yourHRC.org A window onto cooperation, dialogue, leadership and policymaking at the UN Human Rights Council
The Human Rights Council in
2015 Leadership, resolve and cooperation at the UN’s main human rights body
The ninth year of the Human Rights Council’s existence will be remembered for many important initiatives
The Council in 2015: from efficiency to effectiveness, from reaction to prevention?
and developments, from the body’s work to support human rights in Sri Lanka to the creation of a new Special Procedures mandate on the right to privacy.
Looking back, policymakers might also recall an increasingly polarised atmosphere in Room XX with, as one indicator of this, a spike in the number of voted resolutions (compared to previous years). That spike in turn reflects disagreements over important human rights questions, often related to matters of religion or belief, which influenced negotiations on issues as seemingly unrelated as domestic violence, ‘protection of the family,’ and ‘freedom of artistic expression.’
Notwithstanding these issues and trends, it is likely that, in years to come, people will mainly remember 2015 as a year of efficiency drives, of nascent efforts to tackle the international ‘implementation gap,’ and (towards the end of the year) of a re-emergent recognition of the importance of prevention in the UN’s human rights toolkit.
Upon taking Office on 1st January, H.E. Ambassador Joachim Ruecker, the incoming ninth President of Council, announced three ‘baskets’ of priorities that would guide his work over the coming year. These were:
• Efficiency – this ‘basket’ sought to respond to concerns that the Council’s work and output was widening at an unsustainable rate, and that this was having a detrimental effect on the ‘deepening’ of the body’s work in terms of focus, effectiveness and impact, especially at a time of zero growth in the UN’s regular budget. • Effectiveness – any efficiency drive should not be conducted for the sake of it, or to lessen the burden on diplomats, but rather to enable the Council to focus on its core work and on those issues where it can make a real difference to people’s lives and rights, and to work more effectively and generate greater impact. • Relationship with New York – Ambassador Ruecker underscored the importance of strengthened coordination and cooperation between the Council and relevant New York-based bodies, including the Third Committee of the General Assembly and the UN Security Council.
Over the course of the year, the President and the Bureau probably devoted most attention to the first of the three ‘baskets’ – efficiency, and, as we look back at the year now ending, it is clear that their efforts have borne some important results. For example, the calendar year witnessed the first sustained quantitative contraction in the output of the Council since the body’s establishment in 2006. The number
2|
|3
of resolutions adopted at the 28th session in March (37) was 12% lower than during the corresponding
Key goals of these rationalisation efforts, and of associated innovations in the Council’s working methods,
session one year earlier; and the 29th and 30th sessions likewise saw drops of 24% and 11% respectively
were to create space for States and NGOs to focus on new and emerging human rights challenges, and
(compared to the corresponding sessions of 2014). Overall, 2015 saw 95 resolutions adopted, 15% less
to enable the Council to become more effective and thus move to fill the long-standing ‘implementation
than the number adopted in 2014 (112). The number of Panel Debates likewise dropped from 22 in 2014
gap’ – the difference between international norms and local reality.
to 18 in 2015. 2015 saw some progress made in both regards, although much remains to be done as the Council heads Some of the benefits of this rationalisation will take time to be fully felt. For example, as in previous years,
into its 10th anniversary year.
the Council was presented with record numbers of OHCHR reports (213) in 2015 – reports requested by 2014 resolutions (for comparison, in 2014 205 reports were presented). Notwithstanding, other benefits
In terms of new issues, the streamlining of the Council’s calendar vis-à-vis recurrent thematic initiatives,
were already evident, including more time to respond to emerging challenges, more space to innovate, and
in theory created space for Members to turn their attention towards emerging and urgent issues. There
more opportunities to consider how to strengthen on-the-ground effectiveness and impact.
was some evidence of that happening in 2015 (e.g. the new resolution on preventing and countering violent extremism, a new Special Procedures mechanism on the right to privacy in the digital age, and the
Linked with the drive to develop more efficient and effective methods of work, 2015 also saw some
Enhanced Interactive Dialogue on the human rights dimension of the migrant crisis), though more will be
important innovations in the way the Council operates.
needed in 2016 if the Council is to effectively respond to criticisms (from some quarters) of its relevance vis-à-vis real world events and challenges.
Taking forward ideas incubated during informal retreats and dialogues in Berlin, Geneva, Glion and elsewhere, a range of actors introduced new and improved ways of realising the Council’s mandate,
In terms of effectiveness, impact and bridging the long-standing international ‘implementation gap,’ 2015
including, inter alia: Informal Council Briefings by the High Commissioner; Enhanced Interactive Dialogues;
likewise saw some forward momentum. For example, during the Council’s 30th session in September,
country-specific Panel Debates (on the situation in North Korea); and ‘hybrid’ resolutions (i.e. texts
Brazil and Paraguay presented a resolution (building on work being undertaken by OHCHR) that aims to
focused on specific thematic concerns within a geographically-defined situation, such as, for example,
help States establish and/or strengthen national human rights implementation systems and processes,
the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation’s resolution on the rights of Rohingya and other minorities in
and to mobilise international assistance in that regard. There was also some progress in strengthening
Myanmar).
the ability of the Council’s mechanisms to follow-up on implementation: the March session saw the firstever dialogue on cooperation and implementation between the Special Procedures system (represented
2015 also saw the first adoption, outside of a formal Council review, of a text dealing with institutional
by the Chair of the Coordination Committee) and States; while in late 2015 the Council President kick-
reform. At the end of the 29th session, Ambassador Ruecker delivered a Statement by the President (PRST)
started a process of reflection ahead of the third cycle of the UPR, with the aim of strengthening domestic
on ‘enhancing the efficiency of the Human Rights Council.’ The PRST sought to bring improvements to
implementation, follow-up and the objective monitoring of impact.
the voluntary yearly calendar for thematic resolutions (to promote transparency and efficiency); introduce improved modalities for the appointment of Special Procedures mandates over time; and support the development of a ‘more distinguishable, accessible and user-friendly webpage for the Human Rights Council, its mechanisms and procedures, including a user-friendly extranet.’
4|
|5
Human rights violations: from response to prevention? During 2015, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, repeatedly expressed his frustration at the inability of the international community to act in the face of mounting human rights violations around the world. This, he argued, represented a “grim indictment” of the record of the UN and
Second, the above point raises the wider question of how the Council can and should respond to different types of situation. This question has often been distilled into a distinction between item 4 interventions (drawing attention to and condemning violations) and item 10 interventions (providing capacity-building and technical assistance to the State concerned). However, especially towards the end of 2015, the Council saw a renewed focus on prevention as an alternative way to construct, and perceive of, international responses to urgent situations.
its Member States. The re-emergence of this prevention agenda, covering, inter alia, initiatives such as the SecretaryThe failure alluded to by the High Commissioner can be seen at two levels.
General’s Human Rights Up Front (HRUF) initiative and the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), is partly an acknowledgement that the Council struggles to have impact in conflict situations where rights violations
First, as this end-of-year report shows (see pages 15 and 20), 2015 again saw the Council dedicate a relatively small amount of its attention to addressing ‘situations of violations of human rights, including gross and systematic violations.’ The Council did, to varying degrees, address situations of violations in Belarus, Eritrea, Iran, Myanmar, North Korea, and Syria. It also scored some notable achievements, such as playing a key role in promoting an improved human rights situation in Sri Lanka (including, in 2015, passing a resolution with the support of the country concerned). However, overall, the proportion
have already become pervasive (e.g. the situation in Syria). And it partly reflects an acknowledgement that where the Council could play a more effective role, i.e. by preventing gross and systematic violations, it currently lacks the tools to do so. If States are serious about moving towards a prevention paradigm, they will need to engage in a meaningful debate about what the concept means in practice and what new tools and mechanisms are needed to do the job. In 2015, States merely scratched the surface of such questions.
of Council texts focused on specific human rights situations (under item 4) remained stuck at around 8%. Moreover, even where the Council did turn its attention towards country-specific serious violations (for example, in Yemen, Iraq, Sudan), the Council was often criticised for misrepresenting the situation and incorrectly calibrating the UN’s response (e.g. by offering technical support under item 10 rather than more robust responses under item 4).
6|
|7
yourHRC.org On 5th October 2015, the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Universal
A window onto the work of the UN’s human rights pillar…
Rights Group (URG) launched yourHRC.org, an innovative new online tool designed to contribute to international efforts to strengthen the visibility, relevance and impact of the Human Rights Council.
Members of the Human Rights Council hold the main responsibility for pursuing and fulfilling the body’s important mandate, and thereby of ‘promoting universal respect for
The yourHRC.org portal, together with a number of related reports, are designed to provide
the protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all.’
country-specific information on: cooperation with the Council and its mechanisms, participation in Council debates and exchanges, member state voting patterns, political
When establishing the Council, the UN General Assembly decided that it would consist
leadership, and Council elections.
of 47 Member States, elected by a majority of the members of the Assembly. In making their choice, members of the General Assembly would take into account the contribution of the candidates to the promotion and protection of human rights, as well as their voluntary pledges and commitments.
The General Assembly furthermore decided that elected Members should uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights and fully cooperate with the Council and its mechanisms. Moreover, it was agreed that the Council’s methods of work would be transparent, fair and impartial, enable genuine dialogue, be results-oriented, allow for subsequent follow-up discussions to recommendations and their implementation, and allow for substantive interaction with Special Procedures and other mechanisms.
yourHRC.org has been created to promote transparency around the degree to which the Council and its Members are delivering on this crucial mandate, passed to them by the General Assembly and, ultimately, entrusted to them by ‘the Peoples of the United Nations’ described in the UN Charter.
8|
|9
The yourHRC.org project has four component parts:
2
An annual ‘yourHRC.org election guide,’ providing at-a-glance information
(including comparative information) on candidatures for upcoming Council elections.
