UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW EU Mr. President, I am speaking on behalf of the European Union. The acceding states Bulgaria and Romania align themselves with this statement. Let me first thank the representatives from the International Labour Organization, the Council of Europe, the New Partnership for Africa's Development and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development who have come to the Human Rights Council to share their experiences and views on how a functioning review mechanism could look like. It is important to receive first hand information and to compare advantages and disadvantages with the models for the UPR that this Council will have to decide on. We wish to thank the Swiss government for organizing the informal seminar on human rights country situations and the Universal Periodic Review in Lausanne last week. During the seminar a project of the University of Bern was presented containing a Human Rights Index. The European Union welcomes this initiative and looks forward to the launching of the corresponding website for the use of all. Such a tool could be further developed by the Office of the High Commissioner and will be very useful in the first data collection phase of the UPR. Mr. President, At this stage of this facilitation process we already notice many aspects of the UPR where views are converging. It seems we all want a functioning, meaningful, effective, and workable mechanism. This is a very good starting point for this process. Some of the views on general criteria for the UPR seem to be common to most proposals. The EU wishes to build upon them in our future work on the UPR: The resolution 60/251 is the non-negotiable basis for the UPR. In the light of the discussions so far, it seems that most delegations understand the key elements of this resolution in the same way. As a complementary component within the human rights system, the UPR will neither duplicate the treaty bodies nor substitute the work of the Human Rights Council or its Special Procedures. The UPR will therefore be one among a number of tools at the disposal of the HRC. The UPR mechanism must bring added value to the human rights system as a whole. Therefore, the review of states should be conducted with a view towards implementation and follow-up and thus contribute to the advancement of the protection of all human rights on the ground. This way the UPR becomes effective. Also, we all seem to agree on the need for an efficient and manageable mechanism that makes best use of the available resources and capacities of both delegations and the OHCHR. As for how the UPR should look like in practice, some basic parameters can already be identified. They concern the periodicity of the review (there must be a fixed and equal rhythm for all states); the basis for the review (a list of key issues that identifies the challenges a state faces in fulfilling its human rights obligations); the process for the review (a few separate phases); the composition of the review body (member states with input from experts); as well as the outcome and follow-up to the review (outcome and follow-up decided by the Council itself). The EU has submitted a model for the UPR to the Secretariat. In the following the main features of this model are detailed. All the parameters mentioned above are included in this model. The objectives and guiding principles of the review The key objective of the review mechanism should be the enhancement of the implementation of states' human rights obligations and commitments. It should complement, not duplicate, inter alia, the implementation of the recommendations, conclusions and decisions of independent human rights bodies, in particular the Treaty Monitoring Bodies, the Special Procedures and relevant regional arrangements. It should also aim to assist states to ratify treaties to which they are not yet parties. The review should also aim at encouraging full cooperation and engagement with independent human rights bodies, in particular Treaty Bodies and Special Procedures, as well as with the HRC, the OHCHR and relevant regional organisations. The EU underlines the importance of transparency throughout the process, both during the preparatory phase and the review itself. This implies that the process should be conducted in public and that participation of all relevant stakeholders is ensured. In the following, more detailed ideas are provided, based on these guiding principles. The framework of the review ... the fulfilment by each State of its human rights obligations and commitments... The resolution provides for a comprehensive basis of review, covering all human rights obligations and commitments. This includes, inter alia, obligations arising from the UN Charter, the UDHR, treaties and other instruments. Also commitments undertaken in the voluntary pledges by states when presenting their candidatures to the Council are relevant. In the UN context, the mechanism is unique in a sense that it can assess the human rights work done by a state and the obstacles it faces in that process. This should be seen as a strength and a value-added of the process. The review should be guided by the principles that all rights are universal, indivisible, interrelated, interdependent and mutually reinforcing and that the process should examine all states at a regular interval which would be the same for all states. An effective diagnosis of a state's human rights challenges will be crucial for the identification of these issues and for the success of the UPR. It would be useful if the OHCHR compiled available information, such as reports and conclusions from Treaty Bodies and Special Procedures, other reports from within the UN system, relevant regional organisations, national institutions and NGOs, as well as information the state concerned would want to contribute. The resolution states that the mechanism shall complement and not duplicate the work of treaty bodies, and this should be borne in mind when discussing the framework of the review. A factor in the review will be the same rights and obligations as those the treaty bodies examine. In order to ensure that the mechanism does not duplicate the work of the treaty bodies, it is important that it does not conduct a second substantive assessment of compliance with treaty obligations. For those states that have not ratified treaties, the mechanism will provide a forum for discussing human rights compliance on the basis of the information from different sources, compiled by the OHCHR. The procedure and preparation of the review As stated earlier, the EU is in favour of establishing a separate inter-sessional working group or sub-committee responsible for undertaking the review, in order to ensure that the Council does not become over-burdened with the review. However, the EU believes that the final outcome should be dealt with in the Council plenary. The review process should be conducted under the authority of the Council and it should make best use of expert input and involvement. As stated earlier, a background document will be of crucial importance. Compiling this document, and identifying the key issues in relation to each country are typically tasks that are better conducted by the Office of the High Commissioner. At this stage of the work, the process should draw from the expertise of all relevant stakeholders, including Special Procedures. On the basis of this, various options could be considered, and the EU would like to offer one possible model for consideration : 1) The OHCHR compiles a dossier with existing information and recommendations, based on consultations with, in particular, Treaty Bodies, Special Procedures, other UN agencies, relevant regional organisations, NGOs and NHRIs, and with possible input from the state concerned. 2) Key issues will be identified from the dossier to constitute the diagnosis of the State's human rights challenges. 3) Based on the list of key issues, a sub-committee or working group will conduct an inclusive dialogue with the State. This would take place in an open session. Participation of Special Procedures, NGOs, NHRIs, and other UN agencies must be ensured. The working group or sub-committee discusses and approves a draft outcome document. 4) The draft outcome document will be submitted to the plenary for discussion and approval. The State concerned could then give pledges / commitments on the basis of the outcome document. Any plenary time used up by the UPR would be added to the 10 weeks of the Council. Outcome and follow-up to the review A key to an effective UPR must be that the outcome leads to concrete improvements on the ground. It should identify needs and opportunities to assist States through capacity building and technical cooperation, recommend practical measures to the State concerned and other actors (such as UN funds and programmes), serve as a forum for exchanging best practices and also decide on additional measures to be taken by the Council itself, if needed (i.a. the Council could appoint a special rapporteur, a fact finding mission, it could issue further recommendations to other UN bodies or recommend other follow-up measures). It should also be considered how to ensure the dissemination of information, including at the final stages of the UPR, to ensure that all stakeholders are aware of the process and its outcome. In this context, it would be useful to create a real time UPR database that would be open for all stakeholders to consult freely. Mr. President, Our model will of course still need some fine-tuning. But an important principle that we support is not to overburden the process with too much detailed procedural rules. In order to have a meaningful review process focused on implementation and capacity building we should not have a too formal structure but allow for incremental development of review practices. Thank you, Mr. President.   5