Universal Periodic Review Latest Documents

ISHR report on the examination of the Democratic Republic of the Congo by the UPR

Mon, 25 Jan 2010 08:00:00 +0200

On the morning of 3 December 2009, the Working Group on the UPR examined the human rights situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Mr Upio Kakura Wapol, Minister of Human Rights, led the delegation of DRC. He presented the report of its country, on behalf of a high-level, 10-person delegation.1 A number of States expressed their appreciation with regards to the establishment of specific Ministry for Human Rights in the DRC.2

Report on UPR review of Cote d'Ivoire

Mon, 21 Dec 2009 10:43:18 +0200

In the afternoon of 3 December 2009, the Working Group on the UPR examined the human rights situation in Côte d'Ivoire. Mr Tia Kone, President of the Supreme Court, led the delegation of Côte d'Ivoire, which was high-level and consisted of18persons. Mr Kone addressed most issues raised during the review and delegated the closing remarks to Ms Yao Kouassi Euphrasie, Director of Equality and Gender-Promotion at the Ministry of Women, Family and Social Affairs, to underline the importance of gender equality issues.

54 countries took part in the review, which was dominated by African and Western European and other Western States, although some Asian and Latin American countries also raised questions and made recommendations.

During the review, the delegation of Côte d'Ivoire expressed full appreciation for all recommendations made and showed commitment to pursuing the promotion and protection of human rights. In its responses to the concerns raised, it underlined that the past decade of political and military crisis was the main reason for lack of compliance with human rights obligations and the State repeatedly requested technical and financial assistance from the international community to effectively promote and protect human rights.

ISHR report on the UPR of the DPRK

Fri, 18 Dec 2009 14:51:01 +0200

On 7 December 2009, the Working Group on the UPR examined the human rights situation in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK). The small, relatively low level delegation of the DPRK was headed by the Ambassador of the DPRK to the United Nations at Geneva. There was wide participation on the part of States. 52 States took the floor during the interactive dialogue and 18 did not have the opportunity to speak. A small number of States offered no criticism of the human rights situation in the DPRK, but rather praised the DPRK’s accomplishments in the field of human rights, particularly in its efforts to provide universal free health care and education.1 Most States, however, were extremely critical and expressed serious concern about the human rights situation in the DPRK. The DPRK’s presentation and responses to the questions of its peers largely mirrored the content of its national report, which categorically denied many alleged human rights abuses and largely placed responsibility on external factors. The DPRK also used its opportunity to speak in front of the Working Group to repeatedly denounce the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the DPRK.

ISHR report on the UPR review of Cambodia

Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:37:03 +0200

The Working Group on the UPR examined the human rights situation in Cambodia on 1 December 2009. Mr. Ith Rady, the Secretary of State of the Ministry of Justice, led a very small delegation with Mr. Sun Suon, the Permanent Representative of Cambodia to Geneva doing most of the speaking in English on his behalf. The delegation did not stray far in its presentation from the national report, nor did it participate very actively in the interactive dialogue. The delegation was keen to stress its historical and socio-economic situation as the context for the review. There were sixty States on the speakers list and all, save nine, had the opportunity to speak.

[1] Cameroon, Chile, Senegal, Latvia, Bangladesh, South Africa, Argentina and Mauritius.

ISHR report on the UPR review of Bhutan

Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:30:10 +0200

On 4 December 2009 the Working Group on the universal periodic review (UPR) convened to examine the human rights situation in Bhutan.Most States were complimentary of Bhutan’s efforts to protect and promote human rights, citing frequently the peaceful transition to democracy in 2008, and noteworthy progress made towards the Millennium Development Goals. In general, comments and recommendations made by the Western European and Others Group (WEOG) were more critical and targeted than those made by the Asian States, which sometimes lacked specificity. Bhutan approached the review in a cooperative spirit and attempted to respond to most of the issues raised with specific data and examples, although some answers resembled information already submitted in Bhutan’s national report.

