Statement by Ambassador Masood Khan, Coordinator of the OIC Group on Human Rights and Humanitarian Issues at the Informal Consultations on the Universal Peer Review and the Review of Mandates 21 July 2006 Mr. President, I have the honour to make this statement on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. We thank you for launching this process. The Working Groups on the Universal Periodic Review and Review of Mandates should work in tandem. Their schedules be publicised well in time to enable the delegates to properly prepare for their meetings. Mr. President, We are comfortable with the working methods and designation of responsibilities put in place by you. We welcome designation of Ambassadors of Morocco, Czech Republic, Jordan, and Switzerland for facilitation. We understand that you, Mr. President, will have the overall oversight to push the process though the plenary. Now, I will make some general comments. We will go into specifics in the forthcoming sessions. At the moment, we will stick to the headlines, not the detailed story. The mechanism of the Universal Periodic Review conceptualized in the resolution could be an effective way to reduce selectivity and political targeting. This mechanism by providing an objective review through constructive engagement with the States can make a valuable contribution in realizing our new vision and approach for the work of the international human rights machinery. Mr. President, The Resolution A/60/251 has defined the following parameters of the Universal Periodic Review mechanism in OP-5(e): - objective and reliable information; - fulfilment by each state of its commitments and obligations; a cooperative mechanism based on interactive dialogue with the full involvement of the country concerned; capacity building and technical assistance; universality of coverage and equal treatment to all States; non-duplication of the work of treaty bodies. The resolution also provides that “the Council shall develop modalities and time allocation within one year after holding its first session.” The direction and guidance given by the resolution for evolving modalities and time allocation for the Universal Periodic Review is clear and unambiguous. We need to strive for its faithful implementation. Mr. President, Our objective is to develop a cooperative mechanism providing for a constructive dialogue. The aim is not to create a human rights court or a tribunal or a policing system. Such attempts would be divisive and self-defeating. The OIC has prepared a Paper giving its perspective on the issue, which will continue to evolve as we advance in the process. Many organizations, including WTO, ILO, IAEA, IMF, NEPAD and OECD, have existing review mechanisms. These could be studied in the process of developing modalities for the Universal Periodic Review mechanism. The challenge in our consultative process is to crystallize all available references, views and literature to develop a credible Universal Periodic Review mechanism of the Human Rights Council in conformity with the principles laid down in Resolution A/60/251. The key questions requiring focus are: (1) Periodicity of review and time allocation; (2) System of preparation of reports and their submission; (3) Review Format; and (4) Outcome. All these issues will be subject of extensive consultations in this process. Mr. President, Periodicity and time allocation are related to the time which Council would allocate to the Universal Periodic Review during each year. There is no great divergence of views on this question. The basic principle is that every state has to be reviewed under the Universal Periodic Review. Whether 30 or 40 or 60 countries would be reviewed or whether we should have a 3 or a 6 year cycle – these details we should work out early in the process. The Universal Periodic Review should not become a judicial or quasi-judicial process. The reporting procedure and requirements of the Universal Periodic Review, therefore, should be simple and easy. The reports should come from the countries concerned on a prescribed format. The format of review should be an interactive dialogue in the Plenary of the Council. The dialogue should be conducted in a positive and constructive spirit. It should focus on the areas of achievement, difficulties and challenges and needs for capacity building and technical assistance. It should take into account the level of development of a country and its socio-cultural specificities. The outcome of the Universal Periodic Review should be a consensual summary reflecting the discussions and containing recommendations. The focus should be on capacity building and provision of technical assistance on the request of the country concerned and in accordance with its specific requirements. Capacity building is not an abstract concept. For that we need judicious allocation of resources and their optimal utilization. Mr. President, The OIC supports the process of informal consultations for devising modalities of the UPR mechanism for the Human Rights Council. We believe that these consultations will soon lead us to the inter-sessional open-ended intergovernmental working group. The UPR should start after the adoption of the consensual outcome of the Working Group by the Human Rights Council. The OIC shall submit a preliminary proposal on the UPR, which we shall continue to refine. We will look at other proposals and benefit from their contents. Review of Mandates Mr. President, The OIC’s brief initial comments on the review of mandates are following: The number of mandates be rationalized by eliminating duplication and terminating those mandates having fulfilled their objective. Limitation of terms may be introduced to allow for entry of new experts. The manual of operations should include a code of conduct, criteria of admissibility of communications, guidelines for media interaction and country visits upon request. Improvement in reporting procedures and quality of reporting. Comments of states may be incorporated in the reports before making reports public. The OHCHR should allocate the resources to all special rapporteurs in a transparent and balanced manner. The staff of the Special Procedures Branch should be appointed according to professional criteria and on long term basis. An evaluation system may be instituted to review the performance of mandate holders. Thematic rapporteurs should focus on thematic work and should not report on country-specific situations. I thank you Mr. President.