Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Analytical report
Kyiv 2013
The report contains an analysis of the UPR process in the region of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) through the study of the data collected from the national reports, stakeholders reports, and the UPR Working Group reports while summarising the recommendations received by states under review. In many respects a path-breaking effort is made to identify certain regional trends based on the comparative analysis of quantitative data.The present study also catalogues some available examples of national UPR experiences concerning preparation of national reports and implementation of the recommendations, focusing on the experiences identified as promising. Author: Takhmina Karimova Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights (Geneva). UNDP Coordination Team: Yuliya Shcherbinina, Maksym Klyuchar, Vasyl Romanyuk Contributions from the following OHCHR and UNDP colleagues are gratefully acknowledged: Vrej Atabekyan (OHCHR), Marc Bojanic (OHCHR), Theresa Khorozyan (OHCHR), Monjurul Kabir (UNDP).
The report was produced within the framework of the UNDP project Leveraging change through the Universal Periodic Review (UPR): supporting CSOs and journalist communities in human rights advocacy efforts, funded by the British Embassy in Ukraine. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) partners with people at all levels of society to help build nations that can withstand crisis, and drive and sustain the kind of growth that improves the quality of life for everyone. On the ground in 177 countries and territories, we offer global perspective and local insight to help empower lives and build resilient nations. In Ukraine, three development focus areas define the structure of UNDPs assistance activities. These include democratic governance and local development; prosperity, poverty reduction and MDGs and energy and environment. In each of these thematic areas, UNDP ensures balance between policy and advocacy work, capacity building activities and pilot projects. UNDP established its presence in Ukraine in 1993 /www.undp.org.ua/. ISBN 978-966-23-44-28-8
United Nations Development Programme in Ukraine, 2013 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission. Opinions, conclusions or recommendations are those of the authors and compilers of this issue and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Government of Great Britain, United Nations Development Programme or other UN agencies.
Table of contents
Introduction......................................................................................................................................................................7 i. Objective of the report...............................................................................................................................................................................7 ii. Structure of the report............................................................................................................................................................................7 iii. Methodology of the analysis................................................................................................................................................................8 I. Universal Periodic Review: a very short introduction................................................................................9 II. Analysis of recommendations concerning CIS states..................................................................................11 i. Presentation and analysis of the data...........................................................................................................................................11 ii. Issues raised by NGOs..................................................................................................................................................................................12 iii. Human rights issues raised in the recommendations made to the CIS states.................................................17 iv. The response of CIS states to recommendations.................................................................................................................. 23 v. Overall analysis...........................................................................................................................................................................................28 III. National processes in preparation and implementation of the UPR recommendations...............33 i. Reporting methodologies: national experiences.................................................................................................................33 ii. Implementation modalities: national experiences................................................................................................................38 National human rights action plans........................................................................................................................................................38 National monitoring body/or government focal point...................................................................................................................39 National Human Rights Institutions........................................................................................................................................................40 Processes adopted (e.g. involvement of, and consultations with, CSOs, legislature, etc.)...................................................41 IV. Conclusions: current use of the UPR process from the regional perspective......................................44 Annex...................................................................................................................................................................................45 References.........................................................................................................................................................................46
List of acronyms
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination Cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment Commonwealth of Independent States Civil and Political Rights Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Civil Society Organization
ESC rights Economic, Social and Cultural Rights HRC ICCPR ICCPED ICESCR ICRMW IDPs IGO INGO IHL NGO NHRI OHCHR UDHR UNDP UNGA UPR Human Rights Council International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families Internally Displaced Persons Inter-Governmental Organization International Non-Governmental Organization International Humanitarian Law Non-Governmental Organization National Human Rights Institution Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights Universal Declaration of Human Rights United Nations Development Programme United Nations General Assembly Universal Periodic Review
Introduction
Introduction
contours of the problems and challenges of the preparation and follow-up to the UPR recommendations and which lessons can be identified as success stories. Chapters III and IV are then followed by some general conclusions from the findings. It must be emphasized that the present study does not engage in the comprehensive discussion of human rights issues in the region. Its purpose is rather to bring together various components of one process: the views of states undergoing the UPR, recommending states, national and international NGOs. This will allow comparing their approaches to what they deem as an issue of concern or priority, whether recommending states and NGOs raised the same issues and how CIS states themselves approached the UPR process in the review of their peers.
1 Membership in the CIS group of states does not correspond to membership of geopolitical regional groups disaggregated by the United Nations. Rather, it denotes official, associate members and participating states of the regional organization of the Commonwealth of Independent States that comprises eleven (or twelve) former Soviet Union republics.
The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is a new mechanism for human rights protection. The Human Rights Council through the Universal Periodic Review mechanism reviews on a periodic basis, the fulfilment by the United Nations Member states of their human rights obligations and commitments.2 Unlike treaty bodies, such as, for example, the Human Rights Committee or Committee on the Rights of the Child where the review process is carried out by independent experts, the UPR is a peerreview mechanism.3 It is a cooperative mechanism, based on an interactive dialogue.4 The UPR is also a human rights mechanism that is responsible to deal with the capacity-building considerations and provision of technical assistance to states. UPR offers an institutional forum permitting all States to voice their concerns.5 One of the advantages of the UPR process is that it covers a broad field of human rights. The review process is not limited to any set of rights; rather it underlines the unity of all human rights. Human rights obligations that are reviewed are defined as those comprising the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and human rights instruments to which the state under review is a party.6 The scope of review involves obligations under international human rights law and applicable international humanitarian law.7 Roughly the UPR process comprises the following stages: preparation of the National Report, review of the human rights records of the State under review (which formally consists of the Working Group review and interactive dialogue and adoption of the Outcome Document), implementation of the recommendations received in the process of review. The implementation is then assessed at the subsequent review four and a half years later.
Generally, three sources of information are examined in the UPR session. The state under review submits an assessment of its own human rights performance, in the form of a National Report (20 pages).8 This report is complemented by a second report prepared by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) on the basis of the information available from the UN (including the work of the treaty bodies and special procedures) in the field of human rights (10 pages). Finally, the OHCHR also prepares a summary report (10 pages) on the basis of information received from other relevant stakeholders,
2 UN GA Resolution 60/251 established that states: () Undertake a universal periodic review, based on objective and reliable information, of the fulfilment 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 concerned and with consideration given to its capacity-building needs; such a mechanism shall complement and not duplicate the work of treaty bodies; the Council shall develop the modalities and necessary time allocation for the universal periodic review mechanism within one year after the holding of its first session; UN GA Resolution 60/251, UN doc. A/RES/60/251, 3 April 2006, para 5(e). 3 Other existing examples of peer-reviewed mechanisms include the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and African Peer Review Mechanism. 4 UN GA Resolution 60/251, op. cit., para5(e). 5 Ibid., p. 618. 6 See HRC Resolution 5/1, annex. 7 Ibid. 0% 5% 10% 15% 8 UNHCR Resolution 6/102, 27 September 2007;See UN doc. A/HRC/6/22, 83.
