The Universal Periodic
Review (UPR) is a state-driven process under the auspices of the Human
Rights Council (HRC) which reviews the human rights records of all 192
UN Member States once every four years. It provides a forum in which
each Member State can be assessed in terms of the actions it has taken
to improve its human rights situation, and the challenges it faces with
respect to the human rights obligations contained in the Charter of
the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, human
rights instruments (covenants, conventions and other treaties) to which
the State is a party, as well as voluntary pledges and commitments made
by the State when presenting candidature for election to the Council.
All UN Member States will be reviewed within a period of four years
in the first cycle - with 48 every year and 16 per session.1
The UPR was created
through the UN General Assembly on 15 March 2006 by Resolution 60/2512,
which established the Human Rights Council itself. It is a cooperative
process which, by 2011, will have reviewed the human rights records
of every country. On 18 June 2007, one year after its first meeting,
members of the new Council agreed to its institution-building package
(A/HRC/RES/5/1) providing a road map guiding the future work
of the Council3. One of the key elements of this package was
the new Universal Periodic Review.
The review of China
was held on 9 February 2009 during the fourth session of the Working
Group of the Universal Periodic Review. China’s delegation was composed
of 42 members and was headed by H.E. Mr. Li Baodong, Ambassador and
Permanent Representative of China to the UN Office in Geneva.
The
UPR in Theory
Objectives
of the UPR
The objectives of the
UPR are
- to address human rights
violations all over the world
- to improve the human rights
situation everywhere
- to encourage States to fulfill
their human rights obligations and commitments
- to assess positive developments
and challenges faced by States
- to enhance the capacity
of the State to protect human rights
- to encourage full cooperation
with the Council, its mechanisms (e.g. the Special Procedures and the
Complaints Procedure) and other UN human rights bodies (e.g. the OHCHR,
the treaty bodies, etc.)
- to provide technical assistance
to States, when requested
- to share best practices
between States and other stakeholders
The objective of the
UPR is to complement, and not to duplicate, the work of the special
procedures and treaty bodies.
General
Description of the Mechanism
The review is carried
out by a Working Group composed of the 47 members of the Human
Rights Council4 and chaired by the president of the Human
Rights Council or his designate5, usually one of his vice-presidents.
They meet three times per year for two weeks6. The review
is facilitated by a group of three Member States of the Council which
act as Rapporteurs (also known as the Troika)7.
Reviews are
based on three reports8. The first report is presented by
the State under review; the second report is a compilation prepared
by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) of the
information contained in the reports of treaty bodies, special procedures,
including observations and comments by the State concerned, and other
relevant official UN documents; and the third report is presented by
stakeholders such as non-governmental organizations, human rights defenders,
academic institutions and research institutes, regional organizations,
and national human rights institutions9.
The Troika may collate
and transmit written questions10 addressed to the State under
review by other Member States (but is not required to do so) to facilitate
and focus the review and would transmit them to the country concerned
to assist in the preparation of the interactive dialogue.
The public session
of the review of each State lasts three hours and consists of an
interactive dialogue between the State under review and the Council,
in which all UN Member States and Observers are able to participate
by raising issues and asking questions11. Stakeholders may
also attend but are not allowed to take part in the interactive dialogue.
The Troika acts as
a kind of supervisor of the minutes of the interactive dialogue.
Afterwards, the Troika Rapporteurs prepare a report of the review with
a summary of the proceedings, recommendations and any voluntary commitments
by the State12. However, some countries explicitly rejected
several recommendations, and sometimes even many13. Usually
two days after the review, the Troika presents the draft report of the
review to be adopted by the UPR Working Group during a half an hour
session following the UPR of another State. The Troika then formally
requests the Working Group to adopt the outcome of the review
to be forwarded to the next regular session of the Human Rights Council.
At the next regular
session of the Human Rights Council, up to one hour per State
is allocated for the consideration of the outcome of each review. The
final outcome of the review is adopted by consensus – not by a voting
process - by the entire membership of the Council at a plenary session
in which all UN Member States, Observers and other stakeholders can
participate.
