This is a brief assessment of the effectiveness of the universal periodic review mechanism in terms of improving the protection and promotion of human rights. While the emphasis is on Ethiopia, a range of countries are covered in the assessment.

1. 1
An Assessment of the Effectiveness of the UPR Mechanism: A Case Study
Ghetnet Metiku Woldegiorgis
Date: Monday, November 11, 2013

2. 2
Contents
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 3
1.1 Background ............................................................................................................ 3
1.2 The Objectives of the UPR Process ....................................................................... 3
2 Effectiveness of the UPR Mechanism .......................................................................... 4
2.1 Overall Effectiveness ............................................................................................. 4
2.2 The Case of Ethiopia .............................................................................................. 5
3 Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 6
References ........................................................................................................................... 8

3. 3
1 Introduction
The purpose of this assignment is to examine the effectiveness of the Universal Periodic Review from the perspective of achieving its stated objectives as well as its ultimate goal of improving the situation of human rights. The presentation uses a two-pronged approach involving a treatment of the issue in a comparative as well as country specific manner. The overall consideration of effectiveness of the UPR is intended to provide a framework within which the subject matter could be analyzed as well as providing an opportunity to consider the process at the Human Rights Council level. This is followed by a presentation of the case of Ethiopia and a list of conclusions based on the foregoing discussions. The focus here is on the experience of Ethiopia.
1.1 Background
The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is a formal review process launched by the UN Human Rights Council in 2008 to review the human rights obligations and responsibilities of all UN Member States on a cyclical basis every four and half years. The UPR was created through the UN General Assembly on 15 March 2006 by resolution 60/251, which established the Human Rights Council1. The resolution mandates the Council to:
undertake a universal periodic review, based on objective and reliable information, 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; the review shall be a cooperative mechanism, based on an interactive dialogue, with the full involvement of the country and with consideration given to its capacity-building needs; such a mechanism shall compliment and not duplicate the work of treaty bodies.
The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is a three-stage process including a review by UN member States, the implementation of the recommendations received during the review, and an assessment of the implementation at the next review four and a half years later. It is a cooperative State-driven process enabling states to inform other states on measures they have taken to realize human rights in their respective countries as per their obligations. By October 2011, the human rights records of all 193 UN Member States2 have been reviewed.
1.2 The Objectives of the UPR Process
The ultimate aim of the UPR mechanism is to improve the human rights situation in all countries and address human rights violations wherever they occur. The specific objectives of the UPR are:3 (a) the improvement of the human rights situation on the ground; (b) the fulfilment of the State’s human rights obligations and commitments and assessment of positive developments and challenges faced by the State; (c) the enhancement of the State’s capacity and of technical assistance, in consultation with, and with the consent of, the State concerned; (d) the sharing of best practice among states and other stakeholders; (e) support for cooperation in the promotion and protection of human rights; (f) the encouragement of full
1 The Human Rights Council was established by the General Assembly on 15th March 2006 replacing the Human Rights Commission
2 Including the latest member South Sudan
3 OHCHR, 2006, A/HRC/RES/5/1