i.e. non-governmental organizations and National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs). Then, other UN member states have an opportunity to review the assessment together with a compilation of the UN findings and contribution from other stakeholders, e.g. National Human Rights Institutions and civil society organizations. Another feature of the UPR is the broad participation. NGOs represent a fundamental component of the system of human rights protection. The UPR process provides for the participation of all relevant stakeholders, including non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and National Human Rights Institutions.9 NGO reports may supplement additional information (on certain issues or problems) not addressed in the report of a state under review. Like with other reports, NGO input needs to meet certain qualitative and quantitative criteria.10 In 2011, upon completion of its self-review process, the HRC adopted a set of modifications to improve the functioning of the UPR.11 Some of these new modalities are well worth being rehearsed in the context of the present report. Under the revised modalities, states are required to clearly communicate to the HRC their position regarding all recommendations received in their respective review process.12 The HRC stated, among others, that the second and the subsequent cycles of the UPR should focus on the implementation of the accepted recommendations and the developments of the human rights situation in the state under review.13 Therefore, states are encouraged (i.e. on voluntary basis) to provide mid-term reports updating on implementation of recommendations.14 The reviewed modalities also addressed to an extent the process of the review itself.15 The duration of the review is extended to three hours and thirty minutes for each country in the working group, with the state under review being given 70 minutes and other states 140 minutes. The list of speakers for the interactive dialogue in the working group under the revised modalities is open on Monday of the week preceding beginning of the working group session. All speakers are given three minutes (and two minutes for Observer States). The speaking time is reduced to two minutes for all, should the allocated time be insufficient to accommodate all speakers. If needed, the speaking time is divided among all delegations registered to ensure that all states are given the floor.16 These alterations were introduced to address deficiencies of the previous process which was not sufficiently conducive for an equal participation of all delegations in the interactive dialogue.17 Finally, changes to the review modality did not overlook the role of the stakeholders in the process. Given that national consultations for the first cycle of the review were not consistently practiced, under the revised modalities states are advised to have broad consultations with all the relevant stakeholders on the follow-up to recommendations.18 Finally, the review of the HRCs functioning produced reforms concerning the participation of other stakeholders. Namely, it was decided that National Human Rights Institutions with A status will have a separate section in the summary of other stakeholders information.19 Other stakeholders are also encouraged to include in their submissions information on the follow-up to the preceding review.20
9 HRC Resolution 5/1 states: UPR should ensure the participation of all relevant stakeholders, including non-governmental organizations and national human rights institutions, in accordance with General Assembly resolution 60/251 of 15 March 2006 and Economic and Social Council resolution 1996/31 of 25 July 1996, as well as any decisions that the Council may take in this regard in HRC Resolution 5/1, Institution-building of the United Nations Human Rights Council, Annex., para. 3(m). 10 See Universal Periodic Review: information and guidelines for relevant stakeholders written submissions. See also for NHRIs: Technical guidelines for the submission of information by national human rights institutions, both at OHCHR website: http://www.ohchr.org/en/hrbodies/upr/pages/NgosNhris.aspx. 11 HRC Resolution 16/21: Review of the work and functioning of the Human Rights Council, UN doc. A/HRC/RES/16/21, 12 April 2011. 12 Ibid., para. 16. 13 Ibid., para. 6. 14 Ibid., para. 18. 15 See HRC Decision on the Follow-up to the HRC Resolution 16/21, UN doc. A/HRC/17/L.29, 17 June 2011. 16 Ibid. 17 Preliminary Report: Reflection group on the strengthening of the Human Rights Council, Second meeting: 25-26th January, Paris, available at http://www2. ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/Report_Paris_meeting.pdf . 18 HRC Resolution 16/21, op. cit., para. 17. 19 Ibid., para. 9. 20 Ibid., para. 8.
10
21 The list of issues included under each category can be found in Annex I of the present report. 22 Where a human rights issue received a lesser degree of attention to the extent possible they were grouped under one category. An example would be issues concerning minorities, indigenous people, refugees, IDPs, stateless persons who have all been grouped under the rubric of other vulnerable groups. 23 For example, the structure of National Reports is designed first to provide an overview of the normative and institutional framework of human rights protection of a given state prior to addressing specific human rights categories/issues. 24 See an example of the Summary of stakeholders information at the UPR documentation section of the OHCHR website at http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ HRBodies/UPR/Pages/Documentation.aspx. 25 See e.g. UNDP report, Arab States and the Universal Period Review: Study undertaken on behalf of the United Nations Development Program, Regional Centre in Cairo, 12 November 2012, p. 27 (on file with author). 26 Consider, for example, the following recommendation made to Ukraine: Take further efficient measures to ensure that all people deprived of their liberty are held in conditions that meet international standards and that the recommendations of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment regarding pre-trial detention are fully implemented. Another example made to Belarus: Continue its actionoriented policy on the reduction of infant mortality, maternal care, combating HIV-AIDs and environmental protection. 27 UPR Info is a Geneva-based non-governmental organization, with a Special Consultative Status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), that is raising awareness and providing capacity-building tools to the different actors of the UPR process, such as United Nations Member States, NGOs, National Human Rights Institutions and civil society in general.
0%
5%
10%
15%
It is possible to draw the following general trends from a panoramic view of all human rights issues raised by all stakeholders submissions. Both international and domestic NGOs expressed concerns over civil and political rights encompassing the right to life, freedom from torture, security of persons, justice and impunity. The category under the heading of other civil and political rights comprising various freedoms and rights pertaining to political participation constituted 30% and 22% of all human rights
28 A mention in this context denotes a reference to a human rights issue. For example The Ombudsman stated that, although targeted reforms continuously take place in the sphere of education, and each year more schools are built and provided with modern equipment, schools in remote regions and IDP settlements still experience shortages of teaching staff and equipment. 29 That is the total number of 984 mentions by all stakeholders.
issues raised by international and domestic NGOs respectively.30 These rights also ranked high in the priority, namely 27% of the total of all interventions by joint submissions. Systemic issues such as adherence to international human rights treaties and reform of internal structures to increase protection of human rights were of concern in equal measure for all groups of stakeholders. Economic, social and cultural rights such as fundamental rights at work, right to education, right to health, adequate standards of living (housing, poverty, social security) received equal attention from both groups of organizations. Conversely, protection of women, children and persons with disabilities figured more prominently among the concerns of the domestic NGOs than in interventions of the international counterparts (representing 10% of all the interventions, i.e. twice as much when compared to 5% by INGOs). At the same time, international NGOs mentioned the protection of other vulnerable groups, such as migrants, IDPs, refugees, minorities and indigenous people more than the national non-governmental actors did (9% and 7% respectively). Human rights protection in counter-terrorism measures and human rights education and training represent the issues that did not figure in the interventions of the domestic NGOs. In terms of priority among specific human rights issues, the table below illustrates the first ten issues of concern for all groups of stakeholders. Table 1: Human rights issues by priority INGOs Freedom of religion and belief Justice Torture and CID treatment Freedom of opinion and expression Freedom of association and peaceful assembly Refugees, IDPs, stateless persons Scope of international obligations/ International instruments Equality and non-discrimination (racial, vulnerability) Right to health Impunity Justice Torture and CID treatment Womens rights Equality and non-discrimination (racial, vulnerability) Impunity Freedom of religion and belief Conditions of detention Freedom of association and peaceful assembly Right to health Freedom of opinion and expression NGOs Joint submissions Womens rights Scope of international obligations/ International instruments Justice Freedom of opinion and expression Special procedures and Treaty Bodies Torture and CID treatment Sexual orientation and gender identity Right to health Freedom of association and peaceful assembly Labour
Overall, there appears to be little discrepancy between international and domestic non-governmental organizations. Variation may, however, exist at the level of specific human rights issues within the broad categories identified above. It is, therefore, useful to have a closer look at the highest categories and particularly the specific human rights issues raised within them.
