AN NUAL REPORT 2012 · 2. CSO Capacity-Building Programme 2.1. Offering technical assistance 2.2....
Transcript of AN NUAL REPORT 2012 · 2. CSO Capacity-Building Programme 2.1. Offering technical assistance 2.2....
AANN
RREE
22
NNNNUUAALL
EEPPOORRTT
22001122
Promoting and strengthening
the Universal Periodic Review
http://www.upr-info.org
Promoting and strengthening the Universal Periodic Reviewhttp://www.upr-info.org
It is with deep enthusiasm and earnestness that I introduce
Report. This year has marked the beginning of the
respect bore great importance for the functioning of the mechanism in the five next
years. We currently encounter a decisive turning point, facing both abundant
opportunities to maximize
achievements, as well as significant challenges which, without diligent attention and
concerted action, could reduce the force of the UPR to effect substantial and
sustainable change on the ground.
2012 was also a turning point for
“pre-sessions” which resulted in the organisation of 35 meetings between 65
Permanent Missions and over 150
These “pre-sessions” aimed at
and the content of the recommendations made.
a platform to raise the issues of importance.
insights into the status of implementation of the recommendations they had made
during the first cycle in order to
statements. During those “pre
trainings on the UPR process and
Another highlight of the year was the release of a study on the implementation of
3’000 recommendations by 66 States. In the framework of the follow
we published a quantitative and qualitative analysis on how States are implementing
recommendations at mid-term. “On the road to implementation” was launched during
a side event with the participation of the Permanent Mission of Norway and Romania
INTRODUCTION
AANNNNUUAALL
Promoting and strengthening Periodic Review
It is with deep enthusiasm and earnestness that I introduce UPR Info’
This year has marked the beginning of the UPR’s second cycle and in this
respect bore great importance for the functioning of the mechanism in the five next
e currently encounter a decisive turning point, facing both abundant
opportunities to maximize the UPR’s potential and consolidate and build upon its
achievements, as well as significant challenges which, without diligent attention and
concerted action, could reduce the force of the UPR to effect substantial and
sustainable change on the ground.
was also a turning point for UPR Info. We launched a new programme, the
sessions” which resulted in the organisation of 35 meetings between 65
Permanent Missions and over 150 civil society organisations (CSOs)
aimed at improving CSOs opportunities to influence the review
the content of the recommendations made. In this way, the pre
a platform to raise the issues of importance. They also provided States with unique
insights into the status of implementation of the recommendations they had made
in order to ensure that they better address them in their
During those “pre-sessions”, we also provided a number of
the UPR process and on how to undertake effective lobbying.
Another highlight of the year was the release of a study on the implementation of
3’000 recommendations by 66 States. In the framework of the follow
we published a quantitative and qualitative analysis on how States are implementing
term. “On the road to implementation” was launched during
a side event with the participation of the Permanent Mission of Norway and Romania
INTRODUCTION
RREEPPOORRTT 22001122
2
UPR Info’s 2012 Annual
second cycle and in this
respect bore great importance for the functioning of the mechanism in the five next
e currently encounter a decisive turning point, facing both abundant
potential and consolidate and build upon its
achievements, as well as significant challenges which, without diligent attention and
concerted action, could reduce the force of the UPR to effect substantial and
launched a new programme, the
sessions” which resulted in the organisation of 35 meetings between 65
civil society organisations (CSOs) in Geneva.
CSOs opportunities to influence the review
the pre-sessions offered
also provided States with unique
insights into the status of implementation of the recommendations they had made
ensure that they better address them in their
mber of CSOs with
effective lobbying.
Another highlight of the year was the release of a study on the implementation of
3’000 recommendations by 66 States. In the framework of the follow-up programme,
we published a quantitative and qualitative analysis on how States are implementing
term. “On the road to implementation” was launched during
a side event with the participation of the Permanent Mission of Norway and Romania
Promoting and strengthening the Universal Periodic Reviewhttp://www.upr-info.org
and provided the ground for a fruitful discussion on the obstacles actors are facing to
implement recommendations as well as solutions to progress forward.
The number of visits to the website
131'000 visits, that is 11'000 visits per month
substantial information on the UPR is proven to match actual needs.
Finally, we were pleased to be granted
Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC
During this fruitful year, we
strengthen the previous ones
make it a successful mechanism for every human being.
AANNNNUUAALL
Promoting and strengthening Periodic Review
vided the ground for a fruitful discussion on the obstacles actors are facing to
implement recommendations as well as solutions to progress forward.
to the website increased again to reach a record figure of
is 11'000 visits per month. More than ever, our broad and
substantial information on the UPR is proven to match actual needs.
Finally, we were pleased to be granted the Special Consultative status by the United
mic and Social Council (ECOSOC).
During this fruitful year, we identified new ways to improve the UPR
strengthen the previous ones; we are committed to continuing our work in order to
t a successful mechanism for every human being.
Executive
RREEPPOORRTT 22001122
3
vided the ground for a fruitful discussion on the obstacles actors are facing to
implement recommendations as well as solutions to progress forward.
increased again to reach a record figure of
More than ever, our broad and
substantial information on the UPR is proven to match actual needs.
the Special Consultative status by the United
ways to improve the UPR and strived to
; we are committed to continuing our work in order to
Roland Chauville
Executive Director
Promoting and strengthening the Universal Periodic Reviewhttp://www.upr-info.org
1. UPR Awareness Raising and Monitoring Programme
1.1. Gathering and clustering all documents on the UPR
1.2. Monitoring the process
1.3. Offer detailed explanations on the process
1.3.1. Developing fact sheets
1.3.2. Survey on advocacy opportunities
1.4. Statements at the Human Rights Council
2. CSO Capacity-Building Programme
2.1. Offering technical assistance
2.2. Participating in trainings and conferences
2.3. Updating the database and developing Statistics tools
3. UPR “Pre-sessions” ................................
3.1. Reminding diplomats about the UPR recommendations they made
4. UPR Follow-up Programme
4.1. Assessment of the UPR follow
4.2. Publication of a study on the implementation of 3’000 recommendations
4.3. Providing CSOs the
AANNNNUUAALL
Promoting and strengthening Periodic Review
Table of Contents
UPR Awareness Raising and Monitoring Programme ................................
Gathering and clustering all documents on the UPR ................................
Monitoring the process ................................................................
Offer detailed explanations on the process ................................
Developing fact sheets ................................................................
Survey on advocacy opportunities ..........................................................
Statements at the Human Rights Council ................................
Building Programme ................................................................
Offering technical assistance ................................................................
Participating in trainings and conferences ................................
Updating the database and developing Statistics tools ...............................
...........................................................................................
Reminding diplomats about the UPR recommendations they made
up Programme ................................................................
Assessment of the UPR follow-up of 65 countries ................................
Publication of a study on the implementation of 3’000 recommendations
Providing CSOs the tools for following up: the Follow-up Kit .......................
RREEPPOORRTT 22001122
4
......................................... 6
..................................... 6
.................................................. 6
................................................... 7
............................................ 7
.......................... 8
...................................................... 8
.................................... 9
......................................... 9
................................................... 10
............................... 11
........................... 13
Reminding diplomats about the UPR recommendations they made............ 14
............................................... 15
....................................... 15
Publication of a study on the implementation of 3’000 recommendations ... 17
....................... 18
Promoting and strengthening the Universal Periodic Reviewhttp://www.upr-info.org
Three key elements were at stake at the thirteenth
the second cycle: the list of speakers, the number of recommendations
assessment of the implementation of first cycle recommendations.
