This lesson will discuss how best to use the UPR from a civil society perspective.

When thinking about how best to use the UPR, it is necessary to understand how this process can add value and provide new kinds of action and impact for members of civil society who are pursuing the improvement of human rights within a given country context. Some aspects concerning what makes the UPR unique and of use are presented below:

A level playing field: As has been seen previously, the UPR is a State-led process that aims to level the playing field in how the international human rights system addresses situations in every country across the globe. States with historically poor human rights records are subjected to the same process as States with significantly better human rights records. Very large States with huge populations are accorded the same time as very small States. This egalitarian approach results in all States perceiving this system as being fair. Under other systems, including the now-defunct Commission on Human Rights, States have often complained of being targeted by selective or politically motivated actions and used this to justify a lack of action concerning recommendations made to them concerning even the most grave of rights violations. The UPR is designed to remove this justification for inaction.

A peer review: Another crucial aspect of the UPR is that it is a peer review among States. This is significant in that it produces recommendations that are made by one State concerning another State. Other mechanisms within the international system, such as the Special Procedures and the Treaty Monitoring Bodies, comprise independent experts. States that are unwilling to cooperate often ignore such experts’ recommendations, or even attempt to discredit such experts personally. The UPR, however, is based on recommendations between States, which are more difficult to simply ignore without a diplomatic cost.

A political system: While human rights are enshrined in international legal instruments as well as domestic laws, one of the great barriers to their implementation in reality remains the lack of political will on the part of the relevant authorities at the national level. The UPR is interesting in that it has potential to engender political will by States in ways that other components of the international system do not, as mentioned above. Technical, legalistic analysis of human rights situations is better suited to the Special Procedures or the Treaty Bodies. The UPR is a far more political system, and as such is better at dealing with a few, key issues, so it is important to approach the process strategically.

A new challenge: Additionally, it must be noted that non-governmental organizations have very little formal space in the UPR process. They can submit reports, but these are summarised by the UN into a single report, which is not given enough attention during the UPR Working Group’s review process. NGOs can only speak at the end of the UPR process, just before the adoption of the final report, and can therefore not expect to have a significant impact on this outcome. While these aspects are regrettable, this situation does not mean that NGOs cannot play a significant role in the UPR process as a whole. Limitations concerning the public process should not be viewed as just a negative. Keeping the UPR as a peer review between States does have some advantages, as noted in the section above. So far the UPR process has seen a much more positive engagement by States as compared with other processes, such as Treaty Monitoring Body sessions, concerning which many States only submit reports years or even decades late. In many cases, recommendations made by Special Procedures have been completely ignored. So far, the majority of States have reported on time concerning the UPR. The UPR process forces NGOs to make their voices heard indirectly through the States that are participating in the UPR Working Group, which, while a challenge in itself, results in recommendations that the concerned States find much more difficult to ignore. This is the key new challenge and opportunity that the UPR provides for civil society actors.

Although it is still too early to tell, as the second cycle has not yet begun, it can be hoped that States will show greater willingness to implement the recommendations made by peer States. The upcoming second cycle of the UPR, which will include as a major component of its work the assessment of States’ implementation of recommendations made during the first cycle, will be a barometer concerning whether the UPR can be effective in leading to changes in the situation of human rights at the national level.

Opportunities for civil society to engage the UPR effectively: NGOs and other civil society actors have a range of opportunities throughout the entire UPR process to have an impact concerning its relevance and effectiveness, and therefore the possibility of the improvement of human rights at the national level in the State under review.

Prior to the review
Civil society actors, notably those at the national level, have a significant role to play in the lead up to the UPR review, including through the following activities:

1. Evaluation of implementation: Civil society comprises some of the key independent watchdogs concerning human rights and their expertise is vital in ensuring that international efforts, including the UPR, are relevant, realistic and effective. Civil society actors are ideally placed to conduct an assessment of the levels to which the government is fulfilling its obligations under international human rights laws and standards, as well as the level of implementation of recommendations, including those made during the previous UPR cycle. Ideally, this assessment should be continuous and not conducted just prior to the State’s next UPR review. The more precise, factual and complete the assessment, the more useful it can be.
2. Consultations with the government: As part of the UPR process, governments are supposed to hold national-level consultations that include civil society actors. Where the situation and security allows, NGOs should engage with the government to make recommendations and urge it to make specific commitments in the State’s report to the UPR. NGOs can also use such consultations to request information from the government concerning its activities and efforts to implement previous recommendations.
3. Consultations among civil society: It is important to carry out consultations among civil society groups before the UPR review in order to assess where there may be common ground that could lead to the formation of a coalition of NGOs and the production of a joint report, as well as to discuss the key areas of concern and to decide on how best to burden share. Under the UPR, civil society groups are urged to form coalitions where possible, and are given the incentive of a doubled word allowance for joint reports. One such report on Papua, Indonesia was jointly submitted by the Asian Human Rights Commission, Franciscans International and the Faith Based Network on West Papua: AHRC-SPR-002-2011-Indonesia.pdf.
4. Reporting: The production of reports is a key element, of course, but should not be seen as an end in itself. NGOs that prepare reports and send them off to the UN, but do not back these efforts up by strategic advocacy, are unlikely to see significant impact concerning their efforts.
 