30 The category included freedoms such as freedom of movement, freedom of association and peaceful assembly, freedom of opinion and expression, freedom of religion and belief, right to privacy and family, political participation, elections and the right to privacy and family including the question of gender identity and sexual orientation.
13
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
Equally, INGOs mentioned right to life, torture and other CID treatment, freedom of opinion and expression, freedom of movement as well as concerns with issues of justice more frequently than the domestic NGOs.32
31 It includes the right to life, freedom from torture, security of person, justice and impunity and what has been earlier classified as other civil and political rights. 32 This finding, however, should be put into the context of methods outlined in the beginning of the section, in particular that the domestic NGOs often acted as a coalition thus formulating their concerns as one submission.
10
15
20
25
10
15
20
25
It can be concluded that in aggregate terms, NGOs approached the problem of human rights protection of the groups consistently. This being said, national NGOs raised womens rights, rights of the child, rights of persons with disabilities, as well as the issue of sexual orientation and gender identity far more often that their international counterparts. In addition, NGOs, both national and international, raised issues in this context in relation to both economic, social and cultural and civil and political rights.
33 These included mainly the Republic of Moldova, Russia, and Ukraine, and marginally Azerbaijan.
15
Although, some of the countries of the CIS region experience socio-economic difficulties, references to adequate standards of living, poverty and development were minimal in the interventions from all groups of NGOs. One reason to such occurrence can be related to the fact that economic, social and cultural rights for long have been a neglected dimension of human rights, both in theory and practice. At the inter-state level these rights were relegated to the development or poverty discourse measured by economic parameters, whilst in the analysis of international NGOs, they have been largely ignored until recently. Alternatively, perhaps legal guarantees related to work, food, housing, healthcare, social security, or education are not seen as a priority amid rampant violations of rights relating to life, liberty, and security which typically attract greater at10 Ukraine) for 0 submissions 5 (Azerbaijan, 15the second20 tention. Be that as it may, a review of two stakeholders cycle reveals25 a more balanced approach of the CSOs towards these rights.34 Figure 4: Distribution by specific economic, social and cultural rights (number of mentions)
10
15
20
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
34 See Summary OHCHR: Ukraine, UN doc. A/HRC/WG.6/14/UKR/3, 20 July 2012; Summary: Azerbaijan, UN doc. A/HRC/WG.6/16/AZE/3
iii. Human rights issues raised in the recommendations made to the CIS states
This section analyses the recommendations made to eleven states by both non-CIS and CIS states in the first cycle of the UPR process. For the first cycle of the UPR process, a total of 2347 human rights issues were raised to eleven CIS countries. Out of this number only 146 recommendations were made by the CIS states themselves, which constitutes merely 6% of the total number of recommendations. CIS states seem not to have had a substantial participation in the review of their peers. Such a limited contribution creates difficulties for comparative purposes. Nonetheless, despite this limitation, the graphs in this section are aimed to capture the type of issues raised by the CIS states in the review of their fellow states. The percentage under each group of states is calculated relative to the total number of recommendations raised by the respective group of states. Analysis of the data below shows a great difference in frequency of human rights issues raised by CIS states and nonCIS states. The frequency expressed in percentage is calculated in relation to the total number of recommendations made by respective groups. Table 2: Priority in human rights issues raised by recommending states (number of recommendations) Other states International instruments Womens rights Rights of the child Torture and other CID treatment Justice Freedom of the press Detention conditions Special procedures Freedom of opinion and expression Persons with disabilities 223 167 164 135 113 91 88 85 72 59 CIS states Minorities Womens rights Trafficking Rights of the child ESC rights general International instruments Justice Poverty Special procedures Persons with disabilities 11 10 9 8 8 6 5 4 3 3
To gain some insight into the types of recommendations received by each individual state in the CIS region, it is instructive to take a glance at the distribution of recommendations under eleven categories in percentage relative to the total number of recommendations received by each state (Table 3).
Human rights issues raised in the recommendations made to the CIS states
17
Table 3: Recommendations received by CIS states (in percentage relative to the total number of recommendations received by each state)
BELARUS KAZAKHSTAN KYRGYZSTAN Republic of Moldova RUSSIA TAJIKISTAN TURKMENISTAN UZBEKISTAN UKRAINE (1ST AND 2ND CYCLES)
ARMENIA
AZERBAIJAN
HR obligations, Institutional protection 19% 22% 25% 23% 16% 27% 27% 34% 29% 16% 8% 15% 12% 8% 10% 13% 22% 11% 11% 7%
23%
29%
11%
23%
11%
4%
Other Civil and Political Rights 28% 27% 20% 23% 12% 16% 10% 1% 4% 3% 1% 7% 1% 3%
19%
34%
7%
12%
17%
Trafficking
3%
1%
3%
6%
1%
8%
10%
4%
5%
3%
9%
0%
0%
1%
8%
15%
0%
22%
12%
23%
5%
16%
12%
10%
4%
8%
7%
1%
1%
12%
9%
1%
Environment
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
2%
0%
18 Human rights issues raised in the recommendations made to the CIS states
0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%
Counter-terrorism
0%
With regard to the frequency of the recommendations under the categories of human rights used in the analysis of stakeholders interventions, Figure 5 can provide an overview. Some general observations can be drawn at this stage. For CIS countries, issues concerning minorities, womens rights and rights of the child were identified as important in their recommendations. In effect, economic, social and cultural rights appeared three times more often in the recommendations made 10 0 5 15 20 by CIS states. In the same vein, trafficking accounted for 9% of all the issues raised by CIS state. Figure 5: Human rights issues raised by the recommending states
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
It is now suggested to discuss more in detail the most representative categories to get a sense of issues raised within each of them. We shall examine, in turn, human rights obligations and institutional protection, civil and political rights (all rights included), equality and non-discrimination together with protection of women, children, persons with disabilities and other vulnerable groups, and finally economic, social and cultural rights.
Human rights issues raised in the recommendations made to the CIS states
19
15%
20%
25%
Figure 6: Components of international human rights obligations and institutional framework for protection
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
The recommendations from non-CIS states stressed the need to expand standards of human rights protection through the ratification of international instruments. Almost 10% of the recommendations regarding the strengthening of the institutional framework encouraged CIS states to ratify international human rights treaties. This recommendation ranked as the highest priority for states such as Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russian Federation, and Tajikistan, while for Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, it followed as the second most frequent recommendation.35 It needs to be underlined that such a high number is not particular to the CIS region only. Globally, adhesion to international norms and their incorporation in domestic law recommendations related to international instruments rank No. 1. It is estimated that international instruments represent 19.89% of all recommendations made to states under review.36 CIS-states acknowledged the need to speed up the processes of ratification of international instruments, and also considered strengthening the cooperation with the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council. Regrettably, little emphasis has been made so far on supporting human rights education and training.
35 According to the UPRinfo statistics, e.g. Armenia: 17.58%; Belarus: 18.34%; Kazakhstan: 17.83%; Russian Federation: 19.01%; Tajikistan: 26.67% and Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, 18.34% and 22.14 respectively. The information is available at http://www.upr-info.org/database/statistics/. 36For Global Statistic, see also UPR-Info.org, ibid.
