THE UPR – UN UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW OF COUNTRIES, IS AN IMPORTANT ADVOCACY MECHANISM & OPPORTUNITY FOR NGO’S TO REVIEW GENDER COMPONENTS OF INDIVIDUAL COUNTRY UPR DOCUMENTATION.

BASIC FACTS ABOUT THE UPR – http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/UPR/Pages/BasicFacts.aspx

_________________________________

UPR – UN UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW OF MEMBER STATES – SPREADING GOOD PRACTICES OF UPR IMPLEMENTATION

3.2 Civil Society Organizations CSO’s)

This chapter aims to offer a comprehensive overview of CSOs interaction with UPR. In doing so, it addresses the issue of funding, the benefits of working in coalitions and partnering with other UPR stakeholders. The chapter furthermore looks at how CSOs have advocated for increased attention to underrepresented issues at the UPR and tools available to amplify and sustain their UPR activities. Finally it notes that CSOs are increasingly using the UPR as a vehicle to merge the development agenda with human rights.

Since the advent of the UPR, civil society input has been vital for its effective functioning. CSOs in all regions of the globe contribute with primary evidence through submissions to the Stakeholder’s Report and oral interventions at the adoption stage. They act as a driver to keep the UPR on the agenda throughout the five-year UPR cycle and are vital to support implementation and hold governments accountable to deliver on their UPR commitments. In supporting the establishment of implementation plans and action strategies that take into account recommendations from other human rights mechanisms, they employ SMART indicators to track not just the government’s performance but also how their own activities feed into fulfilling recommendations.

While it is crystal clear that states are the duty-bearers carrying the primary responsibility of ensuring implementation of UPR recommendations, CSOs have a legitimate secondary mandate to contribute to the process. Indeed, it is equally clear that, whenever possible, civil society engagement with the UPR must go beyond contributing to the inputs, through submissions and oral statements, to actively engaging with the outputs, that is, implementation of recommendations.

The ultimate aim of CSOs’ UPR advocacy is to see their proposed recommendations implemented, a challenging voyage that can be unpacked in six stages. First, anchored in first-hand evidence from the ground, CSOs develop SMART recommendations that they advocate for states to use in the UPR of the State under Review. Second, CSOs utilise the window between the UPR and the adoption of the UPR report to encourage the state to accept their priority 24 recommendations, were they not already accepted during the review. The Nepalese Informal Sector Service Center (INSEC) did this successfully during the second Review of Nepal which resulted in the government accepting four additional recommendations.67 Third, during the implementation phase, CSOs should to the extent possible engage in constructive dialogue with all UPR stakeholders to assess how they can contribute to implementation. This does not per se require additional resources as the work already carried out by civil society groups may in fact contribute to implementation. Fourth, CSOs will benefit from employing a watch dog role monitoring the implementation rate and holding the government accountable for the promises of implementation made during the UPR process. Fifth, partnering with other UPR stakeholders is crucial for monitoring and implementation. Key partners during the implementation stage are the states that issued recommendations as they will be interested in receiving updates from CSOs that closely follow the process. The sixth and final step completes the cycle with a call for CSOs to repeat their suggested recommendation if implementation has not been satisfactory in the runup to the next UPR.

Direct Link to Full 57-Page 2016 Publication:

https://www.upr-info.org/sites/default/files/general-document/pdf/2016_the_butterfly_effect.pdf

3.2.2 Civil Society Coalitions

In order to maximise the influence of their UPR activities, CSOs have found it beneficial to work in international and national coalitions. Encouraged by the modalities of the UPR that recognise the legitimate space of CSOs and welcome constructive input from CSOs through national consultations and joint submissions, CSO coalitions have mushroomed in various constellations. Some pursue human rights improvement through various mechanisms whereas others are entirely dedicated to the UPR. It is not uncommon for a CSO to be a member of several networks, and as such, may work primarily on the UPR in one setting and on, for example, Treaty Body reporting in a separate context together with organisations.