34/24 Summary of the panel discussion on promoting international cooperation to support national human rights follow-up systems and processes - Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
Document Type: Final Report
Date: 2016 Dec
Session: 34th Regular Session (2017 Feb)
Agenda Item: Item2: Annual report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and reports of the Office of the High Commissioner and the Secretary-General, Item10: Technical assistance and capacity-building
GE.16-22402(E)
Human Rights Council Thirty-fourth session
27 February-24 March 2017
Agenda items 2 and 10
Annual report of the United Nations High Commissioner
for Human Rights and reports of the Office of the
High Commissioner and the Secretary-General
Technical assistance and capacity-building
Summary of the panel discussion on promoting international cooperation to support national human rights follow-up systems and processes**
Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
Summary
The present report was prepared in accordance with Human Rights Council
resolution 30/25. It provides a summary of the intersessional panel discussion on promoting
international cooperation to support national human rights follow-up systems and
processes, held on 9 November 2016, during the twenty-sixth session of the Working
Group on the Universal Periodic Review.
* Reissued for technical reasons on 11 January 2017.
** The annex to the present report is circulated as received.
United Nations A/HRC/34/24*
I. Introduction
1. The Human Rights Council, in its resolution 30/25, requested the United Nations
High Commissioner for Human Rights to organize an intersessional panel discussion
during the twenty-sixth session of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review to
share experiences and good practices in the establishment and strengthening of national
human rights follow-up systems, including the role of international cooperation in this
regard. The discussion took place on 9 November 2016.
2. The panel discussion — the first of its kind — aimed to: (a) highlight the main
constituting elements of effective national follow-up systems and processes; (b) identify
steps to be taken at the national level to put in place effective national follow-up systems
and processes; (c) share experiences and practices of national follow-up systems and
processes; and (d) identify how such national follow-up systems and processes could best
guide States in seeking needed technical cooperation and discuss ways in which
international cooperation, through the support provided by the Office of the United Nations
High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and the United Nations at large and on a
bilateral basis, could be extended.
3. The panel discussion was chaired by the President of the Human Rights Council and
moderated by the Chief of the Universal Periodic Review Branch of OHCHR. The
panellists were the Minister of Justice, Human Rights and Worship of Ecuador, Ledy
Zúñiga; the Minister and Director-General for Human Rights of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of Paraguay, Juan Miguel Gonzalez Bibolini; the Head of Section in the Human
Rights Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Foreign Trade and Development
Cooperation of Belgium, Véronique Joosten; the Deputy Permanent Secretary in the Prime
Minister’s Office of Mauritius, Devendre Gopaul; and the President of the non-
governmental organization UPR Info, Miloon Kothari.
4. The panel discussion was opened by the Deputy High Commissioner for Human
Rights. Following the round of contributions by the panellists, 24 States and 2 non-
governmental organizations (NGOs) participated in the interactive discussion.
5. In its resolution 30/25, the Council also requested the High Commissioner to prepare
a summary report on the panel discussion for submission to the Council at its thirty-fourth
session. The present report was prepared pursuant to that request.
6. In the context of the panel discussion, OHCHR prepared an information leaflet on
international cooperation and national human rights follow-up systems and processes,
which is annexed to the present report.
II. Opening statement
7. In her opening statement, the Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights
thanked the Governments of Brazil and Paraguay, the main sponsors of Human Rights
Council resolution 30/25, and commended the Council for placing the issue of international
cooperation in support of national human rights follow-up systems and processes high on
its agenda.
8. She highlighted the virtuous cycle of national assessment, reporting,
recommendations for progress and their implementation, which she considered among the
most precious assets that the Human Rights Council offered to the world. She noted that the
wheels of a virtuous cycle for a driving momentum to best advance human rights in an
achievable and sustainable manner turned all the better when oiled by open exchanges
among States on how best to follow up on the recommendations made by United Nations
human rights mechanisms, that is the universal periodic review, the treaty bodies and the
special procedures.
9. The Deputy High Commissioner noted that this panel discussion opened up the
space to consider follow-up in the context of a comprehensive State-driven process and in
consultation with national and international stakeholders. It also provided the opportunity to
appreciate the value of effective national action and sound public policy development and
to learn more about, identify more clearly and later disseminate more widely information
on the keys to effective national human rights follow-up systems. Finally, it enabled States
to consider and address their needs for technical cooperation in order to strengthen this
virtuous cycle, in terms of both institutions and mechanisms to promote and coordinate
follow-up and specific thematic issues.
10. As a contribution to that consideration, the Deputy High Commissioner introduced
the information leaflet on international cooperation and national human rights follow-up
systems and processes prepared by OHCHR. Intended as a useful one-stop guidance on
how effective engagement can take place, the leaflet outlines the different elements of
follow-up systems and processes, and presents the different tools developed by OHCHR, as
well as the technical assistance offered by both OHCHR and United Nations country teams
in all these areas. 1 She announced the forthcoming launch of additional guidance on
effective State engagement with international human rights mechanisms through the
establishment of national mechanisms for reporting and follow-up 2 and mentioned the
series of knowledge cafés on national human rights follow-up systems and processes 3
organized by OHCHR that took place on 10 November 2016 in support of the panel
discussion.
11. The Deputy High Commissioner stressed the importance of establishing national
mechanisms for reporting and follow-up as they strengthened engagement with the human
rights mechanisms; enabled coordination among the branches of the State and its
specialized bodies; provided for sound consultative processes with relevant stakeholders,
such as national human rights institutions and civil society representatives from across the
board; and supported effective information management capacity. She mentioned a number
of key tools for effective follow-up, such as national implementation plans for following up
on human rights recommendations made by treaty bodies, the universal periodic review and
special procedures; the development of indicators to help assess the implementation and
impact of the recommendations on the ground, with a view to ensuring that efforts translate
into desired and tangible results on the human rights situation at country level; and the
creation and maintenance of a database to track and report on the implementation of
recommendations.