An average of 68.1 statements were made per Review at the 13
same 14 States were first
denoting an increase of nearly 20 statements per Review
modalities of the list of speakers which made it possible for a greater number
States to take the floor did
recommendations made. In total,
session. The average number of recommendations received by those fourteen States
under Review was 152, which is
received by States during session 12 (143).
up was a mixed bag. While a
both in their National Reports and during their opening statements
progress accomplished to implement recommendations
mentioned the recommendations they had made
accountability to States by building on the previous recommendations.
More broadly, the UPR is facing a major threat to its functioning: a potential breach in
the 100% participation of the 193 member States
May 2012, Israel suspend
Commissioner for Human Rights, the Human Rights Council
subsequent mechanisms” and could therefore potentially not participate in its UPR
scheduled for 29 January 2013. S
States to withdraw, thus endangering
develop modalities that will prevent other States
UPR. It has the responsibility to define the concept of “persi
contained in article 38 of resolution A/HRC/RES5/1
facing such a situation.
A Year in the UPR
AANNNNUUAALL
Promoting and strengthening Periodic Review
y elements were at stake at the thirteenth UPR session in the perspective of
the second cycle: the list of speakers, the number of recommendations
assessment of the implementation of first cycle recommendations.
An average of 68.1 statements were made per Review at the 13th session. When
first reviewed in 2008, the average was 46.4 statements
denoting an increase of nearly 20 statements per Review. However,
modalities of the list of speakers which made it possible for a greater number
did not result in a significant increase of the number of
In total, 2126 recommendations were made during
The average number of recommendations received by those fourteen States
which is in line with the average number of recommendations
ing session 12 (143). The accent put by States
While a majority of States under Review took th
their National Reports and during their opening statements
progress accomplished to implement recommendations, few “reviewing States”
the recommendations they had made at the first cycle, thus
accountability to States by building on the previous recommendations.
broadly, the UPR is facing a major threat to its functioning: a potential breach in
the 100% participation of the 193 member States is jeopardizing its
suspended “its cooperation with the Office of the High
or Human Rights, the Human Rights Council (the Council)
subsequent mechanisms” and could therefore potentially not participate in its UPR
scheduled for 29 January 2013. Such a precedent could open the door for other
States to withdraw, thus endangering the mechanism. The Council should therefore
modalities that will prevent other States from avoiding or postpon
the responsibility to define the concept of “persistent non
contained in article 38 of resolution A/HRC/RES5/1 and the actions to take when
A Year in the UPR
RREEPPOORRTT 22001122
5
session in the perspective of
the second cycle: the list of speakers, the number of recommendations made and the
session. When the
reviewed in 2008, the average was 46.4 statements,
However, a change in the
modalities of the list of speakers which made it possible for a greater number of
not result in a significant increase of the number of
recommendations were made during the 13th
The average number of recommendations received by those fourteen States
in line with the average number of recommendations
by States on the follow-
majority of States under Review took the opportunity
to report on their
few “reviewing States”
at the first cycle, thus failing to bring
accountability to States by building on the previous recommendations.
broadly, the UPR is facing a major threat to its functioning: a potential breach in
jeopardizing its universality. In
its cooperation with the Office of the High
(the Council) and its
subsequent mechanisms” and could therefore potentially not participate in its UPR
ould open the door for other
The Council should therefore
or postponing their
stent non-cooperation” as
and the actions to take when
Promoting and strengthening the Universal Periodic Reviewhttp://www.upr-info.org
he three programmes of
awareness raising and monitoring, Civil Society Organisation (CSO)
building and the Follow-up programme
1. UPR Awareness Raising and Monitoring Programme
1.1. Gathering and clustering all documents on the UPR
In order to facilitate users’ access to the document
uploaded the various documents for the 28 countries
13 and 14 on our website. Th
from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
stakeholders’ information, non
submissions, advanced questions, Working Group Reports and their Addenda, UN
press releases, as well as oral and written statements
1.2. Monitoring the process
From January to December
the UPR modalities, the highlights of States’ reviews, and
addition, during that same period, we
published during these month
1’500 subscribers. Each newsletter contained
generally consisted in the interview of a pre
were: Mr. Yervand Shirinyan, Program Director of the Human Rights and
Governance Grants Program, Open Society Foundations
Executive Director, Human Rights Institute of South Africa; Mr. Christophe Peschoux
Chief of the UPR section at the OHCHR; Mr.
T
ACTIVITIES
AANNNNUUAALL
Promoting and strengthening Periodic Review
he three programmes of UPR Info significantly developed
and monitoring, Civil Society Organisation (CSO)
programme.
UPR Awareness Raising and Monitoring Programme
Gathering and clustering all documents on the UPR
In order to facilitate users’ access to the documentation on the UPR process
documents for the 28 countries that were reviewed at sessions
. These documents included national reports,
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights' (OHCHR)
stakeholders’ information, non-governmental organisations’ (NGOs) individual
submissions, advanced questions, Working Group Reports and their Addenda, UN
oral and written statements from NGOs.
Monitoring the process
From January to December 2012, we published 80 news articles on topics such as
the UPR modalities, the highlights of States’ reviews, and UPR Info’s
addition, during that same period, we distributed 8 newsletters summarizing the news
months. The number of subscribers increased from 1’300 to
ribers. Each newsletter contained a video on the UPR process,
the interview of a pre-eminent actor. The interviewees in 2012
Shirinyan, Program Director of the Human Rights and
Governance Grants Program, Open Society Foundations; Ms. Corlett Letlojane,
Executive Director, Human Rights Institute of South Africa; Mr. Christophe Peschoux
Chief of the UPR section at the OHCHR; Mr. Bob Last, Senior Human Rights Adviser
RREEPPOORRTT 22001122
6
significantly developed in 2012: UPR
and monitoring, Civil Society Organisation (CSO) capacity-
UPR Awareness Raising and Monitoring Programme
the UPR process, we
reviewed at sessions
national reports, compilations
(OHCHR), summaries of
governmental organisations’ (NGOs) individual
submissions, advanced questions, Working Group Reports and their Addenda, UN
, we published 80 news articles on topics such as
UPR Info’s activities. In
8 newsletters summarizing the news
. The number of subscribers increased from 1’300 to
a video on the UPR process, which
eminent actor. The interviewees in 2012
Shirinyan, Program Director of the Human Rights and
; Ms. Corlett Letlojane,
Executive Director, Human Rights Institute of South Africa; Mr. Christophe Peschoux,
Bob Last, Senior Human Rights Adviser
Promoting and strengthening the Universal Periodic Reviewhttp://www.upr-info.org
at the Permanent Mission of the United Kingdom to the United Nations in Geneva;
Mr. Patrick Mutzenberg, Director of the Centre for Civil and Political Rights; and
Alice Mogwe, Executive Director of Ditswhanelo.
We covered sessions 13 and 14 live by reporting
recommendations made through Facebook and Twitter
for everyone to follow every UPR review
The live monitoring drastically
Likes" and "Twitter followers
people.