20 Human rights issues raised in the recommendations made to the CIS states
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
10%
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
Human rights issues raised in the recommendations made to the CIS states
21
3%
4%
5%
6%
0% 0%
1% 2%
2% 4%
3% 6%
4% 8%
5% 10%
6% 12%
150
100
50
0 Armenia 200 Azerbaijan Belarus Kazakhstan Kyrgyzstan Republic Russia Tajikistan Turkmenistan Ukraine of Moldova 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% Uzbekistan 7%
Human rights issues raised in the recommendations made to the CIS states 22 150
50%
100 40%
The next question to analyse is the type of recommendations and correspondingly the response of the CIS states to those recommendations. It needs to be mentioned that there is no standard or widely accepted categorisation of the recommendations by type. Notwithstanding, some advances in this area are being made in academia and civil society quarters. Particularly influential in this area is the study conducted by E. McMahon who categorized recommendations by level of action, on the basis of the wording used in the recommendations. He suggests using the scale from 1 to 5 in categorization, with 1 requiring the least cost and effort to the state under review and scale 5 for types of recommendations representing the greatest potential cost. In essence, action characterised as 5 is a concrete and tangible, whilst on the other end of the spectrum, action 1 is often easiest to accept, since it requires less effort and in most cases is less tangible. A summary of the categories is useful, as they serve as the basis for the assessment of the recommendations given to CIS states.
37 E. 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, September 2012, pp. 13-14. 38 Ibid., p 20.
23
Table 5: Action categories: distribution of accepted and rejected recommendations TOTAL, % CATEGORY EXAMPLE
Rec-s made by CIS countrie Rec-s made by non-CIS countries
ACCEPTED, %
Rec-s made by CIS countrie Rec-s made by non-CIS countries
REJECTED, %
Rec-s made by CIS countrie Rec-s made by non-CIS countries
Action 1: this type of recommendations typically calls for seeking, sharing information, or requesting financial or other type of assistance;
Share its positive experiences and best practices with other countries regarding the high level of ethnic and religious tolerance.
20%
1%
0%
1%
0%
0%
Continue the practice of adoptAction 2: recommendations ing national plans of action on suggesting a state to continue various fields with the purpose its current efforts and/or acto improve the human rights tions; situation in the country Action 3: recommendations Consider establishing and that invite a state to consider, improving the juvenile justice or to review its action; system Action 4: recommendations calling for a general action, whereby a state is suggested to take measures towards or promote, etc.;
2%
13%
2%
13%
0%
0%
0%
9%
0%
5%
0%
1%
Undertake measures ensuring rights of ethnicities and national minorities to use its native languages in practice.
3%
39%
3%
31%
0%
3%
Ratify the Protocol No. 14 to Action 5: recommendation the European Convention on that suggests taking a specific Human Rights and the Charter measure. for Regional and Minority Languages.
2%
31%
1%
17%
0%
9%
Source: E. 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.
On the basis of the categories described above, Table 5 categorised the total number of received recommendations by type of action. As it appears, the majority of recommendations belong to category 4 and 5, in percentage terms these data represent 42% and 33% respectively. The distribution of recommendations made to CIS states is consistent with the trends at the universal level (Table 6). Table 6: CIS and global trends ACTION Accepted Rejected General Response No response CIS 74% 13% 11% 2% GLOBAL 73.50% 14% 6.38% 5.97%
Divergences between and among CIS states can be dissected at the level of responses to recommendations. Figure 10 looks in more detail at the level of acceptance and rejection of recommendations by CIS states.
200 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7%
Figure 10: Responses of CIS states to recommendations (by states - first cycle)
150 200
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
100 150
50 100
0 50
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Belarus
Russia
Uzbekistan
0 of Moldova It is worth recalling that participation of the CIS states in the review of their peers from the region was very modest. With this caveat 50% in mind, it is still possible to conclude that generally, in terms of action categories, recommendations made by CIS states follow the patterns of recommendations made by other states (Figure 11). 40% 50% 30% 40% 20% 30% 10% 20% 0% 10% Action 5 Action 4 Action 3 Action 2 Action 1 Armenia Azerbaijan Belarus Kazakhstan Kyrgyzstan Republic Russia Tajikistan Turkmenistan Ukraine Uzbekistan
Even if, in 34% of the cases, CIS states recommended states under the present analysis to continue existing course of action 25% 35% and/or efforts, recommendations falling in action category 5 accounted for 22% of the total recommendations made. As analysts observe, this could be a sign that states take the UPR process seriously by suggesting a specific course of action to 20% 30% institute changes in human rights situation of a state under review.39 It is now proposed to examine the recommendations
39 E. 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 10% Rights Council, September 2012, p. 15.
25
20% 40% 10% 30% II. Analysis of recommendations concerning CIS states 0% 20%
5 with a distribution Action by 4 action category. Action 3 evident from the Action 2 the level of acceptance Action 1 has been that CIS statesAction accepted As is chart, fairly high. All action categories together, CIS states accepted around 74% of the recommendations. 10% 35% 0% 30% 25% 20% 35% 15% 30% 10% 25% 5% 20% 0% 15% 10% 8% 5% Recommendations rejected by CIS states 7% 0% CIS states in total rejected 13% of all recommendations. The chart below (Figure 11) is instructive in this regard. The overwhelming majority of action accounted for 69% of all recommendations rejected. Action 5 rejection fell into Action 4 category 5. They Action 3 Action 2 Action 1 Second 6% in the line are recommendations of category 4, making up 20% of rejected recommendations. 5% 8% 4% 7% 3% 6% 2% 5% 1% 4% 0% 3% 2% 1% 0% Action 5 Action 4 Action 3 Action 2 Action 1 Action 5 Action 4 Action 3 Action 2 Action 1 Action 5 Action 4 Action 3 Action 2 Action 1
Action 5
Action 4
Action 3
Action 2
Action 1
It is not always possible to provide a thorough and an objective assessment of the reasons behind rejection of recommendations. Some states may opt to reject a recommendation on the basis that they have already taken an action on a specific issue. Some other states may reject recommendations because of the author of the recommendations. Yet another may reject because the state under review considers that the recommendations are factually wrong or deny the existence of a problem addressed by the recommendation.
Instead, few speculations can be put forward on the basis of the content of recommendations rejected and action category they belonged. According to the data tabulated, the ratification of international instruments ranked highest in the recommendations rejected. This is mainly because they included adherence to the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture which made a third of the total recommendations rejected, followed by recommendations concerning signing or ratification of the Optional Protocol to ICCPR (OP 2) on abolition of death penalty. The remaining rejected recommendations in the category of international instruments included among others adherence to the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and the International Convention on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. Aspects related to other civil and political rights such as freedom of press, special procedures, human rights defenders, freedom of opinion and expressions, etc. fell into the second category of rejected recommendations. Table 7: Recommendations rejected by issue TYPE OF RECOMMENDATIONS REJECTED International instruments Death penalty Freedom of the press Special procedures Human rights defenders Freedom of religion and belief Freedom of opinion and expression Functioning of CSOs Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Womens rights % 28% 7% 6% 6% 6% 5% 4% 3% 3% 3%
As far as rejection of recommendations made by CIS states is concerned, they were generally of limited and rather of an exceptional nature. Such a conclusion can be supported by a closer examination of the subject matter of the recommendations as well as their context. For example, half of recommendations rejected involved recommendations that Armenia and Azerbaijan made to each other concerning discrimination, particularly minorities in their respective territories. In similar vein, Russian Federation and Ukraine rejected their respective recommendations, possibly due to political context in which those recommendations were made.
27
10% 5% 0%Analysis of recommendations concerning CIS states II. Action 5 Action 4 Action 3 Action 2 Action 1
v. Overall analysis
This section aims to establish whether there is a relationship between human rights issues raised by stakeholders and rec7% ommendations received by states under the present review. Within the limits of the present study, following quantitative comparative analysis method adopted earlier, some general observations can be made.