12. In relation to the last point, the Deputy High Commissioner stated that OHCHR was
in the process of finalizing a Universal Human Rights Index Web Service, which would
enable the transfer of recommendations from the index to customized national databases. A
multilingual application to create national databases of recommendations and report on the
progress in the implementation of the recommendations would also be made available to
States, free of charge.
1 See annex; also available at www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/Panel/Leaflet.pdf.
2 See OHCHR, National Mechanisms for Reporting and Follow-up: A Practical Guide to Effective
State Engagement with International Human Rights Mechanisms (2016), available at
www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/HR_PUB_16_1_NMRF_PracticalGuide.pdf.
3 See OHCHR, Highlighting and demystifying the issue, flyer for the knowledge cafés on national
human rights follow-up systems and processes (2016), available at www.ohchr.org/Documents/
HRBodies/HRCouncil/Panel/FlyerKnowledgeCafes.pdf.
13. The Deputy High Commissioner also stated that the integration of a gender
perspective throughout the above-mentioned structures and processes was of paramount
importance for ensuring that implementation supported the achievement of gender equality
and the enjoyment of all human rights without discrimination based on gender or sex.
14. Finally, the Deputy High Commissioner pointed out that comprehensive processes
for following up on human rights recommendations enabled States to drive forward
progressive human rights; set in train a coherent action agenda grounded for human rights
in sound analysis; and identify concretely any capacity gaps they may face in meeting their
human rights goals, obligations and commitments. A key additional benefit of this robust
approach was that States seeking technical cooperation could move from generic pleas for
assistance to more targeted requests, which could then be better met, with the ultimate
effect of better serving the primary purpose of human rights, which is the alleviation of
preventable human suffering and the elevation of human dignity.
III. Contributions by the panellists
15. The moderator introduced the panel discussion by recalling Human Rights Council
resolution 30/25. She then welcomed the five panellists who, in the light of their respective
expertise and experience, were invited to address the following themes: national
mechanisms for reporting and follow-up on international human rights obligations and
commitments; national implementation plans for follow-up to human rights
recommendations; the development of indicators to help assess the impact of
implementation; the creation and maintenance of a database to track and report on the
implementation of the recommendations, and assist in the management of information; and
effective consultative processes with stakeholders. The moderator also welcomed all the
participants in the discussion.
A. Intervention by Ledy Zúñiga, Minister of Justice, Human Rights and
Worship, Ecuador
16. Ms. Zúñiga stated that, in accordance with its voluntary commitment made during
its second universal periodic review in May 2012 and with the technical assistance of
OHCHR, Ecuador began developing, in August 2012, an information system called
SIDERECHOS to follow up, monitor and assess internally the implementation of the
recommendations received during the universal periodic review, as well as the
implementation of national and international legal norms and national human rights
policies. To this end, a database was created following a review of all the human rights
treaties ratified by Ecuador, the concluding observations of the treaty bodies, the report of
the universal periodic review, the thematic reports and country visit reports of special
procedure mandate holders, the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human
Rights, the resolutions of the General Assembly and of the Human Rights Council and the
reports of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. In addition, a web platform was
created and a communication strategy to promote the tool was developed. SIDERECHOS
was launched on 10 December 2014.
17. One of the first benefits of SIDERECHOS was the facilitation of access to
democratized knowledge and the use of human rights law by the greatest number of people
in the widest possible way. As a result, transparency in processes and accountability for
human rights have been enhanced. SIDERECHOS also facilitates, inter alia, the
mainstreaming of human rights in the development of national and sectoral public policies;
the adjustment of such policies; and the prioritization of State actions with regard to
unrealized rights.
18. Ms. Zúñiga stated that SIDERECHOS was a semi-public, user-friendly web
platform managed mainly by the Ministry of Justice, Human Rights and Worship, but
which benefited from input by other public institutions, especially those directly involved in
specific topics of interest, such as the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Labour or the
Ministry of the Environment, which feed into the database. The platform was designed for a
wide range of users, including civil servants, teachers, students, NGOs, human rights
defenders, lawyers and journalists.
19. SIDERECHOS comprises four sections: (a) a search engine for constitutional and
international standards applicable to each of the 73 rights guaranteed in the Constitution
(search by right and/or keyword); (b) a list of the reports submitted by the State to United
Nations treaty bodies since 1971, with concluding observations and alternative reports for
each review period, the judgments issued by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights
with respect to Ecuador and the implementation reports submitted to the Court by the State;
(c) a platform dedicated to the drafting of official reports relating to the United Nations
human rights treaties, in which a data processor automatically shares information among
the State institutions responsible for the drafting of such reports and generates a first draft
compiling all the information collected; and (d) a table for follow-up to recommendations
that facilitates the systematic monitoring of the implementation of the recommendations
from the universal periodic review, treaty bodies and special procedures, which enables the
Ministry of Justice, Human Rights and Worship to share the recommendations made by the
aforementioned mechanisms with, and request information on their implementation from,
the relevant institutions, as well as prepare an updated report on the status of their
implementation.
20. Ms. Zúñiga indicated that SIDERECHOS had so far only been used for preparing
reports to be submitted to the treaty bodies and that the preparation of the report for the
third universal periodic review of Ecuador would be the main test of its functioning. She
felt that it would eventually become an ideal tool in the framework of this mechanism as it
has the capacity to analyse the status of a given situation, the feasibility of the measures to
be taken, and the regulations and other instruments through which the recommendations
will be implemented. The system can point directly to the aspects of the recommendation
on which the implementation should focus. An additional value is that the status of
compliance can be recorded and it indicates pending tasks, whether the recommendation
has already been implemented and any subsequent measures to be adopted for
implementation. This information makes it possible to carry out quantitative analyses on the
level of compliance, as well as on the difficulties, challenges and needs relating to the full
implementation of the recommendations.
21. Finally, Ms. Zúñiga stated that the main lesson learned by Ecuador from this process
was that a national human rights information system, despite being an ambitious and
medium-term process, constituted a solid methodological basis for developing human rights
indicators. It also helped to make the information available to a wide variety of users,
thereby fostering the notion of shared responsibility for the full observance of human rights
among the entire population.
