JURIST Special Guest Columnist Ophélie Namiech, a Legacy Heritage Fellow working for UN Watch in Geneva, says that to restore the credibility of the UN Human Rights Council governments that care about human rights must commit themselves to do everything in their power to ensure that the current Universal Periodic Review process succeeds…

When the UN Human Rights Council wrapped up its main annual session last week, human rights organizations criticized its silence over abuses in Tibet, Zimbabwe and Iran, as well as its redefinition of the freedom of expression mandate to conform to the sensitivities of Islamic states.

Nevertheless, many activists and diplomats insist that the Council’s relevance and reputation will be saved by a new procedure that opened this week, the Universal Periodic Review (UPR). A key feature of the 2006 reform of the Council, UPR was designed to end selectivity and double standards by ensuring an objective examination of every UN member’s human rights record.

Will UPR save the Council from the fate of its discredited predecessor? A close analysis of the new mechanism reveals both opportunities as well as difficult challenges.

On the optimistic side, two key elements stand out.

First, unlike the old Commission on Human Rights, UPR’s coverage of all 192 states promotes the principle of universality, and upholds the UN Charter’s guarantee of equal treatment to all nations large and small.

Every year the Council will devote three sessions to examine a total of 48 countries so that over four years, all 192 will be reviewed.

Bolstering the principles of universality and equality is vital given that the Council’s plenary sessions have, like the old Commission, continued to ignore most of the world’s violations.

Indeed, after two years of existence, the world’s highest human rights body has fallen short of its promise to ensure “universal respect for the protection of all human rights.”

The Council has been silent on Zimbabwe’s attacks against journalists, political dissidents, minorities, gays, lesbians, and human rights activists.

It has been silent on Saudi Arabia’s lashing of women who dare to walk the streets without their official “guardians.”

It has been silent on China’s banning of foreign journalists from Lhasa, following the killings and arrests in the Tibetan capital.

It has been silent on Iran’s summary executions of individuals charged with homosexuality.

The list goes on.

Under the UPR procedure, however, even the most oppressive regimes will be subject to examination. China, Russia and Saudi Arabia will have their human rights records reviewed in 2009, Iran and Libya in 2010, and Zimbabwe in 2011.

The second positive element of UPR is the participation of non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Under the procedure, the Council’s review will consider NGO submissions, as summarized by the UN secretariat.

These two positive elements — universal review and NGO participation — are indeed encouraging signs.

Still, there at least three major concerns with UPR.

First, despite the consideration of NGO information, the country reviewed maintains significant control over the outcome of the process. The rules established in June 2007 require that the UPR be an “intergovernmental process” and not be “overly burdensome for the concerned State.”

Consequently, one should hardly expect North Korea to volunteer information on its extrajudicial killings and Burma on its jailing of political prisoners.

Second, not only does the country under examination get to be the main supplier of information, but the review process itself is conducted by its peers — the 47 members of the Council, many of whom are themselves recognized human rights violators.

When Algeria is reviewed on April 14, does anyone really expect to see tough questions from China, Russia, Egypt, Pakistan, and Cuba, and all of the others at the Council who work in close alliance with Algeria? Those belonging to the most powerful political or regional alliances — the African Group chaired by Egypt, the Islamic group chaired by Pakistan, the Non-Aligned Movement chaired by Cuba — are guaranteed virtual immunity.

Third, not only does the UPR have weaknesses as a remedy, but it may even serve as a weapon. Those opposed to robust country review mechanisms of the UN human rights system — country mandates and resolutions — now argue that these are rendered unnecessary by the introduction of the UPR.

One target of theirs is the system of independent experts on country situations, such as Myanmar and Sudan. The investigators provide valuable reports that raise international awareness of violations, and cause them to be at least addressed by the Council’s debates.

For that very reason, these mandates are opposed by countries that are not free. In the last session, Cuba, China, North Korea, Zimbabwe and Algeria all slammed the experts for what they called “naming and shaming,” and demanded the mandates be terminated. Sadly, they succeeded in eliminating the expert on the Democratic Republic of Congo. It will be a tragic irony if UPR is turned into a weapon in the arsenal of those seeking to minimize or eliminate scrutiny, instead of increasing it.

What should be done? Governments that care about human rights must commit themselves to do everything in their power to ensure that UPR succeeds. Democratic member states of the Council like the U.K., France, Germany and Canada must show the courage to ask challenging questions that rely not only on states’ reports but also on NGO submissions to all countries reviewed — including those with whom they are most closely allied.

This might help restore the credibility of the Council. More importantly, it might begin to meet the expectations of those who need the Council most: the millions of victims of human rights violations around the world.

Ophélie Namiech is a Legacy Heritage Fellow working for UN Watch in Geneva currently reporting on the Human Rights Council’s UPR.
——–