Canada
WG UPR
February 15, 2007

Comments on the Annex of the non-paper

Thank you Mr. Facilitator,

Canada would like to express its appreciation for the options you have set set out in the annex to the non-paper.   We prefer option 2 as being the most workable arrangement and which imposes the most reasonable workload on Member States.
We support a compilation of available information by OHCHR.
Given the sheer volume of information that will be available for most States, we see value in having an expert from the OHCHR, or an independent expert, review the compilation of information, identify the key issues for each State, and formulate individualized questions to form part of the hybrid questionnaire, which would also include standard questions for each State.
The questionnaires would be approved by the working groups.
Each State would submit its response to the questionnaire and any other information desired - this could be called a self-assessment report.
The review would be conducted both in working groups and in plenary.
We support having 4 Working Groups of Member States, selected at random on the basis of equitable geographic representation, conduct the first stage of the review. The outcomes of the review should be adopted by the Council as a whole in plenary.
In accordance with GA resolution 60/251, the Council shall undertake the review = therefore WG members should be Member States of the Council and representative of the Council as a whole.  
A State could however place whomever it wants on its delegation – including experts if desired.
We could agree that the WGs should be open to 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.
Such participation would help facilitate a coordinated system-wide response to each review, including the provision of any available assistance for implementation of recommendations resulting from the UPR.
The WGs would consider the State’s response to the questionnaire, and engage in an interactive dialogue with the State on the questionnaire and the State’s responses.
Any additional issues or questions to be raised in the WG should be communicated to the State under review in advance.
Taking a 4 year cycle for each State, 48 States would be reviewed each year.
Each WG would consider 12 countries per year.  With a minimum of a 3 hour interactive dialogue, each WG would meet for 6 days or so per year.
Meetings would be intersessional and public but the WGs should not meet in parallel - Meetings could be spread throughout year – This would result in a more reasonable workload for each Member State.
The expert would assist the WG in drafting the report for each State, which would include the questionnaire, the State’s response, a summary of the review, and the WG’s conclusions and recommendations.
The draft report would be reviewed by the WG and then submitted to the State for comment, following which the WG would finalize the report.
Each report would be considered and adopted in plenary. 
The Council would consider 16 reports at each of its 3 regular sessions (at one hour for each report, this would = about 3 days per session).
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 full Council sessions per year.
Finally, Mr. Facilitator, we would suggest that we need not spell out every step of the process in detail, but provided we set out the basic framework, we could leave the Council the flexibility to allow the process to evolve over time based on experience.

Thank you.