session. Bhutan noted that the mechanism had been generally successful, and it was satisfied that the Universal Periodic Review would succeed in meeting the core objective for which it was designed, promoting tangible progress on the ground in the area of human rights on a universal basis. As a State that would undergo its own review at the sixth session of the Working Group later this year, Bhutan said they were encouraged by the positive spirit that had prevailed both within the Working Group and the plenary sessions. Bhutan expressed concern over the persisting financial difficulties facing the organization, which may impact on the conduct of subsequent sessions of the Universal Periodic Review Working Group, particularly as Bhutan understood, the fifth and sixth sessions. Bhutan hoped that the situation would be addressed with expediency so that the first cycle of reviews would be completed successfully, in a predictable and equitable manner.

JAN KAMINEK (Czech Republic) said the Czech Republic was subject to review during the first meeting of the Working Group, and presented its national report, responding to all questions and recommendations made by participants. The questions and recommendations focused in particular on the use of caged beds in healthcare and social care facilities, discrimination against minority groups, the adoption of the general anti-discrimination law, the establishment of an independent body to investigate criminal acts by members of the police, domestic violence, trafficking of women and girls and the sexual exploitation of children. There had been recent developments in the implementation of the Universal Periodic Review recommendations. The Rome Statute was currently waiting for ratification by the President. The Parliament adopted in 2008 a new Anti-Discrimination Bill, which the President of the Republic refused to co-sign. It had been returned to the Chamber of Deputies to await new approval.

MARIUSZ LEWICKI (Poland) said that Poland was amongst the first countries which underwent the Universal Periodic Review in April 2008. For Poland, it was an opportunity to carry out an objective self-evaluation of its human rights protection system. As the Universal Periodic Review was a Member States driven process, its effectiveness depended on the approach of the States under review, namely on the readiness to present not only achievements, but also challenges, and to accept in particular recommendations indicating existing challenges in the field of human rights. The key aim of the interactive dialogue was to evaluate in an objective way the human rights record of the State under review. Unfortunately, in some cases the interactive dialogue was focused on uncritical praising of the human rights record of the country. Also, the Universal Periodic Review process must be open and transparent. Unfortunately, many States could not participate in the interactive dialogues during the last Universal Periodic Review sessions.

ALI CHERIF (Tunisia) said that Tunisia was proud to inform the Council that since it presented its report it had been making every effort to implement the recommendations contained therein. Tunisia recently pushed forward a number of reforms towards building an egalitarian society. Of the provisions made, Tunisia said its national human rights institution was now in line with the Paris Principles; the Government had acceded to the Convention on Persons with Disabilities and the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women; and the Government had received visits from two Special Rapporteurs and was pursuing dialogue with the Special Rapporteur of the United Nations in the promotion and protection of human rights with respect to countering terrorism. Tunisia said that it recently acceded to the Optional Protocol to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, and was in the process of promulgating a law on child custody, and a law providing better conditions for detainees and better reintegration measures as well. Tunisia was determined to continue to apply a moratorium on the death penalty which dated back to 1991. It was important to root a culture of human rights in everyday life.

JOAO QUEIROS (Portugal) said the human rights situation in 64 countries had already been examined by the Council through the new Universal Periodic Review mechanism. States under review, non-governmental organizations and the United Nations system had been fully engaged in the reviews. Delegations had been participating actively, making credible assessments and constructive recommendations aimed at the improvement of the respect for human rights and the redress of victims of violations of these rights. The overall conclusion was that the Universal Periodic Review had confirmed its status as one of the achievements of the new Council. The real test of the Universal Periodic Review was to be made on the ground - the actual implementation of the recommendations and their impact on the life of real people was the key for the success of the new mechanism; the Council therefore had the duty to follow up each Review. The Council should fully respect the institution building package's provision on the right of all delegations to participate in the reviews and diminish the present negative consequences of not following literally the rules of procedure.

SELMA MALIKA HENDEL (Algeria) said that the Universal Periodic Review was a key and helpful tool in the framework of human rights. In strict respect to the rules as clearly defined in the institution building text and the four cycles of the Universal Periodic Review, Algeria noted that the mechanism was on the right path. The compilations by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights should better reflect the achievements and challenges by the States under review. Information reproduced should be based on credible sources.

MARIANNA LINNIK (Australia) welcomed the successful completion of another Universal Periodic Review session and the presentation of the Working Group reports. If used properly, it would help advance human rights in all countries. Australia welcomed that the Universal Periodic Review was now an established mechanism, but urged that it be strengthened further through the extension of the speakers’ list. Civil society organizations should continue to contribute, and the extension of a speakers’ list should not affect the opportunity of non-governmental organizations to contribute.

PETER SPLINTER, of Amnesty International, said the Universal Periodic Review was one of the major innovations of the Human Rights Council, and had been one of the few reasons to believe that it might be an improvement over the former Commission. Double standards and politicisation appeared to show signs that they could poison the promise of the Review if States did not make a greater effort to avoid them. There were symptoms of double standards and politicisation in the Universal Periodic Review - greater effort must be made in participation to aspire to and achieve the highest possible standards of rigour and equal treatment for all States under review. While there was always room for improvement, many States were taking the Review very seriously - this widespread commitment to making it an effective means for improving the protection and promotion of human rights must be nurtured and developed. All States in the Council had a responsibility to ensure that the promise of the Universal Periodic Review was realised.

