TOP > Statements and Appeals > HRC structure and NGO participation in HRC

Baha’i International Community, Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies,
Colombian Commission of Jurists, International Movement Against All Forms of Discrimination and Racism (IMADR).

Agenda item 6, general debate on Universal Periodic Review

I have the privilege today to speak to this Council on behalf of a group of national and southern NGOs, and whom, united, represent a global voice at this Council. As pointed out by the High Commissioner in her speech a week ago, a main objective of the UPR process is to improve the “human rights situation on the ground” in the country under review. National and Southern NGOs based in a country under review will be often be in the best position to give an “on the ground” assessment of the human rights situation in a particular country. As such, these NGOs will be an important input and participant in the UPR process, yet little effort has been made by this Council to aid national and southern NGOs in their endeavors to contribute to this process.

All NGOs, and especially those based in the global south, need more than a formal commitment to allow for their input. These NGOs need a system of procedures and practice that allows them, indeed, encourages them to effectively participate in every step of the UPR process. According to HRC Res. 5/1, para. 3, this Council has the obligation to “ensure” the participation of all relevant stakeholders in the UPR process. This is qualitatively different than the duty to simply allow participation, and includes an obligation to actively take measures that will encourage and facilitate the participation of all relevant stakeholders.

Several steps can and should be taken by this Council to ensure the effective participation of National and Southern NGOs in the UPR process:
1.The formation of a set of General Guidelines for the preparation of information is welcomed. This should be built on with a set of General Guidelines on how states are to carry out a national consultative process with all relevant stakeholders, as required by the UPR guidelines.
2.The financial burden that would be placed on NGOs not based in Geneva, especially from Least Developed Countries (LDCs), to travel to and attend a session of the UPR review, may be prohibitive to ensuring their participation and the transparency of the process. To ensure the UPR review is transparent and accessible to these NGOs and all other relevant stakeholders, it is important that the UPR sessions be web cast in the same manner as in the Human Rights Council, and that this arrangement is not based on an ad hoc arrangement through voluntary contributions but permanently institutionalized.
3.We recognize the need for a Voluntary Trust Fund for LDCs. We ask that this Council also recognize the additional need for a voluntary trust fund for NGOs from Developing and Least Developed countries. Such a fund should be established either by this Council or the OHCHR in order to ensure that NGOs from all countries under review have the financial resources to gather and submit information for, as well as attend the UPR sessions.
4.National laws should be used to structure the UPR review process only in so far as they do not contradict with customary international human rights standards, and which do not prohibit the ability of NGOs located within these states from effectively contributing to the UPR process, such as through repressive civil society regulations.
5.All technical and procedural requirements for NGOs to submit information to the OHCHR for the UPR compilation should take into consideration NGOs based in developing countries. These procedures and standards should encourage rather then limit the ability of NGOs that possess limited resources and/or operate under repressive conditions to contribute reliable information.
6.The HRC should make it clear that the UPR process does not and should not be interpreted as superseding or rendering the country mandate system irrelevant. The purposes and outcomes of each are radically different. The UPR is a general, periodic review. Country Mandates are intended to respond to particular, urgent human rights situations as they arise. The Country Mandate system is safeguarded by paragraph 17 of HRC Resolution 5/1, which states that the UPR process “should not diminish the council’s capacity to respond to urgent human rights situations.” If the UPR process is used by this Council to disengage from country mandates the legitimacy of both the UPR process and this entire Council will be greatly damaged among southern and nationally based NGOs, as country mandates have played a crucial role to these NGOs, especially where a lack of domestic remedies for human rights violations exists.