Informal Consultations on 
Universal Periodic review and Review of mandates and Mechanisms
Geneva, 21 July 2006

Statement by Ambassador, Deputy Permanent Representative 
of the Islamic Republic of Iran

Universal periodic Review

Mr. President,

The mechanism of the Universal Periodic Review constitutes a breakthrough in the work of the United Nations human rights machinery. The idea behind the universal periodic review is that the Human Rights Council could count on an effective instrument to reduce selectivity and politicization.

-To this end, we wish to see the following in the operationalization of this Mechanism:

-Timeframe for the establishing of the relevant working group should be clear as soon as possible;

- Work in close cooperation with second intersessional working group in charge of the revision of mandates shall be followed. In this connection, we wish to underline that the UPR Working Group should not work independently of the process of review, improve and rationalize all mandates, mechanisms, functions and responsibilities of the CHR, as their work inevitably impact on each other. At certain intervals, there should be convergence between the two processes

The system of universal periodic review we develop must be elaborated by all stakeholders, with equal input from member states, observers, NGOs, and civil society alike;

The status of this new mechanism in relation to special procedures and treaty bodies as well as their interaction should be defined;

In order to avoid political selectivity, the mechanism must be really universal, and all States, with no exception – beginning with the members of the Council- must be scrutinized. It must be carried out on regular basis and for that it could be considered a period of 3 years, coinciding with the term of the membership;

The new mechanism should not used as a tool for the imposition of one group values. On the contrary, its universal character may provide a unique opportunity to reflect the diversity of each and every country and society; 

It should not be a tribunal for accusations of the others;

In order to create an effective but labour – intensive and less costly, the review could be based on the results of a comprehensive, simple and objective questionnaires submitted to the States concerned. The review could be based on the Universal Declaration on Human rights, obligations specifically made by states through their ratification of, or accession to human rights treaties and voluntary pledges in a phased managed process.

If follow up is required, it could be done through a joint statement between the concerned country and for example a Council country task force. This joint statement could include specific commitments of international community for capacity building, technical assistance for promotion of human rights, and in the contrary, concerned country commitments for protection and promotion of human rights;

Members of task force should be elected based on equal geographical distribution, foe example 3 country from 5 different regions;

Space for a genuine interactive dialogue with the States concerned at the final stage of the process is needed;

The council should take into account the capacity – building requirements of the countries concerned;

Review process should take into consideration the important features of the level of development of the States and religious and cultural backgrounds;

The review of a country shall be within one session (3 hours), 





Review of mandates and Mechanisms

Mr. President,

Through L.14 the Council decided to establish an open – ended Working Group to formulate concrete recommendations on the issue of reviewing, during the its first year, and, where necessary, improving and rationalizing all mandates, mechanisms, functions and responsibilities of the CHR.

This working group should not work independently from the working group on the Universal Periodic Review mechanism as their work will have impact on one another.

As working group moves forward, careful consideration should be given to overlapping and duplicative mandates.

Review process, generally, should focus on:

Special procedures
In this regard, what is important is to maintain the highest standards of impartiality, objectivity, independence and expertise. This applies also to the process of selection and appointment of special procedures;

Sub – Commission
The GA resolution provides a legal basis for the Council to maintain a system of expert advice which is crucial in assisting the Council on its work, by carrying out research and collective expertise in the field of critical human rights issues. A comprehensive data on the existing Sub – Commission should be provide. We believe that in order to establish a clear role for a professional group of independent experts significant improvements should be made to the existing election process and operations of the expert body.

1503 procedures
The real performance of this mechanism, in a logical setting, should allow the human rights machinery to act beyond the monopoly, maintained by a few, in monitoring the human rights situations in the countries. Again significant improvement should be made to the numbers of the members of the two its working groups. 

Thank you