PHILIPE DAM, of Human Rights Watch, said that despite the progress made by many Governments, Human Rights Watch was concerned by the lack of open, inclusive and transparent engagement of some Governments in the preparatory processes at the national level. Too often, national reports were compilations of legislation, policies and mechanisms created or adopted by a State in connection to a certain category of rights, with little analytical consideration of the status of realization of these rights and the challenges faced by the States. In addition certain national reports deliberately avoided addressing patterns of violations widely documented by human rights organizations, including Human Rights Watch. The quality of engagement of Governments in the Universal Periodic Review had proved to be extremely uneven. While a handful of States, such as Mexico and Germany, did agree to discuss difficult aspects of their records, others rated their success on their capacity to mobilize praise for their Government.

RONALD BARNES, of Indian Council of South America, said the Universal Periodic Review had produced a learning curve to examine each country’s human rights record and there were positive aspects of this process. However, one exception that had not been addressed was the right to self determination. The Indian Council of South America encouraged the Human Rights Council to address the right to self determination as it was part of the human rights obligations of States.

ISABELLE SCHERER, of International Service for Human Rights, said there had been much discussion of the need for States under review to clearly respond to the recommendations from the Working Group. The institution building text was clear that States had an obligation to indicate the recommendations that they accepted and should provide their views on other recommendations. The adoption of reports from the first three sessions had witnessed varying practices by States in indicating their responses to recommendations. Only best practices should constitute precedents for the future. Some States kept recommendations under consideration at the time of the adoption of the outcome. Some States had rejected recommendations with arguments that were in direct contradiction to their human rights obligations or treaties to which they were a party, or by claiming they did not comply with their domestic legislation, Constitution, values or interests. Such responses were unacceptable.

JOHN FISHER, of Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, said that the Network generally appreciated the increase in clarity and responsiveness to recommendations made, with most States providing a clear indication of their position on all recommendations. It was difficult to address this issue without being conscious of the situation that arose yesterday, but it was also important to recognize that this was by no means an isolated example, and two equally valid concerns emerged. On the one hand, there was a legitimate concern about a State’s failure to address the vast majority of the recommendations. On the other hand, a valid point was made that it was difficult to single out one State when other States which had also failed to engage meaningfully with the recommendations had not been similarly challenged. A consistent approach that respected the principles of both transparency and non-selectivity on which the Universal Periodic Review was based was needed.

ABDEL WAHAB HANI, of Arab Commission for Human Rights, said that they apologized to the interpreters for their statement yesterday and thanked them for carrying out super human work. The Arab Commission welcomed the transparent way in which a number of delegations responded to the Universal Periodic Review process, and encouraged other States to follow that approach so as to avoid a situation like that which took place yesterday with Israel. The Arab Commission recalled that the Universal Periodic Review was to be reviewed at the end of the first cycle; however, with the intentions of good management and common sense, the Arab Commission recommended that the assessment of the Universal Periodic Review take place at the end of the fourteenth session.

MAKOU DJOUMA MICHELINE, of Organisation pour la communication en Afrique et de promotion de la coopération économique internationale (OCAPROCE INTERNATIONAL), said the Universal Periodic Review had just successfully concluded its fourth session. However, there was scarce participation of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and civil society players in the drafting efforts of some developing countries. NGO recommendations had been considered and taken into account very little in the final recommendations, and the Council should look into ways and means of integrating NGO input into the recommendations. It was vital to have a framework that could increase collaboration on the ground between NGOs, special mechanisms, Special Rapporteurs and Independent Experts. Some funding should be made available to NGOs from developing countries to ensure their participation in Council meetings.

ANEZKA PALKOVA, of Liberation, said that Liberation noted with satisfaction the political will of the United Arab Emirates to continue to strengthen its labour law and regulations in order to improve the working and living conditions of workers, particularly in areas such as housing and health. This was undoubtedly a gigantic step in the direction of restoring the dignity of the workers, provided, it would be implemented and followed-up closely by those concerned. Among the workers population, Liberation would like to draw the Council’s attention to the situation of the contractual workers and labourers and domestic staff, as this vulnerable section of the work force was more likely to suffer the most. The United Arab Emirates had taken the initiative to study the possibility of a law that addressed the situation of domestic workers and Liberation wanted to know if this law would come into effect.

The Representative of North-South XXI, said that North South XXI regretted the marginalization of the input of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the Universal Periodic Review process. The inclusion of NGOs participation both at the stage of drafting reports and afterwards might help to bring to the attention of the Council information that would help the work of the Council in improving the situation of human rights. North-South XXI hoped that the Council would reconsider resolution 5/1 and how it might enhance the input of NGOs in this process.


Right of Reply

CARLOS RAMIRO MARTINEZ ALVARADO (Guatemala), speaking in a right of reply, said Guatemala rejected the mention made of the country by a non-governmental organization. Guatemala had accepted all recommendations addressed to it during the Universal Periodic Review, which had not been universally the case. This was a challenge to Guatemala, requiring it to strengthen actions. Guatemala had already increased compliance, creating an institution which had been reviewing the situation. When talking about double standards, this not only referred to the Council, but also the former Commission.

For use of the information media; not an official record

HRC09043E