Canada

Statement on the “Preliminary Conclusions” 
of the Facilitator of the UPR Working Group

December 4, 2006

Mr. President,

Canada would like to express its appreciation to the Facilitator for his preliminary conclusions, and supports his approach in attempting to summarize elements of convergence and to narrow elements requiring further consideration.

Canada’s proposals for the UPR and our statements in the Working Group are available on the Extranet and we will not repeat them here.  We would like to make the following additional comments on the Facilitator’s preliminary conclusions in an effort to assist him in his task of finding consensus on a strong and effective UPR, while agreeing with those who have stated that we should not negotiate your summary.

Under item I, basis of review, we would support inclusion of all of the elements listed under both headings, with the proviso that, while the conformity of domestic legislation with a State’s international human rights obligations should of course be reviewed as part of the UPR, the purpose of UPR is to review the fulfilment by each State of its human rights obligations and commitments, not its compliance with its own domestic law, which is neither within the competence of the Council nor its mandate.

Under Item II, objectives and principles, we would again support inclusion of all of the elements listed under both headings under parts A and B, with two comments.  Firstly, we would support the participation of relevant stakeholders, including Member States, observers, NGOs, national human rights institutions, the OHCHR, the Special Procedures, and other relevant parts of the UN system, during all stages of the review, from preparation to follow-up.  Secondly, 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 and other factors specific to each State may be considered, as suggested by Switzerland.  However, this must be placed in the context of each States international obligations and commitments, and the universality of all human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Under Item III, periodicity and order of review, we support the inclusion of all elements listed under the first heading, elements of convergence.  Regarding the elements requiring further consideration, we would make the following comments.  Firstly, we support a period of review of 3 years for every State, in order to ensure equality of treatment of all States as well as to provide for a reasonably frequent review in order to better promote follow-up to the recommendations of the treaty bodies and Special Procedures.  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. Secondly, we think it would be impractical to conduct the review in formal sessions of the Council, as this would prevent the Council from having sufficient time to conduct its other work.  Rather, the review should be conducted by committees of the Council, meeting inter-sessionally, as we have previously proposed.  The duration of the inter-active dialogue should be a minimum of one 3-hour meeting. 

Under Item IV, process and modalities of review, we support the inclusion of all elements listed under the first heading, elements of convergence.  Regarding the elements requiring further consideration, we would make the following comments.  Firstly, in our view, background information should be compiled by the OHCHR from a variety of existing sources, including the treaty bodies, special procedures, State Party reports, national human rights institutions, and NGOs, as well as a brief update statement by each country under review.  A questionnaire or list of issues, as currently used by the treaty bodies, prepared by the OHCHR, could provide a useful basis for the update statement by each State.   The review should be conducted by committees of the Council providing for equitable geographic representation.  There is no need for additional reviews.  In order to avoid imposing an additional reporting burden on States, we support a brief presentation by each country under review, rather than an additional comprehensive report.   The review should be conducted by committees of the Council, meeting inter-sessionally, with the participation of Member States, observers, NGOs, national human rights institutions, the OHCHR, the Special Procedures, and other relevant parts of the UN system, as previously mentioned.  We have suggested that for each State under review, a State member of each UPR committee or possibly 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 and draft recommendations, for consideration by the committee and then the Council at its regular sessions.

Under Item V, outcome of the review, we would agree with the elements listed subject to the following comments:  Firstly, the outcome of the review at the committee stage could consist of a report including the statement by the country under review, the questionnaire or list of issues and responses of the country under review, a summary of the inter-active dialogue, and draft conclusions and recommendations.  Each report would be considered and adopted by the Council, with appropriate follow-up action as required. Regarding content of the outcome, we would suggest revising the 4th element under V.B to read “recommendations relating to the provision of technical assistance and capacity-building, as required.”  Regarding the financing of technical assistance and capacity-building, we would suggest that it would be more practical to make use of the many existing mechanisms already active in the field of human rights.  While the country concerned should be fully involved in the process, in the event of disagreement on the outcome, while every effort should be made to reach consensus, in the end the Council will have to take a decision as necessary.

Under Item VI, follow-up to the review, we would agree with the elements listed, with the proviso that we are not convinced of the utility of consolidating all of the reports into a single report, although each report should be made publicly and widely available.

Thank you.