1
A universally accessible and free-to-use web portal - yourHRC.org - providing
information on the performance of all current and former Council member States. An
3
An annual ‘yourHRC.org end-of-year report’ (to be published each
interactive world map provides information on the Council’s membership in any given
December), providing information (including comparative information) on levels of
year, and on the number of membership terms held by each country. Country-specific
member state engagement and cooperation over the course of that year.
pages then provide up-to-date information on: the voting record of the state; its leadership on important Council initiatives; its level of participation in Council debates, interactive
4
A periodic ‘yourHRC.org candidate alert’ that will be sent to stakeholders
dialogues and panels; its engagement and cooperation with the Council’s mechanisms
informing them of candidature announcements for future Council elections, and
(UPR and Special Procedures) and with the Treaty Bodies; and the degree to which it
providing information on that state’s performance during previous membership terms
fulfilled the voluntary pledges and commitments made before its previous membership
(where applicable).
term. The present document is the first annual ‘yourHRC.org end-of-year report,’ offering an assessment of the Council’s work, output, achievements and shortfalls in 2015, and analysing the contributions of Member States to the work of the Council and to the enjoyment of human rights around the world.
10 |
| 11
PART I
2015 The work, output and performance of the Council and its mechanisms
12 |
| 13
the council’s focus
ITEM 1
ITEM 9 5.3%
and output:
4.1%
ITEM 8 1.5% ITEM 6 0.8%
ITEM 5
64.3%
200
6.4% ITEM 4
8.2%
107
ITEM 10
69
98
14.7%
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
112
104
Number of Council texts adopted over time
2007
8 - 2015
ITEM 3
ITEM 7
mechanisms
2006
Percentage of texts adopted under each of the Council's agenda items between 2008 2015
5.5%
resolutions and
50
The focus of Council texts by agenda item (2008-2015)
ITEM 2 2.5%
95
57
55
79
79
48
46
45
51
76
NUMBER OF TEXTS
45 40 35 30
49
Agenda items
25 20
14
15
17
15
17 13
10
4
5
1s t 2n d 3r d 4t h 5t h 6t h 7t h 8t h 9t h 10 th 11 th 12 th 13 th 14 th 15 th 16 th 17 th 18 th 19 th 20 th 21 s 22 t nd 23 rd 24 th 25 th 26 th 27 th 28 th 29 th 30 th
0
HRC Session
Voted resolutions
Number of biennialised resolutions
18
Presidential Statements Decisions Resolutions
March Session June Session September Session
6
5
6
5
5
4
4
7
3
1
2
1 1
2009
1
2008
3
6 10
5
3
5
6
5
5
10 5 4
8
5
1
2
3 3
2 3 2
2010
2011
2012
3 3
1
8 8 6 4 7
5 5 4
5 4 5
Data source: HRC texts (resolutions, decisions or
5
presidential statements)
1
4
2008-2015, available on
1
2
the OHCHR website.
5
4
2
2
2013
2014
1
8
2015
Data source: OHCHR website.
• Each session in 2015 saw a reduction in the number of texts compared to the corresponding sessions in 2014 and 2013. • This was the first sustained rationalisation since the 2011 Council review. 14 |
• 2015 again saw most resolutions adopted under agenda item 3, although the percentage of item 3 texts showed a slight decrease on previous years. • 2015 also saw an increase in the number of texts adopted under item 10. • The number of item 4 texts (situations requiring the Council’s attention) remained stable at around 8%.
| 15
The operative effects of Council resolutions (2010-2015)
Financial implications of Council resolutions (2010-2015) Number of Texts Adopted
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Total number of resolutions
71
89
94
95
102
88
Requests the OHCHR to provide guidance/assistance to states/a state
8.5%
9.4%
9.4%
Requests the OHCHR to produce a thematic or situation report/study
9.9%
11.2%
16.7%
16.7%
9.8%
22.7%
Requests the Advisory Committee to produce a report/study
4.2%
3.4%
1.1%
7.3%
4.9%
2.3%
2.8%
5.6%
3.2%
3.1%
2.0%
2.3%
21.1%
27.0%
7.4%
20.8%
29.4%
14.8%
Special Procedures
Creates Renews
2010
55.7%
21.5% 22.8%
79
US$ 5,081,100
44 5.6%
13.6%
17
42.3%
5.9%
2011
18 31.7%
104
US$ 13,091,600 44
18.4% 25.5%
98
US$ 9,561,900
18
55 Commission of Inquiry or Fact Finding Mission
InterGovernmental Working Group
Creates Renews Creates Renews
Establishes or sets agenda for annual forums Convenes a panel discussion Convenes other (inter-sessional) work formats (i.e. seminars, roundtables, workshops or consultations)
2.8%
1.1%
1.1%
1.0%
1.0%
0.0%
1.4%
1.1%
2.1%
1.0%
1.0%
2.3%
2.8%
0.0%
2.1%
1.0%
1.0%
0.0%
43
1.4%
0.0%
0.0%
2.1%
0.0%
1.1%
40.2%
1.4%
2.2%
2.1%
1.1%
2.0%
3.4%
10.4%
10.8%
12.5%
2014
7.9%
6.4%
4.2%
4.5%
4.3%
US$ 10,945,900
2.0%
8.0%
2015
1.4%
2.2%
0.0%
1.0%
3.9%
40
21.4%
38.4%
US$ 21,451,600 24 14.7%
43 44.2%
95
US$ 15,938,650* 39
No substantive effects
24
112
41.1% 5.3%
37.4%
107
45 5.6%
25
22.4%
40.2% 2013
27
33
56.1% 2012
26.0%
14
0.0%
Texts without PBI
42 Texts with PBI (with no extra-budgetary appropriations) Texts with PBI (requiring extra-budgetary appropriations)
Data source: HRC resolutions 2010-2015, available on the OHCHR website
• In 2015, States again showed enthusiam for reports by the High Commissioner, with 23% of texts requesting thematic or situation-specific studies. • Panel debates also remained popular: in 2015 12.5% of texts called for one. • At the same time, the percentage of resolutions calling for inter-sessional seminars or workshops reached a new high. 16 |
* The final amount may be slightly higher because the PBI for res. 29/13, adopted during the 29th session, is yet to be determined. Data source: PBIs arising from each resolution, available on the HRC extranet.
| 17
Top themes in 2015: focus of thematic resolutions
State participation in Interactive Dialogues of the Special Procedures in 2015
Effects of foreign debt
HIV/AIDS
Groups in foc us Rights of persons
Right to food
Equitable international order/ cooperation/solidarity Non-repatriation of funds of illicit origin
with albinism
Unilateral coercive measures
Environment/ climate change
Right to work
Right to education
Rights of the child
Corruption
total:19
il and political v i C rig
s ht
Preventing and countering violent extremism/terrorism
Elimination of discrimination against women/ violence against women
Use of armed drones
Right to peace
the death penalty
Democracy, rule of law/ political participation Prevention of genocide
Racism
total:18 New Initiatives
Right to privacy
Rights of persons with disabilities
total:13
ss-cutting o r /o C National policies
Contribution of parliaments Technical cooperation and capacity building 40th anniversary of the International Covenants
total:8
Note: The size of each bubble, and word/phrase within the bubble, relates to the number of resolutions adopted with that focus/theme in 2015. Data source: HRC resolutions for 2015, available on the OHCHR website.
18 |
EEG
33
GRULAC 57
WEOG 62
Individual ID: IE on Somalia
Group statements
19
State(s) concerned
individual ID: IE on Central African Republic
27 30
FOCUS:
14
ESCR
Individual ID: WG of Experts on People of African Descent Clustered ID: SR on human rights of migrants & SR on minority issues Clustered ID: WG on human rights and transnational corporations & SR on trafficking in persons Clustered ID: SR on violence against women & SR on IDPs Clustered ID: SR on right to freedom of expression & SR on peaceful assembly and association Clustered ID: SR on independence of judges and lawyers & SR on right to health Clustered ID: SR on right to education & IE on international solidarity Clustered ID: SR on summary executions & WG on discrimination against women Clustered ID: SR on extreme poverty & SR on countering terrorism
21
CPR 59
Mixed Groups in Focus
57
Country Specific
83 50 55 44 46 54
Individual ID: SR on Belarus
40 4 43
Individual ID: IE on Central African Republic
48
Individual ID: SR on racism
23
Clustered ID: SR on cultural rights & SR on sale of children
38
Clustered ID: SR on torture & SR on HR defenders
56
Clustered ID: SR on right to food & SR on adequate housing Clustered ID: IE on human rights & enviornment & IE on foreign debt
42 37
Individual ID: IE on Mali
21
Individual ID: IE on Haiti
18
Individual ID: SR on Occupied Palestinian Territory
30
Individual ID: SR on minority issues
23
Individual ID: SR on Myanmar
37
Individual ID: SR on Islamic Republic of Iran
33 36
Individual ID: SR on DPRK Individual ID: SR on freedom of religion or belief
62
Individual ID: SR on persons with disabilities
25
0
• In 2015, there were slightly more texts focused on economic, social and cultural rights (ESCR) issues, than on civil and political rights (CPR) issues. • For ESCR resolutions, the Council paid particular attention to the right to development, equitable international order, international cooperation, and the relationship between human rights and the environment. • For CPR resolutions, States focused in particular on issues around violent extremism, terrorism, and religious intolerance/freedom of religion. • For groups in focus, there was, as in previous years, a strong focus on children’s rights and women’s rights.