1.3. Offer detailed explanations on the process
The different pages containing explanations on the process and the role of States
and CSOs were redrafted to take into account the revised modalities of the second
cycle and more up-to-date practices. We also updated the “timeline” for CSO
States under Review and Recommending States. The three videos on the UPR
process, the role of States under Review and of CSOs have been updated as well.
These are currently available in English, French, and Spanish.
1.3.1. Developing fact sheets
In partnership with the "NGO
UPR process. Practical and action
general information as well as technical details about the mechanism in order to
enhance civil society’s understand
Each fact sheet has two versions: one with specific references to the rights of the
child which is targeted at non
issue, and one with a broader content
were published on the UPR mechanism and on NGO submission to the UPR in
English, French and Spanish.
AANNNNUUAALL
Promoting and strengthening Periodic Review
at the Permanent Mission of the United Kingdom to the United Nations in Geneva;
Patrick Mutzenberg, Director of the Centre for Civil and Political Rights; and
Mogwe, Executive Director of Ditswhanelo.
13 and 14 live by reporting on the issues raised and the
recommendations made through Facebook and Twitter; in this way, i
for everyone to follow every UPR review live through our two social media
drastically increased our visibility in social media. Our
Twitter followers" doubled in 2012 to reach respectively
Offer detailed explanations on the process
different pages containing explanations on the process and the role of States
and CSOs were redrafted to take into account the revised modalities of the second
date practices. We also updated the “timeline” for CSO
Review and Recommending States. The three videos on the UPR
process, the role of States under Review and of CSOs have been updated as well.
are currently available in English, French, and Spanish.
Developing fact sheets
NGO Group for the CRC", we developed fact sheets on the
UPR process. Practical and action-oriented, these fact sheets aim at providing
general information as well as technical details about the mechanism in order to
understanding of its modalities and how they can engage.
Each fact sheet has two versions: one with specific references to the rights of the
targeted at non-governmental organisations (NGOs) working on this
broader content, aimed at all NGOs. In 2012
published on the UPR mechanism and on NGO submission to the UPR in
English, French and Spanish.
RREEPPOORRTT 22001122
7
at the Permanent Mission of the United Kingdom to the United Nations in Geneva;
Patrick Mutzenberg, Director of the Centre for Civil and Political Rights; and Ms.
the issues raised and the
in this way, it is now possible
our two social media channels.
increased our visibility in social media. Our "Facebook
doubled in 2012 to reach respectively 1000 and 900
different pages containing explanations on the process and the role of States
and CSOs were redrafted to take into account the revised modalities of the second
date practices. We also updated the “timeline” for CSOs,
Review and Recommending States. The three videos on the UPR
process, the role of States under Review and of CSOs have been updated as well.
, we developed fact sheets on the
se fact sheets aim at providing
general information as well as technical details about the mechanism in order to
modalities and how they can engage.
Each fact sheet has two versions: one with specific references to the rights of the
governmental organisations (NGOs) working on this
2012 two fact sheets
published on the UPR mechanism and on NGO submission to the UPR in
Promoting and strengthening the Universal Periodic Reviewhttp://www.upr-info.org
1.3.2. Survey on advocacy
In order to ensure that CSOs
States at the appropriate time,
conduct a survey seeking out the process through which States draft their
interventions for the UPR working group. The ai
CSOs’ knowledge on these processes,
advocacy efforts with States. For the latter, the survey was designed as an
opportunity to inform NGOs about
NGOs should contact them, with a
efficient for both. The survey was conducted between January and March 2012 and
involved the participation of 31 states. The results have been sent to all Geneva
based Permanent Missions, and were published
early June.
1.4. Statements at the Human Rights Council
Now in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations Economic and Social
Council (ECOSOC), UPR Info
Council, during the general debate
In June 2012, we expressed our concern that
session 13 did not look into the implementation
of recommendations from the first cycle in a
satisfactory manner. We explained that only
16% out of 2008 recommendations were
followed up by similar or additional
recommendations at the 13th session
would imply that 84% of the 2008 recommendations were fully implemented. This
seemed rather unlikely considering
fully implemented at mid-
recommending States to look
AANNNNUUAALL
Promoting and strengthening Periodic Review
advocacy opportunities
In order to ensure that CSOs possess the necessary information
States at the appropriate time, UPR Info teamed up with "Mandat International
conduct a survey seeking out the process through which States draft their
interventions for the UPR working group. The aim of this survey was to improve
these processes, with a view to facilitate their interaction and
advocacy efforts with States. For the latter, the survey was designed as an
opportunity to inform NGOs about States’ preferences regarding
NGOs should contact them, with a view to saving time and making the process more
efficient for both. The survey was conducted between January and March 2012 and
involved the participation of 31 states. The results have been sent to all Geneva
based Permanent Missions, and were published on our website for CSO access
Statements at the Human Rights Council
Now in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations Economic and Social
UPR Info made two oral statements at the Human Rights
general debate under item 6.
we expressed our concern that
session 13 did not look into the implementation
of recommendations from the first cycle in a
satisfactory manner. We explained that only
of 2008 recommendations were
up by similar or additional
recommendations at the 13th session, which
would imply that 84% of the 2008 recommendations were fully implemented. This
considering that the average percentage of recommendations
-term is normally around 10%. We therefor
recommending States to look more closely into the recommendations they made at
RREEPPOORRTT 22001122
8
information in order to lobby
Mandat International" to
conduct a survey seeking out the process through which States draft their
m of this survey was to improve
a view to facilitate their interaction and
advocacy efforts with States. For the latter, the survey was designed as an
regarding how and when
view to saving time and making the process more
efficient for both. The survey was conducted between January and March 2012 and
involved the participation of 31 states. The results have been sent to all Geneva-
on our website for CSO access in
Now in Special Consultative Status with the United Nations Economic and Social
made two oral statements at the Human Rights
would imply that 84% of the 2008 recommendations were fully implemented. This
that the average percentage of recommendations
therefore called on
recommendations they made at
Promoting and strengthening the Universal Periodic Reviewhttp://www.upr-info.org
the first cycle and inquire into their implementation
essential to secure that the
a lack of accountability and would
where States come to Geneva every five
receive only new recommendations without any reference to previous reviews.
During the 20th HRC session
States negotiating the wording of recommendations made during the UPR
statement with Conectas Direitos Humanos and the Cairo Institute for Human Rights
Studies. We criticised both States under Review and Recommending States
engaging in a trade-off concerning the wording of recommendations after they have
been made during the review. This practice, though used since the Working Group
reports of Afghanistan and Yemen in 2009,
accountability. Moreover, it undermines the
process by erasing their effort to ensure
We called on all states to stop this practice. Other issues of concern raised in the
statement were the possibility for States under Review to draft the summary section
of their own statement with
requirement that when factual mistakes and mistranslation of language occur within
that report, only the delegation which made the statement may request that
corrections be made to that text. We argued that t
could potentially increase the chance of inaccuracies being included in the final
outcome document.
2. CSO Capacity- Building Programme
2.1. Offering technical assistance
The change of modalities from the first to the second cycle
list of speakers for statements at the UPR adoptions
CSO reports, has increased
process. Through emails, phone calls and meetings
AANNNNUUAALL
Promoting and strengthening Periodic Review
the first cycle and inquire into their implementation. A consistent follow
the UPR has a real impact. A lack of follow-
lack of accountability and would risk transforming the UPR into a rhetoric exercise
re States come to Geneva every five years simply to discuss human rights and
receive only new recommendations without any reference to previous reviews.