ISHR report on the examination of Uruguay under the UPR, 5th session

Tue, 18 Aug 2009 13:03:47 +0200

ISHR report on the UPR of New Zealand

Tue, 02 Jun 2009 13:23:35 +0200

ISHR report on the UPR of Yemen

Wed, 20 May 2009 15:31:09 +0200

ISHR report on the UPR of Afghanistan

Wed, 20 May 2009 10:31:13 +0200

ISHR report on the UPR of Chile

Mon, 11 May 2009 16:03:30 +0200

ISHR report on the UPR of the Central African Republic

Mon, 11 May 2009 14:06:45 +0200

ISHR report on the review of Chad under the UPR

Mon, 11 May 2009 13:25:17 +0200

Timetable UPR 5th session

Wed, 06 May 2009 14:19:04 +0200

ISHR report on the review of Mexico under the UPR

Tue, 03 Mar 2009 16:26:29 +0200

ISHR report on the review of China under the UPR (Mandarin)

Tue, 24 Feb 2009 09:25:22 +0200

ISHR report on the review of China under the UPR

Tue, 17 Feb 2009 16:11:47 +0200

The Permanent Representative of China in Geneva, Mr Li Baodong, led the high-level delegation consisting of Ministers from various Government portfolios and a judge of the Supreme People’s Court of China. The delegation also included representatives of the special administrative regions of Macao and Hong Kong. The delegation appeared well-prepared and answered the majority of written questions submitted in advance in their introductory remarks. As the review progressed, the delegation responded to each question posed in a direct manner but categorically denied some key allegations. China’s review was extremely well-attended with 115 States inscribed to comment at the session. As such, many States were unable to address the delegation at the review due to time constraints. The High Commissioner for Human Rights, Ms Navi Pillay, was in attendance and was invited by the Chinese delegation to visit the country at a ‘mutually convenient time’. The large majority of State comments were laudatory, in particular commending China’s efforts to eradicate poverty and achieve universal education. Nonetheless, some States recommended China take steps to ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and work towards eliminating the use of capital punishment. A few States addressed the right of journalists and human rights defenders to express themselves freely, the right to due process, the rights of detainees and the rights of ethnic and religious minorities in Tibet and Xinjiang. The delegation appeared co-operative, but only with issues it deemed to be within the ambit of the UPR discussion. The Chinese delegation answered questions on its ‘Re-education Through Labour’ (RTL) policy, its stance on the death penalty, the fairness of its legal system and the right to freedom of expression, notably denying the existence of any State censorship. It expressly regretted what it regarded to be the ‘ill-founded politicisation’ of the UPR embodied in comments concerning Tibet and the situation of the Uighur people, asserting that the rights of religious minorities were respected.

ISHR report on the review of Cuba under the UPR

Tue, 17 Feb 2009 16:11:47 +0200

The large delegation of Cuba was headed by the Minister of Justice, Mrs Maria Reus Gonzales with 19 other representatives of ministries, and of the Cuban Permanent Mission in Geneva. Her presentation of the national report roughly followed the structure of the report itself and she answered to the questions submitted prior to the review in an exhaustive way. She pointed out the coincidence between the UPR of Cuba and the 50th anniversary if the Cuban revolution and highlighted Cuba’s commitments to human rights and its openness to dialogue, but asked for ‘full objectivity’ from the Working Group. Despite these assurances, the interactive dialogue remained relatively vague, as the delegation denied all allegations of human rights violations taking place in Cuba and it did not answer to critical questions put forward by a few States. More than one hundred states inscribed themselves on the speakers list. Members of the non-aligned movement (NAM) and African states were particularly active in supporting Cuba’s efforts at protecting human rights. Most of them praised Cuba for its achievements in the field of economic, social and cultural rights and its important role in the field of international solidarity. The discussion was therefore somehow ‘hijacked’ by political statements and traditional friendships with the intervention of Sri Lanka being rewarded by a standing ovation when the delegation quoted Che Guevara’s famous dictum ’Hasta la victoria siempre!’. Despite these mostly political statements, some human rights concerns were raised, mostly by Western States. The recommendations, despite a few exceptions, were also mostly used to commend Cuba, and the majority of recommendations asked the State to continue its efforts in ensuring the high quality of education and the high level of health in the country and in promoting the enforcement of human rights in Cuba and worldwide. Notably, Cuba was also commended for contributing to the ‘depoliticisation’ of the UN human rights machinery.1

ISHR report on the review of Nigeria under the UPR

Tue, 17 Feb 2009 16:11:47 +0200

The large Nigerian delegation was headed by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr Ojo Uma Maduekwe. In addressing some of the issues, Mr Maduekwe was assisted by Mr Micheal Kaase Aondoakaa, the Minister of Justice and the Attorney-General. The delegation was composed of representatives from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the National Assembly, the police, the prison service, and other ministries. The delegation provided responses to the advance written questions submitted. However, it mostly delivered vague responses to issues raised during the dialogue.

