The second and subsequent cycles of the review should focus on, inter alia, the implementation of the accepted recommendations and the development of the human rights situation in the State under review.
A/HRC/RES/16/21, adopted on 12 April 2011 (Annex I C § 6)
While the importance of recommendation follow-up is highlighted in the Human Rights Council, no precise guidelines have been set up on the way this should be undertaken. The key to UPR is for recommendations to be implemented. To ensure implementation, the international community has a monitoring and reporting duty. Unless UPR follow-up is seriously considered, the UPR mechanism as a whole could be jeopardized.
Between 2011 and 2014, UPR Info published assessments on the implementation of Universal Periodic Review recommendations, through its "Follow-up Programme". 165 countries reviewed at the UPR were covered at mid-term by the Programme, in between two UPRs. In a first step, every stakeholder (State reviewed, Scholars, NGOs, National Human Rights Institutions, UN Agencies) was invited to provide information about the implementation. In a second step, we published a "Mid-term Implementation Assessment" (MIA) compiling all inputs received from stakeholders. We published two studies based on data collected over 4 years, and one additional in 2016 not directly related to the "Follow-up Programme", but rather building on it.
A study depicting improvements witnessed on the ground after 9 years of UPR: The Butterfly Effect (November 2016)
A final report on 4 years of follow-up monitoring that includes many good practices in term of implementation and technical solutions to implementation: Beyond Promises (October 2014)
An overall study showing the first findings and addressing the challenges for the second UPR cycle, now outdated, is also available: On the road to implementation (October 2012)
Implementation of UPR recommendations at mid-term in 165 countries (2011-2014)
CSO Follow-up kits:
(thanks to Cultural Survival for translating the latter)