Bearing in mind that challenges are a reason for evolving, this section attempts to provide ways of addressing these challenges in view of the

upcoming 4

cycle.

4.1 Before the review

Most countries start the preparation process approximately a year before their next UPR. The preparation of the national report requires coordination between the federal level and its fede-rated entities on the compilation of data and consultations with relevant national stakeholders.

One of the most common challenges federal States face at this stage is regarding communica-tion and data colleccommunica-tion. The difficulty of collecting data from the federated entities or delays in providing the information can result in missing information in the reports. These reports require time and resources, especially due to differences among federated entities in terms of implementation measures and progress, which need to be addressed in the report. Indeed, synthesising information on the action taken in each federated entity on a particular topic is a complicated task, especially within the tight word and time limits associated with UPR repor-ting.

The lack of attention to the federal structure by the UPR mechanism represents another challenge. Indeed, when a federal State presents its national report, Recommending States often raise concerns and questions about the lack of uniformity in implementation across all federal entities. This is generally interpreted as incomplete implementation.

Within this preparatory process, in some instances, federated entities receive many question-naires that are time-consuming and repeat other human rights mechanisms reporting proce-dures. It becomes tedious to restart the reporting process on similar topics as per the dead-lines and requirements of the different mechanisms. As a result, the amount of preparation is often multiplied and not optimised for all the mechanisms. One way to address this particular obstacle can be to develop an integrated database listing all recommendations/human rights commitments and their level of implementation. This platform could be accessible at all times by all levels of governments and thus be continuously updated and used for various types of reporting and monitoring purposes. National Human Rights Institutions or other human rights bodies could also play a key role in compiling and clustering international human rights re-commendations stemming from different mechanisms, paving the way for a more integrated approach to human rights reporting.

4.2 After the review and before the adoption stage

After the review, the State under Review has approximately five months to provide its posi-tion on all recommendaposi-tions (supported or noted). Then, the UPR outcome report is formally adopted at the plenary session of the Human Rights Council. This interval between the review and adoption allows the State to consult with all parties involved. In the case of federal States, it serves as an opportunity to seek the position of federated entities and other stakeholders before providing a response to each recommendation.

Although most of the countries considered in this research have established coordination mechanisms that are responsible for, inter alia, providing a coordinated response to the recom-mendations received, difficulties persist in some cases. First, time can be relatively short when multiple consultation processes have to be conducted in order to provide a response to a re-commendation. For example, in the case of an exclusive or shared competence of federated en-tities, each entity has to provide its position. Second, the formulation of recommendations or the integration of several topics falling under different competences pertaining to a single UPR recommendation creates additional challenges during the decision-making process. In some cases, it is difficult to determine what concrete actions/measures are needed to implement the recommendation and to assign them to specific agencies, which complicates the decision process. Finally, a lot of time and resources are required to analyse and respond to the large number of UPR recommendations received, many of which overlap with one another.

Given the limited time to consult all relevant governmental stakeholders and other stakehol-ders, as well as the high number of recommendations to be examined (200+ on average), it is important to establish a system of clustering and dissemination of the UPR recommendations to the federated entities as per competences. In some cases, this has been facilitated by a national human rights institution, by a department at the federal level or by an institution gathering all governments of federated entities. Therefore, all entities concerned are aware of the recommendations and can start their internal consultation and decision-making processes.

In addition, leaving all recommendations pending when proceeding to the adoption of the draft UPR report (two to three days after the review takes place), as well as ensuring the par-ticipation of representatives of federated entities in the review might also help in overcoming challenges related to dissemination and knowledge of recommendations and to decision-ma-king processes. Consultations with different stakeholders at this stage can trigger ownership and facilitate engagement in the implementation phase.

4.3. Implementation

Once the report has been adopted at the Human Rights Council, States start the implementa-tion phase of the received⁶⁶ recommendations. Within the third cycle, further focus has been placed on this lengthy phase. As shown by this research, there is a collection of good practices that pertain to federal States throughout the full UPR process.

Improvements have been made in reporting through the establishment of coordination mechanisms. However, in most cases, these mechanisms are not used in a consistent manner throughout the UPR implementation phase, as they are mainly used for reporting procedures when a review is due. As a result, there is a lack of regular discussion on the implementation of UPR recommendations, which makes it easy to lose sight of them once they have been adop-ted. Furthermore, there is no specific body mandated to monitor the implementation of the

66 Supported and noted recommendations

“ All entities concerned

UPR recommendations, either at the federal level or at the level of the federated entities. This results in unclear responsibilities for follow-up, a lack of overview of the whole implementa-tion process and a lack of both human and financial resources to conduct the monitoring and implementation work.

A solution to overcome the challenge related to consistent follow-up is to organise regular cross-governmental and multi-stakeholder discussions, either on UPR recommendations or by human rights themes (integrating relevant UPR recommendations). In some countries conside-red in this research, such meetings have been beneficial in identifying interlocutors at different government levels and in sharing best practices in implementation.

As mentioned, the monitoring of implementation of UPR recommendations is eased when a da-tabase is set up, hosting information on recommendations and corresponding measures taken to implement them. Databases that are regularly updated by governments at all levels are a highly effective tool for identifying gaps in implementation, and can provide a basis for consul-ting with other actors on human rights issues.

On the structural level, an option would be to establish permanent human rights/UPR focal points within the federal government and governments of federated entities to facilitate com-munication on the implementation of human rights, share best practices and preserve institu-tional memory. Moreover, developing implementation plans is helpful in clarifying responsibili-ties, since they outline how to achieve the recommendations and who is in charge of both the implementation and monitoring of measures. It is a good practice to develop any implementa-tion plan in consultaimplementa-tion with relevant stakeholders at all levels, in order to trigger ownership and facilitate monitoring of the plan.