The review of Nigeria attracted the interest of many States with a total of 60 States, especially African countries, wanting to speak. Regrettably, the recommendations presented were mainly vague and impractical, calling on Nigeria to ‘consolidate its efforts' and ‘to implement more measures' on certain issues. Nonetheless, a number of criticisms were also raised, particularly with regard to extra-judicial killings, the death penalty, rights of detainees, and discrimination against women. Most of the critical comments were made by European countries, whereas most African States only made laudatory remarks.

Nigeria was rather defensive in responding to the questions and comments. It often referred to the existence of domestic mechanisms, without providing more detailed information. Time constraints also played a detrimental role. Spending around 40 minutes in its opening remarks, Nigeria was left with only 20 minutes to answer questions, which meant that several questions were barely touched upon.

UPR report on Chad

Mon, 16 Feb 2009 10:28:01 +0200

ISHR report of the review of the Russian Federation under the UPR (Russian Version)

Fri, 13 Feb 2009 15:43:01 +0200

Russian Version

ISHR review of Saudi Arabia under the UPR

Fri, 13 Feb 2009 10:11:00 +0200

ISHR report on the review of Canada under the UPR

Mon, 09 Feb 2009 13:35:28 +0200

ISHR report of the review of the Russian Federation under the UPR

Thu, 05 Feb 2009 17:14:30 +0200

ISHR report on the review of Germany under the UPR

Wed, 04 Feb 2009 12:18:52 +0200

UPR of Turkmenistan, 3rd session

Thu, 08 Jan 2009 14:55:15 +0200

ISHR report on UPR of Serbia

Sat, 20 Dec 2008 15:42:30 +0200

Report on the UPR of Colombia, 3rd session

Fri, 19 Dec 2008 13:24:09 +0200

The high-level delegation of Colombia was led byMr Francisco Santos Calderόn, Vice President of the Republic of Colombia.During the interactive dialogue, in which 43 States participated, he wassupported by representatives from the Ministry of Justice, the Tribunal ofJustice and Peace and the Department of Human Rights within the Presidency. The delegation in addition consisted of members from theMinistry of Foreign Affairs, the Office of the Public Prosecutor and thePermanent Mission of Colombia to the UN Office at Geneva.

The review was characterised by a highattendance also by members of the civil society. Many of the comments by theStates emphasised the spirit of cooperation demonstrated by the Government, inparticular in relation to the OHCHR office in Colombia, and the fact thatColombia volunteered to be reviewed under the UPR in the first year.Nevertheless the Working Group expressed concern on numerous issues and putforward very specific recommendations. The very tense relationship between theGovernment and civil society was clearly visible both in the initialpresentation, and the replies to questions and recommendations.

In its responses, Colombia addressed theissues in a very general manner, often denying the veracity of allegationsparticularly regarding the widespread use of torture by police forces, the lackof protection of human rights defenders and the culture of impunity. Towardsthe end of the interactive dialogue, in regard to the intervention of theDanish representative, the delegation pointed out that among the practices thathinder the advancement of human rights, are ‘political evaluations based onerroneous information'.

Of note wasthe inclusion of ‘voluntary commitments' undertaken by the State subsequent tothe review, which are also included in the document containing the replies tosome recommendations.

Report on the UPR of Burkina Faso, 3rd session

Tue, 16 Dec 2008 16:47:58 +0200

UPR of Tuvalu (final), 3rd session

Mon, 15 Dec 2008 17:09:29 +0200

UPR of Uzbekistan, 3rd session

Fri, 12 Dec 2008 15:09:59 +0200

UPR of Turkmenistan, 3rd session

Thu, 11 Dec 2008 15:36:42 +0200

UPR of Cape Verde, 3rd session

Thu, 11 Dec 2008 15:05:54 +0200

Report on the UPR of the United Arab Emirates

Thu, 11 Dec 2008 09:01:39 +0200

The delegation of the United Arab Emirates(UAE) was headed by Dr Anwar Muhammad Gargash, Minister of State for Foreign Affairs. Mr Gargash provided detailed information about the policy and programmes that aim to protect and promote human rights in the country. He was well prepared for his presentation during the session and answered the questions thoroughly. However, there were remarkably few critical questions and recommendations, as most States that took the floor had purely laudatory comments for the UAE.