APG 52
Individual ID: IE on Cote d'Ivoire
Mercenaries/ private military Regional companies arrangements
National follow-up systems
AG 47
Individual ID: SR on Eritrea
er th
Independence of the judiciary/ administration of justice Freedom of religion/ Civilian use of firearms combatting religious intolerance Question of
Rights of peasants
21
Individual ID: SR on Cambodia
Discrimination against persons Rights affected by leprosy of migrants
Social forum
Clustered ID: IE on democratic & equitable int’l order & SR on unilateral coercive measures Clustered ID: SR on hazardous wastes & SR on water and sanitation Clustered ID: IE on the rights of older persons & WG on use of mercenaries Clustered ID: SR on indigenous peoples & Expert Mechanism on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (EMRIP) Clustered ID: SR on truth, justice, reparation and non-recurrence & WG on enforced disappearances Clustered ID: WG on arbitrary detention & SR on contemporary forms of slavery
Individual ID: IE on Sudan
Rights of indigenous peoples
29th Session
Protection of the family
58 30th Session
Realization of economic, social and cultural rights/ right to development
Total number of thematic resolutions
28th Session
Ec
ts igh lr ra
ocial and ic, s cu m o ltu n World drug o problem
10
20
30
40
50
60
Number of statements made
70
80
90
Data source: UN Web TV. Note: for comprehensive information on data sources, timeframes and methodology, please see end note.
| 19
Democratic People's Republic of Korea Ukraine
2
Belarus
7 SPS
Israel and the Occupied Territories
43
4
SPS Haiti
Libya
Mali
Honduras 1 7
SpecialSPSsession43
Israel and SPS Territories the Occupied
CSP
SPS CSP
Item 1
Item Country-specific panel 2 Item 1 Item 2 Item 4 Item 7 Item 10
Item 4 Item 7 Item 10
Mali
SPS
3
5
1 1
Guinea 2 12
Côte d’Ivoire
Liberia Côte d’Ivoire
6 2
SPS
8
22
1
5
Iran
SPS
6
4
5
SPS
Sudan
2
12
SPS
8
5
Burundi
Iran
6
Yemen
12
Somalia
SPS
3
6
1
Eritrea
6
Yemen
Sudan
12
SPS
Cambodia
Myanmar
2 2
6
SPS
Democratic Republic of the SPS South Sudan 1 1 3 Congo 4
2
Democratic Republic of the SPS Congo
3
Nepal
1 1
Nepal
Eritrea
5
Kyrgyzstan
2
Kyrgyzstan
Somalia 12 Central African 1SPS Republic 4 1
1
Central African SPS Republic
CSP
Syria
8
1 Lebanon
1 1 Afghanistan
Liberia
6 Guinea
6
4 SPS
1 Lebanon
2
1
5
1 1
4
1
1 1
4
Syria
1 1 Afghanistan
1
1
Democratic People's Republic of Korea Ukraine
1
SPS Iraq
2
SPS Iraq
1
3
Tunisia
Country-specific panel Libya 8
Special session
TEXTS ADOPTED:
4
SPS Haiti
TEXTS ADOPTED: Honduras 1
3
2
Belarus
SPS
4 SPS
12
2
1
3
Tunisia 8
5
CSP
1
Cambodia
1
3
South Sudan 4
Myanmar
8
5
Burundi
SPS
Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka
Geographic focus of Council texts, special sessions and panels (2006-2015)
Data source: HRC texts 2006-2015; OHCHR website.
20 |
| 21
Global coverage of the UN human rights system in 2015
1
2
1 1 1
1
1
1
1
1 1
2
1 1
1
1 1
1
Saint Kitts and Nevis
2 1
1
1
1
1
2
Micronesia (Federated States of)
2
2
1 1
1
Grenada
1
Kiribati
1
Marshall Islands
1
Saint Lucia
2
1
1
1
Nauru
3 Sao Tome and Principe
1
2
Maldives
1 1
1
1
OHCHR FIELD PRESENCE
UPR
THEMATIC SPECIAL PROCEDURES
COUNTRY-SPECIFIC SPECIAL PROCEDURES
COMMISSIONS OF INQUIRY
1
OHCHR field presence during 2015
UPR review completed 2015
Country visits completed 2015
Country Country Special Independent Rapporteur Expert
Commission Fact Finding OHCHR of Inquiry (COI) Mission (FFM) Investigation
Data source: OHCHR website. Note: for comprehensive information on data sources, timeframes and methodology, please see end note.
22 |
| 23
PART II
2015 council member states: engagement, leadership, cooperation
24 |
| 25
Georgia
Lithuania
Estonia Slovenia The Netherlands
Belgium Ireland
Switzerland
Montenegro
Albania
The United States of America
Mexico
Latvia
The United Kingdom
Germany Poland
France
Kazakhstan Kyrgyzstan
Portugal Republic of Korea
FYR Macedonia
Morocco
Saudi Arabia
Cuba Panama
Bangladesh Côte d’Ivoire
Sierra Leone
Ecuador
India
Greece
Venezuela
Ghana
Japan
Pakistan
Algeria
El Salvador
Mongolia
Nigeria
Philippines
Ethiopia Kenya
Gabon Congo
Vietnam
Maldives
Indonesia
Brazil
2015 Members Incoming Members Outgoing Members Bureau Member President Bureau Member Vice president Members of The Consultative Group Members of The Working Group on situations
Togo
Bolivia Paraguay Argentina
Burundi
Namibia Botswana South Africa
Membership of the Human Rights Council in 2015
Note: for comprehensive information on data sources, timeframes and methodology, please see end note.
26 |
| 27
Cooperation with the UN, its representatives and mechanisms in the field of human rights Secretary-General’s report In September 2015, the UN Secretary-General presented his annual report (pursuant to resolution 12/2)
The report reaffirmed the primary obligation of the State to protect those who cooperate with the United
to the 30th session of the Council on: ‘Cooperation with the United Nations, its representatives and
Nations in the field of human rights and to ensure that they may do so safely and without hindrance.
mechanisms in the field of human rights.’ Taken together with his 2014 report, the Secretary-General has expressed concern about information With resolution 12/2, the Council had condemned all acts of intimidation and reprisal against individuals and groups who seek to cooperate, are cooperating or have cooperated with the UN, its representatives and mechanisms in the field of human rights, committed by State and non-State actors.
In his 2015 report, the Secretary-General highlighted initiatives and efforts, made by the UN system and other stakeholders, to tackle the issue of reprisals. It presented information on alleged acts of intimidation and reprisal based on data gathered from 1st June 2014 to 31st May 2015, including follow-up information on cases discussed in previous reports. The report expresses concern at the continued prevalence of acts of intimidation and reprisal. According to the Secretary-General: ‘The types of acts reported seem to have become more varied and severe over time, targeting not only the individuals or groups concerned but also their families, legal representatives, non-governmental organisations and anyone linked to them.’
In terms of steps taken by the UN system, the Secretary-General took note of actions by the President of the Council, Special Procedures and Treaty Bodies, to develop ways of ‘addressing the issue of reprisals in a more coherent and systematic manner.’ He also welcomed ‘the efforts made by a number of States to provide protection to those individuals and groups engaging with the UN in the field of human rights, including during the sessions of the Human Rights Council in Geneva.’ Moreover, he urged ‘all concerned to work cooperatively together to ensure that the current deadlock facing Council resolution 24/24 is
received relating to cases of intimidation and reprisal in the following countries: Algeria
Kenya
Bahrain
Kuwait
Burundi
Malaysia
Cameroon
Maldives
China
Myanmar
Cuba
Oman
Cyprus
Pakistan
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
Saudi Arabia
Egypt
South Sudan
Eritrea
Sri Lanka
Gambia
Syrian Arab Republic
Honduras
Tajikistan
Islamic Republic of Iran
United Arab Emirates
Israel
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of)
Kazakhstan
Viet Nam
Finally, the Secretary-General recalled that the cases included in his latest report are not exhaustive, but are rather ‘examples of a larger number of mostly invisible cases.’
overcome without further delay.’
28 |
| 29
Latin America and Caribbean Group
6/8
70%
54%
Member States
7.5/8
Standing Invitations issued by
6/7
Member States
Average/overall reporting status
submitted late overdue (outstanding) not party
Most late 8 overdue report years
63%
6.7/8
Most late 3.5 overdue report years
Average/overall reporting status submitted on time on schedule submitted late overdue (outstanding) not party n/a
Eastern European Group Standing Invitations issued by
Average visit acceptance rate
Average communications response rate
70%
53%
5/6
Member States Average number of treaties ratified
7.3/8
submitted on time on schedule
Average lateness of 2.27 most overdue report years
submitted late overdue (outstanding) not party
Most late 9 overdue report years
n/a
3/6 Member States 28/193 (1st cycle)
UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW
Midterm reports subitted by: Average number of reviews participated in:
Global overview
Average/overall reporting status TREATY BODIES
5/7 Member States 129/193 (1st cycle)
UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW
Midterm reports subitted by: Average number of reviews participated in:
UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW
2/8 Member States 83/193 (1st cycle)
79%
Average lateness of 0.9 most overdue report years
n/a
Midterm reports subitted by: Average number of reviews participated in:
Average communications response rate
TREATY BODIES
Average lateness of 3 most overdue report years
Average number of treaties ratified TREATY BODIES
submitted on time on schedule
Average visit acceptance rate
SPECIAL PROCEDURES
Average number of treaties ratified
Average communications response rate
SPECIAL PROCEDURES
Average visit acceptance rate
SPECIAL PROCEDURES
Standing Invitations issued by
Western Europe and Others Group
of cooperation Asia Pacific Group
African Group
6/13
50%
Member States
Average/overall reporting status submitted on time on schedule
11.1
submitted late overdue (outstanding) not party
years
Most late 25.5 overdue report years
67%
UPR Mid Term Report Submitted
Note: for comprehensive information on data sources, timeframes and methodology, please see end note.
6.0/8
Average lateness of 6.1 most overdue report years Most late 16 overdue report years Midterm reports subitted by: Average number of reviews participated in:
Average/overall reporting status submitted on time on schedule submitted late overdue (outstanding) not party n/a
3/13 Member States 51/193 (1st cycle)
UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW
30 |
3/13 Member States 43/193 (1st cycle)
Standing Invitation Issued
UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW
Midterm reports subitted by: Average number of reviews participated in:
n/a
46%
6/13
Member States Average number of treaties ratified
TREATY BODIES
Average lateness of most overdue report
7.3/8
41%
MALDIVES
Average communications response rate
TREATY BODIES
Average number of treaties ratified
Average communications response rate
Average visit acceptance rate
SPECIAL PROCEDURES
Average visit acceptance rate
SPECIAL PROCEDURES
Standing Invitations issued by
Standing Invitations issued by
| 31
African Group (AG) Overview of Members Voluntary Contribution to OHCHR (2014)
Algeria
NHRI Accreditation Status
B
Previous Membership Terms
During the course of 2015, African Members of the
2
number of important resolutions, covering both thematic
2
Botswana
Leadership
Council led (as main sponsors/part of a core group) on a
and country-specific issues.
At a thematic level, in 2015 African Members led, inter alia, on the following issues:
Congo
B
1
Côte d'Ivoire Ethiopia
B
1 3
Gabon Ghana
2
A
3
Algeria (also coordinator of the African Group in 2015) - effects of terrorism on the enjoyment of human rights; national policies and human rights.
Botswana - equal participation in political and public affairs; independence and impartiality of the judiciary.
Cote d’Ivoire – protection of the family.
Ethiopia – the negative impact of corruption; preventing and eliminating child, early and forced marriage.
Kenya Morocco Namibia
A
1
A
2
A
1
South Africa – the rights of peasants.