B. Intervention by Juan Miguel Gonzalez Bibolini, Minister and Director-
General for Human Rights, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Paraguay
22. Mr. Bibolini stated that the report for the first universal periodic review of Paraguay
was prepared by the main inter-institutional mechanism for the promotion and protection of
human rights — the human rights network at the executive level —, which was created in
2009 and is composed of 23 national entities, with the participation of the legislative and
judicial branches, as well as civil society, which the Government sees as fundamental. This
broad inter-institutional composition enables the mainstreaming of human rights in all
governmental areas and competencies. The network also prepared the 2010-2011 Plan of
Action, a reflection of the determined will of the Government to implement its human
rights obligations through inter-institutional work with clearly defined priorities. One of
those priorities was the strengthening of the follow-up to human rights recommendations,
for which Paraguay committed to ensuring continuous State-led monitoring of its actions in
implementing its commitments.
23. Mr. Bibolini mentioned that Paraguay had also established an inter-institutional
executive commission for implementing international judgments with the aim of
implementing the judgments handed down in respect of Paraguay by international courts,
such as the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and making progress in the
implementation of the recommendations issued by the Inter-American Commission on
Human Rights.
24. As a consequence of the challenges inherent to inter-institutional coordination and
articulation for the follow-up and implementation of recommendations made by
international bodies, the Government, in cooperation with the OHCHR human rights
adviser in Paraguay, created SIMORE, a system to monitor human rights recommendations
addressed to Paraguay. SIMORE is an online public platform to follow up on the
implementation of recommendations made by treaty bodies and special procedures, as well
as judgments handed down by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. This tool is part
of the national mechanism for follow-up and implementation of international human rights
recommendations and plays a significant role in the implementation of those
recommendations, the preparation of reports and the development of governmental human
rights policies and programmes, among other benefits.
25. SIMORE complements the work carried out by the human rights network at the
executive level. Its operation is ensured by 45 focal points in 36 institutions, who are tasked
with following up the international human rights recommendations assigned to their
respective institutions. It is managed jointly by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the
Ministry of Justice. The focal points upload to SIMORE the activities carried out by their
respective institutions to implement the recommendations under their responsibility. It
enables the updating of official information, which can be used for the drafting of reports to
be submitted to the various international mechanisms.
26. Mr. Bibolini stressed that SIMORE made it easy for civil society to be kept
officially informed about the status of implementation of international human rights
recommendations and hence, about obligations deriving from international human rights
instruments. This is particularly useful for civil society organizations when they prepare
their own reports.
27. He added that it was fundamental that the State, as the main actor for promoting and
protecting human rights, share information on SIMORE so as to demonstrate the
transparency of the national follow-up mechanism, which indirectly acts as an
accountability tool since the information contained in it is broad and available to the public.
28. During the second cycle of the universal periodic review, Paraguay became a
member of the Human Rights Council, for the first time, and assumed the responsibility for
promoting initiatives that contribute significantly to strengthening the promotion and
protection of human rights. In this context, Paraguay, together with Brazil, initiated Council
resolution 30/25 — the first of its kind —, which was co-sponsored by 53 countries. In
addition, at the invitation of OHCHR, Paraguay shared the SIMORE experience in
seminars and workshops attended by representatives of more than 50 countries in Latin
America, the Caribbean, Africa, Asia and the Pacific. Furthermore, Paraguay recently
started developing a bilateral technical cooperation programme for countries seeking to set
up their own national systems to follow-up human rights recommendations, using the
SIMORE experience as good practice. Successful cooperation has so far been achieved
with Uruguay, Chile and Honduras, and requests for technical assistance have been
received from countries in Central America, the Caribbean, Eastern Europe and Central
Asia.
29. Mr. Bibolini concluded by reaffirming the commitment of Paraguay to its human
rights obligations. SIMORE, as an innovative and participatory system, has allowed
Paraguay to improve its follow-up of recommendations received, as well as its capacity to
comply with these recommendations and adopt a more effective implementation strategy. It
has also contributed to strengthening the human rights mechanisms at the global level, in
particular the follow-up to recommendations made by the universal periodic review.
C. Intervention by Véronique Joosten, Head of Section, Human Rights
Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Foreign Trade and
Development Cooperation, Belgium
30. Ms. Joosten welcomed the opportunity to share experiences on the follow-up to
human rights recommendations, which she considered a global challenge.
31. She noted that the adoption of General Assembly resolution 68/268 on the treaty
bodies strengthening process and the subsequent capacity-building work, as well as related
OHCHR publications, inspired the Government of Belgium to explore ways to improve its
national human rights follow-up process.
32. Ms. Joosten stated that the federal structure of Belgium — in which the relationship
between the federal State and the federated entities is not one of subordination, but rather of
equality — requires a lot of coordination and consultation when preparing human rights
reports and ensuring follow-up to human rights recommendations. A practical consequence
was the setting up of a permanent coordination and consultation structure for multilateral
issues within the Directorate-General for Multilateral Affairs of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs.
33. Ms. Joosten shared the main lesson learned by Belgium in relation to the topic,
which is that, “one size does not fit all”. A choice must be made as to the follow-up system
or process that best addresses a country’s needs in order to ensure efficiency and
effectiveness in the follow-up to human rights recommendations. Belgium therefore
decided not to establish a new national human rights follow-up system, but to build on the
existing structure that was already being used extensively by the Human Rights Department
of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to prepare human rights reports, interactive dialogues
with and country visits of international and regional human rights mechanisms.
34. In addition to organizing ad hoc meetings in preparation for a particular report or
presentation to or visit of a given human rights mechanism, the Human Rights Department
of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has, since January 2015, instituted the practice of
organizing six-monthly meetings, which allows it to, inter alia, provide information about
the reporting calendar, address horizontal issues — such as translation of documents,
dissemination of reports and data collection — and follow-up on recommendations.
