Impact and successes

Survey respondents rated the overall usefulness of the UPR as 3.2 (on a scale of one to five; five being

‘very useful’), which is relatively positive but also suggests some gaps that need to be addressed.

Over the first two cycles, the UPR has led to a number of legal and policy changes on SOGIESC issues at the national level. Survey respondents reported that in order to implement its SOGIESC recommendations, governments had changed existing laws (15 per cent); passed new laws (11 per cent); changed policies (four per cent); held workshops with government officials or other decision makers (four per cent); or created new institutions (four per cent).

Mozambique, Nauru, Palau, the Seychelles and São Tomé and Príncipe received recommendations on decriminalising same-sex relations between consenting adults, and have subsequently

decriminalised. In several countries the anti-discrimination law has been amended to include sexual orientation and gender identity as protected grounds (eg, Greece and Suriname); in others, the penal code has been revised and now criminalises hate crimes and/or hate speech on the grounds of SOGI (eg, Honduras, Hungary and the Netherlands); some countries have aligned the age of consent (eg, Suriname); others have legalised same-sex partnerships (eg, Greece); and training has been organised for police forces (eg, Peru).

Other good examples of implementation include:

• Namibia: the inclusion of the decriminalisation of sodomy in the National Human Rights Action Plan; the inclusion of minority groups in the health policy regarding access to services; and the recognition of key populations in the national HIV strategic framework.

• Fiji: the establishment of the Fiji Human Rights & Anti-Discrimination Commission.

There was agreement among interviewees that these successes are usually only partially attributable to the UPR process and, in part, due to the ongoing advocacy work on the ground; the influence of other regional or international human rights mechanisms; or other factors. This is echoed by survey

respondents who were asked to indicate how much they thought that the positive changes were attributable to the UPR on a scale of one to five (where one meant ‘not at all’ and five meant ‘fully attributable’ to the UPR process). The average score was 2.89.

‘The UPR played a role; how big, we cannot determine.’ (Cisgender gay man in the Caribbean region)

The UPR has put states in the spotlight to answer SOGIESC-related questions and make

commitments, which has been particularly important for states that would not otherwise engage with these issues.

‘It has “normalised” the issues in a way that states were not used to talking about them at all and would not make part of any foreign policy address or bring the issues to the Council. They have found themselves having to answer questions about it and defend their laws and respond to recommendations.’ (Representative of an international human rights NGO – cisgender gay man)

‘The government wanted to make sure we did not want to make them look bad. We suggested something they could do, which they did. We were trying to explore areas where we could have wins... and when it came to sodomy laws, they said “but we do not enforce” and we said “well, tell the Council that”. And they did. And so we cited that repeatedly as a state declaration on non-enforcement.’ (Cisgender gay man in the Caribbean region)

Many survey respondents felt that the UPR has increased awareness on SOGIESC issues in the broader public (20 per cent) and in the government (15 per cent). Fourteen per cent believe that the UPR has been useful in improving the government’s collaboration with civil society. Particularly in countries where same-sex relations are criminalised, the UPR has proven to be an unprecedented opportunity to open up discussion about SOGIESC issues for the first time – either publicly or behind the scenes. In other instances, the UPR helped open doors that were previously shut and helped re-establish or improve the dialogue between civil society and the government.

‘When our advocacy was finished in Geneva, the government kept calling us to have a

conversation around our issues. So this is another significant impact. No matter that they did not come out directly and say they will buy in, but they did something behind the scenes. That is something a lot of people are forgetting to put as a big milestone; it is bringing big impact and it can take the recommendations further. The country does not need public attention. The government does not want to be in the spotlight but wants to do things in a silent mode which they believe will be better.’ (Gender non-conforming lesbian in the Africa region)

‘For us the most important thing has been (especially in the political situation in which we were at that time) a national human rights plan that did not include standards of equality and non-discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity and did not include issues on sexual and reproductive rights. It was an important process for us, because it allowed for resuming this agenda and it set a possibility to see how they could re-engage in this process, and the recommendations were precisely the issues that had been removed from the document of the national plan of action on human rights.’ (Rossina Guerrero Vasquez, PROMSEX, Peru – cisgender straight woman)

