Self-evaluation could lead to self-exoneration
FIDH fears that an intergovernmental evaluation of governmental behaviour could lead to minimizing the standards applied or ignorance of certain categories of rights and obligations (such as reproductive rights, the prohibition of death penalty, discriminations on grounds of sexual orientation, freedom of religion, even the extent of economic, social and cutural rights).
Danger of undermining the existing expert-based Human rights mechanisms
The Working group on the UPR should not lead to a new evaluation of situations or to a new legal qualification of situations, that would replace and undermine the qualification and the evaluation undertaken by UN experts. E.g. What the UN Special rapporteur on torture would qualify as torture, Member States would say it is a degrading treatment. Member States could even select some of the existing expert conclusions and recommendations, and give more importance to some in view of others.
“Fear” and sidelining of NGOs
FIDH deplores member States’ reluctance to engage with NGOs in the margins of the UPR session, to discuss and debate in parallel briefings on the situation of the examined countries. This sadly echoes the strict limitation of freedom of expression and of the freedom to defend human rights in a number of the countries under review and of the reviewing countries.
A toothless outcome
Moreover, given the very broad way in which it is defined, the outcome could be toothless, a mere picture of advances with little criticism, selecting amongst recommendations and setting aside important challenges.
In order to avoid these reefs, FIDH urges member states of the UPR working group to adopt the following recommendations in and around the session:
Implementation vs Evaluation: Member States of the UPR Working group should focus their questions and recommendations to the States under review on the implementation of existing recommendations and conclusions formulated by independent experts, rather than on their own evaluation and appreciation of the situation;
Outcome tailored to the situation: Member States should tailor the outcome of their review to the gravity of the situations before them. This should include, in cases of patterns of grave human rights violations, provisions for follow-up by the Human rights Council under agenda Item 4, or for a follow-up report by the concerned State on measures taken to resolve the situation.
Public and interactive debates in margin of sessions
At this session, FIDH is supporting the participation of 20 human rights defenders from 7 of the countries under review, and has called each of the concerned country to participate in public debates with local human rights defenders. FIDH urges the concerned countries to participate in these events, as evidence of their determination to engage in constructive dialogue with civil society actors.
Background
The Universal Periodic Review was established with the new Human rights Council, as an outcome of the UN reform process. This mechanism adds to the other UN human rights bodies that are either expert bodies (the UN Committees, the Special procedures and the Advisory Committee) or intergovernmental (Human Rights Council sessions, the “1503” procedure and the third Committee of the General Assembly).
It foresees that members of the UN Human rights council (meeting in a Working group format) will review the situation of human rights in all UN member States.
From Monday onwards, the first 16 countries to be reviewed are Bahrein, Ecuador, Tunisia, Morocco, Indonesia, Finland, the UK, India, Brazil, the Philippines, Algeria, Poland, the Netherlands, South Africa, the Czech Republic and Argentina.
The results of the review will be presented at this session and adopted at the June session of the Human Rights Council.
For more info: Antoine Madelin, FIDH director for intergovernmental organisations +32485222287 / +33668226572