AN NUAL REPORT 2012 · 2. CSO Capacity-Building Programme 2.1. Offering technical assistance 2.2. Participating in trainings and conferences 2.3. Updating the database and developing

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


e currently encounter a decisive turning point, facing both abundant

opportunities to maximize the UPR’s potential and consolidate and build upon its



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


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.


3’000 recommendations by 66 States. In the framework of the follow


term. “On the road to implementation” was launched during


INTRODUCTION

RREEPPOORRTT 22001122

2

UPR Info’s 2012 Annual

second cycle and in this


e currently encounter a decisive turning point, facing both abundant

potential and consolidate and build upon its



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


ensure that they better address them in their

mber of CSOs with

effective lobbying.


3’000 recommendations by 66 States. In the framework of the follow-up programme,


term. “On the road to implementation” was launched during



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


vided the ground for a fruitful discussion on the obstacles actors are facing to


to the website increased again to reach a record figure of

is 11'000 visits per month. More than ever, our broad and


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


3

vided the ground for a fruitful discussion on the obstacles actors are facing to


increased again to reach a record figure of

More than ever, our broad and


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


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


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 .......................


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


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


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


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)


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


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


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


ould open the door for other

The Council should therefore

or postponing their

stent non-cooperation” as

and the actions to take when


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


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


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


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


, 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


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



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


date practices. We also updated the “timeline” for CSO

Review and Recommending States. The three videos on the UPR


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


understanding of its modalities and how they can engage.


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.


7


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


date practices. We also updated the “timeline” for CSOs,

Review and Recommending States. The three videos on the UPR


, we developed fact sheets on the

se fact sheets aim at providing


modalities and how they can engage.


governmental organisations (NGOs) working on this

2012 two fact sheets

published on the UPR mechanism and on NGO submission to the UPR in


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


advocacy opportunities

In order to ensure that CSOs possess the necessary information

States at the appropriate time, UPR Info teamed up with "Mandat International


interventions for the UPR working group. The aim of this survey was to improve

these processes, with a view to facilitate their interaction and


opportunity to inform NGOs about States’ preferences regarding

NGOs should contact them, with a view to saving time and making the process more


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


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


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


8

information in order to lobby

Mandat International" to


m of this survey was to improve

a view to facilitate their interaction and


regarding how and when

view to saving time and making the process more


involved the participation of 31 states. The results have been sent to all Geneva-

on our website for CSO access in


made two oral statements at the Human Rights


that the average percentage of recommendations

therefore called on

recommendations they made at


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


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


HRC session in September 2012, we denounced the practice of

States negotiating the wording of recommendations made during the UPR


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.



of their own statement within the report of the UPR Working Group, and the



corrections be made to that text. We argued that this practise is unnecessary and


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


9

consistent follow-up was

-up would result in

the UPR into a rhetoric exercise

discuss human rights and


we denounced the practice of

States negotiating the wording of recommendations made during the UPR in a joint


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.



in the report of the UPR Working Group, and the



his practise is unnecessary and


notably the new online

and the word limits for

how to engage in the

, we have reached over 250


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


NGOs, NHRIs, Government officials and academics) from Algeria,



We also started offering a new service to CSOs. We sent a reminder


had submitted a contribution on those States during the first cycle.

year before the UPR, contained the date of review of the specific country,


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


, Ireland, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Macedonia


Pakistan, Philippines, Republic of Congo, Romania, Russian Federation,


Zambia.


10

NGOs, NHRIs, Government officials and academics) from Algeria,



We also started offering a new service to CSOs. We sent a reminder by email to


the first cycle. These reminders,

year before the UPR, contained the date of review of the specific country,


modalities, links to the recommendations received by the Government at the previous

on the second cycle, advising

hundred representatives

: Algeria, Azerbaijan, Burma, China, Côte


, Ireland, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan, Macedonia,


Pakistan, Philippines, Republic of Congo, Romania, Russian Federation,



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


The organisations we worked with included: Amnesty International


and Political Rights, Freedom House, the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung


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,


in the framework of a study launched by Professor Hilary Charlesworth



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


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


international organisations, and academic research. We regularly receive request

strive to respond positively to these. Last but not least, by


11

The organisations we worked with included: Amnesty International – Ireland, the


and Political Rights, Freedom House, the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, the Geneva


Parliamentary Union, the Minority Rights Group,

the Office of the High Commissioner for Human

’s Executive Director was invited to Canberra, Australia,


f a study launched by Professor Hilary Charlesworth



to what extent the UPR

”. UPR Info presented a paper on 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


international organisations, and academic research. We regularly receive requests

Last but not least, by


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


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


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


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


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.


made on the selected issue. This tool saves

quickly and easily


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


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


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).


All Permanent Missions, including that of the State under Review, are invited to


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


r Review, are invited to


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


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



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


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



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-


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


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


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


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



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



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


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;


16


Programme, as the

Mission of Slovenia explained: “I would also

UPR Info in following



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


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


• 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


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


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,


downloaded over 2’000 times from our website.


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


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,



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


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



providing them with an exhaustive overview of how to engage in the follow

s and the documents needed to do so.


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



providing them with an exhaustive overview of how to engage in the follow-up


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Greece, Guyana, Italy, Kenya, Kyrgyzstan

the United Kingdom, and the United States worked at


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


21

Kyrgyzstan, Trinidad and

the United Kingdom, and the United States worked at UPR Info


sessions.


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


’s activities to strengthen CSO participation in the UPR were

by the Open Society Foundations - Budapest and the Permanent


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.


.


22

’s activities to strengthen CSO participation in the UPR were

and the Permanent


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.



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


-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


publishes a monthly newsletter on the mechanism, conducts analyses o



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

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]


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


publishes a monthly newsletter on the mechanism, conducts analyses of human



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

Documents

AN NUAL REPORT 2012 · 2. CSO Capacity-Building Programme 2.1. Offering technical assistance 2.2. Participating in trainings and conferences 2.3. Updating the database and developing