UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW MECHANISM
Canadian Non-Paper


RATIONALE AND PURPOSE:
All UN Members States have international obligations with respect to human rights under the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international instruments.  
While States are currently the subject of various and differentiated types of scrutiny, there is currently no common mechanism which is used systematically and applies in a similar manner to all States.   
The main objective of UPR should be to:
Contribute to improved implementation of human rights obligations, standards and commitments by all Member States.

As such UPR should:

Enhance transparency and accountability in the implementation of human rights;
Assess/discuss implementation of human rights by Member States on a regular basis;
Assist in gaining a fuller understanding of human rights policies, practices, plans and challenges of Member States;
Identify needs/opportunities to assist States through capacity building and technical cooperation.

BASIC PRINCIPLES:
1) The UPR, while offering an opportunity for scrutiny and a frank dialogue, should be conducted in a constructive manner, with a view to assisting States in improving implementation of human rights obligations, standards and commitments.
2) To be effective, the UPR should not be overly cumbersome for the Council, Member States, States subject to review, Observers or the OHCHR. It should not replace nor duplicate existing mechanisms, such as Treaty Bodies and Special Procedures. Rather, the UPR should complement these other mechanisms. It should be different, bring value-added, and capitalize on the information and work of these other mechanisms.  
3) The entire process of the UPR should be transparent with the dialogue and the documentation being public and available electronically.
The UPR should thus: 
Focus on implementation;
Build on existing information, rather than require extensive new information or reports by the UN or States;
Engage the State under review in an open and interactive dialogue with its peers (i.e. other Member States);
Be carried out at regular and reasonably short intervals;
Be mandatory and apply universally in the same manner to all States. 

MODALITIES

Basis for review
The following would be the basis upon which a State would be reviewed:
The UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Obligations arising under treaties to which the State is a Party.
Commitments undertaken by the State through voluntary declarations and pledges.

Institutional Mechanisms
The review would be conducted by peers, i.e. HRC Member States.  It would be conducted inter-sessionally by four UPR Committees. Each UPR Committee would be comprised of one quarter of the HRC members (11 or 12 States) and assigned by the HRC President, with geographic representation and consideration for legal systems within each Committee.  Provision would be made for rotation.  A Member State would Chair each Committee. 
The UPR Committees’ responsibility would be to plan and implement the UPR, including conducting the interactive dialogue with States under review, and reporting to the HRC.
The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights would provide professional and secretarial support. 

Process
1) The OHCHR compiles and makes available on-line an electronic country dossier of the most recent existing information available from UN human rights reports relevant to the State under review, including UN treaty body concluding observations, recommendations and views, and the reports of UN Special Rapporteurs and other Special Procedures. The country dossier is made available publicly ahead of the review session on the OHCHR website.  Voluntary commitments or pledges by States, and statements or reports from National Institutions and ECOSOC accredited NGOs should also be publicly available for the review. 
2) The State under review prepares and submits a Statement to the Committee prior to the dialogue. The Statement would address: the implementation of human rights within the country, achievements, difficulties, challenges and plans; issues arising out of the country dossier compiled by the OHCHR, and, as need be, how the State intends to address them and requests for cooperation and technical assistance.
3) The UPR Committee holds an interactive dialogue with the State concerned for a 3 hour session. The standard agenda of the dialogue could essentially be as follows:
(i) the State being reviewed presents its Statement;
(ii) comments, questions and suggestions by UPR Committee members; 
(iii) responses by the State.

The discussion would be structured with appropriate time limits for statements or interventions. 
 4) A Country Rapporteur, from within the UPR Committee, prepares a Summary of the discussion and within two weeks, submits it to (a) the UPR Committee and (b) the State reviewed. 
5) The State reviewed prepares an official final written response on how it intends to address and take action with respect to the issues raised in the dialogue and suggestions of other States. The response could take the form of new commitments or pledges. If it so desires, the State may include in its response a request for technical assistance. 
6) Each UPR Committee officially submits to the HRC the Summary of the discussions as well as the final written response by the State.

FOLLOW-UP: 
Follow-up action may include:
1) Most importantly, voluntary initiatives and action by the State to act upon the issues raised in the dialogue and suggestions thereof.
2) Technical cooperation programs with the support of the OHCHR (or bilateral cooperation) if the State so wishes.
3) Statements or other action by the Human Rights Council plenary within its mandate. 

PERIODICITY AND SCHEDULING:
According to GA60/251, all members of the HRC must be reviewed by the UPR during their three year term of membership.  So as to ensure “universality of coverage and equal treatment with respect to all States”, and for UPR to be useful and relevant, all States should therefore be reviewed every three years.  
For all 192 States to be reviewed every three years (64 per year) each with a three hour dialogue inter-sessionally, eight days of dialogue for each of the UPR Committees would be required annually.  Thus each UPR Committee would review 16 States per year.  The reviews would be scheduled throughout the year allowing for an average of 21 UPR Committee reports to be considered by each session of the HRC.
The members of the Council would be the first to be subject to a review although each year a mix of HRC members and non-member States should be reviewed.   Further, members are to be reviewed on a priority basis each time they are elected to the Council. 
The President of the HRC, together with the Secretariat, should schedule all States’ reviews and the programme for each UPR Committee well in advance.  


Canadian Non-paper Version # 3 – 21 July 2006