Statement by Ambassador Masood Khan, Coordinator of the OIC Group on Human Rights and Humanitarian Issues at the Information Consultations on the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) 2 August 2006 (Ambassador Mohammed Loulichki of Morocco in Chair-Room XIX) Mr. Chairman, I have the honour to make this statement on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. The OIC deeply appreciates convening of these informal consultations in pursuance of the Human Rights Council’s decision 2006/103. The OIC has full confidence that under your able leadership you will help steer these important consultations on the UPR to a solid outcome. We also thank Ambassador Clemencia Forero Ucros of Colombia for referring to the inputs given by the OIC in the recent past. We thank you for giving us a six-point structure for our work: terms of reference; objective; process; practical arrangements; outcome; and follow-up. These points need detailed examination, which the OIC will undertake in due course and give a fuller input to you. We would give our preliminary input during today’s consultations. Mr. Chairman, The OIC has consistently emphasized the importance of the institution building process of the Human Rights Council. We believe that the outcome of the two working groups on the UPR and the Review of Mandates will have great impact on the future work of the Human Rights Council. Therefore, the Member States of the Human Rights Council, Observer States as well as NGOs should continue to make their contribution to these consultations to ensure a successful outcome from this process after completion of the one year period stipulated in Resolution A/60/251. At the last informal consultations on July 21, the OIC had indicated that it will present its proposals on the UPR and Review of Mandates. Accordingly, the OIC Group on Human Rights and Human Issues in Geneva has prepared two papers to facilitate consultations on the UPR and Review of Mandates. These papers have been posted on the Council’s extranet page. We thank the Secretariat for doing so. The OIC paper on the UPR makes proposals on the basis of the review; principles and parameters; the modalities; periodicity; time allocation; review format; reports; outcome; follow-up; and commencement of the UPR. This paper will continue to evolve as we move forward in our consultations. We will listen very attentively to other delegations’ proposals and assimilate them as we go along. Let me introduce this paper, which should help move us from the general to the specific. [The attached OIC proposal on the UPR was read out.] Mr. Chairman, I would also like to make the following additional points: a) The Working Groups on the UPR and Review of Mandates should work in tandem. Progress in one should not be at the expense of the other. Their pace should be harmonized. b) As the two Working Groups will deal with several overlapping issues, we should create some space for convergence between their work and a coordination mechanism to facilitate this task, as proposed by the Ambassador of Colombia. c) The working methods of the Working Group on the UPR should be clearly spelt out and circulated to the Council members and observers. d) A time-table for the work of the Working Group may be announced to help delegations prepare and organize their participation. e) In addition to the informal consultations, a formal setting should be created for negotiations. The suggestion is not to allocate time for general statements, but to facilitate negotiations on an outcome document. f) Now that the Human Rights Council and its Working Group are in the driving seat, all informal processes outside the Council should be suspended and subsumed into the Council’s work. If there is added value in having seminars, they could be associated with the Geneva process. There should be no distraction from the centrality of the Council-driven negotiations on the UPR. There is no doubt that the Lausanne process made valuable contribution last year. Finally, Mr. Chairman, when you do your summing up of this session, we would request you to give us an idea of the calendar of the Working Group on the UPR between now and September, during the September session, and beyond the September session. I thank you Mr. Chairman. ---------------------------- OIC Paper on the UPR 30 July 2006 THE UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW BY THE HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL I. BASIS OF THE REVIEW: INSTRUMENTS, LAWS, COMMITMENTS The UPR should be based on and guided by the following: The UN Charter; The Universal Declaration of Human Rights; Obligations arising from treaties to which the State is a Party; State’s domestic laws; and Commitments and pledges made by the State being reviewed. Additionally, the UPR should duly take into consideration the following factors: Level of development of the state(s); Religious and socio-cultural specificities, if applicable. II. PRINCIPLES AND PARAMETERS OP-5(e) of Resolution A/60/251 lays down following principles and parameters for the Universal Periodic Review by the Human Rights Council: 1. It will be based on objective and reliable information; 2. It will review fulfillment by each state of its human rights obligations in a manner which ensures universality of coverage and equality of treatment with respect to all states; 3. It will be a cooperative mechanism based on interactive dialogue with the full involvement of the country concerned; 4. Consideration will be given to the capacity building needs of the concerned state(s); 5. Such a mechanism will complement and not duplicate the work of treaty bodies. 