Canada
UPR WG
February 13, 2007

Thank you Mr. Facilitator,

On Periodicity, we support the elements of convergence that you have set out in your non-paper.  We have previously advocated in favour of a three-year review cycle, given that op9 of GA resolution 60/251 requires that Members of the Council be reviewed during their term of membership, which is 3 years, and that op5e requires equal treatment with respect to all States.  

A relatively frequent review would also 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, and therefore a more frequent review would be in the interest of developing countries.

We recognize that others would prefer a longer term.  A cycle of four years for every State would not be an unreasonable compromise, and would allow more time to implement recommendations.  In any event, the periodicity should be the same for every country. A different cycle of review for different levels of development would be contrary to the requirement of GA resolution 60/251 of equal treatment of all States.  It would also 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. 

We should however be conscious that any period greater than three years could introduce anomalies for Members reviewed in the third year of their term and who are re-elected, as well as for other Members at some point down the line who are re-elected to the Council at every possible opportunity.  Such Members may need to be reviewed more frequently than other States in order to ensure compliance with op9.  In selecting countries for UPR, we should therefore prioritize Members.  States should be selected at random from among Members and Observers from the regional groups, in order to ensure equitable geographic representation among States undergoing the review each year.  

On the issue of specificities, in accordance with op5e of GA resolution 60/251, the review must take into consideration of 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, the universality of human rights, and the duty of each State to respect its international human rights obligations.  Some of these obligations, such as those set out in the ICESCR, already provide for taking into account the level of available resources, while other rights are not dependent on the level of resources.  Therefore it is not necessary to include this as a general principle.

Thank you.