IX Colóquio | IX Coloquio | IX Colloquium

UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW (UPR), MARCH 2006

Lucia Nader, Conectas kicked off Tuesday’s session with her own extremely comprehensive ‘review’ of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR).

Definition: a State-led review of human rights records in all 192 UN Member States which takes place every 4 years and which is backed by the Human Rights Council (HRC). Lucia clarified the 4 phases which it comprises: preparation of the report, interactive dialogue with Geneva, adoption of the outcome report and following up on recommendations.

Brazil was reviewed in April 2008 and was among the first 16 countries to be reviewed. She talked through the reports within each phase which had to be researched, written, translated and disseminated and the difficulties involved in this process, e.g. strict deadlines, page limits, language barriers and explained how Conectas was able to engage with the UN, creating and maintaining an interactive dialogue.

CHALLENGES AND THE UPR – SEXUAL RIGHTS INITIATIVE COALITION

Following Lucia’s presentation, Sandeep Prasad, Action Canada for Population and Development, used the Sexual Rights Initiative Coalition to highlight the UPR challenges he experienced. 5 organisations focused on reproductive and sexual rights i.e. the right to decide freely on all aspects of sexual and reproductive health.

He highlighted the ultimate goals: the further realisation of human rights for everyone by encouraging legal and political change, the development of programmes, dialogue with governments and decision-makers and having accountability systems in place. This can be achieved through acceptance of recommendations, voluntary commitment, and working with the media, governments and CSOs directly to raise public awareness. Sandeep will share his presentation with participants.

UPR CASE STUDIES

Many thanks to the participants below who shared their interesting UPR-related experiences. They talked about some of the lessons they learned throughout the process, providing recommendations to other organisations, suggesting improvements and answering questions:

Florita Telo, Centro Cultural Mosaiko, Angola

Mauricio Caballero, Colombia Diversa

Andrea Detjen, Centro Interdisciplinario de Estudios sobre el Desarrollo, Uruguay

Carlo Cleofe, Task Force Detainees of the Philippines

WORKING GROUPS

In the afternoon, participants split into groups according to language providing them with the much-needed opportunity to discuss challenges and proposals involved in the human rights system. I joined an enthusiastic English-speaking group, led by Lucia. The session warmed up with 2 webcasts: the first showing Brazil at UN and the second, showing Camila Asano commenting on the UPR’s recommendations to Brazil and questioning some of the findings in the report.

The group briefly commented on the videos, applauding the cooperation of several diverse NGOs/Civil Society Organisations acting together to create one powerful voice.

June Ray, Office for the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) advised the group to consult the OHCHR Handbook, which “explains how the different United Nations human rights mandates and mechanisms work, and how members of civil society, such as human rights defenders, non-governmental organizations and academic institutions, can engage with them most effectively.” (http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/NewCivilSocietyHandbook.aspx)

Lucia then steered the workshop towards the main challenges of the UPR, identifying 10 main challenges:

Consensus versus strong resolutions

To measure effectiveness

Break south-south complicity

Elaboration of reports

Relation with regional bodies

Erosion of treatment of country situations

The group prioritized the following 5 challenges and discussed potential proposals for each:

Implementation of the recommendations

Sovereignty versus human rights

Selectivity and politicization

Strengthen civil society organizations at the UN

Lack of cooperation

Follow-up to this session is expected on Thursday.