At a country-specific level, African Members led (as part of a core group), inter alia, on the following situations:
Morocco - the situation in Syria.
Notwithstanding such individual leadership, it is important to note that African States often work through their regional group. In 2015, the African Group led on thematic initiatives focused on: racism; people of African descent; the human rights of persons with albinism; the nonrepatriation of funds of illicit origin; and private military and security companies.
The African Group also led on Council initiatives aiming to deliver technical assistance to strengthen the enjoyment of human rights in Burundi, the Central African Republic, Cote d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, Guinea, Libya, Mali, and Sudan.
Morocco – the contribution of parliaments to the work of the Council; effects of terrorism; human rights, democracy and rule of law; human rights and environment; the elimination of discrimination against persons affected by leprosy; the negative impact of corruption; preventing and countering violent extremism; protection of the family.
A
3
Sierra Leone
A
1
South Africa
A
3
Nigeria
32 |
Note: for comprehensive information on data sources, timeframes and methodology, please see end note.
Sierra Leone - preventing and eliminating child, early and forced marriage.
| 33
Contribution to Council debates and dialogues in 2015
Voting analysis With regard to texts on country-specific situations, African Members of the Council displayed markedly different voting records in 2015. On item 4 texts (situations that require the Council’s attention), Botswana, Gabon and Sierra Leone voted in favour of all texts (except, in the case of Sierra Leone and
71%
Algeria
42%
6%
Botswana
3%
Côte d'Ivoire
12%
Gabon
North Korea and Syria, but abstained on texts focused on the situations in Belarus and Iran. Algeria voted against all texts (3) focused on violations in Syria, and abstained in voting on Belarus, Iran and North Korea. Others, including Congo, Ethiopia, Kenya, Namibia and Nigeria abstained during voting
Engagement with Panel Debates (as % of total)
23%
21% 9%
18%
Ghana
6%
Kenya
45% 3%
Namibia 18%
63%
45%
26%
24%
27%
Sierra Leone
29%
71%
Algeria
36%
27%
3%
Côte d'Ivoire
9% Note: data based on participation 12% 18%during 23% the last 3 regular sessions of the Human Rights Council (28th-30th sessions). For full methodology, see end note. Data source: HRC Extranet. 6%11% 14%
Congo
Ethiopia Gabon
Ghana Kenya
12%
6%
45% 3%
18%
18%
63%
59% 24% 82%
26%
Engagement with Panel Debates (as % of total) Engagement with Interactive Dialogues (as % of total)
14%
47%
Namibia 34 |
21% 9%
18%
Morocco Nigeria
32%
32%
71%
42%
6%
For country-specific item 2 texts (e.g. on reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka and in South Sudan, and on the rights of minorities in Myanmar), African Members joined consensus. During voting on item 7 resolutions (Occupied Palestinian Territories), African States generally voted in favour (though they occasionally abstained). For item 10 resolutions (capacity-building), African Members joined consensus on all texts in 2015, except for when a vote was called (i.e. on assistance to Ukraine – with African States either voting in favour or abstaining).
For thematic resolutions dealing with civil and political rights, where a vote was called in 2015, African
Notable exceptions include voting on:
42%
53%
on every item 4 text.
Members usually voted in favour (some, such as Congo and Sierra Leone, voted in favour every time).
18%
82%
South Africa
Engagement in General Debates (as % of total)
14%
59%
Nigeria
Engagement with Interactive Dialogues (as % of total)
18%
47%
Morocco
Gabon, for one). Cote d’Ivoire, Ghana and Morocco voted in favour of resolutions on the situations in
27%
6%11% 14%
Ethiopia
Botswana
36%
9%
12% 18%
Congo
71%
45% 27%
Engagement in General Debates (as % of total)
•
The resolution on the question of the death penalty – with a number of African countries
voting against (e.g. Botswana, Ethiopia, Nigeria), some in voting in favour (Algeria, Congo), and
some abstaining (Ghana, Kenya, Morocco).
•
The resolution on human rights, democracy and rule of law – Algeria, Ethiopia and
Nigeria abstained.
•
The resolution on the effects of terrorism – for example, Botswana and Namibia abstained.
•
The resolution on preventing and combatting violent extremism – for example,
Namibia abstained.
For thematic resolutions dealing with economic, social and cultural rights, African States either joined consensus on, or voted in favour of, nearly all adopted texts.
18% 42%
32%
| 35
Cooperation with human rights mechanisms Botswana
Algeria
Côte d'Ivoire Algeria Ethiopia Botswana Gabon
Congo
Communications Response Rate (as referenced in last UPR national report)
4 /6
1
1
SR on the right to education
SR the right to water and sanitation
40%
TREATY BODIES
UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW
Most Overdue Report
Visits 16/23 Completed 70% (199820th November 2015)
2 /2
100%
0
7 1
5 2
South Africa Morocco
Namibia
Nigeria
Sierra Leone
South Africa
2 /26/10
16/23 11/21
3/13 10/28
1 /4 3/5
6/105/16
11/212 /6
10/28 10/17
3/5
5/16
2 /6
10/17
10
10
01
30
01
00
10
00
10
0
0
0
0
67% 25%
70% 52%
100% 60%
23% 36%
IE on SR on torture the situation of human rights in Côte d'Ivoire
SR the right to water and sanitation
of human rights to education in Côte d'Ivoire
4
1
ICCPR none (4 years)
5
Core Conventions Ratified*
7
7 3
CAT
(14 years)
1
1
1 Reporting 2 Status (data as at 326th November 2015) 5
Minister
1 4
1 2 4
58 2
1
submitted on time
ICESCR
(25.5 years)
Most ICESCR Overdue (21.5 years) Report
Reviewed in 2015
Minister
77
3
Reviewed in 2015
Mid-term Reporting (1st and/or 2nd cycle)
25% 60%
SR on the right to food
Level
Minister of Delegation Minister
2 15
3
4
2
on schedule
77
77 1
1
1
3
1
2
3 4
submitted late
52% 33%
60% 31%
36%
59%
60%
31%
59%
33%
SR on the right to food
SR on torture
1
78
12 1 3 5
1
1 2 4
3
21 1 3
87 1
2 2
overdue(outstanding) n/a submitted on time not party on schedule
1
1
78 1
4
1 4
5
submitted late
2 1 6
1
77 11
1
1 3
87
3
2 1
3 3
1
1 4
4
32
1
overdue(outstanding)
11
not party
8
7 1
1 5
ICCPR CERD
CATCERD
ICESCR ICESCR
ICESCR CERD
CERD CERD
CERD CRPD
ICESCR ICCPR
CERD ICESCR
7 1
1
1
1
6
7
3
3 1
CERDCAT
CRPD
ICCPR (16 years)
ICESCR
(17.5 years)
ICESCR
Minister Minister
Minister Minister
(at latest review)
Deputy Attorney Minister Minister Minister Attorney Minister General General
1
1
4
4
2
n/a
none none none none none years) years)(21.5 years) (1 year) (2.5 (2 years) (16.5(5.5 year) years) (2 years) (7 years) (5.5 (4 years) (2.5 years) (14 (16.5 years)years)(25.5(12.5 years) years) years)(12.5 (years) 16 years) (1 (17.5 years)
Deputy Attorney Attorney Attorney Minister Deputy Minister Minister Attorney General General General Minister General
CAT
(7 years)
ICESCR
Minister
Attorney General
Attorney General
Deputy Minister
4
60
0
72
Mid-term Reporting (1st and/or 2nd cycle)
179
18
16 in other(1streviews 17 1797 cycle) Participation
18 8
1665
* Ratification and Reporting is recorded for the eight “core human rights conventions,” which include: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (CPED), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
36 |
Sierra KenyaLeone
4 /6 1 /4
40% 23%
3
Conventions Ratified in 2015
Participation in other reviews (1st cycle)
Nigeria Ghana
6/153/13
Visits Completed IE on in 2015 the situation SR on the right
Conventions Ratified in 2015
Level of Delegation (at latest review)
Gabon Namibia
Communications 10 1 0 1 10 6 1 0 0 1 1 2 6 21 0 1 1 6 2 0 21 2 1 6 0 2 Response Rate responded to responded responded to responded to responded to responded to responded to responded to responded to responded to responded to responded to responded to responded to responded to responded to responded to responded to responded to responded to responded to responded to responded to to responded to responded to responded to (as referenced in 3 received 29 received 3 received 20 received 1 received 1 received 2 received 20 received 16 received 1 received 0 received 1 received 1 received 2 received 20 received16 received 29 received 0 received 4 received 1 received 28 received20 received 9 received 4 received 28 received 9 received last UPR national report) 50% 50% 10% 72%22% 22% 0% 50% 100% 0% 50%38% 100%n/a 0%100% 38%72% 100%21% 25% 21% 10% 0% n/a 25%
Core Conventions Ratified* Reporting Status (data as at 26th November 2015)
67%
SPECIAL PROCEDURES
Visits Completed in 2015
6/15
TREATY BODIES
Visits Completed (199820th November 2015)
Ethiopia Morocco
Standing Invitation
UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW
SPECIAL PROCEDURES
Standing Invitation
Congo Ghana Côte d'Ivoire Kenya
17 0
7117
84
6560
00
11772
Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). Note: for more comprehensive information on data sources, timeframes and methodology, please see end note.
| 37
Asia-Pacific Group (APG)
Leadership
Overview of Members Voluntary Contribution to OHCHR (2014)
Bangladesh
NHRI Accreditation Status
Previous Membership Terms
B
3
During the course of 2015, Asia-Pacific Members of the
3
India
A
4
Pakistan – remotely piloted aircraft and armed drones.
Council led (as main sponsors/part of a core group) on a number of important resolutions, covering both thematic and country-specific issues.
At a thematic level, in 2015 Asia-Pacific Members led, inter alia, on the following issues:
China
Qatar – protection of the family.
Bangladesh – human rights and climate change; preventing and countering violent extremism; protection
Republic of Korea – human rights, democracy and rule of law.
Saudi Arabia – effects of terrorism on the enjoyment of human rights; protection of the family.
At a country-specific level, Asia-Pacific Members led, inter alia, on the following situations:
of the family. Japan – technical assistance for Cambodia; situation
Indonesia
A
Maldives
B B
Qatar
1 2
A
in public health, and on the anniversary of the adoption
in North Korea.