35. These meetings are attended by the human rights focal points in the relevant
departments of both federal and federated entities. The human rights focal points gather all
relevant input within their respective departments to draft the reports and provide this
information and data in a consolidated document to the drafter. They are also responsible
for providing in a consolidated manner all the information on the implementation of
recommendations under the responsibility of their department.
36. Ms. Joosten stated that, in order to enhance the coherence and efficiency of human
rights reporting and follow-up by Belgium, the responsible department decided to develop a
consolidated table of all the human rights recommendations received by thematic cluster.
This tool does not only group together by theme all the recommendations made by the
universal periodic review and treaty bodies, but also includes all recommendations made by
special procedure mandate holders following their visits and the recommendations made by
Council of Europe mechanisms. Most importantly, the coordinators or the main government
bodies responsible for the implementation of the respective recommendations are identified.
37. The advantage of this comprehensive approach is two-fold in that it allows the body
responsible to: (a) combine the considerable number of recommendations and bring it to a
more manageable number that is easier to digest; and (b) identify recurring issues raised by
different bodies, which in turn enables it to prioritize follow-up. The table is perceived as a
living work document, which entails the need for regular updating.
38. Ms. Joosten mentioned that, in September 2016, a decision was taken, for the first
time, to bring the issue of follow-up to human rights recommendations to the political level,
by putting it on the agenda of the Federal Council of Ministers for early 2017.
39. To conclude, she stated that Belgium had taken important steps to enhance the
efficiency and effectiveness of its national human rights follow-up process, but that the
journey had just started and it was clearly a work in progress.
D. Intervention by Devendre Gopaul, Deputy Permanent Representative,
Prime Minister’s Office, Mauritius
40. Mr. Gopaul began by stating that several United Nations human rights treaty bodies
had recommended that Mauritius develop a set of human rights indicators. He added that
one of the recommendations in the National Human Rights Action Plan (2012-2020) dealt
with the development of human rights indicators for assessing progress in its
implementation.
41. In 2013, at the request of the Prime Minister’s Office, the University of Mauritius
developed a database of human rights indicators. However, it was deemed too complex for
non-experts in the field of human rights, it was not user-friendly and it did not clearly
indicate the list of indicators and data that could be used as an evidence-based approach for
each periodic report, among other issues.
42. In the light of this situation, the Government of Mauritius solicited the assistance of
OHCHR to develop human rights indicators that could be used to: (a) provide empirical
evidence of progress in the implementation of human rights recommendations; (b) identify
trends in progress made; and (c) compare its human rights implementation with that of
other similar countries and with other continents, in general. In September 2016, OHCHR
organized a training workshop on human rights indicators in Mauritius, which was attended
by human rights focal points, periodic report writers and statisticians. The workshop
enabled participants to familiarize themselves with the OHCHR publication, Human Rights
Indicators: A Guide to Measurement and Implementation.4 The importance of indicators as
emerging requirements of treaty bodies and as an evidence-based approach to United
Nations periodic reporting — the so-called “data revolution” — was stressed. Participants
learned how to identify the different types of indicators, for example, structural indicators
(legislation), process indicators (measures taken to reach a certain objective) and outcome
4 OHCHR, Human Rights Indicators: A Guide to Measurement and Implementation (2012), available at http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/Human_rights_indicators_en.pdf.
indicators (the result of the measures taken or percentage of targeted persons reached).
They were briefed on the sources of data to feed the indicators; the need to express results
in terms of percentage, instead of in absolute figures, for comparison purposes; the role and
importance of statisticians in the process; and the need to review the composition and terms
of reference of the national mechanism for reporting and follow-up.
43. Mr. Gopaul stated that, following the workshop, the Prime Minister’s Office
reviewed the said terms of reference so as to include the development of, and follow-up to,
human rights indicators and the composition of the mechanism so as to include at least two
statisticians. The first meeting of the mechanism was subsequently held, during which a
non-exhaustive list of cross-cutting indicators was identified with respect to the protection
of women; the protection of the child; the rights of persons with disabilities; poverty
alleviation; racial discrimination; and administration of justice.
44. Finally, Mr. Gopaul stated that indicators would be used in the short term to prepare
the fifth periodic report of Mauritius to the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights and the combined twentieth to twenty-third periodic reports to the Committee on the
Elimination of Racial Discrimination. In the medium term, Mauritius will publish its
“digest of human rights statistics” covering a five-year period, and intends to make this
document a regular feature in the long term. It will eventually use indicators in all United
Nations periodic reports, in a consistent manner.
E. Intervention by Miloon Kothari, President of UPR Info
45. First of all, Mr. Kothari highlighted the need to look at the adequacy of the national
consultation process, the types of issues covered and whether access is granted to civil
society organizations. In UPR Info’s experience, in a number of countries, only one
consultation is organized, usually in the capital, which means that many people are
excluded from the process, or consultations are limited to organizations with which the
State mechanisms are familiar or organizations whose work they agree with. For instance,
in some countries, governments are not willing to discuss issues that they deem sensitive,
such as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or intersex persons. Such limitations must be
overcome.
46. He highlighted the importance of consultations taking place at various stages of
preparation, for example, prior to the universal periodic review, in the interim period, and
leading to the drafting of midterm reports.
47. Mr. Kothari noted that, just as national mechanisms for reporting and follow-up
have conducted positive consultations with civil society, there are several positive examples
of civil society initiating consultation processes, such as in Kenya, Myanmar and Thailand.
In the case of Kenya, the consultation process led to the holding of a national dialogue,
which, in turn, led to the drafting of a national action plan. He also mentioned SIMORE in
Paraguay, where the inputs of civil society are taken into account. Therefore, no matter who
initiates the consultation process, it is important that it ends up being a multi-stakeholder
process that benefits everyone.
48. Mr. Kothari pointed out the critical role of national human rights institutions in the
consultation process and in the process leading up to the universal periodic review of a
country. He mentioned the positive example of Denmark, where the national human rights
institution prepared action-oriented recommendations ahead of the country’s second
universal periodic review. He said that the National Human Rights Commission of India
had also been active in preparing indicators and engaging with the Government of India and
civil society.