The outcome of the
UPR is to be implemented primarily by the State concerned and, as appropriate,
by other stakeholders.
The follow-up review
will take place during the second cycle (2012-2015) and will focus on
the implementation of the recommendations of the previous review.
National
Report
The national report
is one of the three main pillars the review is based upon. It is prepared
by the State under review, and can be presented either orally and/or
in writing, provided that the written presentation summarizing the information
does not exceed 20 pages14. It is recommended to include
the following data15:
- Description of the methodology
and broad consultation process followed in preparing the national report;
- Information on the normative
and institutional human rights framework, including constitution, legislation,
policies, and institutions;
- Information on implementation
of international human rights obligations, national legislation and
voluntary commitments; as well as national human rights institutions,
public awareness of human rights and cooperation with human rights mechanisms;
- Information on achievements
and best practice, as well as challenges and constraints;
- Key national priorities
and initiatives to overcome challenges and constraints and improve the
human rights situation;
- Expectations for capacity-building
and requests for technical assistance.
The national report
must be ready in time to ensure its distribution simultaneously in the
six UN official languages six weeks prior to the review in the UPR Working
Group. However, it must be noted that the UN’s “six-week rule”
for document distribution has almost never been respected for the UPR
of the first five sessions, that the national reports were never available
in time and even on the day of the review in the six official languages.
States are also encouraged
to prepare the information through a broad consultation process at the
national level with all relevant stakeholders.16 In this
regard, several countries adopted various approaches.
Compilation
of United Nations Information
Under the provisions
of resolution 5/1, the review is also based on “a compilation prepared
by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) of the
information contained in the reports of treaty bodies, special procedures,
including observations and comments by the State concerned, and other
relevant official United Nations documents, which shall not exceed 10
pages.”17
In this report, the
OHCHR did not mention any issue related to religious freedom, intolerance
and discrimination.
Summary
of Stakeholders’ Information
According to the provisions
of resolution 5/1, the review is also based on “Additional, credible
and reliable information provided by other relevant stakeholders to
the universal periodic review which should also be taken into consideration
by the Council in the review. The Office of the High Commissioner for
Human Rights will prepare a summary of such information which shall
not exceed 10 pages.”18 The written submissions are to
be sent to the OHCHR19. The full texts can be consulted on
the website of a non-profit and non-governmental organization (NGO)
based in Geneva, which monitors the activities of the UPR mechanism20.
Interactive
Dialogue and Outcome of the Review
The interactive dialogue
is conducted in the mode of a public hearing of three hours. The states
concerned can use up to one hour for its presentation21 but
generally use less time. Up to now, most of the States under review
have been represented by high level delegates and large delegation of
experts from various ministries22 which seems to signify
that they take the process seriously. The Member States must previously
register to take the floor and the list is shown on a screen in the
meeting hall. The State under review usually reacts to the comments
and questions on two occasions: in the middle and at the end of the
dialogue.
The interactive dialogue
is accessible for the public via webcasting23 or personal
assistance after being accredited to the Human Rights Council.
According to the provisions
of resolution 5/1, NGOs may only attend and observe the proceedings
of the Working Group but cannot intervene during this phase of the review.24
The format of the outcome
of the review is a report consisting of a summary of the proceedings
of the review process: the views expressed by Member States, the Observers
and the State under review, conclusions and/or recommendations, and
the voluntary commitments of the State concerned.25 The outcome
may also include, inter alia, an assessment undertaken of the human
rights situation in the State under review; sharing of best practices;
the provision of technical assistance and capacity-building and voluntary
pledges and commitments made by the State under review.26
The report is elaborated by the Troika and the State under review.
The State under review
has the right to delay its reaction to some recommendations and to provide
responses in due time before the outcome report is presented to the
Human Rights Council for adoption. It can also refuse to endorse a number
of them without any limitations.27 However, all recommendations,
whether accepted or not, are duly noted in the outcome document.
During a two-week period
after adoption of the outcome of the review by the Working Group, editorial
changes (only) can be submitted by States to the record of the proceedings.
