We are launching the first database of UPR recommendations. This unique feature will allow to access and search all recommendations through eight different categories (State under review, Recommending state, regional group and organisation, response, UPR session, thematic issue and an exclusive category looking into the type of action contained in each recommendation) and fine-tune research by combining criteria (from the same filter or by different filters) and searching for key words.
A new trend has emerged at the UPR in the framework of responses to recommendations. More and more States under Review are considering some recommendations to be "either already implemented or in the process of implementation".
- A debate started Friday 19 February on whether including in Working Group Reports footnotes containing the original wording of recommendations.1 Egypt seized the opportunity offered by the adoption of its own Report to question the relevance of listing recommendations both in their accepted wording and in their original one as delivered during the interactive dialogue. Making reference to a recommendation by Chile, the delegate asked where did the use of footnotes start and mentioned that they could not accept this footnote until it said that the change of the wording was requested by Chile. This proposal to take that footnote off was backed by Pakistan, Nigeria and Cuba. Pakistan said that there was no point in including this footnote and Cuba that getting rid of it would diminish words number.
In its Report of the Working Group A/HRC/WG.6/7/L.16, Egypt rejected seven recommendations they considered "inaccurate and/or factually incorrect". One of those recommendations was made by Sweden on the issue of the state of emergency. During the adoption of the Report Friday 19 February, the Swedish delegation took the floor to precise that this recommendation was based on "several factual reports by Amnesty International and by the National Council for Human Rights in Egypt".