Through the regional prism of UPR experience

Details

22.03.2013

22 March 2013 – Kyiv – What is the experience of the CIS countries in going through the UPR? What questions did UN member states raise in relation to the CIS states? How did the CIS countries react to recommendations?

These were just some of the issues discussed at the morning session of the “Building Bridges: Collaborative Networks and International Mechanisms for Human Rights Protection” Regional Conference for human rights defenders and journalists held in Kyiv on 21-22 March.

Developed within the framework of UNDP project “Leveraging change through the Universal Periodic Review” with financial support from the British Embassy in Kyiv, the study is a path-blazer, presenting a first ever comprehensive analysis pertaining to the CIS region. It resulted in a number of interesting findings, in particular:

• Recommendations involving international obligations and human rights institutional protection were mentioned 528 times in total, representing 24% of all recommendations made to CIS countries.
• Only 6% of all recommendations to CIS countries came from regional counterparts, which testifies to a rather low participation rate in the mutual, intra-regional review.
• There is thematic variation between the topics raised by CIS and non-CIS states in recommendations to countries within the region:

1. Most frequently the non-CIS delegations recommended enhanced participation in the international human rights instruments (223 items), ensuring protection of women’s rights (167 items), and promoting the rights of the child (164 items);
2. CIS-countries called on their regional peers to observe the rights of minorities (11 items), women’s rights (10 items) and to prevent human trafficking (9 items).

• In terms of acceptance and rejection rates in the first UPR cycle, the acceptance rate of all recommendations in the region (74%) parallels the rate for the rest of the world (73,5%).
• The CIS countries with highest recommendation acceptance rates are Moldova (122 accepted, 1 rejected) followed by Kyrgyzstan (154 accepted, 3 rejected), while the highest rejection rates rest with Russia (75 accepted, 41 rejected) and Belarus (124 accepted, 45 rejected).
• Recommendations pertaining to adherence to OPCAT (Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture) and ICCPR (OP2) (Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that abolishes the death penalty) constitute the category of “most rejected” recommendations. The “international instruments” category has an overall rejection rate of 28% in the region, while at the same time being most popular recommendation.
• In their alternative submissions to the UPR process, international CSOs raised the issues of civil and political rights much more often than national CSOs in the region. At the same time national CSOs highlighted the rights of women, children and people with disabilities more frequently than their international colleagues.

The last section of the research report detailed the success stories and best practices behind some of the UPR national preparation and implementation processes. Examples of Lichtenstein, Ukraine, Panama, Denmark, Burkina-Faso, Australia, Costa-Rica, FYR Macedonia and other states were briefly analyzed and suggested for further study and replication.