5. Concluding remarks and recommendations

The Universal Periodic Review represents an opportunity to support States consolidating de-mocratic governance by bolstering citizen participation in the decision-making process and an-choring human rights at the heart of all governmental actions. The federal States system offers an interesting practice that can inspire other States with a decentralised structure to promote the respect of human rights at all territorial levels so that the rhetoric of fundamental rights becomes living reality for all segments of society.

The division of competences between the federal government and the federated entities may increase the complexity of their engagement with the UPR, but also, if well-coordinated, make the voices of all stakeholders heard, from the national to the local level, the closest and most accessible to citizens. Furthermore, the federal system of government enables the sharing of experiences among federated entities, mirroring the learning experiences that take place among UN Member States through the UPR.

The following recommendations are suggested to reinforce the engagement of all levels of governments in the UPR process :

• It is key that federated entities are involved throughout the UPR process to create ownership and ensure effective implementation of the recommendations formulated during the inte-ractive dialogue.

• Given the exclusive or shared competences system, it seems essential to create/use a hu-man rights coordinating body that brings together federal and federated governments, and/

or to establish a formal consultation procedure between intergovernmental bodies.

“ Databases that are

• To realise their full potential, these coordination mechanisms should not be used exclusively during the reporting phase of the UPR and when deciding on which recommendations to support. They should remain active throughout the UPR cycle on a regular basis so that fe-deral and federated governments can use them to follow up on recommendations between reviews.

• Developing implementation plans, whether thematic or general, can facilitate ownership, since responsible implementing and monitoring authorities are designated at all levels. The same applies to databases of recommendations.

• Integrated databases can foster transparency, accountability and monitoring. These public systems improve the delivery of policy and measures aimed at improving the human rights situation as per UPR recommendations by clearly identifying interlocutors and responsibi-lities at all levels.

• Non-governmental stakeholders such as human rights bodies, NHRIs, academia and civil so-ciety organisations are instrumental in compiling data on human rights, in relaying the voice of civil society, monitoring the implementation of human rights obligations or commitments and sharing good practices, as well as in providing guidance on implementation measures at all levels.

• A multi-stakeholder approach to implementation and monitoring can help in the inherent development of ownership of the human rights issues tackled. As shown, other stakeholders such as parliament, academia, NHRIs and human rights bodies are key partners in the UPR process, especially when providing guidance on implementation.

• Regional human rights bodies with a legal mandate can facilitate the local anchorage of the UPR recommendations. Their role, as highlighted in the text, is key in federal systems as they can also contribute to the compliance of local measures with international commitments.

• The model of human rights cities can be an innovative way of engaging in the process at the local level, thereby building ownership and encouraging civic participation.

• It is vital to build the capacity of all governmental stakeholders with respect to interna-tional human rights instruments, the UN human rights monitoring mechanisms to create local ownership of the State’s human rights commitments. Guiding principles on local go-vernment and human rights could be a useful tool to inform the work of federated entities.

• The allocation of financial resources is key to ensuring smooth implementation of the UPR recommendations.

The upcoming 4^th UPR cycle is an opportunity to learn from the previous cycles in order to further improve the effectiveness of the mechanism and consolidate existing processes. The UPR offers a platform to share experience on implementation to promote inclusive respect for human rights. Enhanced dialogue, with and across States and stakeholders at the national and international level, would facilitate information on implementation and follow-up of UPR recommendations.

Annex 1 - Coordination structures dealing with human rights, by country

Structures including governments from both federal and federated entities Structures including federal government only

Structures including governments of federated entities only Associations of human rights bodies

Country Name of structure Members

Switzerland

Core Group on International Human Rights Protection (KIM) Federal government and governments of federated entities Conference of Cantonal Governments (CCG) Governments of federated entities

Canada

The Continuing Committee of Officials on Human Rights

(CCOHR) Federal government and governments of federated entities

Senior Officials Committee Responsible for Human Rights

(SOCHR) Federal government and governments of federated entities

The Forum of Federal-Provincial-Territorial Ministers

Responsible for Human Rights (FMHR) Federal government and governments of federated entities Canadian Association of Statutory Human Rights Agencies

(CASHRA) Human rights bodies from the federal level and level

of federated entities

Belgium

CoorMulti Federal government and governments of federated entities

The Human Rights platform Human rights bodies from the federal level and level of federated entities

Australia

The Commonwealth Inter-departmental committee (IDC) Federal government The Commonwealth-State-Territory Standing Committee

on Treaties (SCOT) Federal government and governments of federated entities

Australian Council of Human Rights Authorities (ACHRA) Human rights bodies from the federal level and level of federated entities

Mexico

National Governors’ Conference (CONAGO) Governments of federated entities General Directorate for Human Rights and Democracy

(DGDH) Federal government

Malaysia Ministry of Foreign Affairs Federal government

South Africa Inter-Departmental Committee on Compliance with Treaty Obligations (IDC), including the Department of Cooperative

Government and Traditional Affairs (COGTA) Federal government and governments of federated entities

United States of America

U.S. Department of State Federal government

International Association of Official Human Rights

Agen-cies (IAOHRA) Human rights bodies at the level of federated entities

Germany

Federal Foreign Office Federal government

The Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs of the Länder in the Federal Republic

of Germany⁶⁷ Governments of federated entities

Thematic Working Groups Federal government and governments of federated entities

67 https://www.kmk.org/kmk/information-in-english/standing-conference.html