Intervention by Malaysia at the WG on the UPR
Wednesday, 22 November 2006


Preparatory Process of Review

Malaysia sees the UPR as an intergovernmental process and a cooperative mechanism.  We take note that its objective is to review the fulfillment of each state of its human rights obligations and commitments.  At the same time, we recall that the compelling reason resulting in the agreement on its establishment was to avoid selectivity and politicization.

We reiterate that the preparatory process should not be too cumbersome or place too much of a resource imposition on all parties involved.  We believe that it would be sufficient for a state reviewed to present a report based on a standard format agreed to by the Human Rights Council concerning the general human rights situation in the country.  We are open to the idea of another report, a factual report, by the OHCHR, also based on a standard format agreed to by the HRC and such a report should be submitted to the state reviewed at least a month in advance. 

Conduct of Review

3.	The review exercise should be undertaken at plenary-level of the HRC, beginning with the presentation of statement by the state reviewed, followed by interactive dialogue involving member states of the Council, thereafter response by the state concerned and adoption of a consensus report.  It is our view that only member states of the Council should conduct the review while observer states and NGOs with ECOSOC status may attend as observers.


Intervention in response to Facilitator’s questions

Non duplication with treaty bodies would mean that the UPR would not address issues dealt with by the treaty bodies in a technical manner.  We see the UPR reviewing the fulfillment of a country’s human rights obligations and commitments in a general manner through an intergovernmental process, by its peers namely member states, while appreciating the challenges the country is confronted with and providing technical assistance, if requested. 

As we see the UPR as an intergovernmental process, we do not see a role for experts but we do see a role for the OHCHR.  

As far as NGO’s participation, those NGOs with ECOSOC consultative status may participate as observers during the interactive dialogue.

We take the position that the review should be conducted at plenary-level as it would be more transparent, less cumbersome, less demanding particularly on developing countries’ financial and manpower resources as it would be difficult for them to be represented from headquarters if the review were conducted at different levels at different times.

Assessing objectivity and reliability is of course a challenge.  But we believe that if the information is borne up by facts, then such information is objective.