6% 8%
In 5% what follows, it is suggested to compare the frequency with which all NGOs raised human rights issues against the frequency with which those same issues were mentioned in state recommendations in relation to eleven states under review. A 4% level of consistency can be visible, in the way both groups approached human rights issues identified. In some areas, certain one can visibly identify a certain correlation between the issues raised by the stakeholders and what recommending states 3% felt were the priorities. Predictably, states mentioned human rights obligations and institutional framework of human rights protection as well as chil1% and women rights issues far more frequently than all NGOs did. Conversely, all NGOs mentions of civil and political rights dren is higher than the number of times all states raised those same issues. The issues of most concern to international and national 0% NGOs were civil and political freedoms, right to life, freedom from torture and non-discrimination. NGOs raised justice and imAction 5 Action 4 Action 3 Action 2 Action 1 punity and the rights of other disadvantaged groups twice as frequently as states raised them. The concerns of the stakeholders with observance of human rights in the context of counter-terrorism did not find a corresponding echo with the states at all. Figure 14: Comparison between human rights issues raised by all NGOs and all states
2%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
28 Overall analysis
20%
II. Analysis of recommendations concerning CIS states Table 8: Issues raised by stakeholders and state recommendations received by Ukraine40
ISSUES RAISED BY ALL STAKEHOLDERS Ratification of ICC Statute, ICRMW, ICCPED, Convention on Stateless Persons Creation of specialised body to prevent torture Financing of institutional framework of human rights protection Anti-discrimination legislation Discrimination (gender, ethnic, sexual orientation) Racial discrimination and xenophobia Torture and other CID treatment Detention conditions and monitoring of detention centres Violence against Women Trafficking in humans, particularly children Exploitation of children/child prostitution Independence of judiciary, administration of justice Reforms related to juvenile justice system Due process guarantees Fair trial Independence of legal profession Investigation of crimes committed by state agents STATES ISSUES RAISED BY ALL STAKEHOLDERS Persecution of human rights defenders, civil activists Trade union rights Freedom of association and assembly Participation of women in decision-making Rights at work (unemployment and low wages and occupational safety and health) Poverty Right to adequate standards of living Right to housing of vulnerable groups HIV/AIDS prevention and care Right to health of drug users Right to education Human rights education Rights of persons with disabilities and compliance of domestic law with the CRPD provisions Protection of minorities (incl. preservation of language, right to land, right to education and other basic services) Violation of non-refoulement principle Protection of asylum seekers, refugees, stateless persons Environment STATES Partiallyt1 -
Right to family life (adoption, orphanage, assistance to single parents, recognition of diverse Partiallyt2 Sustainable resource management forms of families) Freedom of religion or belief Media freedom (including persecution and attacks against journalist) Right to property
A comparison of stakeholders summary with the recommendations received by Ukraine (Table 8) seems to point towards a preliminary conclusion on the existence of correlation between stakeholders submissions and state recommendation in the CIS region. Analysis of Ukraine also confirms a pattern identified in Figure 14, i.e. low impact of stakeholders concerns over socio-economic rights on state recommendations. Another possible area of inquiry would be to compare whether national NGOs and CIS states raised human rights issues with similar frequency (Figure 15). This potentially could provide a better understanding of dynamics within the region. In this regard, we have to remind ourselves of the overall limited number of recommendations made by CIS states.41 It would appear, for example, that CIS states raised issues in the group other civil
40 The data derives from Summary stakeholders report: Ukraine, UN doc. A/HRC/WG.6/14/UKR/3, 20 July 2012; Report of the Working group: Ukraine, UN doc. A/HRC/22/7, 20 December 2012. t1 More specifically, the recommendation was concerned about ensuring gender sensitive approach in poverty reduction programmes. t2 The relevant recommendation stated Take further measures and accede to the Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption. 41 Please refer to the introduction in Section C.
Overall analysis 29
1% 0%
Action 5
Action 4
Action 3
Action 2
Action 1
and political rights to the same extent as the NGOs from the region. The data in percentage terms, thus, should not mask the quantitative differences, i.e. that the NGOs mentioned these issues about 87 times, whilst CIS states did so only about 13 times in total. In the same vein, in percentage terms, the concern of CIS states with issues related to ESC rights seems to exceed that of NGOs slightly more than three times in frequency. In terms of numbers, this figure appears for NGOs and CIS 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% states, 53 and 32 times respectively. Figure 15: National NGOs and CIS Recommendations
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
20%
Notwithstanding limitations outlined above, one cannot but notice the divergence between the position of NGOs and CIS states concerning the right to life, freedom of torture and security of persons. In earlier comparisons, it was already noted that CIS states did not raise these issues in relation to the states under review at all. This conforms to the findings in the previous sections. 15% To further capture better the differences within the region it is also instructive to have a glance at the basic parameters of the UPR outcome for each CIS state (Table 9). There is a certain level of similarity across the states. Themes most frequently 10% in the recommendations to CIS states included adherence to international human rights treaties, rights of women and raised children and civil and political rights (which refer to varying degrees to issues of administration of justice, independence of judiciary and combatting corruption in the judicial system, torture and other CID treatment, detention conditions). These 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 5% equally attract greater attention at the global issues level as the figure below demonstrates. Figure 16: Substantive issues of concern: global trends and CIS states
0% 20% International instruments 15% Women's rights Rights of the Child Torture and other CID treatment Justice
10%
5%
0% International instruments Women's rights Rights of the Child Torture and other CID treatment Justice
30 Overall analysis
Table 9: Short overview of the UPR in CIS region COUNTRY UPR DATE REC. RECEIVED (TOTAL) ACCEPTED/ REJECTEDt3 RECOMMENDATIONS BY FREQUENCY (TOP 5)t4 Adherence to international instruments; womens rights; justice; rights of the child; freedom of association and peaceful assembly. Rights of the child; freedom of press; womens rights; detention conditions; human rights education and training. Adherence to international instruments; womens rights; functioning of CSOs; death penalty; freedom of press. Adherence to international instruments; rights of the Child; administration of justice; torture and CID treatment; Womens rights. REJECTED RECOMMENDATIONS (BY ISSUE) Issues related to discrimination of women; discrimination of minorities; freedom of association and peaceful assembly; Freedom of press; freedom of opinion and expression; non-discrimination of ethnic minorities and other vulnerable groups; ratification of ICC Statute. Issue of death penalty; freedom of association and peaceful assembly; adherence to OP-CAT, OP-ICESCR, OP-CPRD, ICCPED; compliance with elections standards; freedom of press; human rights defenders. Adherence to ICRMW; freedom of religion and belief; adherence to ICC statute, OP-2 ICCPR; UPR process; joining Declaration on sexual orientation and gender identity; freedom of opinion and expression; freedom of Press.
Armenia
165
A: 158; R: 6.
Azerbaijan
91
A: 57; R: 15.
Belarus
169
A: 124; R: 45.
Kazakhstan
A: 122; 129 R: 7.
Kyrgyzstan
175
A: 154; R: 3. A: 122; R: 1.
Rights of the child; womens rights; adherence to interna- Set up a body responsible for tional instruments; justice; gender equality and violence. elections. Womens rights; rights of the child, trafficking; minorities To reduce the length of police rights; rights of persons with custody subsequent to arrest. disabilities. Adherence to international instruments; administration of justice; racial discrimination; rights of the child; cooperation with special procedures. Compliance with international humanitarian law; death penalty, adherence to OP2-ICCPR, OP-CAT, ICC Statute, ICRMW and other treaties; human rights education of law enforcement bodies; cooperation with Special Procedures; institution of special body dealing with racial discrimination.
