The Permanent Missions of the Kingdom of Morocco, Switzerland and the United Kingdom organised on past 3 May informal discussion on the second cycle of the UPR, with the intention to generate further discussions within States.
Here are the conclusions and suggested practices on the second cycle of the UPR:
Assessment of UPR 1st cycle recommendations
- The UPR should be seen by all as an ongoing and continuous process, rather than a sequence of closed cycles.
- Consultation is a crucial part of the UPR process, and states should carry out regular consultation before and after the review.
- Recommendations made during successive cycles of the UPR should be considered as adding to a growing and combined body of recommendations. The use of a consolidated database of recommendations could therefore help states to see the overall picture. Existing databases should be consulted before issuing new recommendations.
- Recommending states should ensure a broad-based assessment of implementation, through a variety of information sources - including Embassies in the concerned country, information from NGOs and effective use of advance questions.
UPR 2nd cycle Recommendations
- Due to the reduced amount of speaking time under new modalities, it is more important than ever that states maintain a positive, constructive and balanced tone in their interventions.
- Approaching the state under review for information when formulating advance questions and recommendations could help to ensure they are well-informed and effective.
- Previously rejected recommendations may be re-considered by the SuR and may be repeated by the recommending states to ensure that the latest position of the SuR is.
- Recommending states should exercise restraint on the number of recommendations given, in order not to overload the burden for the SuR and the UPR mechanism.
- Recommendations should be clear, precise and implementable. They should address a specific subject, a concrete objective and an implementable measure.
- The percentage of recommendations accepted might not be the best target for states under review - it would be important to ensure that all accepted recommendations could realistically be implemented.
Working group reports and addendums
- A template for the WG report and Addendum would help ensure clarity, consistency and transparency of responses from states under review.
- Clustering or grouping recommendations has an important role to play in managing large numbers of repeated recommendations. Recommending states should be flexible to find ways to allow their recommendations to be clustered with others.
- Reflecting the full Interactive Dialogue and all recommendations in the limited space of the WG report will be challenging during the second cycle. If the first and second cycle WG reports are seen as an ongoing continuum, this will avoid the need for repetition.
- Completion of a Mid-Term Report by states under review not only increases transparency and demonstrates constructive engagement in the UPR process, it can also make reporting at the next cycle easier for the state under review.