HRC session in September 2012, we denounced the practice of
States negotiating the wording of recommendations made during the UPR
statement with Conectas Direitos Humanos and the Cairo Institute for Human Rights
Studies. We criticised both States under Review and Recommending States
off concerning the wording of recommendations after they have
made during the review. This practice, though used since the Working Group
reports of Afghanistan and Yemen in 2009, is still lacking transparency and
accountability. Moreover, it undermines the stakeholder’s participation in the UPR
ir effort to ensure that specific recommendations are made.
We called on all states to stop this practice. Other issues of concern raised in the
statement were the possibility for States under Review to draft the summary section
of their own statement within the report of the UPR Working Group, and the
requirement that when factual mistakes and mistranslation of language occur within
that report, only the delegation which made the statement may request that
corrections be made to that text. We argued that this practise is unnecessary and
could potentially increase the chance of inaccuracies being included in the final
Building Programme
technical assistance
The change of modalities from the first to the second cycle, notably the new
list of speakers for statements at the UPR adoptions online and the word limits for
has increased CSOs’ need for information on how to engage in the
hrough emails, phone calls and meetings, we have reached
RREEPPOORRTT 22001122
9
consistent follow-up was
-up would result in
the UPR into a rhetoric exercise
discuss human rights and
receive only new recommendations without any reference to previous reviews.
we denounced the practice of
States negotiating the wording of recommendations made during the UPR in a joint
statement with Conectas Direitos Humanos and the Cairo Institute for Human Rights
Studies. We criticised both States under Review and Recommending States for
off concerning the wording of recommendations after they have
made during the review. This practice, though used since the Working Group
transparency and
participation in the UPR
specific recommendations are made.
We called on all states to stop this practice. Other issues of concern raised in the
statement were the possibility for States under Review to draft the summary section
in the report of the UPR Working Group, and the
requirement that when factual mistakes and mistranslation of language occur within
that report, only the delegation which made the statement may request that
his practise is unnecessary and
could potentially increase the chance of inaccuracies being included in the final
notably the new online
and the word limits for
how to engage in the
, we have reached over 250
Promoting and strengthening the Universal Periodic Reviewhttp://www.upr-info.org
actors (including NGOs, NHRIs, Government officials and academics) from Algeria,
Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brazil, Colombia, Guatemala, Haiti, India, Morocco, Pakistan,
Philippines, Poland, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Togo, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab
Emirates and Zimbabwe.
We also started offering a new service to CSOs. We sent a reminder
CSOs working on countries to be reviewed at session 14, 15, 16, and 17 and which
had submitted a contribution on those States
sent out a year before the UPR, contained the date of review of the specific country,
the deadline for the submission of information, links to explanations of the new
modalities, links to the recommendations received by the Government at the pre
cycle and information about our “pre
2.2. Participating in trainings and conferences
In 2012 UPR Info delivered
them on lobbying strategies
from the following countries
d’Ivoire, Croatia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ecuador, Eritrea, France, Georgia,
India, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Macedonia
Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Moldova, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique,
Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Republic of Congo, Romania, Russian Federation,
Spain, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uganda,
Uzbekistan, Yemen and Zambia.
AANNNNUUAALL
Promoting and strengthening Periodic Review
NGOs, NHRIs, Government officials and academics) from Algeria,
Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brazil, Colombia, Guatemala, Haiti, India, Morocco, Pakistan,
Philippines, Poland, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Togo, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab
We also started offering a new service to CSOs. We sent a reminder
CSOs working on countries to be reviewed at session 14, 15, 16, and 17 and which
had submitted a contribution on those States during the first cycle.
year before the UPR, contained the date of review of the specific country,
the deadline for the submission of information, links to explanations of the new
modalities, links to the recommendations received by the Government at the pre
cycle and information about our “pre-sessions”.
Participating in trainings and conferences
delivered 25 presentations to CSOs on the second cycle, advis
them on lobbying strategies around the UPR. More than two hundred
from the following countries were reached: Algeria, Azerbaijan, Burma, China, Côte
d’Ivoire, Croatia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ecuador, Eritrea, France, Georgia,
, Ireland, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Macedonia
Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Moldova, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique,
Pakistan, Philippines, Republic of Congo, Romania, Russian Federation,
Spain, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uganda,
Zambia.
RREEPPOORRTT 22001122
10
NGOs, NHRIs, Government officials and academics) from Algeria,
Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brazil, Colombia, Guatemala, Haiti, India, Morocco, Pakistan,
Philippines, Poland, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Togo, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab
We also started offering a new service to CSOs. We sent a reminder by email to
CSOs working on countries to be reviewed at session 14, 15, 16, and 17 and which
the first cycle. These reminders,
year before the UPR, contained the date of review of the specific country,
the deadline for the submission of information, links to explanations of the new
modalities, links to the recommendations received by the Government at the previous
on the second cycle, advising
hundred representatives
: Algeria, Azerbaijan, Burma, China, Côte
d’Ivoire, Croatia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ecuador, Eritrea, France, Georgia,
, Ireland, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Macedonia,
Malaysia, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Moldova, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique,
Pakistan, Philippines, Republic of Congo, Romania, Russian Federation,
Spain, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Thailand, Togo, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uganda,
Promoting and strengthening the Universal Periodic Reviewhttp://www.upr-info.org
The organisations we worked with included: Amnesty International
Australian National University, the Commonwealth Secretariat, the Centre for Civil
and Political Rights, Freedom House, the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung
Academy for humanitarian law and human rights, the GMedia Center, the Human
Rights House Foundation, the Inter
the Niger Delta UPR coalition,
Rights, the Open Society Foundations, and the University of Essex.
In December 2012, UPR Info
to a workshop organised by the Australian National University. The seminar was
organised within the framework o
on “Rights, Rituals and Ritualisms”. The workshop gathered scholars and
practitioners, including former Special procedures mandate holders and current
Treaty body members, CSOs and OHCHR staff to discuss
functions as a “regulatory mechanism
successes and weaknesses of the first cycle of the UPR. The contributions by the
participants will be gathered into a book to be published in 2014.
2.3. Updating the d atabase
We added the recommendations made at
and the voluntary pledges
cycle. The database contains
remains the most sought-after feature of our website. It is continuously used by all
actors for such purposes as lobbying work by NGOs, training activities by
international organisations, and academic research. We regularly receive request
for new features, and strive
AANNNNUUAALL
Promoting and strengthening Periodic Review
The organisations we worked with included: Amnesty International
Australian National University, the Commonwealth Secretariat, the Centre for Civil
and Political Rights, Freedom House, the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung
Academy for humanitarian law and human rights, the GMedia Center, the Human
Rights House Foundation, the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the Minority Rights Group,
the Niger Delta UPR coalition, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human
the Open Society Foundations, and the University of Essex.
UPR Info’s Executive Director was invited to Canberra, Australia,
to a workshop organised by the Australian National University. The seminar was
in the framework of a study launched by Professor Hilary Charlesworth
on “Rights, Rituals and Ritualisms”. The workshop gathered scholars and
practitioners, including former Special procedures mandate holders and current
Treaty body members, CSOs and OHCHR staff to discuss to what extent the UPR
functions as a “regulatory mechanism”. UPR Info presented a paper on the
successes and weaknesses of the first cycle of the UPR. The contributions by the
participants will be gathered into a book to be published in 2014.
atabase and developing Statistics tools
[Your database] is very user friendly and clear and thus an extremely useful tool for anyone working to promote human rights through the UPR mechanisms.