Republic of Moldova
123
Russian Federation
121
A: 75; R: 41.
t3 A: accepted; R: rejected. t4 This column is based on statistic information obtained from UPR Statistics at www.UPRinfo.org.
Overall analysis 31
COUNTRY
UPR DATE
ACCEPTED/ REJECTEDt3
RECOMMENDATIONS BY FREQUENCY (TOP 5)t4 Adherence to international instruments; womens rights; torture and other CID treatment; rights of the child; death penalty. Cooperation with special procedures; adherence to international instruments; freedom of opinion and expression; human rights defenders; and torture and other CID treatment. Follow up to treaty bodies recommendations; minorities rights; racial discrimination; justice system; womens rights.
REJECTED RECOMMENDATIONS (BY ISSUE) Ratification of OP-CAT, OP2ICCPR, CPRD, OP-CPRD, ICCPED, OP-ICESR; detention conditions; freedom of religion and belief; freedom of expression and opinion; freedom of press; freedom of assembly. Justice; extrajudicial executions; freedom of movement; human rights defenders; freedom of opinion and expression; freedom of press; sexual orientation and gender identity. Adherence to ICRMW; implementation of treaty bodies recommendations on minorities issues; minority rights; adherence to soft-law standards on sexual orientation and gender identity. Adherence to ICCPED, OP-ICESCR, ICRMW, OP3-CRC, ICC Statute, 1954 Convention on Stateless Persons, CoE Convention on VaW and Domestic Violence; revision of legislation in regard to issues concerning sexual orientation, LGBT, and applying Yogyakarta principles; discrimination of Roma; strengthening tolerance in the society; politically motivated persecutions; implement recommendations on parliamentary elections; partially not accepted protection of refugees and asylum seekers. Human rights defenders; investigation of human rights violations; administration of justice; arbitrary detention; compliance with HR obligations; protection of asylum seekers and refugees; issues of sexual orientation and gender identity.
Tajikistan
150
A: 115; R: 33.
87
A: 37; R: 12.
44
A: 38; R: 6.
145
Administration of justice; adherence to international instruments; anti-discrimination in general (in particular amendment and strengthening of anti-discrimination legislation); torture and other CID treatment, and in particular establishment of the preventive mechanism; sexual orientation and gender identity.
Uzbekistan
140
A: 89; R: 17.
Torture and other CID treatment; adherence to international instruments; detention conditions; cooperation with special procedures; rights of the child.
32 Overall analysis
The Human Rights Council Resolution 5/1 makes clear that states are to prepare their national UPR reports in close consultation with all stakeholders, e.g. National Human Rights Institutions, civil society organizations and general public at large. The approach a state takes to national consultation process may impact the outcome the National Report. The more a state under review is open and inclusive in its preparatory stage the more input it will be able to solicit to improve its National Report and to have a better understanding of underlying human rights issues within its boundaries. The follow-up process is an important phase of putting in practice the outcome of the UPR which aims essentially to contribute to the improvement of the human rights situation on the ground. For the UPR process as well as any action at the international level, the full implementation of the UPR outcome is also the indicator of the overall effectiveness of the mechanism and its capacity to impact/improve human rights situation of individuals. As of the date of completion of the present report, from among CIS states, only Ukraine has undergone the second universal periodic review. Several initiatives have been undertaken in the region to distil lessons learnt and identify challenges of implementation. The present study draws from the general direction provided by the Study of the Implementation Challenges and Lessons Learned of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) Recommendations in the ECIS Region by the UNDP Regional Center in Bratislava. However, two other dimensions will be added to the present analysis: a) best practices of implementation mechanisms globally, and b) implementation modalities adopted by CIS states.
42 DIHR, Universal Periodic Review: First Cycle, Reporting Methodologies from the position of the State, Civil Society and National Human Rights Institutions, 2011, p. 13ff. 43 Ibid., p. 18.
33
35
National Human Rights Institutions, Government officials and non-government organisations to discuss the UPR. Participants attending the workshop proposed that the Australian Government draw on the National Human Rights Consultation for the UPR National Report. In March 2010, the Australian Government launched a preliminary consultation on the National Report, inviting NGOs and members of the public to submit initial views on issues to be addressed in the Report. The UPR was a featured topic at the inaugural joint annual NGO Forum on Human Rights, hosted by the Attorney-General and Minister for Foreign Affairs in June 2010, which was attended by representatives of 48 NGOs, and also at the NGO Forum hosted by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in October 2010. A draft version of the National Report was released on the Attorney-Generals website for comment in July 2010. States and Territories were also invited to comment on the draft National Report. The submissions made during this consultation process were used to update and amend the National Report in preparation for its submission.
Source: National Report of Australia, UN doc. A /HRC/WG.6/10/AUS/1, 5 November 2010
It needs to be stressed that the role of the CSOs is not only about providing input to other stakeholders report. As rightly pointed out: [i]ndependent perspectives and voices are needed from beginning to end to provide a needed balance to the states performance.50 The contribution of civil society organizations is much more substantial on the ground, and it includes but is not limited to: dissemination of information about the UPR process, including encouraging the wider public to actively participate in the consultation process. The CSOs play an important role in connecting with the field (their access to and capacity for information collection); documenting the situation of human rights/violations, and providing research support to provide basis for public debates.
CIS states engagement with CSOs during the first UPR cycle
What has been the experience of the CIS states in engaging with the civil society organizations in preparation of the National Reports? One way to answering this question is to draw from the relevant sections of National Reports describing the methodology of preparation of reports in the states subject of this report. Analysis of National Reports is subject, however, to an important caveat. It is limited in nature as it reflects only the opinion of states. Some states have provided a detailed account of the processes adopted, while others provided synthetic information on the approach undertaken. The report of Armenia indicated in general terms that it had presented the National Report to non-governmental organizations to hear their views and opinion.51 Azerbaijanestablished a working group to prepare the report. The process involved the Azerbaijani Commissioner for Human Rights (Ombudsman) and representatives of human rights NGOs. The draft report was presented to NGO and other civil society actors on its substance and content together with indications on the procedure for its consideration at the Human Rights Council and the role played by NGOs in preparing it.52 Belarus indicated that the drafting of the report was preceded by broad consultations on the purposes and methodology of the universal periodic review (UPR). The consultations also included representatives of international organizations, whose views were taken into account in the preparation of this report.53 In contrast, Kazakhstan provided a more elaborate account on its methodology of the preparation of National Report. It conducted a series of consultation workshops which included government officials, members of NGOs, in50 DIHR, Universal Periodic Review: First Cycle, Reporting Methodologies from the position of the State, Civil Society and National Human Rights Institutions, p. 28. 51 National Report: Armenia, UN doc. A/HRC/WG.6/8/ARM/1, 17 February 2010, para. 3. 52 National Report: Azerbaijan, UN doc. A/HRC/WG.6/4/AZE/1, 4 November 2008, paras. 1-3. 53 National Report: Belarus, UN doc. A/HRC/WG.6/8/BLR/1, 22 February 2010, paras. 1-5.
