TOP > Statements and Appeals > Past Statements

UN Human Rights Council 8th session
Item 6: General Debate
Friday, 13 June 2008

Joint statement on behalf of the Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA), International Movement Against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism (IMADR), International NGO Forum on Indonesian Development (INFID), and Asian Legal Resource Centre (ALRC)

Mr. President,

The first two rounds of the Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review saw the consideration of a large number of Asian states, including India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Japan, South Korea, Indonesia and the Philippines. As civil society groups based in Asia, we welcome this important opportunity to review the overall human rights situation in individual countries in the region, particularly as the lack of a regional human rights mechanism in Asia makes this opportunity all the more significant for Asian countries.

Civil society groups in Asia have sought to contribute to the enhancement of the UPR process, by actively engaging in domestic preparations both by civil society and the state, the provision of information for the stakeholders’ report, engagement at the UN level and interaction with national human rights institutions where they exist. We regret however that in many Asian countries, states have not undertaken broad-ranging and meaningful consultations with all stakeholders, including by ensuring participation by local, grass roots and national NGOs. We hope that consultation processes will be improved not only in those Asian countries with upcoming reviews, and in the second UPR round from 2012, but also in follow-up and implementation of UPR recommendations at the national level for those states who have already been reviewed. It is those organisations who work with victims on the ground who can provide the most accurate and salient picture of the actual level of implementation of international legal provisions and standards, as opposed to their mere ratification on paper, and gaps that require addressing in this regard. Such information is vital not only for an effective UPR review, but also for its effective follow up.

In this regard, we would also encourage the development of a practice involving a more active role for Troika members during the UPR, in facilitating the posing of questions to the state under review by all stakeholders, including NGOs, either in writing or as part of the interactive dialogue in the working group. Further, as the UPR mechanism is still a work in progress, we would encourage broad consultations, including with other stakeholders such as National Human Rights Institutions and members of civil society with regard to the ongoing development of modalities used, in order to ensure the most effective process envisaged for the protection and promotion of human rights.

Mr. President,

We believe the true value and meaning of the UPR process in fact begins now, and will be seen only where states are committed to the effective implementation of recommendations accepted and voluntary pledges made. To this end, the Human Rights Council should encourage regular reporting and follow up on implementation of commitments made during the UPR process in the interim period between 4 year UPR cycles for all countries. There is a compelling need for such time bound implementation and follow up, given, in our collective experience, the grave nature of many of the human rights abuses occurring in many of the states under review.

We as members of civil society also stand willing to assist in whatever means possible to facilitate implementation of UPR recommendations, in order to improve the situation of the victims of human rights abuses we work with in each of our respective countries. We hope in this regard that national governments will create an environment conducive to effective civil society engagement in implementation of UPR recommendations.

Thank you.