49. Mr. Kothari flagged the strong advocacy and research work undertaken by civil
society organizations. He mentioned as examples the monitoring tool developed by the
Working Group on Human Rights in India and the United Nations, a coalition of civil
society organizations and individual human rights experts, and the fact sheets developed by
UPR Info and the Centre for Economic and Social Rights, which are currently available for
six countries. These are comprehensive, thematically-targeted tools which can help bring
precision to the implementation of recommendations and contribute to the preparation for a
forthcoming universal periodic review.
50. Mr. Kothari raised the issue of support for civil society organizations. He welcomed
the Voluntary Fund for Financial and Technical Assistance put in place for Member States
in the framework of the universal periodic review, but found it regrettable that no such fund
exists for civil society organizations. He felt that political support was needed to address
this issue, which could ultimately undermine the efficiency and legitimacy of the universal
periodic review.
51. Mr. Kothari also noted the tremendous ongoing efforts by many countries to ensure
follow-up to the recommendations from the universal periodic review, but warned that the
concluding observations of treaty bodies and the recommendations made by special
procedure mandate holders should not be left out. Finally, he stressed that the 2030 Agenda
for Sustainable Development should not be seen as a parallel process, but should be
included in the ongoing follow-up work.
IV. Summary of the interactive discussion
52. During the interactive discussion, contributions were made by representatives of the
following States, in order of appearance: Pakistan (on behalf of the Organization of Islamic
Cooperation), Germany, Greece, Paraguay, Uruguay, Montenegro, Kenya, Thailand, the
United States of America, Tunisia, Georgia, Canada, Australia, Brazil, Republic of Korea,
Egypt, Libya, Portugal, Belarus, Indonesia, Haiti, Norway, South Africa and Chile.
53. Contributions were also made by representatives of the NGOs International Lesbian,
Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (joined by ARC International and the
International Bar Association) and the International Service for Human Rights.
A. General observations
54. Most delegations expressed support for Council resolution 30/25 and commended
Brazil and Paraguay, as the main sponsors, as well as OHCHR for convening the panel
discussion. The delegations also thanked the Deputy High Commissioner and the panellists
for their presentations, which they found practical and informative. They welcomed the
panel discussion as an important peer-to-peer learning opportunity on how to establish and
strengthen effective national human rights systems and processes tasked with following up
human rights recommendations.
55. During the discussion, several delegations stressed the great importance of
implementing the recommendations made by the human rights mechanisms for a tangible
impact on the ground. They recalled that States had the primary obligation to promote and
protect human rights and, as such, a strong political will to implement and follow up their
human rights obligations was paramount to achieving the desired outcome. In addition,
States would only benefit from their engagement with regional and international human
rights systems if they put in place appropriate follow-up, monitoring and accountability
systems at the national level. The setting up of such systems should be the prerogative of
States. More generally, international peace, security and prosperity would only be
strengthened if human rights are fully respected and protected.
56. A number of delegations highlighted the timeliness of the panel discussion, which
took place against the background of the end of the second cycle of the universal periodic
review and the recent adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. In
relation to the first point, several delegations reiterated their full support for the universal
periodic review mechanism, which they deemed a success story, as it has proven to be
highly useful in assisting States in improving their human rights programmes. In this
context, the importance of midterm review reports was also mentioned. As to the second
point, the nexus between the sustainable development and the human rights agendas was
emphasized several times, leading to the question as to whether a unified system for the
implementation of the recommendations made by the human rights mechanisms and of the
Sustainable Development Goals could be devised.
B. Sharing of experiences and good practices in the establishment and
strengthening of national human rights systems
57. Most delegations shared the various models that their governments had put in place
to ensure effective follow-up to recommendations made by human rights mechanisms. It
was pointed out on a number of occasions that there was no set standard of national human
rights follow-up system or process and that any model should be tailored to the realities and
needs on the ground.
58. Several features common to the models developed by States were identified in the
course of the discussion. First, several States had adopted or were in the process of adopting
national human rights action plans or national implementation plans on human rights that
take into account the recommendations made by human rights mechanisms. These plans
reportedly contain measurable goals, clustered by theme, with timed commitments. One
delegation mentioned the specific action plans its Government had developed on the rights
of the child and against racism and intolerance, which included related recommendations.
Another delegation referred to the national legislation, policies and mechanisms put in
place to combat domestic violence and forced labour, to protect human rights defenders, to
protect the rights of persons with disabilities and to promote the right to truth and memory,
which were supported by recommendations and decisions submitted to the country by
regional and international human rights mechanisms. Yet another delegation stated that its
Government had clustered recommendations around the following themes: women;
children; detained persons; discrimination; memory, truth, justice and guarantees of non-
recurrence; and institutional strengthening. Another delegation mentioned the national
human rights strategy, which had led to the approval of an action plan by the Government.
One NGO stressed that States should be encouraged to adopt national implementation plans
on United Nations human rights recommendations.
59. Secondly, many delegations mentioned the structures their Governments had
established to ensure adequate follow-up to regional and United Nations human rights
recommendations. These structures often involved the participation of several ministries
and enjoyed the support of the highest levels of government. In one instance, the structure
was chaired by the Prime Minister and involved the entire Cabinet. In a few instances, the
permanent nature of the structure was highlighted as a best practice. In federal States,
collaborative efforts between the federal, provincial and territorial authorities were
highlighted. Some countries had reportedly developed a series of tools to meet their goals,
such as implementation matrixes to structure all efforts made towards the implementation
of the various recommendations received; an e-human rights reporting system in the form
of a database of human rights improvements, which also aims at better mainstreaming
human rights in all governmental policies; and a set of human rights indicators based on the
aforementioned OHCHR guide on human rights indicators.
60. Thirdly, the majority of delegations emphasized the critical importance of ensuring
that follow-up processes and systems were widely inclusive, with a view to involving
multiple stakeholders.