Danish
We added the recommendations made at session 12 of the UPR Working Group
voluntary pledges from sessions 1 to 12, thus completing the entire first
cycle. The database contains 21,353 recommendations and 603 voluntary
after feature of our website. It is continuously used by all
actors for such purposes as lobbying work by NGOs, training activities by
international organisations, and academic research. We regularly receive request
strive to respond positively to these. Last but not least, by
RREEPPOORRTT 22001122
11
The organisations we worked with included: Amnesty International – Ireland, the
Australian National University, the Commonwealth Secretariat, the Centre for Civil
and Political Rights, Freedom House, the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, the Geneva
Academy for humanitarian law and human rights, the GMedia Center, the Human
Parliamentary Union, the Minority Rights Group,
the Office of the High Commissioner for Human
’s Executive Director was invited to Canberra, Australia,
to a workshop organised by the Australian National University. The seminar was
f a study launched by Professor Hilary Charlesworth
on “Rights, Rituals and Ritualisms”. The workshop gathered scholars and
practitioners, including former Special procedures mandate holders and current
to what extent the UPR
”. UPR Info presented a paper on the
successes and weaknesses of the first cycle of the UPR. The contributions by the
is very user friendly and clear and thus an anyone working to promote human rights
Danish Human Rights Institute
of the UPR Working Group
, thus completing the entire first
voluntary pledges. It
after feature of our website. It is continuously used by all
actors for such purposes as lobbying work by NGOs, training activities by
international organisations, and academic research. We regularly receive requests
Last but not least, by
Promoting and strengthening the Universal Periodic Reviewhttp://www.upr-info.org
adding this unique information
opportunities on the UPR.
We also developed two new important statistic tools. It is now possible
of the 54 human rights issues
countries have made the most recommendations on it during the
The tool lists the countries in decreasing order and provides the user with the number
of recommendations each
valuable time for CSOs when identifying States.
find out which countries are interested in their issues of concerns and will therefore
be able to lobby them more effectively. The second
to the specificity of action
developed by Prof. McMahon from the University of Vermont, this tool
to identify those States that are
UPR and those making the
CSOs.
AANNNNUUAALL
Promoting and strengthening Periodic Review
adding this unique information on voluntary pledges, we increase
We also developed two new important statistic tools. It is now possible
54 human rights issues available in our database and find out which
most recommendations on it during the
The tool lists the countries in decreasing order and provides the user with the number
of recommendations each of them made on the selected issue. This tool save
valuable time for CSOs when identifying States. In this way they quickly and eas
find out which countries are interested in their issues of concerns and will therefore
be able to lobby them more effectively. The second statistic tool developed is related
specificity of action of recommendations. Based on the action category
developed by Prof. McMahon from the University of Vermont, this tool
that are making the most specific recommendations at the
the less specific ones. Again, this lobbying is made easier for
RREEPPOORRTT 22001122
12
voluntary pledges, we increase the monitoring
We also developed two new important statistic tools. It is now possible to select any
database and find out which
most recommendations on it during the UPR’s first cycle.
The tool lists the countries in decreasing order and provides the user with the number
made on the selected issue. This tool saves
quickly and easily
find out which countries are interested in their issues of concerns and will therefore
tool developed is related
of recommendations. Based on the action category
developed by Prof. McMahon from the University of Vermont, this tool enables users
most specific recommendations at the
is made easier for
Promoting and strengthening the Universal Periodic Reviewhttp://www.upr-info.org
3. UPR “Pre- sessions
On 28 March 2012, UPR Info
of CSOs’ on the Working Group review.
between Permanent Missions and CSOs
the UPR, in order to discuss the human rights situation of
reviewed.
The purpose of these pre-
organisations (CSOs) and to enable them to meet several delegations
delegations, these meetings offer
human rights situation in the State under Review (SuR).
The pre-session for
each SuR lasts one
hour. The National
human rights institution
and CSOs are given
the floor one after
another to share their
assessment of the
human rights situation
in the country since the
previous review and
the progress accomplished by the SuR to implement the recommendations.
All Permanent Missions, including
attend.
AANNNNUUAALL
Promoting and strengthening Periodic Review
sessions ”
[The Pre-session] assisted us in advising our government where to tighten screws in the areas of human rights where we are still lagging behind, not only in preparation for the UPR, but also for the benefit of our people.
M. Charles Masole, Permanent Mission of Botswana
UPR Info launched a new project aiming at improving
CSOs’ on the Working Group review. The “pre-sessions” consist of
between Permanent Missions and CSOs and take place one to two months before
to discuss the human rights situation of the countries to be
-sessions is to save time and resources to civil society
organisations (CSOs) and to enable them to meet several delegations
delegations, these meetings offer an opportunity to be briefed by CSOs about the
human rights situation in the State under Review (SuR).
the progress accomplished by the SuR to implement the recommendations.
All Permanent Missions, including that of the State under Review, are invited to
RREEPPOORRTT 22001122
13
] assisted us in advising our government where to tighten screws in the areas of human rights where we are still lagging behind, not only in preparation for the UPR, but also for the benefit of our people.
Masole, Permanent Mission of Botswana
launched a new project aiming at improving the impact
consist of meetings
two months before
countries to be
sessions is to save time and resources to civil society
organisations (CSOs) and to enable them to meet several delegations at once. For
opportunity to be briefed by CSOs about the
the progress accomplished by the SuR to implement the recommendations.
r Review, are invited to
Promoting and strengthening the Universal Periodic Reviewhttp://www.upr-info.org
35 “pre-sessions” meetings were organised for States to be reviewed at the 13
and 15th UPR session. The
delegations to meet and discuss the human rights
reviewed. On average, 20 State delegations were present at each session, and 157
NGOs participated, 89 of which were national organisations and 4 of which were
national institutions. With the support of the Democracy Coal
Geneva, the Canton of Geneva, the MFA of Switzerland, and Irish Aid, we
to fund the participation of 23 human rights
countries. In addition further
such as the United Nations Development Programme and
Foundations. We also provided them with training
engagement. These trainings ensured that
continue their engagement in the process and notably in the implementation of
recommendations.
Because of the many opportunities raised by the
trainings upon request: in this regard, we trained HRD supported by the
CCPR Centre, Plan International
Rights Defenders Project.
3.1. Reminding diplomats about the
Aiming at improving the follow
UPR Info seized the opportunity to send
recommendations they previously made to the State for which they attended the pre
session.
AANNNNUUAALL
Promoting and strengthening Periodic Review
essions” meetings were organised for States to be reviewed at the 13
UPR session. The pre-sessions provided an opportunity for NGOs and State
delegations to meet and discuss the human rights situations of the States that were
reviewed. On average, 20 State delegations were present at each session, and 157
NGOs participated, 89 of which were national organisations and 4 of which were
national institutions. With the support of the Democracy Coalition Project, the City of
Geneva, the Canton of Geneva, the MFA of Switzerland, and Irish Aid, we
to fund the participation of 23 human rights defenders (HRD) from 16 different
further HRD participation was supported by other organisations
such as the United Nations Development Programme and the Open Society
We also provided them with trainings on the UPR process and CSO
engagement. These trainings ensured that these defenders were fully equipped to
heir engagement in the process and notably in the implementation of
Because of the many opportunities raised by the pre-sessions, we also provided
: in this regard, we trained HRD supported by the
Plan International, Trocaire and East and Horn of Africa Human
diplomats about the UPR recommendations they made
The UPR Info’s briefings […] [are] helpful in our preparation for the upcoming UPRs. At least for me persa jump start on the challenges and achievements made by the country under review in its endeavor to promote and protect human rights.