These meetings are not webcast and are not open.
Adoption
of the Outcome of the Review by the
Human Rights Council
The outcome of the
review is to be given final approval by the Human Rights Council meeting
in plenary session under Item 6 (United Nations, General Assembly A/HRC/OM/L.1
Presidential Statement at the opening of the Meeting for the Selection
of the UPR Troikas – 28 February 2008).
The Council meets in
plenary session to consider the reports on several reviewed States previously
adopted by the Working Group.
The process provides
for a one-hour interactive dialogue to make general comments before
the final adoption of the reports. Twenty minutes are granted to each
of the three following categories of actors: the state concerned, the
Member and Observer States and the UN institutions, and last but not
least the NGOs. Speaking time for Member States is maximally 3 minutes,
for others 2 minutes. If there are more requests for the floor than
time is available, which is usually the case, only 8 to 10 stakeholders
can make a statement after the State under review.28
The only comments permitted
up to now concern laws, recommendations and questions in the report.
NGOs are often interrupted by the State under review and others on the
alleged ground that their comments are out of place. The admissibility
of comments under challenge is determined by the President of the Council
or his designate.
At this stage, however,
the report of the Working Group is already finalized and therefore interventions
by NGOs remain without any effect.
The UPR Working Group
report is formally adopted by the Council.
The
UPR in Practice with China
By being applicable
to all UN Member States, without any distinction and on an equal basis,
the UPR is intended to address one of the main criticisms raised at
the Council’s predecessor, the Commission on Human Rights, namely
that its focus on certain countries and not on others was selective
and based on double standards. Indeed, the Commission considered only
a small number of countries at its annual sessions and shied away from
addressing some of the most pressing situations, often for political
reasons. Now, the UPR offers an opportunity to address situations and
to challenge the human rights record of any country that were never
the subject of action by the late Commission on Human Rights.
The whole UPR process
provides an invaluable amount of information about the human rights
situation in all the UN Member States that can be used by NGOs and other
stakeholders to better focus their advocacy strategies, their agendas
and their monitoring activities in the future.
The process can also
have a positive effect at the national level, especially if the media
have a sufficient space of freedom to largely echo the commitments that
still need to be fulfilled.
The practices developed
throughout the various sessions of the Universal Periodic Review have
however been varied so that it is still difficult to provide a clear
critical appraisal of the process at this stage.
The main reproach that
can be made to the UPR in its present form is that independent voices
such as human rights NGOs and other stakeholders (victims, human rights
defenders, and so on), national human rights institutions, UN experts
and UN Special Rapporteurs are muted, cannot participate in the interactive
dialogue and influence the final report, especially through some contribution
to the recommendations.
Consultation
of the stakeholders by the State to be reviewed
Some States have adopted
a constructive approach with regard to the consultation of domestic
human rights NGOs during the drafting the national report.
An example of best
practice is Guatemala. The Government of this State worked together
with the OHCHR country office in consulting members of civil society
and training them on how they could participate in the UPR process.
Another positive example
is Tonga where the national report was publicly endorsed by its civil
society as a whole.
The practice adopted
by Switzerland, which published the draft national report on the website
of the foreign ministry and invited civil society and citizens as a
whole to comment on it is also worth commending.
However, a number of
States did not follow the recommendation of the institution-building
package of the Council and failed to convene national consultations
prior to finishing the national report. In other cases, such consultations
were organized but were reportedly not meaningful.
Another problem was
that in some countries these consultations were limited only to registered
NGOs. This can pose serious problems in States which apply strict criteria
for the registration of NGOs. In certain cases participation of representatives
of unregistered NGOs in the national consultation process was denied
even when such representatives asked to be considered and included as
individual human rights defenders.
Concerning the consultations
of NGOs, the national report of China says that “Oral and written
consultations were held with nearly 20 non-governmental organizations
(NGOs) and academic institutions.” It must however be noted
that the list of NGOs published in Annex II29 of the National
Report did not comprise any faith-based organization of any religious
denomination or stakeholders or independent human rights NGOs.
