Riya Gulati | University College Dublin, Ireland | 18th October 2019
The Universal Periodic Review is a distinctive mechanism whereby the human rights records of all the UN member states are reviewed periodically. It requires all the member states to report to the Human Rights Council irrespective of the fact whether any human rights violation has taken place or not. It is broader in concept as the normative basis for the state is not just restricted to the UN human rights treaties but it also includes UN Charter, the UDHR and voluntary pledges taken by the states to adhere to human rights protection. This system maintains accountability as it authorizes the Council to conduct UPR based on well- founded information of the fulfilment of human rights obligations by all the member states in a way that assures gross coverage and equality of all the states by virtue of resolution 60/251.Unlike in treaty bodies where only the parties to the treaty are reviewed within the specific area of that particular treaty, the UPR is wider in its scope as it covers broad range of human rights and supervises all the UN member states. The problem of insufficient or non- reporting, lack of cooperation and coordination between the treaty bodies, lack of engagement and publicity, inadequate or poor follow-up procedures and immense backlogs which exists in the State Periodic Reporting Procedure under the UN Human Rights Treaty System have been tackled by the UPR process in an efficient manner. All the member states are treated equally when it comes to their human rights assessment.
The UPR mechanism involves a “peer review method” whereby the states undertake the review process instead of experts and the reporting state do possess a bit control over the outcome. The review of the state is facilitated by three states (troikas) who acts as a Rapporteurs. It also permits any member state to participate in the discussion with the reviewed state by putting forward their comments, recommendations and questions. It not only deals with human rights violation cases but it also assesses the human rights records of every member states in order to revamp the protection and promotion of human rights condition. It also provides technical support to the states and voluntary fund to the underdeveloped countries in order to facilitate them in enacting UPR recommendations.
Critics have argued that the ‘added value” of the UPR to other human rights mechanisms (treaty bodies and special procedures) is “far from being proved” as it has been observed that there is no synergy between them and the laborious efforts of the human rights mechanisms is completely recapitulated, simplified and diluted. The UPR is overcasting the efforts of special procedures and treaty bodies as it is duplicating their work and the public and media recognizes the UN human rights system with UPR. The principle as set out under Resolution 5/1, Annex, para 3(f) provides that the UPR should “complement and not duplicate other mechanisms and thus providing an added value.” Egan argued in International Human Rights: Perspectives from Ireland (Ch. 5), that UPR does not duplicate rather it complements the work of treaty bodies and special procedure mandate holders as the UPR relies on the document produced by the OHCHR who compiles the recommendations and observations of the treaty bodies and the special procedure mandate holders and this is how the coaction between the two exists. Similarly, Collister argued that the UPR system do not subvert the other human rights mechanisms as the strength of UPR relies on the work of treaty bodies. Connors and Schmidt have argued that the UPR system is complementary to and not in competition with the treaty bodies’ procedure. As at the time of review, the council members do inquire from the states about their follow up actions to the treaty body recommendations. It has been observed that either before the UPR process or as a consequence of recommendations, the states have started complying and cooperating with the treaty bodies by submitting their reports, ratifying the treaties and withdrawing the reservations to treaties.
Critics have also argued that in order to escape from negative UPR assessment, the state under review makes sure that the friendly governments appreciate their human rights record and do not put forward any negative remark even if there exists any human rights violations in that state. To this, the role of the NGOs and civil societies come into picture. Although, the NGOs cannot participate in the interactive dialogue process of the UPR but the NGOs behind the scenes contact and lobby the diplomats of other states so that they can put forward and bring to their attention the human rights violation occurring in their state and ask them to address these issues at the time of interactive dialogue process.
Frouville have also argued that as UPR is a political process, it is challenging for a political body to address legal issues. And also the recommendations given by the states are not binding. The state under review can reject the recommendations that are binding on it. But as per HRC Resolution A/HRC/RES/5/1, the state under review can either accept or note the recommendations but they cannot deny them without any reasonable justification. The UPR system do supervises the plight of human rights in all the member states on an equal footing.
Indeed, the UPR is an effective mechanism for bolstering the protection and promotion of all the human rights as it regulates and supervises the activities of all the member states of the UN. The scope of UPR is much wider than the treaty bodies and special procedures. Although, the recommendations of the treaty bodies and special procedure mandate holders plus the stakeholders reports are taken into consideration in the process but at the same time they must be given an opportunity to participate in the interactive dialogue process. Apart from this, it is seen that UPR is adding value in the implementation of human rights.
Leave a Reply