Ms. Mariska Dhanutirto, Permanent Mission of Indonesia
Aiming at improving the follow-up on recommendations as undertaken by States,
seized the opportunity to send all delegates attending the pre
recommendations they previously made to the State for which they attended the pre
RREEPPOORRTT 22001122
14
essions” meetings were organised for States to be reviewed at the 13th, 14th
an opportunity for NGOs and State
situations of the States that were
reviewed. On average, 20 State delegations were present at each session, and 157
NGOs participated, 89 of which were national organisations and 4 of which were
ition Project, the City of
Geneva, the Canton of Geneva, the MFA of Switzerland, and Irish Aid, we were able
from 16 different
her organisations,
the Open Society
on the UPR process and CSO
were fully equipped to
heir engagement in the process and notably in the implementation of
sessions, we also provided
: in this regard, we trained HRD supported by the FIACAT,
East and Horn of Africa Human
recommendations they made
[are] helpful in our preparation personally, it gives me
a jump start on the challenges and achievements made by the country under review in its endeavor to promote and protect
Ms. Mariska Dhanutirto, Permanent Mission of Indonesia
undertaken by States,
all delegates attending the pre-sessions the
recommendations they previously made to the State for which they attended the pre-
Promoting and strengthening the Universal Periodic Reviewhttp://www.upr-info.org
4. UPR Follow- up Programme
4.1. Assessment of the UPR follow
The Follow-up Project, launched
running. A total of 65 Mid-term Implementation Assessments (MIAs)
A total of 1140 CSOs from
30 UN agencies. All kind of
Programme, which is continually growing and attracting attention.
These developments led to
• The participation in the
steadily increasing.
sessions, we have register
sessions;
• Civil society now feels more involved in the UN process
Follow-up Programme, NGOs know that their work is useful to the
international community, and
example, a representative from the
Info that “this [was] actually the first they [heard] from the UPR since they
wrote that report”. Another example was a comment from the
Rights Organization: “I am glad to see that our effort to write and compile our
submissions, year after year, is followed up and strengthened”;
• Despite the low participation of States
on them: UPR Info
framework, and encourages them to take action. The number
States at mid-term has been increasing since early 2012
though Monaco did not participate in the Follow
provide us with a mid
• Alternatively, when States did not
was helpful; some Missions
encourage the Capital to write a mid
AANNNNUUAALL
Promoting and strengthening Periodic Review
up Programme
the UPR follow -up of 65 countries
launched in 2011, developed significantly in its
term Implementation Assessments (MIAs)
A total of 1140 CSOs from 65 countries were contacted in addition to
kind of stakeholders are now engaged in the Follow
Programme, which is continually growing and attracting attention.
the following expected outcomes:
e participation in the programme of both national and international NGOs is
steadily increasing. From the 40% of the NGOs which took part in
e registered approximately 50% participation
feels more involved in the UN process: With the help of
Programme, NGOs know that their work is useful to the
international community, and that it has an impact on the process. For
example, a representative from the Norway Grimstad MPAT Insti
that “this [was] actually the first they [heard] from the UPR since they
wrote that report”. Another example was a comment from the
: “I am glad to see that our effort to write and compile our
year after year, is followed up and strengthened”;
Despite the low participation of States in the programme, it still
UPR Info reminds them of their commitments within the UPR
framework, and encourages them to take action. The number
term has been increasing since early 2012. For example, even
though Monaco did not participate in the Follow-up Programme at first, it
us with a mid-term report four months later.
Alternatively, when States did not participate, the pressure of the Programme
some Missions in Geneva used our request as a pretext to
encourage the Capital to write a mid-term report. The Programme resulted in
RREEPPOORRTT 22001122
15
its second year of
term Implementation Assessments (MIAs) were published.
in addition to 25 NHRIs, and
stakeholders are now engaged in the Follow-up
rogramme of both national and international NGOs is
took part in the first
approximately 50% participation for the last
With the help of the
Programme, NGOs know that their work is useful to the
has an impact on the process. For
Norway Grimstad MPAT Institute told UPR
that “this [was] actually the first they [heard] from the UPR since they
wrote that report”. Another example was a comment from the Ahwaz Human
: “I am glad to see that our effort to write and compile our
year after year, is followed up and strengthened”;
it still has an impact
reminds them of their commitments within the UPR
framework, and encourages them to take action. The number of reports by
For example, even
Programme at first, it did
participate, the pressure of the Programme
in Geneva used our request as a pretext to
term report. The Programme resulted in
Promoting and strengthening the Universal Periodic Reviewhttp://www.upr-info.org
those Missions taking direct and significant action and it provided them with a
legitimate reason to make their request;
• Finally, participating States
Ambassador of the
like to express my country's appreciation for the work of
up on the implementation of UPR recommendations. We believe the latter is a
true measure of the success and value of the UPR process and we are, for
our part, determined
countries under review”;
Additionally, due to the Follow
involve new stakeholders, and to train them, we
• MIAs are now being used to assess
• Civil society is using the
Republic of Korea and
referred to and used
embassies;
• NGOs formed new coalitions or re
their comments on the recommendations (such as in Canada, Chad, China,
Chile, New Zealand, Nigeria...),
strengthen civil society;
• Regional initiatives were started to follow up
Info will closely collaborate with such initiatives, providing resources and
advice;
• NGOs that had not taken part in the UPR process, discovered the UPR due to
the Follow-up Programme, and
report for the second UPR cycle. For example, the
Sexual Assault Centres
NGOs;
• The Follow-up Programme is
review in advance; collected data will be used for the next UPR to submit
reports. It also provides a framework for the second cycle;
AANNNNUUAALL
Promoting and strengthening Periodic Review
those Missions taking direct and significant action and it provided them with a
reason to make their request;
Finally, participating States also appreciate the Programme,
Ambassador of the Permanent Mission of Slovenia explained: “I woul
like to express my country's appreciation for the work of UPR Info
up on the implementation of UPR recommendations. We believe the latter is a
true measure of the success and value of the UPR process and we are, for
our part, determined to raise it in our statements in the dialogues with
countries under review”;
Additionally, due to the Follow-up Programme’s great potential to raise awareness, to
involve new stakeholders, and to train them, we unexpectedly observed
ing used to assess the first UPR cycle.