In Macao, the draft
report is said to have been made available for comments and proposals
at the Macao Special Administrative Region Government website.
In Hong Kong, the Government
of this Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) is said to have “conducted
an exercise in September 2008 to consult the public. The HKSAR Government
published a consultation document which contained the background and
objectives of the review, a proposed outline of the report and an appeal
to the public for comments. This document was sent to a broad spectrum
of the community, including the Legislative Council, relevant non-governmental
organizations (NGOs), interested members of the public and the media,
and was distributed through the District Offices and on the Internet.
During the consultation period, the HKSAR Government also collected
views from representatives of NGOs at the Human Rights Forum. The HKSAR
Government carefully considered all the views and comments received.”
As far as Macao and
Hong Kong are concerned, no further details are however provided about
the number of NGOs’ contributions and their contents, the names of
the stakeholders and the processing of the collected data.
It is also to be noted
that Beijing has tried to give the impression that the consultation
was open, transparent and democratic consultation in the two territorial
entities that joined the People’s Republic of China in the last decade.
National
report
Under the item “Freedom
of religious belief”, China declared in its report:
“55. China is a country
with a great diversity of religious beliefs. The main religions are
Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, Catholicism and Protestantism.
56. The Constitution
expressly provides that citizens enjoy freedom to believe or not to
believe in any religion. No State organ, organization or individual
may force citizens to believe or not to believe in any religion, nor
may they discriminate against citizens who believe or do not believe
in any religion. The Criminal Law stipulates that “a State official
who illegally deprives a citizen of his or her freedom of religious
belief or who infringes the customs or habits of ethnic minorities shall,
if the case is serious, be sentenced to imprisonment of two years or
less or placed under criminal detention”. In 2005, the Regulations
on Religious Affairs were promulgated by the State Council to further
safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of religious communities,
regulate the administrative conduct of government departments and promote
inter-religious and social harmony.
57. According to incomplete
statistics, there are more than 100 million followers of different faiths
in China, and the religious population is steadily increasing. For example,
the number of Protestants is nearly 23 times greater than it was in
the early years of the People’s Republic, and the number of clergy
has doubled over the last decade. The number of Muslims professing the
Islamic faith has increased from 18 million in 1997 to 21 million.
58. There are over
3,000 religious organizations or groups established independently by
various religions. These groups select and ordain their leaders and
governing bodies in accordance with their own regulations; they independently
run their religious affairs, publish scriptural texts, operate social
services and engage in friendly exchanges with religious communities
in other countries. Since 1980, some 50 million copies of the Bible
have been printed and distributed in China.”
The information contained
in this official statement is not consistent with the reality in the
field as religious organizations are not independent from the state
but are under the control of the Communist Party and they cannot ordain
their religious leaders without the approval of their respective government-affiliated
association that monitors and supervises their activities - the Chinese
Buddhist Association, the Catholic Patriotic Association,
the Protestant Three-Self Patriotic Movement, the Chinese
Islamic Association and the Chinese Taoist Association.
Compilation
of United Nations Information
In the compilation30,
the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) rightly
highlighted various aspects of the lack of freedom of several religious
groups.
Under the item “Right
to life, liberty and security of the person”, the OHCHR said: “CAT31
was greatly concerned by the allegations of targeted torture, ill-treatment
and disappearances directed against national, ethnic, religious minorities
and other vulnerable groups in China, among them Tibetans, Uighurs and
Falun Gong practitioners.”
In the section “Freedom
of religion or belief”, the OHCHR declared:
“26. The Special
Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief has transmitted to the Government
a number of allegations concerning human rights violations against persons
of the Christian faith, and against Falun Gong practitioners,
including arrests, detention, torture, and re-education through labour.
CRC in 2005 was concerned at reports that children of families practising
their religion, notably the Falun Gong,
are subject to harassment, threats and other negative actions, including
re-education through labour.
China stated that it fully respects and protect citizen’s freedom
of religion in accordance with the law, but that “Falun Gong is neither
a religion nor a spiritual movement; rather it is an evil cult against
humanity, science and society.”
