Statement by Faisal Niaz Tirmizi, First Secretary on behalf Member States of the OIC at the Second Session of the intersessional open-ended intergovernmental Working Group to develop the modalities of the Universal Periodic Review mechanism established pursuant to the Human Rights Council decision 1/103, 12 February 2007 Mr. Facilitator, I have the honour to make this statement on behalf of the Member States of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. The OIC would like to thank you for the extremely professional manner in which you have conducted the negotiations in this intersessional working group. We also thank you for the paper before us that reflects your clear personal commitment to finding solutions in order to complete the task given to us by the UN General Assembly. The OIC is committed to have in place the UPR very soon. Basis of Review Mr. Facilitator, The normative and legal basis of the UPR are: all universal human rights under the Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) as well as conventions and treaties ratified by states. It is also necessary to stay within the broad parameters of the Resolution A/60/251. Six principles should continue to guide all our deliberations: Objective and reliable information. Universality of coverage and equal treatment. Cooperative mechanism: interactive dialogue with the full involvement of the state concerned. Capacity building Non-duplication with the treaty bodies and A member-driven exercise The basis of review should also include obligations arising from International Humanitarian Law when examining situations of armed conflict. Principles and Objectives Mr. Facilitator, we endorse the elements included under principles in your paper. The concerned countries should be fully involved in the review. We would like to reiterate that the primary stock holders and actors participating in the review will be states, as UPR is essentially a state-centric exercise. The concerned state may choose to consult other actors, such as national human rights institutions and civil society, as is customary in the case of some treaty bodies. In any case, the UPR should not add a cumbersome, duplicative process for the states being reviewed. We thank you for taking on board the position of the OIC and most developing countries that the level of development and specificities of countries should be taken into account during the UPR. We however, believe that this concept should be reflected under basis of review and not under principles. Also a clear reference should be made to religious and cultural specificities of countries. Periodicity and Order of Review On the question of periodicity and order of review, we would like to reiterate OIC’s proposal of two alternatives. The first proposes a five-year cycle of review covering all UN member states. The second option suggests a staggered examination based on the level of development, with developed countries being reviewed every three years to LDCs every seven years. Most developing countries, as in the first option would be examined every five years. We do not favour sub-committees conducting review. If Working Groups are established, they should be open-ended to ensure universal representation. Preparations could be made inter-sessionally but the review itself should be conducted during the Council’s sessions. It is only logical that the UPR starts after the modalities for the mechanism have been agreed. We agree that equitable geographical distribution should be respected in the selection of countries for review and that countries under review should be a mix of member and observer states of the Council. Process and Modalities of Review The OIC agrees that the review should be on the basis of a report prepared by the state concerned in response to a standardized questionnaire to be adopted by the Council and any other information considered relevant by that state. The standardized questionnaire would allow states to make preparations in advance of the review. It would be up to the state to involve whoever it wishes in the preparation of the report. The OIC seeks clarification on the nature of the compilation by the OHCHR. We would also like to know what additional information could be provided and by which relevant stakeholders, to be taken into consideration by the Council? The UPR should be conducted in the HRC plenary. The format of review should be an interactive dialogue in the Plenary of the Council. The dialogue should be conducted in a positive and constructive spirit. It should focus on achievements, difficulties, challenges and respond to requests by concerned countries for technical assistance. A working group if established, by the Council, for the UPR, should be universal and open ended. Outcome of the Review The outcome could be in the form of a Process Verbale containing a summary of proceedings with recommendations to be adopted by consensus. We maintain that the UPR should be a cooperative mechanism leading to capacity-building needs of concerned states. Sharing best practices to enhance cooperation for the promotion and protection of human rights is a good idea. The country concerned would have to be fully involved in the preparation and adoption of the outcome. The OIC believes that the UPR is a new mechanism and needs to be developed in a manner that it is able to fulfill its objective without being over burdened. UPR should therefore not undertake an assessment of the implementation of treaty body and special procedure recommendations and conclusions. Also being a new, innovative and cooperative mechanism, it should not resort to CHR’s habits of setting up special procedure mandates, fact finding missions, investigative teams or Commissions of inquiry. Nor should it lead to the establishment of OHCHR field offices or other forms of field presence. The focus should be on technical assistance and capacity building on the request of the concerned country and in accordance with its specific requirements. The Objective is the promotion and protection of human rights on ground, and not politicization. Outcomes should not be widely disseminated, especially in case of states who would be encouraged to improve their human rights situation. Follow up to the Review It should entail implementation of the voluntary initiatives by states, technical cooperation and review of progress at the next UPR. The outcome should be implemented by the states concerned and other actors of civil society. We do not see the merit of consolidating all UPR reports into a global report. Mr. Facilitator, We have made these comments with the hope that these will help bridge gaps. We look forward to the conclusion of our work in this working group by the end of this week. We hope to adopt decisions relating to the UPR at the Fourth Session of the HRC. Thank you, Mr. Facilitator.   1