Civil society is using the MIAs as an advocacy tool. For example in the
Republic of Korea and in Cyprus, NGOs that took part in the Programme
referred to and used the MIA in press conferences and meetings with
new coalitions or re-established past ones in order to provide
their comments on the recommendations (such as in Canada, Chad, China,
Chile, New Zealand, Nigeria...), a development that
iety;
were started to follow up on UPR recommendations.
will closely collaborate with such initiatives, providing resources and
NGOs that had not taken part in the UPR process, discovered the UPR due to
rogramme, and new NGOs are now expected to submit a
for the second UPR cycle. For example, the Canadian Association of
Sexual Assault Centres, the World Uyghur Congress are ju
up Programme is a way for all stakeholders to prepare
in advance; collected data will be used for the next UPR to submit
reports. It also provides a framework for the second cycle;
RREEPPOORRTT 22001122
16
those Missions taking direct and significant action and it provided them with a
Programme, as the
Mission of Slovenia explained: “I would also
UPR Info in following
up on the implementation of UPR recommendations. We believe the latter is a
true measure of the success and value of the UPR process and we are, for
to raise it in our statements in the dialogues with
up Programme’s great potential to raise awareness, to
unexpectedly observed that:
. For example in the
took part in the Programme
the MIA in press conferences and meetings with foreign
in order to provide
their comments on the recommendations (such as in Canada, Chad, China,
will significantly
UPR recommendations. UPR
will closely collaborate with such initiatives, providing resources and
NGOs that had not taken part in the UPR process, discovered the UPR due to
new NGOs are now expected to submit a
Canadian Association of
are just some of those
a way for all stakeholders to prepare for the next
in advance; collected data will be used for the next UPR to submit
Promoting and strengthening the Universal Periodic Reviewhttp://www.upr-info.org
• A complete section on
Programme was created. This section of the website aims to gather
information and make it easier for visitors to access and consult it. It display
comments made on recommendations and provides
stakeholders.
4.2. Publication of a study on
On 24 October 2012, UPR Info
landmark study on the implementation of 3’000
recommendations at mid-term. The publication "On
the road to implementation" presented the results of
the Follow-up Programme since 2011
assessment of 66 States. The results of this
research, conducted over the course of one year
and a half, were encouraging: 40 percent of
recommendations have triggered actions from
States. Similarly positive, 14 percent of the
recommendations rejected have also triggered
actions from States at mid-term
the Follow-up Programme’s quantitative and qualitative outcomes, and perspectives
and assessments on the thirteenth UPR session as well. Data collected under the
aegis of the Follow-up Programme demonstrated
implementation of recommendations at mid
remain and need to be carefully envisaged by the international community as soon
as possible.
This publication was launched during a side event at the 14
Working Group. It attracted broad interest from all actors
side event was attended by 100
academics and civil society. 300 copies of the study have been distributed so far and
it has been downloaded over 2’000 times from our website.
AANNNNUUAALL
Promoting and strengthening Periodic Review
A complete section on UPR Info’s website dedicated to the Follow
gramme was created. This section of the website aims to gather
information and make it easier for visitors to access and consult it. It display
comments made on recommendations and provides the documents shared by
Publication of a study on the implementation of 3’000 recommendations
UPR Info published a
landmark study on the implementation of 3’000
term. The publication "On
the road to implementation" presented the results of
since 2011 based on the
66 States. The results of this
search, conducted over the course of one year
and a half, were encouraging: 40 percent of
recommendations have triggered actions from
States. Similarly positive, 14 percent of the
recommendations rejected have also triggered
term. The study presents
up Programme’s quantitative and qualitative outcomes, and perspectives
and assessments on the thirteenth UPR session as well. Data collected under the
up Programme demonstrated a very encouraging progress
recommendations at mid-term; however, many
and need to be carefully envisaged by the international community as soon
This publication was launched during a side event at the 14th session of th
Working Group. It attracted broad interest from all actors in the UPR process. The
side event was attended by 100 representatives of Permanent Missions, UN staff,
academics and civil society. 300 copies of the study have been distributed so far and
downloaded over 2’000 times from our website.
RREEPPOORRTT 22001122
17
’s website dedicated to the Follow-up
gramme was created. This section of the website aims to gather
information and make it easier for visitors to access and consult it. It displays
documents shared by
the implementation of 3’000 recommendations
up Programme’s quantitative and qualitative outcomes, and perspectives
and assessments on the thirteenth UPR session as well. Data collected under the
very encouraging progress in the
term; however, many acute challenges
and need to be carefully envisaged by the international community as soon
session of the UPR
the UPR process. The
Permanent Missions, UN staff,
academics and civil society. 300 copies of the study have been distributed so far and
Promoting and strengthening the Universal Periodic Reviewhttp://www.upr-info.org
4.3. Providing CSOs the tools f
Following their participation in
to 739 recipients to remind them
the recommendations made to the States
recommendations accepted,
2011 and updated in 2012,
The “Civil Society Follow
organisations interested in advocacy and lobbying.
organisations that are not yet involved in the UPR mechanism with a comprehensive
document compiling the outcome of the review of their respective States and
providing them with an exhaustive overview of how to engage in the follow
process and the documents needed to do so.
AANNNNUUAALL
Promoting and strengthening Periodic Review
the tools f or following up: the Follow- up Kit
icipation in the 11th and 12th UPR sessions, UPR Info
to remind them of the process’ next crucial steps: how to follow
the recommendations made to the States, how to further lobby in order to get
recommendations accepted, etc. To this end, a follow-up kit that was
, was shared with those stakeholders.
ollow-Up Kit” saves valuable time and resources to all
sted in advocacy and lobbying. This featur
organisations that are not yet involved in the UPR mechanism with a comprehensive
document compiling the outcome of the review of their respective States and
providing them with an exhaustive overview of how to engage in the follow
s and the documents needed to do so.
RREEPPOORRTT 22001122
18
up Kit
UPR Info sent emails
steps: how to follow-up
, how to further lobby in order to get
was developed in
it” saves valuable time and resources to all
This feature has provided
organisations that are not yet involved in the UPR mechanism with a comprehensive
document compiling the outcome of the review of their respective States and
providing them with an exhaustive overview of how to engage in the follow-up
Promoting and strengthening the Universal Periodic Reviewhttp://www.upr-info.org
n 2013, UPR Info will celebrate its fi
coincide with many changes for the organisation
new Programme Manager will be hired to reinforce our small team
will consist of three people. We will also move into a new office as our current
location is becoming too small.
For the UPR process, 2013 will be as crucial as 2012.
will be facing significant
participation by a country. This will force
5/1 and define the concept of “persistent non
the capacity of the Council to look into States’ implementation and better support
implementation both by States and
Financial and Technical Assistance.
UPR Info will be monitoring these
created and maintained in order
ILOOKING FORWARD: 2013
AANNNNUUAALL
Promoting and strengthening Periodic Review
will celebrate its five-year anniversary. This fifth year will
coincide with many changes for the organisation. We will increase
new Programme Manager will be hired to reinforce our small team
three people. We will also move into a new office as our current
location is becoming too small.
For the UPR process, 2013 will be as crucial as 2012. Its credibility and functioning
challenges, including the first potential case of non
participation by a country. This will force the Council to look into art. 38
5/1 and define the concept of “persistent non-cooperation”. Another
the capacity of the Council to look into States’ implementation and better support
by States and by CSOs, notably through the Voluntary Fund for
Financial and Technical Assistance.
will be monitoring these developments and ensuring that the
in order to protect the mechanism.
LOOKING FORWARD: 2013
RREEPPOORRTT 22001122
19
year anniversary. This fifth year will
increase our staff: A
new Programme Manager will be hired to reinforce our small team, which then
three people. We will also move into a new office as our current
credibility and functioning
the first potential case of non-
the Council to look into art. 38 of resolution
ther challenge will be
the capacity of the Council to look into States’ implementation and better support the
CSOs, notably through the Voluntary Fund for
the standards are
Promoting and strengthening the Universal Periodic Reviewhttp://www.upr-info.org
PR Info has
consultant for
Review project and currently
working with NGOs and international organisations, Ms. Manieva will be providing
valuable insight into the finance
extensively followed the process of the 2011 HRC Review for
publication “Analytical assessment of the UPR: 2008
extensive knowledge of our organisation and of the UPR process.
pleased with this new appointment
experience.