‘I think we can see a big change. Even before, they did not shut the door but they did not open it widely enough. But this time I remember that our government representative said “the state needs to review the national legal framework” and they “would like to invite us to work together to frame the legal framework”. And this is because of the UPR.’ (Nada Chaiyajit, Togetherness for Equality and Action, LGBTI representative of the Thai CSO Coalition for the UPR – intersex transwoman) The UPR has also helped in informing the state that local LGBTI groups, broader civil society and the international arena are aware of human rights violations against LGBTI persons. UPR engagement also increased the prestige of local NGOs.

‘When they are already part of the civil society coalition and supported, and they engage with the governments or diplomats... it already shows that they are being accepted by the peers and the message you send is that the coalition represents the society or the type of society they want for the country: an inclusive society.’ (Emilie Pradichit, Asia Director of UPR Info Asia Regional Office)

‘The UPR is a very useful mechanism, a way of making sure that the government listens to LGBTI people... It is a way of making sure they hold to their commitment and that they know that we are watching them.’ (Sulique Waqa, Haus of Khameleon, Fiji – transgender woman)

‘The government began to identify us as an organisation that impacts the international human rights mechanisms: this improved our institutional position and our ability for dialogue, and we are called to processes that previously we were not called to.’ (Rossina Guerrero Vasquez, PROMSEX, Peru – cisgender straight woman)

Thanks to the UPR, local LGBTI communities have often become more aware of their human rights and of the support they can obtain from international mechanisms. The UPR has empowered some communities and got them interested and engaged in international human rights work. 20 per cent of survey respondents felt that the UPR has helped increase their capacity to engage with other UN, regional or national human rights mechanisms. Several groups reported that they have recycled their UPR reports as submissions to treaty bodies.

‘The UPR has empowered people and civil society organisations. We invited the local and grassroots organisations from the country, not just the organisations in the capital. We collected and put together information to make sure no one is left behind. I think that was a good part of the UPR process – bringing the voice of the grassroots community to the fore.’ (Nada Chaiyajit, Togetherness for Equality and Action, LGBTI representative of the Thai CSO Coalition for the UPR – intersex transwoman)

‘As it was the overall aim of the UPR, it really empowered civil society on the ground. They do have a voice now and they know that the UN is not far away from them. Their work on the ground has the most powerful impact, they are realising now.’ (Cisgender gay human rights defender in the Asia-Pacific region)

Thirty-four per cent of survey respondents and many interviewees felt that the UPR has strengthened collaboration among civil society actors. In some cases, cooperation between LGB(TI) and trans groups have started or strengthened, and in others LGBTI groups have strengthened or started collaboration with other human rights groups. These coalitions often continued after the adoption

of the recommendations, although the level of their intensity and effectiveness varies. In Fiji the civil society coalition has developed a monitoring matrix that facilitates their joint work in the follow-up and implementation phase.

‘With the other civil society organisations, we developed a monitoring matrix that we will be using... on a monthly/weekly/yearly basis in terms of filling in information on the progress of the position of the government. It is a tool for us to monitor Fiji’s commitments. We went through the whole list of recommendations that Fiji accepted and we divided them into thematic areas...

When we had all the partners in the room, we identified the priority areas we want to focus on that are relevant to our ongoing work. Haus of Khameleon is monitoring five thematic areas – we want to make sure we are not overburdening ourselves and we really focus on the priorities of the LGBT community and our organisation. There are multiple organisations working on a recommendation, and it’s up to each individual organisation to monitor in their own way and to add their own perspective, and make recommendations. We are making sure that the LGBT perspective is always in there.’ (Sulique Waqa, Haus of Khameleon, Fiji – transgender woman)

5.3. Challenges and ways forward: preparing for UPR Cycle 3