Canada

HRC Working Group on UPR

February 12, 2007

Thank you Mr. Facilitator,

Canada would like to express its appreciation to you for your latest non-paper, which in our view has brought us significantly closer to reaching consensus on establishing the modalities for this important new tool of the Human Rights Council, and which provides an excellent basis for our discussions.

The Universal Periodic Review, as one of the main features of the Council, should finally put to rest charges of selectivity and double standards in consideration of situations around the world by the UN’s human rights mechanisms.  The UPR should also help us operationalize the General Assembly’s directive in resolution 60/251 to promote and protect human rights on the basis of the principles of cooperation and genuine dialogue and aimed at strengthening the capacity of Member States to comply with their human rights obligations for the benefit of all.

In our view, the UPR, while offering an opportunity for scrutiny and frank dialogue, should be conducted in a constructive and cooperative manner, with a view to assisting States in improving implementation of human rights obligations and commitments under UN instruments. To be effective, the UPR should not be overly complicated or cumbersome for the Council, Member States, States subject to review, Observers or the OHCHR. It should not replace nor duplicate existing mechanisms, such as the Treaty Bodies and Special Procedures, or other review processes. Rather, the UPR should complement these other mechanisms by providing an additional and universal means to promote follow-up to recommendations and encourage fuller implementation of UN human rights obligations. It should bring added value, while capitalizing on the information and work of these other mechanisms. The entire process of the UPR should be transparent, with the dialogue and the documentation being public and available electronically.

We would like to make the following general comments on the non-paper:

Regarding Section I, the Basis of Review, we are in general agreement with the elements which you have set out, which are in accordance with GA resolution 60/251.  Our only note of caution is that we should be careful not to over-burden either States undergoing the review or the process as a whole.  The UPR should complement and not duplicate the work of the treaty bodies.  We should focus on the key issues and obligations of each State, and the extent of their implementation.

We are in general agreement with the Principles and Objectives which you have set out in Section II, which in fact might better be placed at the outset of a subsequent paper.  Canada supports the appropriate participation of relevant stakeholders, including NGOs and national human rights institutions.  We can accept your proposed compromise, although we would suggest that it might be advisable to work out the modalities in general terms as soon as possible, to permit participation from the outset, while retaining flexibility to refine these modalities as we gain experience with the review.

In accordance with op5e of GA resolution 60/251, the review must take into consideration capacity-building needs, at which time the level of development of each State may be considered.  At the same time, we should bear in mind that GA resolution 60/251 requires equal treatment of all States, and that it is the duty of each State to respect its international human rights obligations.

On Section III, Periodicity and Order of Review, we support the elements of convergence that you have set out.  We have advocated in favour of a three-year review cycle, in order to ensure equal treatment of every State, given that Council members must be reviewed during their three-year term of membership.  We recognize that others would prefer a longer term.  In any event, the periodicity should be the same for every country, in order to ensure equal treatment and in recognition of the universality of human rights. A different cycle of review for different levels of development would send the message that the Council does not believe that the human rights of everyone around the world are of equal importance and deserve equal consideration by the Council. A relatively frequent review would better complement the work of the treaty bodies and special procedures by promoting more regular follow-up to their recommendations.  It would also provide more frequent opportunities to assess the capacity-building needs of States.

On Section IV, Process and Modalities of Review, we support your proposal to include a compilation by OHCHR of available information from UN sources, as well as additional information provided by other relevant stakeholders.

We would suggest that the review be based on a hybrid questionnaire, consisting in part of standardized questions, and in part of individualized questions which reflect key issues for each State, based on a review and assessment of the available information conducted by OHCHR or an expert for each country.  An independent expert could be designated as a rapporteur to assist in preparing the questionnaire or list of issues, as well as the summary of the review, conclusions and recommendations, for consideration by the UPR committees and subsequently by the Council in plenary at its regular sessions, and to monitor follow-up, as you propose.  The State’s response to this questionnaire, and any other information the State may wish to provide, would also form the basis for the review, while recognizing the desirability of avoiding the imposition of any additional reporting burdens.   We would suggest that the Council not prescribe the process by which the State’s input should be formulated, but give each State the latitude to configure its report as it deems best.  

Given the desirability of a simple and efficient process, which does not impose an undue burden on States, and the need to ensure equal treatment of each State and in recognition of the universality of human rights, we should avoid engaging in multiple reviews.  Each State should be reviewed by a committee which is representative of the Council as a whole, and the outcome adopted in plenary.

In our view Option 2 of the Annex provides the most workable set of modalities.  The review should be conducted by committees of the Council, meeting inter-sessionally. Conducting the review in four such committees or working groups would provide for a reasonable workload for each Member, and reviews could be spread throughout the year.  A working group of 11 or 12 Members, selected on the basis of equitable geographic representation, should also contribute to a more collegial atmosphere for the review than might be possible in plenary or a more numerous configuration.  The duration of each inter-active dialogue should be a minimum of one 3-hour meeting. The reports of the working groups should be considered by plenary at each regular session of the Council, with perhaps an hour for each review.  This would ensure that the outcome of each review is considered and adopted by the whole Council.  However, in our view, to conduct the UPR entirely in plenary would not only take up a great deal of the Council’s time, but would result in an increased workload, as each Member would have to participate in the review of every State, rather than just a selection.

On the Outcome of the Review, Section V, we would suggest that the outcome should consist of a report including the questionnaire, the responses of the State, a summary of proceedings, and the conclusions and recommendations of the review committee.  The Council should consider each report in plenary, and encourage follow-up to the recommendations by each State under review.

We support the elements you have proposed for the content of the outcome and mode of adoption, with the proviso that the review could identify technical assistance and capacity-building needs for a State under review for consideration by relevant actors, but should not directly task such actors.  The ultimate responsibility for follow-up action resides with the reviewed State itself.

We further support your proposed elements on follow-up to the review, with the proviso that it may be both unduly burdensome and not very useful to compile all of the UPR reports into a single global report, which might be both thousands of pages long and out of date as soon as it is completed.  The UPR reports should however be made publicly available on the OHCHR website.

We look forward to refining the modalities of the UPR and bridging any remaining gaps in our discussions this week.     

Thank you.