4. 4
cooperation and engagement with the HRC, other human rights bodies and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.
2 Effectiveness of the UPR Mechanism
The overall success of the UPR as a mechanism for promoting and protection human rights could best be gauged on the basis of the commitment of states to take part in the process, the overall performance of the mechanism in conducting the reviews and the participation of other stakeholders (including civil society and NHRIs). However, the final measure of effectiveness will be the implementation of the recommendations coming out of the review and their ultimate impact on the situation of human rights in the country.
2.1 Overall Effectiveness
The first cycle of the review conducted in four rounds covered all 193 states by October 2011. This amounts to a full participation by all UN member states. Although the quality of participation as reflected in the number of recommendations per state was low in the first round (29 in the first round), it has picked up quickly and continued to increase throughout the cycle (143 in the fourth round). The same trend is seen in the first session of the second cycle. The range of issues and rights covered is also impressive with recommendations for the ratification of international instruments and a broad range of both CPR and ESCR issues addressed throughout the first cycle. However, a significant number of states (39 or 20% of UN members) did not make any recommendations.
Of the 21353 recommendations made during the first cycle 15613 (73.12%) were accepted, 3181 (15%) rejected, 1383 were of a general response and 1176 had no response from the states under review. The high proportion of recommendations accepted by the states under review suggests a promising beginning for the process. Yet, there have been instances where the position of the state under review regarding the recommendations may be too contentious or ambiguous. In the case of the Syrian delegation 27 of the 179 recommendations were designated as already implemented much to the surprise of recommending states. The delegation of the Peoples’ Republic of Korea (North Korea) on its part rejected 50 recommendations and failed to respond to the remaining 117 thus accepting no recommendations.
A recent study covering 66 states to be reviewed for a second time from January 2013 to May 2014 (UPR sessions 15 to 19) also found that approximately 40 percent of recommendations (more than half of ‘accepted’ recommendations as well as 15% of rejected ones) are either partially or fully implemented at mid-term.4 There is, however, some criticism of the nature of the recommendations in terms of their specificity and actionability. One prominent source indicates that only around a third of all recommendations made during the first cycle of the UPR process had ‘the precision required to allow easy further monitoring’5. To complicate matters, these are the ones reported as least implemented at the mid-term point for the countries considered.
The legacy of poor records of reporting to treaty bodies as well as the Human Rights Commission and its alleged politicization in terms of becoming a tool for powerful states to target ‘the usual suspects’ had created doubts as to the effectiveness of the UPR mechanism in achieving its purposes. However, the UPR has since been hailed as “a universal and even-handed approach, conducted in a spirit of
4 UPR Info, UPR: On the Road to Implementation, October 2012
5 UPR Info, UPR: On the Road to Implementation, October 2012

5. 5
cooperation and dialogue, with states monitoring states about their human rights situations”.6 Evidence supporting this positive view has been found in the view that states are seeing the UPR ‘as an opportunity for self-diagnosis and it helps their international prestige’, the high proportion of delegations with ministerial representation and overall expression of commitment.7 On the other hand, the process during the first cycle was not without its problems. In some cases states engaged in politically oriented criticisms and ‘unhelpful dialogue’ during the review. A case in point is the utilization of the forum by the Syrian delegation to accuse some states of interference and bad faith.
The participation of non-state actors and other stakeholders, especially NGOs, is difficult to gauge since states are ‘encouraged’, not required, to involve NHRIs and civil society in preparing the state reports. Many countries did take measures to this effect including publication of the draft state reports for comment (e.g. Switzerland) and availing information for civil society on the UPR process (e.g. Indonesia, Brazil, the Philippines); others did not (e.g. South Africa).8 The UPR process does provide opportunities for these actors to comment on the process and express views about the recommendations put and about the State’s response to them. Yet, the more active role is expected to take place at the national level during the preparation of the state reports. Some countries have used the UPR as an opportunity for awareness raising, engagement with civil society and advocacy – cases in point being Tonga and Costa Rica.9
Ultimately, the success of the UPR process will be determined by the impact it has had in the situation of human rights on the ground. This part of the review begins with the follow up phase but extends too far into the future to be assessed at this time. This would at least require consideration of state reports to the second cycle of the review which has just started. Indicators of efforts to implement the recommendations could also be gleaned from activities at the national level including efforts to engage the public and civil society.10 Although engagement of civil society is not mandatory on states, NGOs have been known to undertake monitoring activities based on international and regional human rights commitments such as concluding observations of treaty bodies. This practice has now been established with NGOs and NHRIs in various countries submitting mid-term progress reports on the implementation of UPR recommendations. These are country specific issues that would require consideration on a case by case basis. The provision for voluntary mid-term monitoring by states during the four and half years set aside for implementation is also important in this respect.11
2.2 The Case of Ethiopia
The Ethiopia Universal Periodic Review was held by the UN Human Rights Council on Wednesday 9 December 2009. The Conclusions and Recommendations of the Working Group Report for the Ethiopia Universal Periodic Review include 98 of 142 recommendations (69%)12 that enjoy the support of the government of Ethiopia, 12 recommendations that are being studied by the government of Ethiopia and
6 James Jolley, September 2012, p. 13
7 James Jolley, September 2012, p. 36
8 Theodor Rathgeber, July 2008
9 UPR Info, UPR: On the Road to Implementation, October 2012
10 The engagement of civil society and other actors is also essential in terms of availing adequate information for the next review.
11 General Assembly Resolution 281, A/RES/65/281, 2011
12 Many of the recommendations, especially those relating to the ratification of human rights instruments and development of a national action plan on human rights were already being addressed at the time of the review.