29. (…) “The Special
Rapporteur on torture recommended that all persons who have been sentenced
for the peaceful exercise of freedom of speech, assembly, association
and religion, on the basis of vaguely defined political crimes, both
before and after the 1997 reform of the Criminal Law, should be released
and that political crimes leaving large discretion to law enforcement
and prosecution authorities such as “endangering national security”,
should be abolished.”
Summary of stakeholders’
information
The submissions of
NGOs are summarized by Human Rights Council writers. Due to limitations
on length, rather little usually gets in the report. The amount that
is included also depends on the number of submissions that are sent.
NGOs often complain that their 5-page reports are reduced to a few lines
or do not reflect their priorities.
The States under review
can totally ignore the reports of the NGOs and fail to address major
issues on purpose. Due to the non-availability of this document in all
the official languages of the UN in due time or at all, important issues
may not be brought to the attention of the Member States and Observers
and therefore not be addressed during the interactive dialogue and in
the recommendations.
In the case of China,
48 stakeholders sent a submission32. Among them, 6 exclusively
dealt with religious freedom and 4 partly33 . The summary
of the submissions quoted 6 of them34 and covered hereby
the main issues related to freedom of religion as well as the particularly
targeted groups: Tibetan Buddhists, Uyghur Muslims, Falun Gong practitioners,
Protestants and Catholics.
Interactive
dialogue
On the one hand a State
that would never find its human rights record being discussed at the
Council may now have to face certain difficult questions before its
peers. On the other hand, ‘friendly states’ have the ability to
collectively present an image that is not reflective of the human rights
situation on the ground. Although there has been a clear move away from
the Council practice of issuing statements by regional or other groups
of States in favor of individual interventions by States, many States
have applied different standards of scrutiny to States they have a regional
or organizational association with and political alliances have been
built up to shield some States from too close or too critical scrutiny.
On 6 February 2009,
UN Watch published a report entitled “Mutual Praise Society”35
analyzing and evaluating more than 300 UPR interventions made by a number
of states participating in the UPR mechanism. Out of 55 countries examined—including
all 47 members of the UN Human Rights Council—only 19 had average
scores indicating that they contributed positively. Tragically, a majority
of 32 out of 55 countries acted as a mutual praise society, misusing
the process in order to legitimize human rights abusers, instead of
holding them to account. The China was one of them.
Unashamedly, several
States applaud the achievements of countries with a poor human record
like Tunisia. This form of instrumentalization organized by several
UN Member States36, especially visible during the fourth
session in February 2009, constitutes a danger to the future of the
efficiency of the new mechanism. Embassies’ staff sometimes had to
queue for two hours before the opening of the registration desk for
the interventions they had planned to make during the interactive dialogue.
During the fourth session, at the review of Cuba, 104 Member States
had registered to take the floor, 115 were “encouraged” by China
to do the same. Only 60 delegations could be heard and the recommendations
of 55 countries had therefore no chance to be reflected in the outcome
of the review. Among the actors of the mutual praise society, “Saudi
Arabia appreciated China’s valuable information and clear statements
and its efforts to promote and protect human rights” while “Uzbekistan
welcomed the efforts made in the area of protecting and promoting all
human rights, including political, civil, social and cultural rights,
and also the right to development.”
The issues raised by
the stakeholders are not always adequately – and sometimes not at
all - addressed at all stages of the review, and in particular during
the interactive dialogue, the most crucial part of the whole process.
If Member States participating in the interactive dialogue fail to address
an issue orally, it will not be reflected in the outcome document. Consequently
it will not be mentioned in the recommendations and it will not be part
of the possible commitments of the country under review.
Statements of UN Member States
on freedom of religion or belief
Seven states highlighted
in various ways China’s failure to protect freedom of religion or
belief. Their statements were summarized in the draft UPR report as
follows:
Australia
“expressed concern that Chinese officials continue to repress religious
activities considered to be outside the State-controlled religious system.”
New Zealand
“noted with concern ongoing restrictions on freedom of religion.”