UPR of Luxembourg (final)

Mon, 08 Dec 2008 16:36:30 +0200

UPR of Liechtenstein, 3rd session

Mon, 08 Dec 2008 11:36:41 +0200

Overview The Liechtenstein delegation was led by H.E. Ms. Rita Kieber-Beck, Minister for Foreign Affairs, who was accompanied by a number of government officials. Various delegates provided answers to the questions and comments of the working group. The delegation was well prepared, and addressed almost all issues raised during the review. More than 25 States took the floor during the review. The comments made were mostly laudatory, and only relatively few problematic issues were raised. Unfortunately a number of delegations referred in their statements to issues that had already been addressed or clarified, either in the opening statement or in the subsequent comments by Ms. Kieber-Beck. Liechtenstein was appreciative of what Ms. Kieber-Beck called ‘thought-provoking’ questions, and generally responded to all comments and issues.

UPR of Israel, 3rd session

Mon, 08 Dec 2008 10:00:22 +0200

Overview

Israel’s delegation was led by Ambassador Aharon Leshno-Yaar, the Permanent Representative to the United Nations Office in Geneva, and consisted of representatives of the Permanent Mission of Israel to the UN Office in Geneva, the Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The responsibility for replying to questions was mostly shared between Ambassador Leshno-Yaar and Mr Malkiel Blass, Deputy Attorney General in the Ministry of Justice of Israel.

54 States participated in the dialogue, including many Middle Eastern States. The dialogue was at times charged and non-constructive, particularly when the President of the Human Rights Council intervened to censure Iran for referring to the Israeli Government as a ‘Zionist regime’. Most States were particularly critical of Israel’s use of movement restrictions in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) and discrimination against non-Jewish minorities, including the Bedouin. Some States commended Israel on its progress in areas such as women’s rights, rights of persons with disabilities, and trafficking of persons.

While there were some constructive exchanges, overall the discussion was rather repetitive and politically-charged. Although Israel indicated its openness to constructive comments, it did not answer most of the questions submitted by other States in advance of the review. Israel argued that most of the human rights issues raised, such as those arising from the building of the separation barrier and administrative detention, arose from the need to counter terrorism and minimise security risks - though it often provided little further detail on how it planned to achieve these aims while ensuring that human rights are respected. Israel was also reluctant, particularly in its State report, to admit responsibility for the human rights conditions of individuals living in the OPT.

UPR of Montenegro, 3rd session

Fri, 05 Dec 2008 14:07:03 +0200

Overview The head of delegation for Montenegro was the Minister of Justice, H.E. Mr. Miras Roadovic. The delegation consisted of a handful of representatives from the ministries of gender and minority rights. The responsibility for replying to questions from States was shared between the members of the delegation. 30 States participated in the interactive dialogue. 22 of these States were European, thus the regional balance of the dialogue was somewhat lopsided. The comments by States were constructive and positive, with many States commending Montenegro for its progress on human rights issues. Many States sought further specific information on the steps taken by Montenegro to improve its human rights situation. The delegation was cooperative during the review but did not fully answer all of the questions posed by States. It was frank about the challenges Montenegro still needed to overcome. In its introductory statement and occasionally in its replies to questions, the delegation repeated information already contained in the State report.

UPR of Barbados, 3rd session

Thu, 04 Dec 2008 11:55:37 +0200

UPR of Burundi, 3rd session

Thu, 04 Dec 2008 09:12:52 +0200

The review of Burundi was characterised by a high level of participation by members of the Working Group who covered a broad range of topics, including sexual violence, impunity, torture, freedom of expression and association, discrimination against women and on the basis of sexual orientation, and transitional justice. The delegation was headed by Ms Immaculée Nahayo, Minister of solidarity, human rights and gender and comprised the Minister of justice and the Attorney-General of Burundi. The delegation provided additional information on a number of themes not covered in its national report. Regrettably, the delegation was only able to provide rather general responses to most questions and several questions were left unanswered. Of particular note was the announcement that Burundi has abolished the death penalty and that its national human rights commission is hoped to be functional in early 2009. As decided by the Council, the establishment of the national human rights commission in accordance with the Paris Principles will mean the end of the mandate of the Council's Independent Expert on Burundi.