6. 6
32 recommendations that do not have the support of the government of Ethiopia.13 The next national report is due on 27 January 2014 and will be considered during the 19th Session of the Human Rights Council (28 April – 9 May 2014).
The preparation of the state report for the UPR session on Ethiopia was undertaken by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs with support from the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission (EHRC) and the OHCHR East Africa Regional Office. Once the draft report was prepared it was considered in forums organized by the MoFA, EHRC and OHCHR as well as by a committee of legal experts, drafting committee and inter- ministerial committee prior to submission. The contributions of the EHRC in the preparation of Ethiopia’s UPR report by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA) included the provision of financial and technical assistance, providing inputs to the contents of the report, and attending the review process. Twenty stakeholders’ reports were submitted for the UPR.14
Subsequent to the review process, the EHRC and the MoFA have, a part of this process, organized a two day national consultation workshop to discuss the recommendations forwarded on Ethiopia’s UPR Report.15 Participants at the workshop which took place on the 22nd and 23rd of December 2010 at the Addis Ababa Hilton include representatives from government bodies, education institutions, civil society organizations, development partners, UN agencies and other key institutional stakeholders.
According to the mid-term review compiled by UPR Info, 84 recommendations are not implemented, 16 recommendations are partially implemented, and 5 recommendations are fully implemented.16 This figure does not include 55 recommendations on which no information was received by the organization. The list of fully implemented recommendations include: ratification of international instruments (child rights, disabilities); human rights education and training; women’s rights; and, the UPR process, Technical assistance, civil society (no. 20). Ethiopia has also taken measures in relation to 3 rejected recommendations relating to NHRIs. The development of a national action plan on human rights has also been completed recently.
3 Conclusions
The UPR process has become an important mechanism for the promotion and realization of human rights in general as well as a uniquely comprehensive monitoring system. Its effectiveness as such could be considered at various levels.
For the first time in the history of modern human rights systems, we now have a comprehensive source of information at country level on the overall situation of human rights and critical concerns for all UN member states. While most of this information was already available in a scattered manner the UPR documentation gives us a comprehensive and official document. In the case of Ethiopia the alignment of the process with measures to undertake the treaty reporting obligations of the government has
13 UN Member States also called on Ethiopia to invite Special Procedures experts, especially the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, to visit Ethiopia and do a report on their obligations under Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
14 UPR Info, Mid-Term Implementation Assessment: Ethiopia, July 2012
15 The F.D.R.E. Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission, National Consultation Workshop on Recommendations on Ethiopia’s Universal Periodic Report to the Human Rights Council, Addis Ababa Hilton, 22 – 23 December 2010
16 The total number of recommendations was given as 160 rather than the 142 indicated in the working group report. This generally has to do with the methodology of compiling repetitive recommendations.

7. 7
strengthened this advantage. We now have comprehensive documentation relevant for determination of the situation of human rights in Ethiopia.
The opportunity to consult with non-state actors, including civil society and citizens on issues of human rights is another important result of the UPR process. However, the effectiveness of the system in this respect is a function of the willingness and ability of the concerned state to engage these actors. While there have been opportunities for civil society to contribute to the process, especially after the review stage, there appears to be failure to consciously and adequately engage civil society in the preparation of the report. The stakeholder submissions to the dialogue at the HRC and subsequent engagement of stakeholders by the government through a consultation forum have only addressed the gap partially. On the other hand, the active engagement of the EHRC throughout the process has been exemplary in terms of engaging NHRIs.
The available evidence to date also indicates that states have been keen on implementing the recommendations they have accepted during the review including a surprising number of ‘rejected’ recommendations. In the case of Ethiopia, the implementation to date is not encouraging despite the seemingly large number of accepted recommendations with only around 13% of all recommendations and around 21% of accepted recommendations at least partially implemented at the mid-term point.17 Although the impact of the measures that have been implemented is yet to be seen in terms of medium and long-term results, this is clearly a major step in the right direction. In this connection one has to mention the critical relevance of some of the measures taken by states after undergoing the UPR process. Chief among these is the development of national action plans to implement the recommendations which in the case of Ethiopia took the form of the National Action Plan on Human Rights. The Ethiopian government has also finalized or is in the process of finalizing a number of long awaited ratifications including the PwDs Convention, the optional protocol to the CRC (signed), and the Palermo Protocol (trafficking in women and children).
The overall idea of openness about human rights dialogue, which was inherent in the public discussions within the interactive dialogue and the final discussion of the Working Group’s reports, is also important. In many cases, this provided additional opportunities for stakeholders – including national ones – to participate in the UPR process. While there were a number of stakeholder submissions on the review of Ethiopia’s report, the level of participation leaves a lot to be desired. A more conscious effort to engage civil society at the national level should be matched by awareness raising and capacity building initiatives to ensure that non-state actors, especially civil society, can participate in the process at the national level in the upcoming second cycle.
Generally, the UPR has been an effective mechanism encouraging human rights reforms in terms of formal actions (e.g. policies, laws and institutions) by government actors. The Ethiopian government has used the UPR process as a mechanism to take stock of the level of implementation of its human rights obligations from a holistic perspective. Coupled with the ongoing efforts to harmonize national laws and policies with international human rights standards and undertake treaty reporting obligations, the review process has indeed contributed to strengthening the national human rights system. There are, however, some glaring gaps in terms of capitalizing upon the UPR process as an opportunity for increased communication, dialogue and engagement with non-state actors. This is particularly true in reference to the limited involvement of civil society in the development of the state report and almost non-existent
17 UPR Info, Mid-Term Implementation Assessment: Ethiopia, July 2012 (the actual number of recommendations addressed is 21 of 160 with only 5 fully implemented)