ternational experts and the OHCHR. The National Report benefited from constructive proposals and recommendations of all these stakeholders. The list of NGOs included in the National Report testifies to the broad participation at the country level. Interestingly, Kazakh National Report also benefited from discussions with experts outside Kazakhstan, such as independent expert on minority issues, foreign representatives to the United Nations Office in Geneva, etc.54 In Kyrgyzstan, the basic information for the report was made available by a number of government ministries and also Ombudsman. Two joint consultative meetings were held with the OHCHRs Regional Office for Central Asia and non-governmental organizations in the course of preparation of the report. Kyrgyzstan methodology is also unique in that it involved the members of the legislative. The Parliament of the Kyrgyz Republic conducted a hearing, on compliance with the law and protection of human rights and freedoms.55 The drafting of the report of the Republic of Moldova also involved broad consultations with international and national nongovernmental organizations with the support of the UN Country Team. For the purposes of consultations, the Republic of Moldova, created an internet website and a special mailbox, where all relevant UPR information and formal suggestions could be submitted.56 The preparation of the National Report in the Russian Federation involved consultations with the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court, the Supreme Commercial Court, the Office of the Prosecutor-General, the Central Electoral Commission, the Commissioner for Human Rights (Ombudsman), the national Social Forum and social forums in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation. Representatives of civil society organizations were also consulted.57 Tajikistan informed that it conducted a series of consultations with nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) working for human rights, including seminars organized with the assistance of the OHCHR.58 The inter-ministerial working group established for the drafting of the report also included the Commissioner for Human Rights (Ombudsman). Turkmenistanreported that it had started consultations in the process of drafting. The Interdepartmental Commission on compliance with Turkmenistans international human rights obligations, a body entrusted with coordination of the process, held a number of interdepartmental meetings and consultations with international experts invited by United Nations agencies. The draft report was transmitted also to voluntary organizations, whose comments and views were taken into account in preparing the final version.59 In Ukrainethe preparation of the report involved broad public discussions, the holding of round tables and thematic working groups.60 In the preparation for the second UPR report, participation of the NGOs in the process was augmented. The Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union served as coordinator of this process on behalf of civil society and as co-organizer of the working meetings.61 Uzbekistans UPR report was drafted by an interdepartmental working group including 32 government bodies and nongovernmental organizations represented by the National Association of NGOs of Uzbekistan. The coordinating role was entrusted to the National Centre for Human Rights and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs coordinated efforts, which analysed information and worked out approaches for the preparation of the report. In addition to the civil society organizations, the National Report indicated consultations with the Legislative Chamber (lower house) of the Oliy Majlis of the Republic of Uzbekistan (Parliament). The views of the CSOs and media on the report were solicited through holding of a round table.62
54 National Report: Kazakhstan, UN doc. A/HRC/WG.6/7/KAZ/1, 3 November 2009, paras. 2-4. 55 National Report: Kyrgyzstan, UN doc. A/HRC/WG/6/8/KGZ/1, 22 February 2010, paras. 3-6. 56 National Report: Republic of Moldova, UN doc. A/HRC/WG.6/12/MDA/1, 19 July 2011, paras. 1-3. 57 National Report: Russian Federation, UN doc. A/HRC/WG.6/4/RUS/1, 10 November 2008, paras. 1-2. 58 National Report: Tajikistan, UN doc. A/HRC/WG.6/12/TJK/1, 9 July 2011, paras. 1-2. 59 National Report: Turkmenistan, UN doc. A/HRC/WG.6/3/TKM/1, 15 September 2008 , paras. 2-5. 60 National Report: Ukraine, UN doc. A/HRC/WG.6/2/UKR/1, 9 April 2008, paras. 1-2. 61 National Report: Ukraine, UN doc. A/HRC/WG.6/14/UKR/1, 13 August 2012, paras. 1-3. 62 National Report: Uzbekistan, UN doc. A/HRC/WG.6/3/UZB/1, 5 September 2008, paras. 1-3.
37
While a comprehensive account for this is not available, some national experiences outside CIS region include Bahrain and Nepal. Other states, namely Australia and Finland, integrated UPR recommendations into their existing Human Rights Action Plans. Denmark is currently working on a National Action Plan on Human Rights which would be in line with the UPR cycle. The Australian Government has developed a new National Human Rights Action Plan in consultation with nongovernment organisations, which also articulates, in detail, how the Australian Government will implement the commitments it made in 2011 during Australias Universal Periodic Review. The action plan was informed by a baseline study on human rights issues in Australia and existing measures to address them.
Costa Rica
Costa Rica has as recently as 2011 established an Inter-institutional/inter-agency Commission for Follow-up and Implementation of International Human Rights Obligations under the authority of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. One of the principal objectives of this Commission is to promote cooperation between the state and civil society organizations to strengthen/enhance promotion and respect of human rights commitments undertaken by the state. To achieve this goal Costa Rica has established a permanent consultation body comprising members of civil society, thereby encouraging the active participation of all actors at the national level. Added to this, the Commission has an advisory committee composed of independent experts and institutions related to human rights who are invited to participate in discussions to support the Commission according to the topic. The Commission is currently active and has in its agenda the elaboration of a National Action Plan to counter racism and racial discrimination.63
63 See Costa Rica mid-term report: Informe de Avance de Medio Periodo Sobre Cumplimiento de Las Recomendaciones Formuladas a Costa Rica en el marco del Examen Periodico Universal, submitted to 19th Session of Human Rights Council, March 2012, available at the OHCHR website: UPR implementation (information provided by States). 64 This example was kindly provided by the OHCHR.
39
Due to their unique position, NHRIs are also better equipped to develop a model of UPR action plan or develop a matrix for an action plan for follow-up that can include: a) all recommendations received/actions to be undertaken; b) for each recommendation list responsible state agencies; c) supply each recommendation with a time frame with reporting deadlines; d) regularly monitor the implementation of the recommendations and keep the stakeholders, NGOs and international community broadly informed on the status of implementation.
The Coalition followed up on its Charter with Annual Progress Report, which served as an assessment of stakeholders on the implementation of the UPR recommendations. The commitment of the civil society has had an impact on the level of compliance of the government, which subsequently moved towards developing an official implementation plan. On one account, one of the lessons learnt is that the success of the KSC-UPR initiative owed to the capacity of the Commission on Human Rights to steer, effectively engage civil society in the process, and provide technical capacity support. The structures developed (steering committee and thematic groups) were also central, particularly in terms of providing opportunities to share best practices but importantly to generate information for each key human rights area of concern. Last, but not least, the KSC-UPR developed an Advocacy Charter that worked around advocacy strategies. The Advocacy Charter was developed for purposes of lobbying for specific questions and recommendations to be made to Kenya during the UPR review.65
Processes adopted (e.g. involvement of, and consultations with, CSOs, legislature, etc.)
The outcome of the UPR review is implemented primarily by states; nevertheless, states are encouraged to conduct broad consultations with all relevant stakeholders on the follow-up.66 As a minimum, states can actively engage stakeholders in the process of preparation and discussion of mid-term reports. However, it is recommended that states engage CSOs from the early stages such as drafting of a national action plan or amending the existing frameworks to follow up UPR implementation, soliciting views and inputs from all stakeholders. Particularly, the role of parliaments (legislature) should not be overlooked in the follow-up process. There is a general misconception that implementation of the UPR is only the task of executive. Parliaments can also have a significant contribution in implementation of UPR recommendations through various legislative processes. First of all, parliamentarians can influence the process of adherence to international human rights instruments and development of new legislation (or amending existing one) that can give effect to UPR recommendations. Second, parliaments can hold debates on key human rights concerns raised in the UPR review process and call for and/or take initiatives to reform government policies. Related to this, parliamentarians may have a mandate to consider the extent to which the executive and other authorities are compliant with the international human rights obligations undertaken through formulation of parliamentary questions to the government. It is, therefore, crucial that legislature is connected with the implementation, and is informed about the tools that can engage them successfully with UPR.