Switzerland
“recommended that the Chinese authorities respect the fundamental
rights of the ethnic minorities, notably freedom of religion and movement.”
Germany “recommended
that China guarantee all citizens of China, including its minority communities
and religions, the exercise of religious freedom, freedom of belief
and the freedom of worshipping in private.”
Italy “recommended
that China simplify requirements for official approval of religious
practices in order to allow more individuals to exercise their freedom
of religion and belief and to respect the religious rights of minorities.”
In its statement,
Canada expressed deep concerns “about reports of arbitrary detention
of ethnic minorities members, including Tibetans, Uyghurs and Mongols,
as well as religious believers, including Falun Gong practitioners,
without information about their charges, their location and wellbeing.”
However, while mentioning Canada’s intervention, the drafters of the
UPR report omitted the words “Tibetans, Uyghurs, Mongols and Falun
Gong practitioners.”
In a set of written
questions submitted in advance to China, the UK stressed “it
is important that minority religious, cultural and language rights are
properly protected, including in Tibet and Xinjiang” and asked China
what steps it was planning to take “to remove restrictions on religious
practice, and protect minority rights.” The UPR report focused on
the human rights situation in Tibet, “including religious rights”,
without any further detail.
Right of reply
of China
China reacted on two
occasions to the criticisms coming from these by countries. First, it
said that “it would never allow torture to be used on ethnic groups,
religious believers or other groups.” Later on, it insisted that “the
State respects the habits and customs of religious beliefs of minorities,
and prohibits speeches and actions that instigate ethnic hatred and
religious discrimination” and finished with a longer statement illustrated
with statistics: “On the matter of religious beliefs the delegation
noted that China has over 100 million believers, including more than
21 million Muslims, 16 million Christians, 5.5 million Catholics, with
300,000 clergy men for various religions and 3,000 religious bodies,
100,000 places of worship. China prohibits speeches and acts which instigate
religious hatred and discrimination.
In accordance with
regulations on registration of social organizations, all social organizations
should register with bodies of civil affairs, including religious organizations.
But the registration requirements are minimum. The ‘family gatherings’
of Christians are not required to be registered.”
Report
and recommendations
Many recommendations
are addressed to some States, and just a few to others. A certain degree
of disparity is also to be noted in their content: some are very precise
while others are so vague and general in nature that they are difficult
to apply in practice and cannot be realistically measured. This was
the case for a number of recommendations concerning China.
Rejected recommendations
may pose a problem in cases where the same or similar ones were previously
made by treaty bodies or special procedures mandate holders. China rejected
almost all the recommendations aiming at promoting democracy and human
rights made by ALL the EU member states and by Argentina, Australia,
Brazil, Mexico, New Zealand and Switzerland although they were consistent
with those of the treaty bodies and the special procedures.
Some recommendations
were shocking, such as the one of Egypt supporting China in the implementation
of death penalty or the one of Cuba which encouraged China to “avoid
the impunity for people who are qualifying themselves as human rights
defenders with the objective of attacking the interests of the state
and the people of China.”
The recommendation
of Iran was also disturbing as it encouraged China to strengthen Internet
governance to make sure the contents that incite defamation of religion
are prohibited.
Moreover, some issues
that are raised during the interactive dialogue may not even be thoroughly
or at all reviewed by the process37. Most importantly, they
may not be comprehensively or at all reflected in the recommendations
although they have been dealt with during the interactive debate38.
In the case of China, the words “Tibetans, Buddhists, Uyghurs, Muslims,
Catholics, Protestants, Falun Gong, ethnic minorities, religious minorities”
were totally banned from the report adopted by the Working Group at
its meeting held on 11 February 2009 although they were mentioned during
the interactive debate. Nor was there any recommendation addressing
failures to comply with international standards regarding freedom of
religion or belief.
Adoption
of the report by the Human Rights Council
Given the short time
scheduled for each reviewed country, a rather small number of NGOs are
given an opportunity to deliver short statements.
Moreover, NGO comments
have been repeatedly interrupted by the State under review and other
Member States for allegedly going beyond the permitted scope of such
statements.