8. 8
support for overall civil society involvement through awareness raising and capacity building initiatives. The government could in these areas draw lessons from the experiences and best practices of states during the first cycle of the UPR process and address the gaps for the upcoming second cycle review of Ethiopia.
References
A long list of documents has been reviewed for the completion of this assignment including the literature available on the UPR Info (NGO) website. However, the following are the documents most extensively used. A number of direct and indirect quotations as well as ideas for analysis and conclusions have been gleaned from these sources.
1) Allehone Mulugeta Abebe, Of Shaming and Bargaining: African States and the Universal Periodic Review of the United Nations Human Rights Council, Human Rights Law Review, Oxford University Press, Human Rights Law Review Advance Access published February 13, 2009
2) Danish Institute for Human Rights, Universal Periodic Review First Cycle: Reporting Methodologies from the Position of the State, Civil Society and National Human Rights Institutions, 2011
3) David Frazier, Evaluating the Implementation of UPR Recommendations: A Quantitative Analysis of the Implementation Efforts of Nine UN Member States, August 2011
4) Edward R. McMahon, The Universal Periodic Review: A Work in Progress, An Evaluation of the First Cycle of the New UPR Mechanism of the United Nations Human Rights Council, Dialogue on Globalization, FES Study, September 2012
5) Ethiopia National Report: Ministry of Foreign Affairs: http://lib.ohchr.org/HRBodies/UPR/Documents/Session6/ET/A_HRC_WG6_6_ETH_1_E.pdf
6) Ethiopia Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review, Addendum: Views on conclusions and/or recommendations, voluntary commitments and replies presented by the State under review, Human Rights Council, 13th Session, 18 March 2010
7) Ethiopia Working Group Report: http://lib.ohchr.org/HRBodies/UPR/Documents/Session6/ET/A_HRC_13_17_ETH_E.pdf
8) James Jolley, An academic study of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) from the perspective of Children’s Rights: An analysis of the effectiveness of the UPR as a mechanism for promoting and protecting human rights, with the focus on children’s rights, September 2012
9) Stakeholder Letters: Submitted for the Ethiopia Universal Periodic Review. http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/UPR/Pages/UPRETStakeholdersInfoS6.aspx
10) The F.D.R.E. Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission, National Consultation Workshop on Recommendations on Ethiopia’s Universal Periodic Report to the Human Rights Council, Addis Ababa Hilton, 22 – 23 December 2010
11) Theodor Rathgeber, The HRC Universal Periodic Review: A preliminary assessment, Dialogue on Globalization Briefing Paper, FES Geneva, July 2008
12) UN Watch, Mutual Praise Society: Country scorecard and evaluation of the Universal Periodic Review system of the U.N. Human Rights Council, Presented at the United Nations Human Rights Council, February 6, 2009
13) UPR Info, Ethiopia: Mid-Term Implementation Assessment, Geneva, 3 July 2012
14) UPR Info, Universal Periodic Review: On the Road to Implementation, The Follow-up Programme, 2012