Reviewing the Review : The First Session of the Universal Periodic Review, the Human Rights Council

The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is the mechanism established under General Assembly Resolution 60/251, which also created the Human Rights Council (the HRC). Arguably, unlike its predecessor, the HRC’s UPR mechanism was intended to undertake a review of countries ‘based on objective and reliable information [and] of the fulfillment by each State of its human rights obligations and commitments in a manner which ensures universality of coverage and equal treatment with respect to all States’. In addition, the Resolution states that ‘the review shall be a cooperative mechanism, based on an interactive dialogue, with the full involvement of the country concerned and with consideration given to its capacity-building needs; such a mechanism shall complement and not duplicate the work of treaty bodies.’1 However, having seen the first sessions of the UPR unfold and approaching the time in which the country reports will be released, mixed feelings remain around the process, its ability to be manipulated and whether it is an effective mechanism for assessing human rights situations and in which civil society can have valuable input.

The first session of the UPR took place from 7 to 18 April 2008, with the review of 16 United Nations (UN) member States, three of which being Commonwealth members. The first States to be reviewed under the UPR were: Bahrain, Ecuador, Tunisia, Morocco, Indonesia, Finland, United Kingdom, India, Brazil, Philippines, Algeria, Poland, Netherlands, South Africa, the Czech Republic and Argentina.

As pointed out by the International Service for Human Rights (ISHR), on the one hand States that would never have found their human rights records being discussed at the Council have, at times during review, found themselves facing difficult questions before their peers. However, the process has also been vulnerable to consummate manipulation, where ‘friendly States’ have had the ability to collectively present, or represent, an image that is not reflective of the human rights context in the specific country under review. In some cases genuinely robust questions have been asked, and have received a response. In other cases they have not. In some cases useful recommendations have been formulated, in other cases recommendations are so vague that they cannot be realistically measured and at times appear to show that background research has not occurred in order to formulate useful lines of enquiry. In this regard, many States have applied different standards of scrutiny to States with whom they have a regional or organisational allegiance.

more...