In the plenary sessions
of the first two UPR groups, the NGOs could not use their full 20 minutes
because of the interruptions by states demanding points of order and
lack of timely availability of outcome documents to NGOs in all UN languages.
At this stage, however,
interventions by NGOs remain without any effect as the report of the
Working Group cannot be amended.
The report of the Working
Group concerning China was therefore adopted by the Human Rights Council
without any change.
China has finally managed
to eclipse the situation of Tibetan Buddhists, Muslim Uyghurs, Falun
Gong practitioners, unregistered Protestant communities and Catholics
faithful to Rome, and to abstain from curbing its repressive policies
towards all these religious groups.
On the very day of
the adoption of the UPR report by the Working Group, China claimed "victory."
Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu said in a press conference that
most countries had endorsed China's rights record - and those that did
not were simply politicizing the process.
Conclusions
This analysis of the
Universal Periodic Review of China clearly shows that religious freedom
issues were sufficiently highlighted in the Compilation of the UN Information
by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and in the NGOs’
submissions. They were also raised with energy by a number of Member
States during the interactive dialogue. Their concerns however failed
to be duly reflected in the written summary of their interventions and
they were totally evacuated from the recommendations. This manipulation
was only possible because the troika rapporteurs cannot draft their
report and the recommendations emanating from the Working Group in full
independence but have to work with the country under review, in this
case China.
The gap between the
content of the UPR report and its recommendations on the one hand, and
the content of the UPR working documents and debates on the other hand
has also been observed in other UPR sessions.
The Universal Periodic
Review of China is now over and Beijing’s human rights policy will
not be examined again until 2013 in this framework. By then the rules
and practices will have to be amended. However, several other mechanisms
are still available at the UN to promote a religious freedom agenda:
the treaty bodies and the special procedures. Such opportunities should
not be missed and revised strategies should be crafted in the light
of the UPR experience. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human
Rights, Special Rapporteurs, a number of diplomatic missions with the
UN are the key actors that religious freedom advocates should target
in priority with the timely distribution of accurate information and
through personal demarches.
Recommendations
In the light of its
experience of the UPR mechanism garnered through the attendance of several
sessions, Human Rights Without Frontiers proposes recommendations
to a number of actors: the States under review, the UPR Member States,
the Troikas, the Human Rights Council, the Office of the High Commissioner
for Human Rights, the Special Procedure Mandate Holders, NGOs and other
stakeholders. Although the UPR examines the human rights records of
all 192 UN Member States only once every four years and its rules cannot
be reviewed until 2011, a number of recommendations aiming at improving
the use of the mechanism might already be implemented.
To the States under
review
- To share information about
the UPR mechanism among civil society organizations and human rights
defenders and encourage their participation;
- To organize national consultations
prior to the finalization of the national report;
- To publicize an open invitation
to all interested and relevant stakeholders, including local human rights
defenders, domestic civil society organizations whether registered or
not, but also foreign human rights NGOs covering the issue in the State
under review;
- To adequately reflect the
views of civil society in the national report;
- To address the issues raised
in the submissions of the stakeholders and in the compilation of UN
information;
- To allow the possibility
of side events during UPR sessions, following the example of the lunchtime
briefings of the treaty bodies;
- To ensure effective follow
up on the national level by consulting civil society and human rights
defenders about the problems identified and the recommendations put
forward during the UPR process;
- To organize annual follow-up
meetings until the next cycle of reviews to assess the status of implementation
of the UPR recommendations along with those of other human rights mechanisms,
such as the treaty bodies, special procedures and regional mechanisms.
To the UPR Member
States
- To participate meaningfully
and constructively in the UPR process;
- Not to allow bloc politics
to override their obligation to conduct UPR reviews in an objective,
non-selective and non-politicized manner;
- To put pertinent and topical
questions;
- To provide concrete and
actionable recommendations;
- To propose good practices
and detailed policies;
- To coordinate their participation
within the Working Group in order to consistently prepare questions
and points for discussion that include a wide range of human rights
issues while avoiding duplication.
