As of 02 August 2006 Working Paper – Proposal of the Philippines Proposed Modalities for the Universal Periodic Review Aims and objectives OP5(e) of GA Resolution A/60/251 which states that the Human Rights Council “will undertake a universal periodic review, based on objective and reliable information, of the fulfillment by each State of its human rights obligations and commitments in a manner which ensures universality of coverage and equal treatment with respect to all States; the review shall be a cooperative mechanism, based on an interactive dialogue, with the full involvement of the country concerned and with consideration given to its capacity-building needs; such a mechanism shall complement and not duplicate the work of treaty bodies; the Council shall develop the modalities and necessary time allocation of the universal periodic review mechanism within one year after the holding of its first session”. The review should be manageable and not pose an additional reporting burden to the state under review. Timelines Total duration of 6 to 9 months for the whole review process, encompassing the following core review activities: Preparation of a questionnaire in standard format containing elements common to all countries to be reviewed as well as issues specific to the state under review; State’s submission of replies to the questionnaire; 3-hour interactive dialogue; and Adoption of the review’s outcome document at a Council plenary. 3-hour interactive dialogue (the heart of the UPR process) Ideally, 1-hour maximum per state for Council’s adoption of outcome document with recommendations All UN member states reviewed once in a 3 to 5-year cycle Order of prioritization of states for review Council members during their term of membership Volunteer non-member countries Rest of non-members [All of the above based on geographic distribution and in alphabetical order] Agreed principles, standards and criteria General principles, standards and criteria to be utilized in the review should be applied to all UN member states. For application to all states would be, for example, the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. These shall be supplemented by elements specific to the state under review which could include the following: human rights conventions to which the state is a party; pre-election pledge; commitments and obligations pledged in international human rights conferences and meetings; domestic system for human rights protection and promotion (policy, programs, laws, national human rights institution, etc.). Questionnaire The questionnaire is an essential part of the review. It takes the place of the previously proposed country report/country presentation. It should embody the agreed principles, standards and criteria mentioned above and shall serve as the basis for the interactive dialogue. Inputs in drafting the questionnaire should be obtained from the existing body of information – reports of treaty bodies, special procedures, complaints mechanisms and other relevant UN entities, and from relevant NGOs with ECOSOC consultative status. Specific questions for each state should take into account the following: human rights conventions to which the state is a party; pre-election pledge; commitments and obligations pledged in international human rights conferences and meetings; domestic system for human rights protection and promotion (policy, programs, laws, national human rights institution, etc.). Interactive dialogue – cornerstone of UPR It should be a question-and-answer format, perhaps in working groups for manageability. Questions are based mainly on the questionnaire although additional questions may be posed; questions should be given to the state under review 3 months before the interactive session to give sufficient time to prepare answers. Preferably, a Group of Experts to be established, to be designated by member states, to participate in the interactive discussion. Nevertheless, the council may also have to consider the role of non-member states and the nature of participation of NGOs with consultative ACOSOC status in the dialogue, taking into account the manageability and time constraints of the interactive dialogue session. The state under review The review shall be undertaken with the full collaboration of the state under review. The state should be asked to give inputs and suggestions in the drafting of the questionnaire (to ensure that the issue of specificity is taken into account) as is practiced by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) in the formulation of an outline for the review for its Environmental Performance Review. The state should also be consulted in the drafting of the outcome document. The state shall be given around 3 months to reply to questions requiring further clarification in the interactive session. Outcome document The outcome document shall consist of a summary of proceedings and recommendations on strengthening the state’s capacity to protect and promote human rights. Adoption shall be in a plenary meeting of the Council. Follow-up The state could give a brief annual status report on progress made in the implementation of the recommendations contained in the outcome document and adopted by the Council. The status reports shall serve as inputs in framing an overall assessment which shall then be utilized as reference in that state’s next review session. Summary of review activities and actors involved (core review activities are in bold) Review Phase Actors Involved Questionnaire preparation OHCHR secretariat Council members State under review Approval of questionnaire Council Replying to questionnaire State under review National human rights institution (NHRI) of that state, if one exists 3-hr interactive dialogue Group of Experts State under review Rapporteur designated by Council among its members OHCHR secretariat Drafting of outcome document Rapporteur State under review OHCHR secretariat Adoption of outcome document Council meeting in plenary Submission of replies to questions left unanswered at interactive session (by end of 3rd month after review session) State under review NHRI of that state if one exists Follow-up State makes an annual status report to the Council