Déjà vu at the UPR
The first and second sessions of the much-waited Working Group on Universal Periodic Review of the UN Human Rights Council took place in April and May 2008. The Outcome Documents have been adopted by the plenary session of the Human Rights Council in June 2008. The experiences of the first two sessions provide some glimpses about the UPR process which seeks to ensure the respect for “the principles of universality, impartiality, objectivity and nonselectivity, constructive international dialogue and cooperation, with a view to enhancing the promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development”.
In order to highlight indigenous peoples issues of Asia, AITPN submitted stakeholders reports on India, Indonesia and Philippines. The submissions were titled “India: No democracy for those living on the margins”, "Indonesia: Transmigration, human rights violations and impunity” and “The Philippines: All promises, No implementation”. AITPN’s submissions were duly noted in the summaries prepared by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on India (A/HRC/WG.6/1/IND/3), Indonesia (A/HRC/WG.6/1/ IDN/3) and Philippines (A/HRC/ WG.6/1/PHL/3).
Yet, the sessions of the Working Group on the UPR of the Human Rights Council have been a case of déjà vu. The Troika of the UPR had no role in the deliberations of the Working Group. The consideration of a State report started with the presentations of the report by the representatives of the concerned State. As the Troika had no role, the summary of stakeholders' information and the Compilation of UN information prepared by the OHCHR were not introduced at all. Most of the States refused to refer to the summary of stakeholders' information and the compilation of UN information which actually reflected the realities on the ground. Except a few, most States continued to either congratulate the examinee State in order to kill the time or ask “stating the obvious questions”. For many States which are currently being criticised for gross human rights violations, it was a time for taking pot shots at the Western countries.
Obviously, there are many problems with the UPR process.
First, most of the States who raised questions failed to reflect the ground realities of human rights situations in general and indigenous peoples in particular. The State reports still focused on providing information about the people, constitution and various laws which are seldom implemented at national level.
Second, most State delegates failed to refer to two documents (summary of stakeholders' information and the Compilation of UN information) and therefore, the debate in the Working Group on UPR of the Human Rights Council also failed to reflect the reality. Many States oragnised their own bed-fellows to congratulate and spent 3 hours allotted for the debate.
Third, the Outcome Documents mostly did not reflect the debate in the Working Group on UPR.
Fourth, the Outcome Documents and the decisions of the HR-Council regarding the countries with bad human rights records did not reflect the reality.
Fifth, the recommendations did not reflect one of the main tasks of the Human Rights Counci that of technical assistance and field operations. After all, those who advocated the Universal Periodic Review to address selectivity, politicisation etc had put promotion of “human rights education and learning as well as advisory services, technical assistance and capacitybuilding” as one of the main tasks of the UN Human Rights Council.
The recommendations adopted at first and second sessions of the UPR on all the countries across the spectrum fall far short of the recommendations made by the UN Treaty Bodies if a particular country has been examined especially by the UN Human Rights Committee, UN Committee on the ESCR and the CERD Committee. It is hard to find a recommendation in the UPR that has not been made by the UN Treaty Bodies or the Special Procedures in a more succinct and eloquent manner. The UPR is useful for those States which refuse to ratify the key international human rights treaties or which do not implement the recommendations of the Treaty Bodies. For those which do not have any commitment on the promotion and protection of human rights, UPR could indeed be a forum to obtain legitimacy and block any country resolutions.