Canada
WG UPR
February 13, 2007

On Section IV, Process and Modalities of Review, in order to be effective, the UPR should not be overly complicated or cumbersome for the Council, States subject to review, or the Office of the High Commissioner. 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  human rights obligations and commitments under UN instruments.  

We should therefore avoid duplicating the reporting process under the treaty bodies and avoid imposing additional reporting burdens on States.  For most countries, sufficient information should already be available in the reports and other documents to be compiled by the Office of the High Commissioner.  We would suggest that the review be based on this already-available information.

In addition, the review could also be based on a hybrid questionnaire, consisting in part of standardized questions, and in part of individualized questions, to focus the review on the key issues for each State.   The individualized questions could be based on a review and assessment of the available information conducted by OHCHR or an expert for each country.  The State’s response to this questionnaire would also form the basis of the review.

In our view Option 2 of the Annex provides the most workable set of modalities.  The review should be conducted by committees or working groups of the Council, meeting inter-sessionally in public sessions, open to observers.  Conducting the review in four such working groups of 11 or 12 Members each, selected on the basis of equitable geographic representation and therefore representative of the Council as a whole, would provide for a reasonable workload for each Member, and reviews could be spread throughout the year.  The duration of each inter-active dialogue should be a minimum of one 3-hour meeting.  

If we take a three-year cycle, 64 countries would need to be reviewed each year. With four working groups, each working group would review 16 States per year, which would require 8 days of meetings, which could be spread throughout the year.  

With a four-year cycle, each of 4 working groups would review 12 States per year, which would require 6 days of meetings, which could be spread throughout the year.  

If the UPR is conducted entirely in plenary by all Member States, even under a four-year cycle, each Member State would have to review a full 48 States per year, which would take twenty-four days, or nearly 5 weeks, of meetings.  This would be a great burden, both in terms of the time of the Council and the demands on Member States.  It would be useful to have an indication of whether we could obtain conference facilities for an additional five weeks of Council meetings per year.

We do see an important role for the plenary of the Council however.  The reports of each 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.  Under a three-year cycle, each of 3 regular Council sessions could consider 21 or so UPR reports, which would take about 3 and a half days of meetings at each session.  Under a four-year cycle, each session would consider 16 UPR reports, which would take a little less than 3 days of meetings at each session.

In our view, in order to assist Member States in reviewing all of the available information for each country under-going review, an officer from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights or an independent expert could be designated to assist in preparing the questionnaire or list of issues for each State, the summary of the review, and the conclusions and recommendations, for consideration by the working groups and subsequently by the Council in plenary at its regular sessions, and to monitor follow-up.  The State’s response to this questionnaire, and any other information the State may wish to provide, would also form part of the report.

We also support the participation of Observers, NGOs, National Human Rights Institutions, and relevant UN actors, including the OHCHR, relevant special procedures, and other relevant UN agencies, funds, and programmes during all stages of UPR, from preparation to follow-up, to help facilitate a coordinated system-wide response to each review, including any available assistance for implementation of recommendations resulting from the UPR.

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, 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.

Thank you.