61. In this regard, the continued active role played by civil society, including NGOs,
academics, legal and health professionals, was welcomed by numerous delegations. Several
delegations mentioned that they had prepared their national implementation plans in
cooperation with NGOs. One delegation mentioned specifically indigenous groups in its
consultation process. Another delegation stated that civil society, together with national
human rights institutions, provided crucial support in measuring the implementation of
recommendations. This is all the more true in the absence of an effective follow-up
mechanism at the State level, as stated by an NGO. The same organization added that civil
society has been actively engaging with various governments to ensure that they are aware
of sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression and sex characteristics issues and
know what steps they need to take. Another NGO recommended that national human rights
follow-up systems should systematically involve civil society and human rights defenders
in the follow-up to recommendations, from the planning stage to the actual implementation.
62. National human rights institutions were also praised on several occasions as being
valuable partners in ensuring follow-up to recommendations. For instance, one delegation
mentioned that the Government had made a commitment to work with the national human
rights commission to develop a public and accessible process for monitoring progress in
relation to recommendations made by the universal periodic review. Similarly, a number of
delegations referred to the legislative branch as being one stakeholder that should be
involved in the follow-up process. In this regard, the importance of the participation of
Members of Parliament in State delegations during the universal periodic review, notably in
the run up to its third cycle, was stressed.
63. Referring to the recent Glion Human Rights Dialogue, one delegation asked whether
there would be any merit in establishing some guidelines for national human rights follow-
up systems and processes.
64. Finally, one NGO suggested that, inter alia, United Nations human rights bodies
prioritize the adoption of objective criteria to assess and incentivize the implementation of
their recommendations and systematically request States to establish national follow-up
systems when relevant. It also called on United Nations country teams to redouble efforts to
support the implementation of all United Nations human rights recommendations evenly.
C. Role of international cooperation to support national human rights
follow-up systems and processes
65. Several delegations emphasized the importance of international cooperation to
support national human rights follow-up systems and processes. One delegation noted that a
follow-up and implementation perspective was helpful for understanding the types of needs
countries may have, the practices they were developing to meet those needs, and how these
could inspire other countries to take similar actions, with the support of the United Nations.
A few delegations emphasized that the consent of the State receiving technical assistance
had to be the rule.
66. A number of delegations shared their experiences in providing technical assistance
to other States. One delegation stated that it had developed a programme of cooperation that
had been implemented successfully in various countries. It noted that each country created
its own model, in accordance with its needs. Other delegations mentioned their positive
experiences as recipients of technical assistance provided by other States to develop follow-
up mechanisms. For instance, one delegation mentioned the training of inter-institutional
focal points who would be in charge of effectively implementing the aforementioned
SIMORE platform. Another delegation emphasized the importance of regional cooperation
as well as South-South cooperation to enhance national follow-up efforts.
67. Several delegations thanked OHCHR for providing support to requesting countries
through technical cooperation and capacity-building activities. One delegation thanked, in
particular, the regional office in South-East Asia in this regard. Another one stated that it
had accepted to be a pilot country for implementing the database for reporting on and
follow-up to recommendations emanating from treaty bodies and special procedures that
would be launched during the first quarter of 2017. The same delegation stated that,
together with United Nations Development Programme and OHCHR, it would organize
seminars on developing indicators to assess the impact of the implementation of
recommendations. Another delegation stated that it was seeking to strengthen its
partnership with OHCHR, while another asked how to seek assistance from the Office.
68. A number of delegations emphasized the importance of the existing trust funds
aimed at supporting States in the framework of the universal periodic review, with a view
to closing the gaps in capacity and needs. In that regard, one delegation mentioned that it
had made a financial contribution to both the Voluntary Fund for Participation in the
Universal Periodic Review and the Voluntary Fund for Financial and Technical Assistance.
69. Finally, it was stressed that international cooperation should be deepened and
widened in the context of the third cycle of the universal periodic review.
V. Concluding remarks
70. The moderator asked the panellists to react to comments and questions raised during
the discussion.
71. Ms. Zúñiga found the exchange of experiences on the issue very useful. She
responded positively to a question on whether the experience of Ecuador in developing the
SIDERECHOS database could be replicated in other countries. She said that the database
was user-friendly and facilitated the collection of information, which would not only assist
States in preparing their reports for the universal periodic review, but would also feed into
other processes. She stressed the need for States to commit to exchanging with other
countries on good practices in relation to follow-up. She also expressed her belief that State
institutions should always be guided by the experience of civil society through a
coordinated working relationship. For instance, the Government of Ecuador had involved
officials from the executive, legislative and judiciary branches, as well as civil society
representatives, when preparing its report for the Committee on the Elimination of
Discrimination against Women. Ms. Zúñiga concluded by assuring the participants of the
commitment of Ecuador to continue working to ensure that a strong mechanism was in
place at both the regional and global levels with a view to meeting all the goals set,
including the Goals in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
72. In response to questions raised, Mr. Bibolini stated that, based on the experience of
working with OHCHR and States in different regions, the SIMORE model developed by
Paraguay could be exported easily owing to the small size of the country and of the
administration that manages it, which allows reports to be up to date and the set-up to be
fully operational. Countries with a similar State structure could use the model. Moreover,
Paraguay has been able to prioritize the recommendations received, which helped the
dialogue with civil society on the basis of a shared agenda. Mr. Bibolini also highlighted
the need to involve academia and the private sector in the process. Finally, he stated that
Paraguay was currently working with OHCHR to extend the SIMORE model to cover the
Sustainable Development Goals.
73. Ms. Joosten noted that it was important not to have two parallel processes for
follow-up to human rights recommendations and the pursuance of the Sustainable
Development Goals, bearing in mind that both processes would have their separate
dynamics. She added that OHCHR was working to make the link with the Sustainable
Development Goals in its Universal Human Rights Index. In response to a question on
whether the national human rights follow-up process had helped Belgium to identify
technical cooperation needs, she replied positively and stated that two horizontal issues had
been identified, namely, data collection and indicators. In this regard, Belgium developed a
national action plan on racism, in liaison with OHCHR. Ms. Joosten noted the usefulness of
exchanges among States at the multilateral level which should be combined with exchanges
at the peer level, such as bilateral political consultations, which Belgium has done and will
continue to pursue.