65 H. K. Mutellah, Kenyas Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) Experience in Universal Periodic Review (UPR), presented at the Regional Governance Week: Social Accountability in a Changing Region Actors and Mechanisms, Cairo, Egypt, 26-29 November 2012. 66 HRC Resolution 16/21, UN doc. A/HRC/RES/16/21, 12 April 2011, para. 17. 67 See Strengthening the Role of Parliamentarians in the Implementation of Universal Periodic Review Recommendations Geneva, 12-13 November 2012, presentation by Deputy Victor Emilio Granados Bald, Chairman the Legislative Assembly of the Republic of Costa Rica
41
68 This best practice was documented by the UPR-info, Universal Periodic Review: On the Road to Implementation, 2012, pp. 24-25. 69 Norway presented today its mid-term report to the UN Human Rights Council on the follow-up of the recommendations received during the UN system of universal periodic reviews (UPR) of the human rights situation in all member countries, Press Release of the Permanent Mission of Norway to Geneva, 26 June 2012.
In terms of the reporting form, Switzerland has developed a format of mid-term reporting that has been heralded as a good practice.70 Switzerland developed an implementation matrix where it lists all recommendations received juxtaposing with the position adopted with regard to each of them and concrete steps it has undertaken to implement accepted recommendations. Although such an approach to reporting is relatively obvious, it, nevertheless, can serve as a good template for mid-term reporting.
Armenia, following its review, has established an Inter-agency Working Group with participation of the NGOs for implementation of the UPR. This Working Group has developed a comprehensive matrix encapsulating the countrys progress in the implementation of the UPR recommendations. Kazakhstan has adopted a Plan of Action on Implementation of UPR Recommendations for 2011-2014, brought into force by a Government Decree No. 1165, 13 October 2011.71 The Government of Ukraine has worked in close cooperation with the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner of Human Rights on implementation of the UPR recommendations. Ukraine is also in the process of setting up a high-level coordination group to monitor the implementation process. In addition, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine lodged mid-term reports informing on progress achieved with the implementation of the UPR recommendations.
70 Interview with the OHCHR staff, 8 March 2013. 71Kazakhstan Implementation Report, available at http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/UPR/Pages/UPRImplementation.aspx .
43
IV. Conclusions: current use of the UPR process from the regional perspective
The introduction raised questions on the approach of the CIS states and CSOs to the UPR mechanism. The conclusion returns to the theme. With all limitations of the data considered, it is possible to arrive at a conclusion that CIS states have engaged with the mechanism. The high level of acceptance of recommendations and the rejection of relatively few of them further supports this conclusion. The UPR process also proved to be instructive on some of the main human rights issues of concern and challenges in the CIS states. Nonetheless, as was pointed out from the very outset, CIS states did not actively engage in the review of the human rights of their fellow states from the region. This is not only unique to the CIS only. It appears that relatively modest participation in the UPR interactive dialogue is also the case with states outside the CIS region, apart from few exceptions.72 The outcome of the second cycle can be useful to get a better picture of the extent CIS states have improved their interaction with the mechanism. In the meantime, CIS states and CSOs can increase their dialogue inter se on the UPR in the region as a whole, and engage in the discussion of human rights issues found in the process of their review. The present report could serve as a basis of such a dialogue. NGOs, both international and domestic, have actively used the UPR mechanism to provide their views and concerns on human rights issues on the ground. Overall, most of the concerns they have raised were addressed in the recommendations to the CIS states. Few issues, however, remained relatively neglected, including human rights in counter-terrorism context. The data also pointed out to the fact that NGOs engaged with economic, social and cultural rights to a lesser degree than with civil and political rights. Given that poverty is an issue for some of the countries of the region, it will be useful to further investigate the relative neglect of ESC rights in the stakeholders submissions. The present report attempted to catalogue some examples of national experiences in preparation of National Reports and implementation of the UPR recommendations. This exercise proved useful and challenging at the same time. While some examples were put together from different regions and contexts, there is a need for more information exchange on the emerging practices and reflections on lessons learned from within the CIS region.
72 Statistically, only Azerbaijan actively participates in the interactive dialogue in the review process. According to the UPR-info.org, the country is included in the list of top 30 recommending states.
44
Annex
Right to life, freedom from torture, Right to life (death penalty, extrajudicial executions, excessive use of force) security of person Torture and CID treatment Conditions of detention Liberty and security of person (e.g. enforced disappearances) Justice and Impunity Other Civil and Political Rights Justice Impunity (including, investigation of violations committed by state agents) Human Rights Defenders Civil society organizations Freedom of movement Freedom of association and peaceful assembly Freedom of opinion and expression Freedom of religion and belief Elections Right to privacy and family Trafficking Development Poverty Right to education Right to health (including, HIV-aids)Labour Adequate standards of living (housing, food, water) Social security Equality and non-discrimination (racial, vulnerability) Sexual orientation and gender identity Womens rights Rights of the Child Disabilities Minorities and indigenous people Rights of migrants Refugees, IDPs, stateless persons Environment Counter-terrorism
Equality and non-discrimination (racial, vulnerability) Women, Children, Persons with Disabilities Other vulnerable groups
Environment Counter-terrorism
45
References
DIHR, Universal Periodic Review: First Cycle, Reporting Methodologies from the position of the State, Civil Society and National Human Rights Institutions, 2011. Inter-Parliamentary Union, Strengthening the Role of Parliamentarians in the Implementation of Universal Periodic Review Recommendations Geneva, 12-13 November 2012, presentation by Deputy Victor Emilio Granados Bald, Chairman the Legislative Assembly of the Republic of Costa Rica. McMahon, E. R., 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, September 2012. Mutellah, H. K., Kenyas Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) Experience in Universal Periodic Review (UPR), presented at the Regional Governance Week: Social Accountability in a Changing Region Actors and Mechanisms, Cairo, Egypt, 26-29 November 2012. OHCHR, Preliminary Report: Reflection group on the strengthening of the Human Rights Council, Second meeting: 25-25th January, Paris, available at http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/Report_Paris_meeting.pdf . OHCHR, Technical guidelines for the submission of information by national human rights institutions, available at http:// www.ohchr.org/en/hrbodies/upr/pages/NgosNhris.aspx. OHCHR, Working with the United Nations Human Rights Programme: A Handbook for Civil Society, New York and Geneva, 2008, Chapter on UPR. OHCHR, Universal Periodic Review: information and guidelines for relevant stakeholders written submissions, available at http:// www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/UPR/TechnicalGuideEN.pdf. UNDP, Arab States and the Universal Period Review, Study undertaken on behalf of the United Nations Development Program, Regional Centre in Cairo, 12 November 2012. UNDP, Universal Periodic Review of Ukraine: Compilation of Recommendations, Kyiv, 2012. UPR.info, Universal Periodic Review: Database and Statistics of UPR Recommendations, available at http://www.upr-info.org/. UPR.info, Universal Periodic Review: On the Road to Implementation, 2012.
46
UNDP in Ukraine 1 Klovsky Uzviz Kyiv 01021 Tel.: +38 (044) 253-93-63 Fax: +38(044) 253-26-07 www.undp.org.ua