3
Qatar – situation in Syria.
of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action. These were adopted as Presidential Statements).
Indonesia – equal participation in political and public affairs; the impact of corruption on human rights; the right to work; technical assistance and capacity building
3
Pakistan
China – protection of the family. (It is important to note that in 2015, China also led initiatives on capacity building
3
Japan Kazakhstan
4
in the field of human rights.
Saudi Arabia – situation in Syria.
Notwithstanding such individual leadership, it is important to note that some Asia-Pacific States regularly work through political groups (especially the Arab Group and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation - OIC). In 2015, the Arab Group led on resolutions dealing with
Japan – discrimination against persons affected by leprosy.
technical assistance for Iraq and for Yemen, while the OIC (with Pakistan as coordinator) put forward resolutions on the situation of the Rohingya and other
Republic of Korea Saudi Arabia
38 |
A
3
Maldives – the contribution of parliaments to the work of the Council; human rights and the environment;
3
UAE
1
Vietnam
1
Note: for comprehensive information on data sources, timeframes and methodology, please see end note.
independence and impartiality of the judiciary; preventing
minorities in Myanmar, on human rights violations in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and on combatting religious intolerance.
and eliminating child, early and forced marriage.
| 39
Contribution to Council debates and dialogues in 2015
Voting analysis With regard to texts on country specific situations, AsiaPacific Members of the Council displayed markedly different voting records in 2015. On item 4 texts (situations that require the Council’s attention), in the absence of
41%
Bangladesh
26%
consensus on resolutions on the situations in Eritrea and
71%
China India
53%
Indonesia
59%
Japan Kazakhstan
Syria – when it abstained), while others (e.g. Bangladesh,
34%
13%
3% 18% 39%
Engagement in General Debates (as % of total)
18%
37%
18%
Maldives and South Korea voted in favour of all texts
32%
39%
during voting on Syria. Indonesia voted in favour of a resolution on the situation in Syria in March but changed its vote to abstention in June and September (it also abstained in voting on Belarus and North Korea, and voted against the text on Iran). Arab States (e.g. Qatar, Saudi
41%
Arabia and UAE) voted in favour of all three resolutions
41%
United Arab Emirates
16%
24%
Vietnam
3%
Côte d'Ivoire
(in 2015) on Syria, but tended to abstain during voting on other item 4 texts (e.g. on Belarus, Iran, North Korea). 71%
42%
6%
18%
14% 71%
Algeria
36%
accountability in Sri Lanka and in South Sudan, and on the rights of minorities in Myanmar), Asian Members joined
9%
Congo
Ethiopia
12%
21% 9%
18% 6%
45% 3%
18%
18%
63%
59%
Namibia
24% 82%
26%
Engagement with Panel Debates (as % of total) Engagement with Interactive Dialogues (as % of total)
14%
47%
Morocco
For country-specific item 2 texts (e.g. on reconciliation and
27%
12% Note: data based on participation during the18% last 323% regular sessions of the Human Rights Council (28th-30th sessions). For full methodology, see end note. Data source: HRC 6%11% 14% Extranet.
40 |
other end of the scale, where a vote was called, Japan,
Engagement with– on which it abstained). A number of Asian States (e.g. Interactive Dialogues India, Kazakhstan) displayed a mixed voting record, voting (as % of total)
32%
47%
29%
Nigeria
Pakistan) abstained on all (or nearly all) texts. At the
against item 4 texts on Belarus and Iran, but abstaining
Republic of Korea
Kenya
Engagement with Panel Debates (as % of total)
36%
36%
29%
Qatar
Ghana
Myanmar), Vietnam did likewise (except for resolutions on
50%
12% 11% 9%
35%
Gabon
55%
(except, in the case of Maldives, for the resolution on Iran
Pakistan
Botswana
79% 26%
6% 16%
Maldives
Saudi Arabia
consensus, China voted against all texts (though it did join
23%
45% 27%
Engagement in General Debates (as % of total)
consensus. During voting on item 7 resolutions (Occupied Palestinian Territories), Asian States nearly always voted in favour. For item 10 resolutions (capacity-building), Asian Members joined consensus on all texts in 2015, except for when there was a vote called (i.e. on assistance to Ukraine
For thematic resolutions dealing with civil and political rights, where a vote was called in 2015, Asian Members usually voted in favour. Notable exceptions included voting on:
•
The resolution on the question of the death
penalty – with a number of States voting against
(e.g. Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, Japan,
Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE),
or abstaining (e.g. South Korea, Maldives).
•
The resolution on human rights, democracy and
rule of law – China, Saudi Arabia and
UAE abstained.
•
The resolution on the effects of terrorism – for
example, Japan and South Korea voted
against; while Kazakhstan and Qatar abstained.
•
The resolution on preventing and combatting
violent extremism – for example,
China, Kazakhstan and Pakistan abstained.
•
The resolution on armed drones – Japan and
South Korea voted against; Bangladesh
and India abstained.
•
The text on ‘concrete action against racism’ –
South Korea and Japan abstained.
For thematic resolutions dealing with economic, social and cultural rights, Asian States either joined consensus on, or voted in favour of, nearly all adopted texts. The exceptions were Japan and South Korea, which voted against resolutions on unilateral coercive measures, international solidarity, protection of the family, and the impact of foreign debt. Moreover, Japan and South Korea both abstained during voting on the resolution on the right to development.
– with Asian States usually abstaining).
18% 42%
32%
| 41
Cooperation with human rights mechanisms
Bangladesh
China
India
6/17
6/20
1
1
SR on freedom of religion or belief
IE on foreign debt
35%
7 1
6
Visits 13/32 Completed 41% (199820th November 2015)
9/24
0
0
Visits Completed in 2015
3
4
CAT none (16 years)
2 2
3 1
CERD
7
(3 years)
1 1
13/32 3/16
14/203/5
12
12
00
00
2
1
41% 19%
38% 55%
ICCPR
Mid-term Reporting (1st and/or 2nd cycle)
4
(14 years)
Most CERD Overdue (5 years) Report
Reviewed in 2015
Special Envoy
1
1
1
68 2
3
4
6
submitted on time
Reviewed in 2015
Minister
78
Reporting Status (data 3 as at 3 November 2015) 26th
1
Conventions Ratified in 2015
Participation in other reviews (1st cycle)
9/246/11
30% 85%
SR on human SR on freedom rights inof DPRK SR on freedom IEofonassociation religion or debt SRbelief on sale foreign SR on hazardous of children substances
Core Conventions Ratified*
Conventions Ratified in 2015
Level of Delegation (at latest review)
6/20 11 /13
35% 70%
38%
6 TREATY BODIES
TREATY BODIES
UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW
Most Overdue Report
6/1714/20
Level Attorney of Delegation Minister General (at latest review)
2
1 2
1 1
3
67
70% 60%
20
SR on human rights in DPRK SR on sale of children
1 3
on schedule
2
77
1 11 1 1 1 1 3 4
submitted late
1 2
3
11 /13 14/18
6/112/12
3/164 /12
3/5 7/16
22
00
00
00
19% 33%
55% 17%
85% 78%
SR on human SR on freedom rights in DPRK of association on hazardous SR on SR hazardous substances substances
1
85 1
4
1 4
none none (16 years) (3 years) (3 years) (5 months) (14(10.5 years)years) (5 years) (4 Years) CATCPED
CERD CESCR
ICCPRCAT
1
1
31
3 16 1
CERDCAT
75
87 2
1 1
11 5
3
overdue(outstanding) n/a submitted on time not party on schedule
Saudi Arabia
UAE
Vietnam
60% 44%
14/18
2/12
4 /12
7/16
2
0
0
0
17%
78%
SR on human rights in DPRK SR on hazardous substances
1
1
1 3 4
submitted late
1
75 1 32
2
1 3
4 2
overdue(outstanding)
CPED CERD
CESCR ICESCR
CATCERD
CATCERD
CRPD
Deputy Attorney Minister Ambassador Special Minister Minister General Envoy
57 33
1
1
2 1 1
not party
7
44%
33%
3 1
3 1 1
Deputy Minister's Deputy Minister Minister Ambassador Minister assistant Minister
5
5
7
1 5
3
3
3
3
2
2
CERD (9 years)
(2 years)
1
1 2
3 1
n/a
none none none (9 years) (4 Years) (3 years) (3 months) (5 months) (1.5 year) (10.5 years) (2 years) (3 months) (11 years) (1.5 year)
CRPD
CERD ICCPR
ICESCR
CERD
CAT; CRPD
President of
Deputy the Human Minister Minister Minister's Minister Rights Minister assistant Commission
ICCPR
(11 years)
CAT; CRPD
Deputy Minister
President of the Human Rights Commission
Minister
Deputy Minister
69
45
22
38
Mid-term Reporting (1st and/or 2nd cycle)
84
57
28 in other(1streviews 78 cycle) Participation
8475
5720
2835
7875
* Ratification and Reporting is recorded for the eight “core human rights conventions,” which include: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance
42 |
Republic Qatar Vietnam of Korea
Communications 80 76 10 80 12 76 2 10 39 12 6 2 20 39 6 4 21 20 6 21 27 27 6 6 4 6 Response Rate responded to responded to responded to responded to responded to responded to responded to to responded responded to responded to responded to responded to responded to to responded to responded to responded to responded to responded to responded responded to to responded to responded responded to responded to responded to responded to (as referenced in 23 received 4 received 23 received 100 received 98 received 31 received 18 received98 received 11 received31 received 65 received 6 received 4 received 18 received 45 received65 received 26 received 6 received 45 received 26 received 30 received 30 received 6 received100 received 6 received 11 received last UPR national report) 26% 80% 78% 80%67% 78%18% 18%44% 44% 90% 90%100% 100% 100% 60% 26% 100% 67%100% 100%81% 81% 32% 32%60%
Core Conventions Ratified* Reporting Status (data as at 26th November 2015)
30%
SPECIAL PROCEDURES
Visits Completed (199820th November 2015)
Communications Response Rate (as referenced in last UPR national report)
Republic JapanQatar Kazakhstan of Korea Maldives Saudi Arabia PakistanUAE
Standing Invitation
UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW
SPECIAL PROCEDURES
Standing Invitation
Visits Completed in 2015
China Kazakhstan India Maldives Indonesia Pakistan
Indonesia Bangladesh Japan
7539
2069
3545
7522
3938
(CPED), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). Note: for more comprehensive information on data sources, timeframes and methodology, please see end note.
| 43
Eastern European Group (EEG)
Assembly Special Session on the world drug problem
Overview of Members Voluntary Contribution to OHCHR (2014)
Albania
NHRI Accreditation Status
Previous Membership Terms
A
1 1
Estonia FYR Macedonia
B
1
Montenegro
1 A
2016.