6. The Council shall develop modalities and time allocation within one year after holding its first session. The OP-9 of the Resolution A/60/251 stipulates that Members shall be reviewed under the UPR mechanism during their term of membership. The UPR will be a member-driven exercise. III. MODALITIES A. Periodicity and time allocation Suggested Alternative One Cycle of Review: Five years (to cover all UN Member States) Number of states to be examined each year: 35 to 40 Time allocation for review of each state: 2 hours Number of days required for UPR in one year: 12 to 14 days Suggested Alternative Two Cycle of review: Multiple cycles according to the level of development of States. Developed countries (35) -Every three years (11 per year) Developing countries (106) -Every five years (20 per year) LDCs (50) -Every seven years (7 per year) Number of states to be examined each year: 40 Time allocation foe review of each state: 3 hours Number of days required for UPR in one year: 20 B. Review Format (1) Dialogue: Interactive dialogue in the Plenary of the Council that would consist of: (i) Presentation of the report by the state concerned; (ii) Interactive dialogue involving Member States of the Council; (iii) Responses by the state concerned; and (iv) Adoption of the outcome (2) Reviewers: Member States of the Human Rights Council will conduct the review. Observer states and NGOs with the ECOSOC Consultative status may attend to observe the proceedings of the UPR. (3) Spirit: The dialogue should be conducted in a positive and constructive spirit. Confrontation should be avoided. C. Reports The core review should be based on the report prepared by the state concerned and submitted to the Council according to a specified timeline. The reports of the treaty bodies as well as information available from Special Rapporteurs and other UN sources on the state concerned should also be available as additional information. The report of the state should contain objective information on basic facts; areas of achievement; deficits and challenges; and requirements of capacity building and technical assistance. Collation of data should focus on the following: (a) Basic facts regarding the country including size, population breakdown of gender, minorities, etc. as well as information relating to socio-economic indicators such as GDP growth rate, trade balance, natural resources, health and education infrastructure, employment rate, etc.; (b) Institutional infrastructure in the field of human rights: constitutional measures, National Human Rights Institution, Parliamentary institutions, Government departments, judiciary and other special institutions like ombudsman; (c) Status of ratifications of international human rights conventions. However, the review may not be solely focused on the treaty bodies; (d) Religious and socio-cultural specificities, if applicable (e) Affirmative programmes for women, children, minorities (where applicable); (f) Role and independence of media, NGOs and civil society. IV. OUTCOME AND FOLLOW-UP Outcome of the review should be a summary of the UPR proceedings containing recommendations and should be adopted by consensus. Follow-up should include: (a) Any voluntary initiatives by the state concerned in pursuance of the discussions in the review; (b) Technical cooperation programmes at the request of the state; (c) Review of progress in the next UPR of the State. Follow up should itself be reviewed on the basis of the empirical evidence gathered from its operation. V. PROCESS (1) The Council in its first session every year should approve: (a) Standard Questionnaire to be sent to the states to be reviewed. (b) List of countries to be reviewed under UPR mechanism during the year. The list should take into account that members of the Council would be the first to be subject of review although each year a mix of Council members and non-member states should be reviewed. The inclusion of non-member states in the list should be either alphabetically or on voluntary basis; (b) Schedule indicating the time of consideration of each country to be reviewed should be circulated by the Secretariat. The list of countries to be reviewed and the schedule should be placed on the Council’s extranet page; (2) Report by the State to be reviewed should be furnished to the Council Secretariat one week in advance of the Session of the Council in which it is to be reviewed; (3) Time limits for report presentation and interventions may be finalized by the Bureau in consultation with the states; (4) A Rapporteur from one of the Member States of the Council may be designated to coordinate the process and ensure smooth conduct of the review. VI. COMMENCEMENT The review should start after adoption of the consensual outcome of the modalities of the UPR by the Council. --------------- Referred to as UPR Referred to as the Council