Présentation de Subhas Gujadhur sur "Universal Periodic Review & Special Procedure Mechanisms" lors du Forum Mondial des Droits de l'Homme. Pour plus d'informations : - Site web : http://fmdh-2014.org/fr/ - Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/FMDH2014 - Twitter : https://twitter.com/FMDH2014 - Youtube : https://www.youtube.com/user/FMDH2014

1. Universal Periodic Review & Special
Procedure Mechanisms
By
Subhas Gujadhur
Director, Universal Rights Group

2. UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW
In 2007, the Council adopted its
"Institution-building package"
to guide its work and set up its
procedures and mechanisms
The package is made up of three components:
1) The Universal Periodic Review (UPR)
2) The Advisory Committee
3) The Complaint Procedure

3. UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW
The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) was created through the UN
General Assembly on 15 March 2006 by Resolution 60/251.
Under the auspices of the Human Rights Council, the UPR is a unique,
State-driven process which involves a voluntary periodic review of the
human rights records of all 193 UN Member States.
UPR is based on the principles of the UN Charter, The Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and the human rights instruments to
which the state under review is party.
Currently, no other universal mechanism
of this kind exists.

4. UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW
Ultimate Aim:
To improve the human rights situation in all countries and
address human rights violations wherever they occur.
The Sessions:
According to the Human Rights Council͛s ͞institution-building package͟,
the UPR Working Group would hold three two-week sessions per year
during which each session would see 16 counties reviewed.
The reviews are conducted by the UPR Working Group which consists of
the 47 members of the Council. Each review would be facilitated by
groups of three States, or ͞troikas͟, who act as rapporteurs.
By October 2011, the UPR Sessions had reviewed the human rights
records of all 193 UN Member States.

5. UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW
On what documents is the Review based?
The documents on which the reviews are based are:
1) Information prepared by the State concerned;
2) Information contained in the reports of treaty bodies,
special procedures;
3) Information provided by ͞other relevant stakeholders͟.

6. UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW
What happens next?
Having accepted any recommendations made during the Final Outcome,
the State is chiefly responsible for the implementation of these
recommendations.
The UPR ensures that all countries are accountable for progress or failure in
implementing these recommendations.
If necessary, the Council will address cases where States
are not co-operating.
Important fact about the UPR Mechanism
After the first four year UPR Cycle is completed, the Council will review
the process to identify best practices and lessons learnt.

7. UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW
It is a on-going process made up of 4 phases:
1. Phase 1: This part of the process aims at developing the information
needed for the review. (SuRs must describe their human rights
framework as well as implementation practice and challenges in a report
prior to their review.)
2. Phase 2 of the process contains the reporting that the State under
Review (SuR) as well as other national stakeholders engage in and
submit to the OHCHR.
3. Phase 3 describes the international review sessions (including inter-state
dialogue in the Working Group and the HRC Plenary Session) which
take place at the UN Premises in Geneva. (During this phase the SuR
must listen to comments, questions and recommendations relating to
reports, and subsequently state which recommendations it supports)
4. During Phase 4, the state should ensure that it implements the
recommendations it accepted from the UPR Process in Geneva.

8. Phase 1:
National
Consultations
STATE
Phase 2:
International
Reporting
Phase 3:
International
Review
Phrase 4:
National
Implementation
NGOsG
Os
NHNRIs
Special
Procedures
procedures
NHRI
HRC
W
G
NGOs
OHCHR
CIVIL
SOCIETY

9. Resolution 16/21 of the HRC
 All states are encouraged to proceed to larger National
consultations involving a wider range of stakeholders.
 All states are encouraged to submit a mid-term report to the
HRC, inclusive of recommendations to improve, develop and
advance the UPR Process.
 All states can ask the UN at a national or regional level ,to
help with the implementation of recommendations made
during the state reviews. The HRC can be the key contact
point for this issue.

10. THE SECOND CYCLE: FROM IMPLEMENTATION OF
RECOMMENDATIONS OF FIRST CYCLE TO PREPARATIONS ON
SECOND CYCLE
NATIONAL PROCESS
(REPORTS AND
CONSULTATIONS)
FOLLOW UP TO
RECOMMENDATIONS OF
FIRST CYCLE
(VOLUNTARY MID TERM REPORTS AND CONSULTATIONS)
REVIEW UNDER 2ND
CYCLE

11. SPECIAL PROCEDURES
The existence of SPs has always been, and will
always be, a given
• Determined stand of a group of newly independent states from Africa, Asia
and the Caribbean that the ‘no power to act’ doctrine was simply not good
enough
• The international community – the UN - must have the power to act in the
face of grave human rights violations, such as those committed in Apartheid
South Africa
• Hence: series of resolutions in the CHR and ECOSOC asserting that the UN
had the authority to act on the question of ‘the violation of human rights…in
all countries’, and establishing the first county SP mandates: on Apartheid
South Africa

12. • since 1993, massive relative decline in country mandates compared to
thematic. Thematics passed country in 1995 and today there are 39
thematic and only 13 country mandates. (Contrary to 60/251)
• Since 1967, 79 SP mandates have been established – while country
mandates have been terminated on 23 occasions, thematics have only
been discontinued on one occasion – with a merger in the year 2000
• So skewed growth likely to continue. URG estimates 100 mandates by
2030!
SPECIAL PROCEDURES

15. Profile of Mandate Holders (Jan 2014)

16. The ‘Lone Ranger’ syndrome
• SPs often portrayed as UN equivalent of the Long Ranger, riding in to bring
justice to recalcitrant states
• Yet the reality is that the ability of a mandate-holder to secure the
cooperation of a state, and the willingness of a state to work with the Special
Procedures are crucial determinants of influence
• But what about when states do not do so?
• Answer: transparency and public accountability – leveraging information on
standing invitations, responses to visit requests, replies to Urgent Appeals
• SP Communication report: a good example

17. Cooperation with Country Visit Requests by Regional
Group & Standing Invitations

18. Petitions Flow Chart

19. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
ATTENTION
I welcome your questions
and any other comments