Lanka.
Montenegro – preventing and eliminating child, early
Macedonia - reconciliation and accountability in Sri
and forced marriage.
Lanka; the human rights situation in Iran.
Russia – 40th anniversary of the International Covenants;
Notwithstanding such individual leadership, it is important
protection of the family.
to note that some Eastern European Council Members regularly work through the EU. In 2015, for example,
At a country-specific level, Eastern European Members
Latvia (on behalf of the EU) led on resolutions dealing
led, inter alia, on the following situations:
with, inter alia, freedom of religion or belief, the human rights situation in Belarus, and the human rights situation
Albania – fact-finding mission to South Sudan.
3
Note: for comprehensive information on data sources, timeframes and methodology, please see end note.
Contribution to Council debates and dialogues in 2015
Albania Albania
47%
47%
Estonia Estonia
47%
47%
FYR Macedonia FYR Macedonia LatviaLatvia Montenegro Montenegro
Leadership During the course of 2015, Eastern European Members of
At a thematic level, in 2015 Eastern European Members
the Council led (as main sponsors/part of a core group) on
led, inter alia, on the following issues:
a number of important resolutions, covering both thematic and country-specific issues.
in Myanmar.
1
Latvia
Russian Federation
Montenegro – reconciliation and accountability in Sri
Albania – preventing and countering violent extremism;
Russian Russian Federation Federation
29%
29% 32%
50%
50%
32%
32%
Engagement Engagement with with Panel Debates Panel Debates (as % of(astotal) % of total)
32% 45%
45%
6% 3%6%23%3% 23% 18%
18% 29%
29%
24%
24% 8%
8% 55%
59%
59%
Engagement Engagement with with Interactive Interactive Dialogues Dialogues (as % (as of total) % of total)
55% 61%
61%
59%
59%
Engagement Engagement in in General General Debates Debates (as % (as of total) % of total)
Note: data based on participation during the last 3 regular sessions of the Human Rights Council (28th-30th sessions). For full methodology, see end note. Data source: HRC Extranet.
contribution of the Human Rights Council to the General
44 |
| 45
Voting analysis
Cooperation with human rights mechanisms
With regard to country specific situations, Eastern European Members tended to vote in favour of item 4 texts (situations
Albania
Estonia
FYR Macedonia
Latvia
Montenegro
Russian Federation
that require the Council’s attention) in 2015. In the absence of consensus, Albania, Estonia, Latvia, Montenegro and Macedonia voted in favour of all item 4 resolutions (covering situations in Belarus, Iran, North Korea and Syria). The Standing Invitation
Regarding country-specific item 2 texts (e.g. on reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka and in South Sudan, and on the rights of minorities in Myanmar), Eastern European Members always joined consensus. During voting on item 7 resolutions (Occupied Palestinian Territories), EEG States nearly always voted in favour. The exception was Macedonia, which abstained during three votes. For item 10 resolutions (capacity-building), EEG Members joined consensus on all texts in 2015, except for when there was a vote called (i.e. on Ukraine – with all Eastern European States, except Russia, voting in favour).
SPECIAL PROCEDURES
major exception to this trend was Russia. Where a vote was called, Russia voted against all item 4 resolutions.
Visits Completed (199820th November 2015) Visits Completed in 2015
Communications Response Rate (as referenced in last UPR national report)
For thematic resolutions dealing with civil and political rights, where a vote was called in 2015, Eastern European
Montenegro and Macedonia all voted against.
•
The resolution on human rights, democracy and rule of law – Russia abstained.
•
The resolution on the effects of terrorism – Albania, Estonia, Latvia, Montenegro and
Macedonia all voted against.
•
The resolution on preventing and combatting violent extremism – Russia voted against.
•
The resolution on armed drones – Albania, Estonia, Latvia and Montenegro all abstained,
while Macedonia voted against.
•
The text on ‘concrete action against racism’ – Albania, Estonia, Latvia, Montenegro
and Macedonia voted against.
For thematic resolutions dealing with economic, social and cultural rights, EEG States usually joined consensus. Where there was a vote, Albania, Estonia, Latvia, Montenegro and Macedonia voted against resolutions on unilateral coercive measures, international solidarity, protection of the family, and the impacts of foreign debt. Russia either joined consensus on or voted in favour of all ESCR resolutions.
TREATY BODIES
Most Overdue Report
100%
3/3
4/5 80%
100%
5/5
1/2
10 /25
0
0
0
0
0
0
50%
40%
8
7 4
3
1
7 3
2
1
2
submitted on time
on schedule
1 3
8
7 4
submitted late
1 3
2 2
7
2
1
1
5
overdue(outstanding)
not party
1
1 5 n/a
none (3 years)
(1.5 year)
CRPD
none
(9 years)
CERD
CEDAW/CRC none (2 months)
none
Ambassador
Minister
Senior Civil Servant
State Secretary
Minister
Minister
12
7
2
78
0
68
CPED
Conventions Ratified in 2015
Reviewed in 2015
UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW
The resolution on the right to peace – Albania abstained; while Estonia, Latvia,
Reporting Status (data as at 26th November 2015)
50%
0 2 1 48 1 1 responded to responded to responded to responded to responded to responded to 1 received 4 received 1 received 55 received 2 received 3 received 0% 50% 87% 50% 33% 100%
Core Conventions Ratified*
Members usually voted in favour. Notable exceptions included voting on:
•
4/8
Level of Delegation (at latest review)
Mid-term Reporting (1st and/or 2nd cycle) Participation in other reviews (1st cycle)
* Ratification and Reporting is recorded for the eight “core human rights conventions,” which include: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (CPED), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). Note: for more comprehensive information on data sources, timeframes and methodology, please see end note.
46 |
| 47
Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC)
Leadership During the course of 2015, GRULAC Members of the Human Rights Council led (as main sponsors/part of a core group) on a number of important resolutions,
Overview of Members Voluntary Contribution to OHCHR (2014)
Argentina
covering both thematic and country-specific issues.
Mexico – birth registration; elimination of discrimination against women; the human rights of migrants; human rights and indigenous peoples; review of the mandate of the expert mechanism on the rights of indigenous peoples; independence and impartiality of the judiciary; protecting human rights while countering terrorism; question of the death penalty; right to work.
NHRI Accreditation Status
Previous Membership Terms
A
3
At a thematic level, in 2015 GRULAC Members led, inter alia, on the following issues:
Paraguay - promoting international cooperation to support national human rights follow-up systems and
Argentina – preventing and eliminating child, early and forced marriage.
processes; the contribution of the Human Rights Council to the General Assembly Special Session on the world drug problem 2016.
Bolivia
A
2 3
Brazil
3
Cuba El Salvador
A
1
Mexico
A
3 1
Paraguay Venezuela
A
1
Bolivia – the rights of peasants. At a country-specific level, GRULAC Members led, inter Brazil – contribution of the Human Rights Council to the
alia, on the following situations:
high-level meeting on HIV/AIDS in 2016; elimination of discrimination against persons affected by leprosy; the
Paraguay - fact-finding mission to South Sudan.
negative impact of corruption on human rights; promoting international cooperation to support national human rights follow-up systems and processes; technical cooperation and capacity-building in the field of human rights.
Cuba – composition of the staff of OHCHR; democratic and equitable international order; international solidarity; the rights of peasants; the right to peace; the Social Forum; use of mercenaries.
El Salvador – protection of the family; unaccompanied migrant children.
Note: for comprehensive information on data sources, timeframes and methodology, please see end note.
48 |
| 49
Contribution to Council debates and dialogues in 2015
Voting analysis With regard to texts on country specific situations (specifically resolutions tabled under item 4 – situations that require the Council’s attention), Latin American Members of the Council can be divided into two groups vis-à-vis their voting records in 2015. Argentina, Brazil, El Salvador, Mexico and Paraguay tended to vote in favour of item 4 resolutions, (with some exceptions – for example, El Salvador and Mexico abstained during voting on the resolution on the situation in Belarus). Brazil voted against resolutions on Syria and Iran in March, but thereafter voted in favour of item 4 texts. The second group is made up of Bolivia, Cuba and Venezuela. These States voting against all item 4 resolutions.
18% 8% 18%
Argentina
24%
Bolivia
Engagement with Panel Debates (as % of total)
13% 18% 47%
59%
Brazil
27%
For country-specific item 2 texts (e.g. on reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka and in South Sudan, and on the rights of minorities in Myanmar), GRULAC Members joined consensus. During voting on item 7 resolutions (Occupied Palestinian Territories), Latin American States nearly always voted in favour (the exception being Paraguay,
76%
Cuba 29%
El Salvador
66%
21%
35%
Mexico
18% 29%
41%
Paraguay Venezuela
29%
Engagement with which abstained during nearly all item 7 votes). For item 10 resolutions (capacity-building), GRULAC Members joined Interactive Dialogues consensus on all texts in 2015, except for when there was a vote called (i.e. on Ukraine – with most either voting against (as % of total) or abstaining).
9% 42%
29%
55%
Engagement in General Debates (as % of total)
36%
27%
For thematic resolutions dealing with civil and political rights, where a vote was called in 2015, GRULAC Members usually voted in favour. Some, including Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay voted in favour or joined consensus on all civil and political rights texts, including on: the effects of terrorism; preventing and countering violent extremism; human rights, democracy and rule of law; drones; and the question of the death penalty. Notwithstanding, GRULAC members voted against, or abstained during voting on, some texts, including:
71%
Algeria Botswana
71%
42%
6%
36%
27%
3%
9% Côte d'Ivoire Note: data based on participation during the last 3 regular sessions of the 12% 18%
23%
Human Rights Council (28th-30th sessions). For full methodology, see end note. Data source: HRC Extranet.
Congo
Ethiopia Gabon
Ghana Kenya
6%11% 14% 12% 18% 6%
45% 3%
14%
18%
24%
50 |
26%
53%
45% 27%
Engagement in General Debates (as % of total)
The resolution on human rights, democracy and rule of law – Bolivia, Cuba and
Venezuela abstained.