UPR Info has also been attributed the Special Consultative status by the United
Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) during its substantive session on
23 July 2012. This new status will facilitate our engagement at the HRC and
notably to take the floor during the general debate on the UPR
Executive Board
� Bertrand G. Ramcharan
� Saida Manieva – Treasurer
� Waqas Ali Saqib – Secretary
Advisory Board
� Anita Goh (France) -
� Marianne Lilliebjerg (Denmark)
� Professor Edward R. McMahon (United States)
� Katharina Rose (Germany) Human Rights Institutions
� Micheál Tierney (Ireland) in Geneva
U ORGANISATION
AANNNNUUAALL
Promoting and strengthening Periodic Review
has elected a new Treasurer: Ms. Saida Manieva, former
consultant for our organisation in the framework of the 2011 HRC
Review project and currently working at the OSCE. With a long record
NGOs and international organisations, Ms. Manieva will be providing
valuable insight into the finances and management of the organisation
followed the process of the 2011 HRC Review for UPR Info
publication “Analytical assessment of the UPR: 2008-2010” and therefore
extensive knowledge of our organisation and of the UPR process.
new appointment and looks forward to benefiting from her
has also been attributed the Special Consultative status by the United
Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) during its substantive session on
This new status will facilitate our engagement at the HRC and
the floor during the general debate on the UPR in the
Bertrand G. Ramcharan – President
Treasurer
Secretary
- NGO Group for the CRC
Marianne Lilliebjerg (Denmark) - Amnesty International
Professor Edward R. McMahon (United States) - University of Vermont
Katharina Rose (Germany) - International Coordinating Committee of National Human Rights Institutions
Micheál Tierney (Ireland) - Permanent Mission of Ireland to the United Nations
ORGANISATION
RREEPPOORRTT 22001122
20
Saida Manieva, former
in the framework of the 2011 HRC
. With a long record of
NGOs and international organisations, Ms. Manieva will be providing
and management of the organisation. She
UPR Info, and our
2010” and therefore has an
UPR Info is very
looks forward to benefiting from her
has also been attributed the Special Consultative status by the United
Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) during its substantive session on
This new status will facilitate our engagement at the HRC and more
in the HRC session.
University of Vermont
Committee of National
Permanent Mission of Ireland to the United Nations
Promoting and strengthening the Universal Periodic Reviewhttp://www.upr-info.org
ix interns from Greece, Guyana, Italy,
Tobago, the United Kingdom, and the United States worked at
during 2012. They undertook numerous tasks and did invaluable work on the
website, the database, the follow
Secretariat
� Roland Chauville – Executive Director
� Jean-Claude Vignoli
� Damaris Mabeya – Intern
� Shannon Meehan – Intern
� Onica Marie Peirera Cheong
� Morgan Robinson – Intern
� Barbara Sartore – Intern
� Karolina Schismenou
� Kira Youdina – Intern
SSTAFF
AANNNNUUAALL
Promoting and strengthening Periodic Review
Greece, Guyana, Italy, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan
the United Kingdom, and the United States worked at
during 2012. They undertook numerous tasks and did invaluable work on the
website, the database, the follow-up programme, and the pre-sessions.
Executive Director
Claude Vignoli – Programmes Director
Intern
Intern
Onica Marie Peirera Cheong – Intern
Intern
Intern
Karolina Schismenou – Intern
Intern
RREEPPOORRTT 22001122
21
Kyrgyzstan, Trinidad and
the United Kingdom, and the United States worked at UPR Info
during 2012. They undertook numerous tasks and did invaluable work on the
sessions.
Promoting and strengthening the Universal Periodic Reviewhttp://www.upr-info.org
PR Info’s activities to strengthen CSO participation in the UPR were
supported by the Open Society Foundations
Mission of the Netherlands to the United Nations in Geneva. The Royal Ministry of
Foreign Affairs of Norway financed the follow
made possible thanks to the support of the Federal Department of Foreign A
Switzerland, the Canton of Geneva, the City of Geneva and Irish Aid.
We are very grateful for the trust they have put into our work and would like to
warmly thank them for this.
U FUNDING
AANNNNUUAALL
Promoting and strengthening Periodic Review
’s activities to strengthen CSO participation in the UPR were
by the Open Society Foundations - Budapest and the Permanent
Mission of the Netherlands to the United Nations in Geneva. The Royal Ministry of
Foreign Affairs of Norway financed the follow-up programme. The pre
made possible thanks to the support of the Federal Department of Foreign A
and, the Canton of Geneva, the City of Geneva and Irish Aid.
We are very grateful for the trust they have put into our work and would like to
.
RREEPPOORRTT 22001122
22
’s activities to strengthen CSO participation in the UPR were
and the Permanent
Mission of the Netherlands to the United Nations in Geneva. The Royal Ministry of
The pre-sessions were
made possible thanks to the support of the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs of
and, the Canton of Geneva, the City of Geneva and Irish Aid.
We are very grateful for the trust they have put into our work and would like to
Promoting and strengthening the Universal Periodic Reviewhttp://www.upr-info.org
PR Info is a non-
Switzerland. Its aim is to both raise awareness on the UPR process and
provide capacity-building tools to its different actors, such as UN Member States,
NGOs, NHRIs, media, academics and
To this end, UPR Info collects information and documents on each review, provides
detailed explanations and videos about the process and the role of each actor,
publishes a monthly newsletter on the mechanism, conducts analyses o
rights issues raised during the process, looks into responses given to
recommendations by States, publishes reports on the implementation of
recommendations by countries at mid
UPR recommendations.
Website:
Phone:
Fax:
General enquiries
Follow-up programme
Newsletter “UPR Trax”
U CONTACT
AANNNNUUAALL
Promoting and strengthening Periodic Review
-profit, non-governmental organisation based in Geneva,
Switzerland. Its aim is to both raise awareness on the UPR process and
building tools to its different actors, such as UN Member States,
NGOs, NHRIs, media, academics and civil society in general.
collects information and documents on each review, provides
detailed explanations and videos about the process and the role of each actor,
publishes a monthly newsletter on the mechanism, conducts analyses o
rights issues raised during the process, looks into responses given to
recommendations by States, publishes reports on the implementation of
recommendations by countries at mid-term and manages an online database of all
UPR Info
Rue de Varembé 3
1202 Geneva
Switzerland
http://www.upr-info.org
+ 41 (0) 22 321 77 70
+ 41 (0) 22 321 77 71
RREEPPOORRTT 22001122
23
governmental organisation based in Geneva,
Switzerland. Its aim is to both raise awareness on the UPR process and to
building tools to its different actors, such as UN Member States,
collects information and documents on each review, provides
detailed explanations and videos about the process and the role of each actor,
publishes a monthly newsletter on the mechanism, conducts analyses of human
rights issues raised during the process, looks into responses given to
recommendations by States, publishes reports on the implementation of
term and manages an online database of all
info.org
+ 41 (0) 22 321 77 70
+ 41 (0) 22 321 77 71
info.org
info.org
info.org