74. In response to a question on how to enhance the use of human rights indicators, Mr.
Gopaul stated that it was necessary to first identify the indicators that could be extracted
from the United Nations human rights conventions to which the country is a party. He
reiterated that if an indicator was to be used for comparison purposes, it was important not
to use absolute values, but rather percentages. He fully agreed with the comments made
about the importance of commitment by States to achieve meaningful results and of
involving civil society in all processes. Finally, Mr. Gopaul expressed support for the idea
of having a common mechanism for the realization of human rights and the Sustainable
Development Goals.
75. Mr. Kothari, responding to a question on what forms technical cooperation may
take, stated that the exchange of good practices among States in relation to follow-up
should be encouraged, similar to what civil society organizations have done. States could
also follow up bilaterally with another State on the recommendations it has received, as has
already been done by some States. Another form of cooperation could consist in providing
support to the development of disaggregated data and indicators, with the involvement of
national human rights institutions, civil society organizations and academics. Mr. Kothari
also stressed that Sustainable Development Goals and human rights commitments were
mutually reinforcing and mentioned civil society networks in India and Nepal that have
sought to merge the two agendas. He highlighted the importance of universal periodic
review midterm reports and encouraged more States to adopt this practice as it would help
to track the implementation of recommendations. He flagged the need to establish a
national mechanism for reporting and follow-up coupled with a national implementation
plan. Finally, Mr. Kothari stated that States should not engage in the universal periodic
review in a piecemeal manner to satisfy the international community, but should think in
terms of broader national policy objectives.
76. Finally, the moderator thanked the panellists for their useful interventions that have
contributed to demystifying the issue at hand. She thanked Brazil and Paraguay, the main
sponsors of Human Rights Council resolution 30/25, for bringing this dialogue before the
Council. She echoed the high appreciation of sharing experiences and reiterated the
message that there is no “one size fits all” solution when engaging with national follow-up
systems and processes, and what was important was the political will to engage in concrete
implementation of recommendations. She stated that, while the leaflet prepared by OHCHR
was not an absolute way to proceed, it reflected the Office’s efforts to create a “one-stop
shop” of ideas and tools on follow-up available to States. To conclude, the moderator noted
that States have always been and will remain in the driving seat on how to engage with
human rights mechanisms on follow-up to their recommendations.
Annex
International cooperation and national human rights follow- up systems and processes
Follow-up and implementation: The UN General Assembly (GA) specifically mandated
the Human Rights Council (the Council) to promote the full implementation of human
rights obligations undertaken by States (GA rev. 60/251), including in the context of the
universal periodic review and the work of its special procedures. The universal periodic
review as an action oriented mechanism has, among its first objectives, the improvement of
the human rights situation on the ground (HRC res. 5/1). The full and effective
implementation by States parties of the treaty obligation and the periodic reporting on
progresses achieved is also central to the strengthening of the treaty body system (GA res.
68/268).
International cooperation and the sharing of practices are essential to the efforts
undertaken by States towards the advancement of the enjoyment of human rights and the
strengthening of the mechanisms established to that aim. Indeed, the Council was created
on the basis of the purpose and principles of the UN Charter, including achieving
international cooperation in the promotion of human rights. Moreover, the objectives of the
universal periodic review include the sharing of best practice among States and other
stakeholders.
Technical assistance: In its resolution 30/25, the Council reiterated the importance and
added value of technical assistance and capacity-building provided in consultation with,
and with the consent of, the States concerned to ensure follow-up to and the effective
implementation of their respective international human rights obligations and
commitments. It also welcomed the support provided by the Office of the United Nations
High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to the establishment and the
strengthening of national human rights follow-up systems and processes and encouraged
the OHCHR to continue to do so. To that aim, the Council invited States to gradually
increase their voluntary contributions to the relevant UN trust funds. In reviewing its work
and functioning in 2011, the Council equally emphasized that States may request the United
Nations representation at the national or regional level to assist them in the implementation
of follow-up to their review and that the OHCHR may act as a clearing house for such
assistance. It also suggested that financial and technical assistance for the implementation
of the review may be reflected in national implementation plans (res. 16/21).
National human rights follow-up systems and processes generate momentum with the
potential to foster the national dialogue on human rights. In the eve of the 3rd cycle of the
UPR in 2017, the Council encourages States to establish and strengthen such systems and
processes, to seek, as needed, technical assistance and capacity-building, and to share
experiences and good practices to that end. It also recognizes the important and
constructive role played by parliaments, national human rights institutions (NHRIs) and
civil society and encourages their continued and unhindered participation in and
contribution to these processes (res. 30/25).
The main constituting elements: Human rights follow-up systems and processes
constitute the institutional structures and the processes, formal and/or informal, through
which States attempt to ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of the implementation of
their international human rights obligations and commitments. These structures and
processes can take various forms and are established and operate according to the national
context. However, a number of components are emerging from States’ effective practices as
constituting their core, interrelated and interdependent elements which are likely to lead to
the achievement of the desired result: The improvement of the human rights situation on the
ground. These elements are centred around a national mechanism for reporting and follow-
up (NMRF) with four key capacities: engagement, coordination, consultation and
information management.
National mechanism for reporting and follow-up on international
human rights obligations and commitments (NMRFs)
• Effective engagement with the human rights mechanisms, coordination among the
three branches of the State and specialized bodies, consultative processes with
relevant stakeholders such as national human rights institutions and civil society
representatives and information management capacity facilitated through the below
key tools:
• National implementation plans for follow-up on human rights
recommendations, drawing from the outcome of the work of the treaty
bodies, universal periodic review and special procedures.
• The development of indicators to help assess the impact of implementation of
recommendations.
