Human Rights Council and the universal periodic review

National human rights institutions have a clear role in the Human Rights Council: those with “A” status, along with the International Coordinating Committee itself and re-gional coordinating bodies of NHRIs speaking on behalf of their “A” status members, are entitled to:

–

Make oral statements under all agenda items of the Human Rights Council;

– Submit documents, which will be issued with a unique symbol number;

– Take separate seating in all sessions.⁷¹

The universal periodic review (UPR) is a human rights mechanism established through the Human Rights Council. It was created through United Nations General Assembly resolution 60/251 of 15 March 2006.⁷² It reviews the human rights obligations and commitments of each United Nations Member State. It is a cooperative mechanism and is intended to complement, not duplicate, the work of the human rights treaty bodies.

Human Rights Council resolution 5/1 sets out the periodicity and process. The review operates on a four-year cycle. States prepare their reports through a broad national consultation process, which should include NHRIs.

The review is conducted in a working group and leads to a report, consisting of a summary of the proceedings, conclusions and/or recommendations, and the voluntary commitments of the State concerned. Although the primary responsibility lies of course with the Member State, resolution 5/1 authorizes the active engagement of NHRIs by:⁷³

–

Submitting information for inclusion in the summary prepared by OHCHR of infor-mation provided by other relevant stakeholders;

– Attending the UPR in the Working Group;

– Making general comments before the adoption of the Working Group’s report in plenary;

– Being involved in the follow-up to the recommendations (although the primary re-sponsibility for this lies with the State).

71 Rule 7 of the Human Rights Council’s rules of procedure (set out in its resolution 5/1) provides that the participation of NHRIs shall be based on arrangements and practices agreed upon by the Commission on Human Rights, including those in its resolution 2005/74.

72 For more information, see www.ohchr.org.

d. o

^{ther NatioNal humaN rights} iNstitutioNs aNd

regioNal NetWorks

One of the reasons why NHRIs, supported throughout by the United Nations, have developed national, regional and subregional associations was to facilitate inter-insti-tutional dialogue and promote the sharing of best practices. Newly created institutions should be encouraged and supported in developing and maintaining contacts with these networks. Regular dialogue with other institutions will help a new institution understand that the problems it faces are common to many other institutions. More importantly, this dialogue is an opportunity to learn from others.

Some of the methods that have been used to encourage and facilitate this exchange, beyond regular meetings, are:

■

■ Promoting staff exchanges so that institutions can benefit from the experience of others with regard to their approaches to particular issues;

■

■ Promoting study tours from one institution to another where one has a recognized expertise in an area that the other wishes to develop;

■

■ Promoting the sending of experts from one institution to another to help the second institution develop its own expertise;

■

■ Organizing seminars and workshops with two or more institutions to examine a particular problem or issue in order to compare and draw lessons from how each approaches the issue;

■

■ Encouraging the development of formal and informal relationships between institu-tions to allow regular contact between them, including at the staff level;

■

■ Organizing national, subregional or regional training in a human rights area of com-mon concern; and

■

■ Encouraging easy and cost-effective ways of sharing information on how a given institution has dealt with a particular issue.

Encouraging participation in international and regional networks also serves to validate the newly created institution. Acceptance and accreditation by the networks will con-firm that the institution operates in conformity with the Paris Principles and lend it the credibility it will need to carry out the tasks required of it. Withholding an accreditation, of course, has the opposite effect, hence the need to ensure from the outset that an institution does meet the requirements imposed by the Paris Principles.

e. r

elatioNship With Civil soCiety

Cooperation is both a requirement and a need

As noted in chapters II and III, the Paris Principles specifically require NHRIs to cooperate with NGOs and to ensure pluralism. More pragmatically, the overall responsibilities of NHRIs in promoting and protecting human rights are extremely broad and cannot be attained without the active and ongoing engagement of other human rights actors.

Cooperation is a requisite for success. Scarcity of resources is a reality for civil society generally and NGOs in particular. Cooperation and coordination are therefore needed to ensure that limited resources are used effectively, including by avoiding the duplica-tion of effort.

Civil society, in particular NGOs, operates at the grass-roots level and will therefore have local information that may not be so readily available to an NHRI. This information is necessary to allow the institution to develop effective initiatives to deal with current issues. It also enables the institution to take preventive action to deal with local issues that might emerge later as more serious human rights problems. National human rights institutions, too, can offer civil society a number of advantages, including: a greater ex-pertise in certain fields; a broader perspective on human rights issues; and mechanisms through which such issues may be addressed more effectively.

Civil society may be suspicious of a Government’s motives for setting up an NHRI. It may view the establishment of an institution as having more to do with a Government’s wish to deflect criticism than an honest desire to help secure human rights. An NHRI is, after all, a State-sponsored and State-funded organization and so it is understandable that civil society might be cynical, especially if it is not aware of the positive role an institu-tion can play. For this reason it is important to involve civil society in the debate on the establishment of an NHRI as early as possible so that it has a stake in ensuring that the new institution satisfies the Paris Principles.

A proposed or newly created NHRI may also be seen by civil society as a potential rival for donor funding. If fact, the roles of NHRIs and civil society are complementary but differ-ent, and the establishment of a strong human rights culture in any country will require both to operate and to do so effectively. Civil society must understand that NHRIs are a fact of life, and can play a leading role in promoting and protecting human rights. They can also, through cooperation and coordination, increase programming opportunities rather than diminish them. At the same time, to the extent that an NHRI receives donor funding, this should not be at the expense of civil society. Moreover, donor funding can promote the genuine cooperation and coordination between the two sectors that is necessary for human rights to flourish.

Conclusion

Throughout this publication the important roles and responsibilities of NHRIs have been examined. Institutions do not operate in isolation, however, and there are other bodies with major roles to play in securing human rights. The task of doing so, given its enor-mity, importance and difficulty, can best be achieved if all those involved in promoting and protecting human rights—in particular institutions, the courts, parliament and hu-man rights NGOs—understand their unique areas of competence and coordinate and cooperate when this is practical and appropriate. Each of these bodies can contribute

IX. NATIONAL HUMAN

Dans le document National Human Rights Institutions — History , Principles, Roles and Responsibilities (Page 140-144)