UPR of Botswana, 3rd session

Wed, 03 Dec 2008 16:51:26 +0200

UPR of Bahamas, 3rd session

Wed, 03 Dec 2008 08:39:14 +0200

The review of the Bahamas stood out through its brevity, and the low number of delegations in the room. The session took just over 90 minutes, instead of the three hours set aside. It took place immediately following the completion of the Human Rights Council’s (the Council) 8th special session on the situation of human rights in the east of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and maybe this factor contributed to the low attendance. However, it seems also that the novelty of the UPR is wearing off slowly, and that smaller States will receive less attention from the Working Group. Mr Michael Barnett, Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs of the Bahamas, headed the delegation and was the only one to speak. The other members of the delegation where two Ambassadors of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs including the Director General, and the First Assistant Secretary of the Ministry of Labour and Social Development. Mr Barnett seemed well prepared for the questions put both prior to the review, and from the floor. Only a handful issues were raised. While appearing initially open to the questions and recommendations of the Working Group, the delegation did not provide answers to many of them. However, Mr Barnett said the Bahamas would give consideration to all recommendations received. Only 27 States but from all regional groups took the floor. As observed during previous sessions, some of the comments were purely laudatory, and recommendations stemming from these interventions not very demanding.1

Universal Periodic Review Latest Documents

ISHR report on the examination of the Democratic Republic of the Congo by the UPR

Report on UPR review of Cote d'Ivoire

ISHR report on the UPR of the DPRK

ISHR report on the UPR review of Cambodia

ISHR report on the UPR review of Bhutan

ISHR report on the examination of Uruguay under the UPR, 5th session

ISHR report on the UPR of New Zealand

ISHR report on the UPR of Yemen

ISHR report on the UPR of Afghanistan

ISHR report on the UPR of Chile

ISHR report on the UPR of the Central African Republic

ISHR report on the review of Chad under the UPR

Timetable UPR 5th session

ISHR report on the review of Mexico under the UPR

ISHR report on the review of China under the UPR (Mandarin)

ISHR report on the review of China under the UPR

ISHR report on the review of Cuba under the UPR

ISHR report on the review of Nigeria under the UPR

UPR report on Chad

ISHR report of the review of the Russian Federation under the UPR (Russian Version)

ISHR review of Saudi Arabia under the UPR

ISHR report on the review of Canada under the UPR

ISHR report of the review of the Russian Federation under the UPR

ISHR report on the review of Germany under the UPR

UPR of Turkmenistan, 3rd session

ISHR report on UPR of Serbia

Report on the UPR of Colombia, 3rd session

Report on the UPR of Burkina Faso, 3rd session

UPR of Tuvalu (final), 3rd session

UPR of Uzbekistan, 3rd session

UPR of Turkmenistan, 3rd session

UPR of Cape Verde, 3rd session

Report on the UPR of the United Arab Emirates

UPR of Luxembourg (final)

UPR of Liechtenstein, 3rd session

UPR of Israel, 3rd session

Overview

UPR of Montenegro, 3rd session

UPR of Barbados, 3rd session

UPR of Burundi, 3rd session

UPR of Botswana, 3rd session

UPR of Bahamas, 3rd session

Analytical Overview of the 1st and 2nd sessions of the UPR

1st session of the UPR: Analytical Overview

Report on the review of Ukraine at the 2nd session of the UPR

Report on the review of Zambia at the 2nd session of the UPR

Report on the review of Tonga at the 2nd session of the UPR

Report on the review of Switzerland at the 2nd session of the UPR

Report on the review of Sri Lanka at the 2nd session of the UPR

Report on the review of Romania at the 2nd session of the UPR

Report on the review of the Republic of Korea at the 2nd session of the UPR

Report on the review of Peru at the 2nd session of the UPR

Report on the review of Pakistan at the 2nd session of the UPR

Report on the review of Japan at the 2nd session of the UPR

Report on the review of Guatemala at the 2nd session of the UPR

Report on the review of Ghana at the 2nd session of the UPR

Report on the review of Gabon at the 2nd session of the UPR

Report on the review of Benin at 2nd session of the UPR