• The creation and maintenance of a database to track and report on
implementation of recommendations.
Thematic implementation
• First and foremost, efficient follow-up and implementation can only be achieved
with the support of a solid coordination mechanism between the national entities
which are primarily responsible for the thematic implementation of the
recommendations, and through continuous consultative practices with, and
contribution of, NHRIs and civil society, and engagement with the human rights
mechanisms. In addition, the national implementation of human rights
recommendations, undertaken through a holistic approach, cannot be achieved in an
efficient manner without a plan, including the thematic clustering of
recommendations, the strategic attribution of responsibilities and the agreement on
realistic timelines. Moreover, the best way to identify the most appropriate measures
of implementation is to clearly set, from the outset, the desired outcomes. In turn,
reporting on the impact these measures have had on the improvement of the human
rights situation can only be made on the basis of agreed relevant indicators for
measuring progress. Finally, the capacity to proficiently disseminate and manage the
wealth of information generated by the process can usefully be supported by setting
up a national database.
The integration of a gender perspective
• The integration of a gender perspective throughout these structures and processes is
also paramount for ensuring that implementation supports the achievement of gender
equality and the enjoyment of all human rights without discrimination based on
gender or sex.
NMRF
Practices
What it is: A national governmental mechanism or structure, ministerial, interministerial or
institutionally separate, and preferably standing in nature established to support the
implementation of human rights recommendations and the reporting on the progress
achieved. What it does: It is mandated and has the capacity to: engage with international
and regional human rights mechanisms; coordinate the follow-up to, implementation,
evaluation and reporting processes of the implementation of international human rights
obligations, commitments and recommendations with ministries, specialized State bodies,
the Parliament and the Judiciary; consult with the national human rights institution(s) and
civil society; and manage the information, including its dissemination and through data
collection and databases. How it does it: Its approach is comprehensive and includes all
international and regional human rights mechanisms, including treaty bodies, the universal
periodic review and special procedures.
OHCHR Tools
National Mechanisms for Reporting and Follow-up, A Practical Guide to Effective State
Engagement with International Human Rights Mechanisms, OHCHR, 2016 [E] See also the
Study [E]
Human Rights. Handbook for Parliamentarians No. 26. OHCHR and Inter Parliamentary
Union (IPU), 2016 [E]
Consultations
Practices
What it is: The establishment of effective consultative processes and dialogue with
relevant stakeholders such as the NHRI and civil society representatives.
OHCHR Tools
National human rights institutions and Universal Periodic Review follow-up [E]
How to Follow Up on United Nations Human Rights Recommendations — A Practical
Guide for Civil Society [A-C-E-F-R-S]
National implementation plans
Practices
What it is: A planning tool to ensure effective and timely implementation. What it
includes: The thematic clustering of recommendations, the identification of the measures
for implementation, the attribution of responsibilities, timelines and indicators to measure
progress. Implementation plans can also serve as a tool to assist in identifying capacity gaps
and in the assessment of the needs in terms of technical assistance.
OHCHR Tools
Handbook on National Human Rights Plans of Action [E]
Compilation of National Human Rights Action Plans (NHRAPs [E]
Guide — Experiences from the Development, Implementation and Review of National
Human Rights Plans of Action [OHCHR/UPRB].
Indicators
Practices
What it is: A tool to assist in the assessment of the impact of the implementation of
recommendations on the improvement of the human rights situation on the ground. NMRFs
should strategically include representatives of national statistics offices.
OHCHR Tools
Human Rights Indicators: A Guide to Measurement and Implementation [A-E-F-S]
Databases
Practices
What it is: An electronic system to record, track and report on the implementation of the
recommendations. It can take the form of a table in a Word document or be supported by
various levels of sophistication of software.
OHCHR Tools
The Universal Human Rights Index (UHRI) (including recommendations from all UN
mechanisms) [E] [F]. OHCHR is carrying out improvements to the UHRI system which
will include the following: enhanced search options, the possibility to produce/export tables
of thematically clustered recommendations, and their links with the SDGs. In addition, a
UHRI Web Service will enable the transferring of recommendations from the UHRI to any
customized database or application on any device. Finally, a multi-lingual application to
create national databases of recommendations and report progress on implementation will
be made available to States free of charge.
OHCHR/UN technical assistance
Practices
What it is: At the request of States, OHCHR and UN Country Teams (UNCTs) provide
support, inter alia, on the elaboration of the core elements of national human rights follow-
up systems and processes. They also provide support to the thematic (sectorial)
implementation of the recommendations. OHCHR also provides support to UNCTs in
integrating a human rights perspective into their work. Who it is: OHCHR Headquarters,
UNCTs and OHCHR field presences which include Country/Stand-alone Offices, United
Nations Peace Missions, Regional Offices and Centres, and the deployment of Human
Rights Advisers in UN Country Teams. How it is provided: The UN is promoting a
holistic approach which includes the simultaneous consideration of all recommendations,
from the treaty bodies, the universal periodic review and the special procedures, in line with
States’ priorities. The assistance can take various forms. The most common ones are:
• Advisory
• Seminar and training (National/Regional)
• United Nations Volunteer (UNV) posting
• Consultant services (National/International)
• Facilitation of national or sectorial consultations
• Support to the thematic implementation of recommendations
• Facilitation of peer exchange of practices
• Referral to OHCHR/UN multilateral or bilateral partners
Programmes and Funding Mechanisms
Pursuant to GA resolution 68/268, the OHCHR has established a Treaty Body Capacity
Building Programme. In addition, the main funds through which the OHCHR and UNCTs
are providing technical assistance in the follow-up and implementation of human rights
recommendations from all mechanisms include:
• Voluntary Fund for Financial and Technical Assistance in the Implementation of the
Universal Periodic Review [E]
• United Nations Voluntary Fund for Technical Cooperation in the Field of Human
Rights [E]
• UNDG Human Rights Mainstreaming Trust Fund [E]
Contact: hrimplementation@ohchr.org