•
The resolution on the effects of terrorism – Mexico voted against.
•
The resolution on preventing and combatting violent extremism – Bolivia, Cuba, and
El Salvador abstained; Venezuela voted against.
For thematic resolutions dealing with economic, social and cultural rights, GRULAC States either joined consensus on, or voted in favour of, nearly all adopted texts. The main exception was voting on the resolution on ‘protection of the family,’ which saw abstentions from Argentina, Brazil and Mexico.
18%
82%
Sierra Leone South Africa
63%
59%
Namibia
Engagement with Interactive Dialogues (as % of total)
18%
47%
Morocco Nigeria
21% 9%
Engagement with Panel Debates (as % of total)
•
42% 29%
32%
32%
| 51
Cooperation with human rights mechanisms
Argentina
Bolivia
Brazil
Cuba
El Salvador Argentina Mexico
9/17
5/12
21/27
0
0
2
53%
Visits Completed in 2015
Communications Response Rate (as referenced in last UPR national report)
TREATY BODIES
Cuba
El Salvador
Mexico
Paraguay
Venezuela
27%
0
9/17 18 /24 53% 75%
5/129/11
21/27 0/10
3/11
8/11
18 /24
9/11
0/10
0
00
Visits Completed in 2015
02
20
0
0
0
2
0
27%
78% 0%
42% 82%
SR on the right to health SR on Torture SR on the rights SR on of persons minority issues with disabilities
73%
0%
82%
75%
SR on the right to health SR on the rights of persons with disabilities
Communications 12 8 13 12 5 8 22 13 41 5 22 20 10 20 41 10 Response Rate to responded responded responded to to responded responded to to responded to responded to responded to responded to responded to responded to responded to responded to responded to responded responded to to (as referenced in 14 received 35 received 13 received 115 received14 received ** received35 received 30 received 13 received 115 received ** received 30 received 22 received 12 received 22 received 12 received last UPR national report) 100% 100% 36% n/a 73% 86% 23% 86% n/a 23%73% 91% 83% 91%36% 83%
8 2
8 4
2
8 2 1
5
none (3 years) CAT
ICESCR
(5.5 years)
Core Conventions Ratified*
6 2
2
submitted on time
Most Overdue Report
Visits 8/11 Completed 73% (199820th November 2015)
3/11
78%
SR on Torture SR on minority issues
Core Conventions Ratified* Reporting Status (data as at 26th November 2015)
42%
SPECIAL PROCEDURES
Visits Completed (199820th November 2015)
Brazil Venezuela
Standing Invitation
1
5
on schedule
CERD
(8 years)
1
TREATY BODIES
SPECIAL PROCEDURES
Standing Invitation
Bolivia Paraguay
1 Reporting Status 2 4 (data as at 1 26th November 2015) 1 2 3
submitted late
CERD
88
7
(2.5 years)
2
2
4
2
overdue(outstanding)
Most CAT Overdue (2Report years)
88
87
22 1 6 5
1 5
not partysubmittedn/a on time
ICESCR CAT none (3none (3 Years) years)
none
ICESCR
(5.5 years)
1 5
12 1 1 6
on schedule
CERD CRPD
6 2 1
1 2
8
7 3
submitted late
CERD
(8 years) (1 month) (2.5 years)
1 2
4
8 6
1 overdue(outstanding)
none (2 years) CAT
1
2
2
not party
ICESCR
(3 Years)
5
7 1
1
1 6
n/a
none
CRPD
(1 month) * Ratification and Reporting is recorded for the eight “core human rights conventions,” which include: the
Conventions Ratified in 2015
Conventions Ratified in OP2015 CRC
OP CRC
(communications procedure)
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
OP CRC
(ICCPR), the International Covenant on Economic, Social
OP CRC
(communications(communications procedure) procedure)
(communications procedure)
and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment
Level of Delegation (at latest review)
Deputy Minister
Attorney General
Minister
Mid-term Reporting (1st and/or 2nd cycle)
52 |
Participation in other reviews (1st cycle)
or Punishment (CAT), the International Convention for the
Reviewed in 2015
UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW
UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW
Reviewed in 2015
Level Minister of Delegation Minister (at latest review)
Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (CPED), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Deputy Minister Minister Attorney General Minister
Minister Minister
Minister
Minister
Minister
Minister
Minister
the Rights of the Child (CRC), the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
Mid-term Reporting (1st and/or 2nd cycle)
120
26
167
125 in other(1streviews 1 cycle) Participation
Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), the Convention on
(CERD), and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). ** data not available.
120 172 26 7
167 49 125
1
172
7
49
Note: for more comprehensive information on data sources, timeframes and methodology, please see end note.
Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
and forced marriage; equal participation in political and public affairs.
UK – assistance to Somalia; fact-finding mission to South
France
Portugal – contribution of the Human Rights Council to
Sudan; promoting reconciliation and accountability in Sri
the high level meeting on HIV/AIDS in 2016; elimination
Lanka; the human rights situation in Syria.
of discrimination against persons affected by leprosy;
Overview of Members Voluntary Contribution to OHCHR (2014)
Germany – the human rights situation in Syria.
NHRI Accreditation Status
Previous Membership Terms
A
3
the realisation of economic, social and cultural rights; the
US – the human rights situation in Iran; assistance to
right to education.
Somalia; fact-finding mission to South Sudan; promoting reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka; the human
UK – preventing and eliminating child, early and forced
rights situation in Syria.
marriage. Notwithstanding such individual leadership, it is important
Germany Ireland
A A
2 1
US – preventing and countering violent extremism.
to note that some WEOG Council Members regularly work through the EU. In 2015, for example, the EU led
At a country-specific level, WEOG Members led, inter alia,
on resolutions dealing with, inter alia, freedom of religion
on the following situations:
or belief, right of the child, the human rights situation in Belarus, and the human rights situation in Myanmar.
A
3
Portugal
A
1
United Kingdom
A
3
Netherlands
United States of America
France – the human rights situation in Syria; the human rights situation in Haiti.
Contribution to Council 71% 71% 36% debates Algeria and dialogues in 2015
2
Note: for comprehensive information on data sources, timeframes and methodology, please see end note.
France Germany Ireland
Leadership During the course of 2015, Western Members of the Human Rights Council led (as main sponsors/part of
Netherlands France – preventing and countering violent extremism; question of the death penalty.
a core group) on a number of important resolutions, covering both thematic and country-specific issues.
At a thematic level, in 2015 WEOG Members led, inter alia, on the following issues: 54 |
Germany – right to privacy in the digital age.
Netherlands – preventing and eliminating child, early
Portugal United Kingdom United States of America
3%
Côte d'Ivoire 59% 37%
12%
47%
Gabon
35%Ghana 24%
Morocco
24%
Namibia
35%Nigeria
45%
21% 9%
66%
18%
Engagement with Panel Debates Engagement with (as % of total)
6%
42%
14%
47%
55% 18%
59% 24%
74%
23%
63%
50% 26% 18%
45%
42% 29%
Engagement with Interactive Dialogues Engagement in (as % of total) General Debates (as % of total)
27%
55%
82% 53%
Interactive Dialogues (as % of total)
18%
50% 3%
Panel Debates (as % Engagement of total) with
73%
45%
Sierra Leone South Africa
76%
23%
6%11% 14%41%
Ethiopia
Kenya 53%
27%
9%
12% 18%
Congo
24%
42%
6%
Botswana
32%
Engagement in General Debates (as % of total)
32%
Note: data based on participation during the last 3 regular sessions of the Human Rights Council (28th30th sessions). For full methodology, see end note. Data source: HRC Extranet.
| 55
Cooperation with human rights mechanisms
Voting analysis
Netherlands
Portugal
United Kingdom
United States of America
6/6
3/4
14 /15
20/32
1
1
1
0
SR on human rights in Eritrea
SR on independence of judges and lawyers
SR on truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence
France
Germany
Ireland
7/12
8/9
3/4 75%
100%
0
0
0
•
The resolution on the effects of terrorism – France,
consensus on or vote in favour of all texts tabled under
Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, Portugal, the UK
item 4 (situations that require the Council’s attention). This
and the US voted against.
included resolutions on the situations in Belarus, Eritrea,
•
The resolution on the right to peace – France,
Iran, North Korea, Myanmar and Syria.
Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, the UK and the
US voted against; Portugal abstained.
Regarding country specific item 2 texts (e.g. on
•
The resolution on ‘concrete action against racism’
reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka and in
– France, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, the UK
South Sudan, and on the rights of minorities in Myanmar),
and the US voted against; Portugal abstained.
WEOG Members joined consensus. During voting on item
•
The resolution on armed drones – France, the
7 resolutions (Occupied Palestinian Territories), Western
UK and the US voted against; Germany and
States generally voted in favour. The exception was the
Portugal abstained.
United States, which voted against all five texts presented
•
The resolution on the question of the death
under item 7 in 2015. For item 10 resolutions (capacity-
penalty – the United States voted against.
building), WEOG Members joined consensus on all texts, except when there was a vote called (i.e. on the resolution
For thematic resolutions dealing with economic, social
on assistance to Ukraine – with WEOG Members voting
and cultural rights, WEOG States either joined consensus
in favour).
on, or voted in favour of, most adopted texts. The main
Visits Completed (199820th November 2015)
58%
Visits Completed in 2015
Communications Response Rate (as referenced in last UPR national report)
Reporting Status (data as at 26th November 2015)
89%
8 1
8 3
1
6
1
2
4
6 submitted on time
Most Overdue Report
Conventions Ratified in 2015
75%
93%
63%
3 2 0 10 56 6 3 responded to responded to responded to responded to responded to responded to responded to 3 received 3 received 1 received 15 received 95 received 13 received 3 received 100% 67% 59% 46% 100% 0% 67%
Core Conventions Ratified*
TREATY BODIES
2015 saw Western Members of the Council either join
SPECIAL PROCEDURES
Standing Invitation
none (3.5 years) CRPD
CAT
(under 1 month)
2
2
8
7 2
on schedule
1
3
2
2
3
1 1
1 5
2 submitted late
7 3
overdue(outstanding)
3
3
5
not party
n/a
(1.8 years)
(1 year)
ICCPR
(2none months)
CERD
none
none
Minister
Minister
Minister
Minister
Ambassador and Acting Legal Adviser
60
151
49
187
129
CERD
OP-ICESCR
exceptions were voting on the resolutions on ‘protection of the family;’ unilateral coercive measures; the right to
rights, where a vote was called, WEOG Members usually
development; international solidarity; and the effects of
voted in favour. Notwithstanding, WEOG members voted
foreign debt on human rights. Action on these texts saw
against, or abstained during voting on, texts including:
France, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, Portugal, the UK and the US voting against (with one exception - Portugal abstained during the vote on the right to development).
