Making SMART recommendations: Training on the UPR review

On 30 June, the Norwegian Human Rights Fund organised a workshop for participants from India, Sri Lanka, Mexico, Bangladesh and Nepal on UN mechanisms, with a particular focus on the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process.
Image

The workshop was facilitated by Miloon Kothari, who is the President of UPR Info, former UN Special Rapporteur on adequate housing, and member of the NHRF’s Advisory Board. The workshop started with an introduction of the various UN human rights mechanisms, with an overview of their structure and mandate. Next, the UPR system within the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) was explored in great detail.

Facilitator Miloon Kothari provided a detailed presentation of the role of civil society in the UPR process, which has led many governments to collaborate and work together with civil society actors. Civil society members can play an active part in the preparation stage, the national consultation stage, as well as in the review stage. NGOs have a particularly important role to play in conducting advocacy work to ensure that countries accept recommendations, by meeting with government representatives, the parliament or inter-ministerial committees. NGOs are also well placed to advocate for the implementation of the recommendations made, by for example issuing a press release or a public statement and conducting campaigns on social media. Miloon Kothari stressed the importance of linking the recommendations with concluding observations from various UN Treaty Bodies, Missions from UN Special Rapporteurs or Regional Human Rights Mechanisms. More active civil society organisations can play a significant role in contributing to the implementation of the recommendations, while more passive civil society organisations can play a great role in monitoring and conducting research.

The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) process

The United Nations Human Rights Council is an inter-governmental body established in 2006 and made up of 47 states. Within the HRC, the UPR process consists of a state-led peer-review process, by which states examine the human rights record of other states and give recommendations. Countries are reviewed periodically, thus holding states to account. The review process is non-confrontational, and all states are reviewed on an equal basis. Moreover, all rights, including those the reviewed state has not ratified, can be raised.

The review of the state is based on a national report (written by the state under review with broad national consultation), a compilation of information by the UN Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner (OHCHR) (treaty bodies, special procedures and UN agencies) and a summary of Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) and National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) reports by OHCHR. The UPR system is the only UN human rights mechanisms with a 100% participation rate of states.

The UPR recommendations are not binding on states. However, there is an understanding among states that they should respect and acknowledge the recommendations made. The subsequent review of the state includes an assessment of how well the states has implemented the recommendations and incorporate new recommendations.

Image: UNHCR.

Miloon Kothari highlighted some important achievements from the UPR system, such as the establishment of a National Human Rights Institution (NHRI) in Pakistan, the acceptance of same-sex marriages in Costa Rica, and the criminalisation of marital rape in Thailand and the Republic of Korea. He further shared valuable advice on how to draft effective UPR recommendations. To be effective, a recommendation should only touch on one specific theme, include only one action and be very specific. It is also advised to make reference to the sustainable development goals (SDGs) and their targets, as well as UN Treaty Bodies and Mechanisms. He recommended using the SMART recipe:

  • S – specific, (e.g. “repeal a specific legislation”)
  • M – measurable
  • A – achievable (state should have the capacity to achieve the recommendation based on its economic resources and political will, e.g. “increase the annual budget allocated to the health sector”)
  • R – relevant (to the country context)
  • T – timebound (there should be a deadline for implementation)

Finally, grantees had an opportunity to examine recommendations for their respective countries and draft more effective recommendations using the SMART-model. The workshop ended with a discussion of these recommendations.

Image
Facilitator Miloon Kothari, during the training.