To the Troika
- To address the issues raised
in NGOs’ submissions and in the compilation of UN documents that were
omitted by the State under review and by the other actors during the
interactive dialogue;
- To include in the UPR outcome
report an analysis of the compilations of the UN information and the
recommendations of the stakeholders as without such content, valuable
information goes completely unmentioned in the outcome of the review;
- To draft more specific and
operational recommendations in order to facilitate the assessment of
their implementation or lack of it;
- To show sufficient independence
and determination when co-drafting the report and the recommendations
with the country under review.
To the Human Rights
Council
To amend the provisions
regarding the participation of NGOs during the five-year review foreseen
for 2011 so as
- to allow NGOs to speak during
the interactive dialogue at the Working Group stage of the UPR;
- to include the recommendations
of the NGOs in the outcome of the review;
To allow the Troika
rapporteurs to draft the report and the recommendations of the Working
Group without the country under review.
To the OHCHR
- To post the full texts of
the submissions of the stakeholders on its website on the page of the
State under review, while highlighting their recommendations (Good practice
of the OSCE/ODIHR at its annual HDIM in Warsaw);
- To post all the UPR documents
on its website in due time and in all the UN official languages;
- To give more guidance and
training, preferably in the form of technical assistance or information
notes, on how best to structure UPR submissions;
- To create a model questionnaire
which would ensure that OHCHR receives information for NGOs in a way
that can be best processed.
To the special procedure mandate
holders
- To make use of the recommendations
stemming from the UPR process and to raise them with countries concerned
during country visits or examinations of reports.
To the NGOs and
other stakeholders
- To use the UPR mechanism
despite its limitations;
- to participate in genuine
dialogues with their respective Governments before, throughout and after
the review
- To build up coalitions around
specific issues and co-sign joint submissions (10 pages) in order to
avoid duplication;
- To give priority to recommendations
in their submissions;
- To channel priority issues
and dossiers to their respective diplomatic mission in Geneva through
their Ministry of Foreign Affairs;
- To organize roundtables
or working luncheons with human rights officers of the diplomatic missions
with the UN in Geneva two months before the UPR session in order to
convince them to raise a number of issues during the UPR interactive
debate so that they be reflected in the recommendations;
- To attend or to follow the
UPR live webcast and to react appropriately with a press release, a
press conference, interventions in the media, etc.;
- To denounce publicly the
rejection of important recommendations by the States under review;
- To campaign for a revision
of the UPR rules so that they can participate in the interactive dialogue
and/or have their recommendations included in the outcome of the review.
Willy Fautré, director
of Human Rights Without Frontiers Int’l.
Email: w.fautre@hrwf.net
Website: http://www.hrwf.net - http://www.willyfautre.org
The author
wrote many articles in university magazines about relations between
state and religions. His most recent publications are:
European Perspectives
on Interfaith Cooperation for Peace and Human Rights, pp
24-27, in Interreligious Cooperation and the Promotion
of Human Rights and Peace (2009)
Religious Freedom:
European Trends, pp 28-33,
in Religious Freedom in the World, ed. by Paul A. Marshall.
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers in cooperation with the Center for
Religious Freedom at the Hudson Institute
(2008)
Interactions
between public powers, communities of faith or belief, and society:
A critical and constructive look at religious intolerance in France
and in Belgium (in Russian)
pp 19-24, in Religia in Pravo (Journal Religion and Law),
Nr 3/ 2008, ed. Academy of Sciences, Moscow (2008)
Non-State Actors
and Religious Freedom in Europe,
pp 311-330, in Non-State Actors in the Human Rights
Universe, ed. by George Andreopoulos, Zehra F. Kabasakal Arat and Peter
Juviler, Kumarian Press, 1294 Blue Hills Avenue Bloomfield, CT 06002,
USA (2006)
Footnote
The observations
and conclusions made in this paper
are based on the attendance by the author of the review of several countries
during the second round of the UPR
in Geneva in May 2008 (France, Romania and Ukraine) and the fourth round
in February 2009 (Bangladesh, China and Cuba)
and by the evaluation of the written documents of several states.