5. Strategic advocacy: In order to have an impact on the State-led UPR process, civil society actors should engage in a range of information and advocacy activities to supplement the production of reports. As can be seen below, most of the advocacy activities can actually be carried out at the national level by civil society actors. This removes the need to go to Geneva in order to be effective in this process, as compared with many other aspects of work with the Human Rights Council, which adds to the value of the UPR to national level actors.

Media: In the first place, the UPR provides an opportunity to engage public opinion concerning human rights, and this can have an impact on the government’s behaviour and willingness to participate effectively in the UPR. It is therefore important to ensure that media attention is given to NGO reports that are submitted to the UN. It is also important to provide commentary in the media concerning the State’s report and any implementation or lack thereof concerning prior recommendations.

States: Alongside national public opinion, the States that participate in the UPR Working Group and are seen as having the potential to play a positive role, should be key targets for strategic advocacy. Civil society actors can use their UPR reports as the basis for meetings with diplomatic missions of such States in their countries. Advocacy should be based on clear, measurable and action-oriented recommendations produced by civil society. Diplomatic missions should be requested to communicate the need for their government to make specific recommendations to the State under review in the upcoming UPR session. Civil society actors can also follow this up by communicating their key priority recommendations to the relevant State capitals, notably their Ministries of Foreign Affairs or the equivalent, who will likely be tasked with framing that State’s input and recommendations in the UPR process. Finally, it is also possible to write to these States’ Permanent Missions to the United Nations in Geneva, as they will also have a role in participating in the Working Group itself.

Such advocacy should be started several months before the relevant UPR Working Group session, as attempts to get States to include specific recommendations in their interventions take time and cannot be expected to be successful if only carried out in the days before the review. NGOs that have the capacity to go to Geneva to lobby these Permanent Missions can also find this helpful, although this should be done at least several weeks in advance of the State’s review. It must be noted that States can ask questions in advance to the State under review, with these questions being posted on the UN OHCHR’s website and being included in the review itself, giving added motivation to civil society actors to lobby States well in advance of the reviews.

Different States have different areas of interest and may be able to play a more or less human rights friendly role in the UPR, depending on whether they have a presence in the country under review, whether they have positive or negative relations with the State, and whether they have a pro-human rights agenda in the country and at the international level. In order to establish which States may be likely to intervene during the UPR concerning specific thematic areas of human rights, it can be useful to consult a database of recommendations made during other UPR reviews by each target State, which can be found here: http://www.upr-info.org/database/.

During the review
As has been stated above, civil society actors have a very limited public role to play during the UPR review itself. They cannot take the floor and intervene orally during the review. They can, however, conduct events, such as public discussions and media conferences alongside the review, and these can be of use in highlighting key issues, although it may not be cost effective to travel to Geneva just for such a purpose, notably as the UPR reviews themselves are webcast, allowing civil society actors to follow sessions from the national level. Civil society can assist in ensuring that the wider public is informed about the review taking place. In some countries, civil society organizations have worked to ensure that the review was broadcasted on local television channels and followed by programming discussing the review, for example.

Following the review
Once the review has been conducted, civil society actors again have a significant role to play. It is important to disseminate information, including through the media, notably about the recommendations that were made to the State under Review, as well as commentary on which ones the State accepted and is therefore expected to implement, or those that it did not accept. Civil society groups should then begin the process of assessment of the implementation of these recommendations, and where helpful, communicate with the government concerning its implementation record. In cases where the government is failing to implement recommendations, it is vital to highlight these publicly, as well as to provide such information to the States that made the recommendations in question, as these have a key role to play in ensuring continuing pressure on the government to live up to its promises made during the UPR process. As part of the review of the Human Rights Council’s mechanisms in 2011, States have been encouraged to provide mid-term reports on their implementation of UPR recommendations. Civil society groups have an important role to play in urging the government to produce a mid-term report on the one hand, and on the other, can also produce mid-term assessments of their own. This keeps the discussion and momentum going throughout the four and a half year cycle, rather than limiting the utility of the UPR to the few weeks prior to and following the review. Such assessments of implementation then feed into the subsequent review cycle, and the process begins again.

Questions For Discussion

1. Discuss how you would conduct effective advocacy before, during and after the UPR, including through the media, civil society partnerships and with other states.
2. Discuss how you would go about evaluating the level of implementation of recommendations made to a State during the first cycle, and give examples concerning specific examples.