Reviewed in 2015
UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW
For thematic resolutions dealing with civil and political
Level of Delegation (at latest review)
Ambassador Commissioner
Mid-term Reporting (1st and/or 2nd cycle) Participation in other reviews (1st cycle)
184
140
* Ratification and Reporting is recorded for the eight “core human rights conventions,” which include: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (CPED), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). Note: for more comprehensive information on data sources, timeframes and methodology, please see end note.
56 |
| 57
Methodology Notes
YourHRC.org uses independent and objective data as the basis of its
Note: The word bubble shows the number of HRC texts falling under
Previous Membership terms
summaries and analyses. The origin of that data is primarily official
each group and theme (where it is a new initiative, or a theme with more
Source: OHCHR website.
UN documents and information produced by other international
than one resolution) in 2015.
Data as at: 28th September 2015.
data used, together with the methodology applied and the timeframe, is
Interactive Dialogues
Contribution to Council debates and dialogues
presented below.
Source: HRC Extranet and UN Web TV archive.
Source: HRC Extranet.
Timeframe: 28th-30th sessions of the Human Rights council, all held in
Timeframe: 2015.
Section I
2015.
Data as at: 30th November 2015.
Texts adopted in 2015
Data as at: 30th November 2015.
Note: The level of participation in Panel Discussions, Interactive
organisations. To ensure transparency, information on the sources of all
Source: OHCHR Website.
Dialogues and General Debates was calculated based on individual and
Timeframe: 2006-2015.
Country-specific texts and initiatives 2006-2015
joint statements listed on the HRC Extranet during 2015 (i.e. during HRC
Data as at: 30th November 2015.
Source: OHCHR Website; individual resolutions, decisions and
sessions 28-30). Joint statements by set regional or political groups (e.g.
presidential statements (PRSTs), available on the OHCHR Website.
the African Group or the EU) were not counted on the basis that this was
Agenda Items of HRC texts
Timeframe: 2006-2015.
not a conscious effort by the state concerned to participate in the debate,
Source: Individual resolutions, decisions and presidential statements
Data as at: 30th November 2015.
as is the case, for example, with ad-hoc cross-regional statements. Nor
(PRSTs), available on the OHCHR Website.
Note: map shows all Council country-specific initiatives since 2006,
were we able to count joint statements on behalf of a group of states
Timeframe: 2008-2015.
including resolutions, Special Sessions and panels.
that were not individually listed (this includes some statements on behalf
Data as at: 30th November 2015.
of the Like-Minded Group). Nevertheless, of course, states do also
Note: HRC Agenda Items are as follows: Item 1.Organizational and
Country-specific mechanisms 2015
participate in this broader manner. Full-day discussions were counted as
procedural matters; Item 2. Annual report of the United Nations High
Source: OHCHR Website. OHCHR Presence taken from Human Rights
one panel – so states participating in either the morning or the afternoon
Commissioner for Human Rights and reports of the Office of the High
Appeal 2015, p. 48-49 (with the addition of updated information on the
were counted as having participated.
Commissioner and the Secretary-General; Item 3. Promotion and
Republic of Korea).
protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and
Timeframe: all country-specific initiatives during 2015.
Cooperation with human rights mechanisms
cultural rights, including the right to development; Item 4. Human rights
Data as at: 30th November 2015.
Special Procedures Standing Invitation
situations that require the Council’s attention; Item 5. Human rights bodies and mechanisms; Item 6. Universal Periodic Review; Item 7.
Source: OHCHR website.
Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories;
Section II
Item 8. Follow-up and implementation of the Vienna Declaration and
Map of 2015 Membership
Programme of Action; Item 9. Racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia
Source: OHCHR Website; GA website (http://www.un.org/en/ga/70/
Country visits / visit requests
and related forms of intolerance, follow-up and implementation of
meetings/elections/hrc.shtml).
Source: OHCHR website [http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/SP/
the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action; Item 10. Technical
Data as at: 30th November 2015.
Pages/CountryvisitsA-E.aspx].
assistance and capacity-building.
Data as at: 20th November 2015.
Timeframe: 1998-20th November 2015 (for donut diagram); just 2015 Cooperation with the UN, its representatives and mechanisms in the
(for 2015 visits).
Resolution effects
field of human rights
Data as at: 20th November 2015.
Source: Individual resolutions, available on the OHCHR Website.
Cases cited in the Secretary General’s reports (2014-2015)
Note: The number of total country visits since 1998 includes all visits
Timeframe: 2010-2015.
Source: ‘Cooperation with the United Nations, its representatives and
undertaken, visits agreed by the state concerned but which has not yet
Data as at: 30th November 2015.
mechanisms in the field of human rights’ report by the Secretary General
taken place, and requests that have received no reply, as listed on the
(UN Docs. A/HRC/27/38, A/HRC/30/29).
OHCHR website. The number of visits undertaken includes only visits
Data as at: 30th November 2015.
that have actually taken place, as listed on the OHCHR website.
Timeframe: 2010-2015.
Overview of Membership
Responsiveness to communications
Data as at: 30th November 2015.
Voluntary contribution to OHCHR (2014)
Source: ‘Compilation of UN Information’ report during the State’s latest
Source: Human Rights Appeal 2015, p.44.
UPR.
Data as at: April 2015.
Data as at: 26th November 2015.
Financial implications of resolutions Source: Individual PBIs, available on the HRC extranet.
Word Bubble Source: Individual resolutions, decisions and presidential statements
58 |
Note: The response rate to Special Procedures communications (i.e. to
(PRSTs), available on the OHCHR Website.
NHRI Accreditation Status
letters of allegations and urgent appeals) is based on the information
Timeframe: 2015.
Source: http://nhri.ohchr.org/EN/Contact/NHRIs/Pages/Global.aspx.
provided in the ‘Compilation of UN Information’ report submitted to the
Data as at: 30th November 2015.
Data as at: 30th November 2015.
most recent UPR review of the state concerned.
| 59
Treaty Bodies
Universal Periodic Review
Source: OHCHR website.
Level of delegation
Data as at: 26th November 2015.
Source: the Head of a State’s delegation (for its last UPR) was determined using the ‘Report of the Working Group on the Universal
Core Conventions Ratified, Reporting Status and Most Overdue
Periodic Review.’ Where the rank of the representative was not clear, the
Report
URG followed up with the relevant missions as far as possible.
Note: Ratification and Reporting is recorded for the eight ‘core human
Data as at: 26th November September 2015.
rights conventions,’ which include: the International Covenant on Civil
Mid-term reporting
and Political Rights (ICCPR), the International Covenant on Economic,
Source: OHCHR website.
Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), the Convention against Torture and
Data as at: 20th November 2015.
Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), the
Note: The ‘mid-term reporting’ score relates to whether the state has
International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced
submitted a mid-term report for the first and/or the second cycles of
Disappearance (CPED), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
UPR.
Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), the International Convention on the Elimination of
Participation in other reviews
All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), and the Convention on the
Source: UPR Info ‘Statistics of UPR Recommendations.’
Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).
Data as at: 20th November 2015. Note: Participation in other reviews relates to the number of other 1st
Treaty body reporting dates relate to the state’s current reporting cycle,
cycle reviews (out of 192) during which the state concerned made its
as listed on the OHCHR website. In cases where there is no deadline for
own recommendations.
the current reporting cycle, the status of reporting of the previous cycle was used, where available.
Overview of cooperation with the Human Rights Council and its mechanisms in 2015
Explanation of Options:
Note: based on data in the ‘cooperation with human rights mechanisms’
•
section. See above for details of data sources, timeframes and last
SUBMITTED ON TIME: The State Party Report submitted the
report before the due date; •
ON SCHEDULE: the current cycle due date is in the future;
•
SUBMITTED LATE: The State Party Report has been submitted
for the current cycle, but was submitted late; •
OVERDUE (OUTSTANDING): the current cycle report has not
yet been submitted, and is overdue; •
NOT PARTY: The State has not ratified the respective Treaty;
•
N/A: where data was not available.
The ‘most overdue’ report time is for the outstanding report that is the most overdue. Data as at: 26th November 2015. Conventions Ratified in 2015 Source: OHCHR website (http://indicators.ohchr.org). Data as at: 26th November 2015.
60 |
updates. For updated information on all current and former Council members, visit yourHRC.org.
Image Credits United Nations Photo, ‘Palais des Nations, Geneva: The flags of the193 member states are back after the renovation of the “Allée des Drapeaux” at the Palais des Nations,’ 7 February 2014, UN Photo/Jean-Marc Ferré, licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 (page 2); UN Geneva, ‘Human Rights Council – 29th Session: Opening of the 29th regular session of the Human Right Council. Room XX,’ 15 June 2015, UN Photo/Pierre Albouy, licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 (page 5); UN Geneva, ‘Human Rights Council – 29th Session: Opening of the 29th regular session of the Human Right Council. Room XX,’ 15 June 2015, UN Photo/Pierre Albouy, licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 (page 6); United Nations Photo, ‘18th Session of the Human Rights Council: A wide view of the Human Rights Council at its eighteenth session, in Geneva, Switzerland,’ 16 September 2011, UN Photo/ Jean-Marc Ferré, licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 (page 8-9); UN Geneva, ‘Human Rights Council – 28th Session: Panel discussion on national policies and human rights with simultaneous sign language interpretation during the 28th Session at the Human Rights Council,’ 19 March 2015, UN Photo/Jean-Marc Ferré, licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 (page 10-11).
Universal Rights Group Ch. du Grand-Montfleury 48 CH-1290 Versoix Switzerland
[email protected]
62 |
| 63
design by mydear-agency.com
yourHRC.org A window onto cooperation, dialogue, leadership and policymaking at the UN Human Rights Council
