Aiming at keeping the universality of the UPR, UPR Info carefully followed the basic principles of universality, equal treatment and an integrative approach. Every stakeholder was notably invited to participate in the Follow-up Programme.
5.1. Contacting every stakeholder
In order to assess 66 countries, UPR Info applied the same procedure for data collection for all States:
1. UPR Info contacted the Permanent Mission to the UN either in Geneva (when it does exist) or New York;
2. UPR Info contacted all NGOs which took part in the process. Whenever NGOs were part of coalitions, each NGO was individually contacted;
3. The National Institution for Human Rights was contacted (when it existed).
The purpose of the UPR is to discuss issues and share concrete suggestions to improve human rights on the ground. Therefore, stakeholders whose objective is not to improve the human rights situation were not contacted.
5.2. Implementation Recommendation Index (IRI)
UPR Info developed an index showing the implementation level achieved by the State for the recommendations received at the UPR.
The Implementation Recommendation Index (IRI) is an individual recommendation index. Its purpose is to show an average of stakeholders’ responses.
The IRI is meant to take into account stakeholders disputing the implementation of a recommendation. Whenever a stakeholder claims nothing has been implemented at
all, the index score is 0. At the opposite, whenever a stakeholder claims a recommendation has been fully implemented, the IRI score is 1.
An average is calculated to fully reflect the many sources of information. If the State under Review claims that the recommendation has been fully implemented, and a stakeholder says it has been partially implemented, the score is 0.75.
Then the score is transformed into an implementation level, according to the table below:
Percentage: Implementation level:
0 – 0.32 Not implemented 0.33 – 0.65 Partially implemented
0.66 – 1 Fully implemented
5.3. Rejected recommendations
The reviews at mid-term address every recommendation received at the UPR, even rejected ones. It could seem surprising, but UPR Info considers that each rejected recommendation should be taken into account, since it:
Remains a valid concern of the international community. The very same rejected recommendation could be suggested again in the next UPR;
Has to be addressed, since some States rejected over half of recommendations. If we focus only on accepted recommendations, it would be a carte blanche for all States which will be encouraged to reject
Moreover, while UPR Info clusters UPR recommendation through 4 categories49, the OHCHR, according the resolution 5/1, either considers recommendations as
“accepted” or “noted”50. There is no explicit way for States to reject recommendations. It is true that States are supposed to both implement “accepted recommendations” and voluntarily provide mid-term reports on “accepted recommendations”. Still, rejecting recommendations is not a practice spelt out in any UN resolution.
5.4. Data
Slightly more than 50 percent of all recommendations made during sessions 2 to 6 were covered by the Follow-up Programme. UPR Info received comments on 3’294 recommendations out of 6’542 made to 66 countries reviewed.
The list of 66 countries is as following:
Afghanistan, Albania, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Colombia,
49 See note 2.
50 Resolution 5/1, § 32: Recommendations that enjoy the support of the State concerned will be identified as such. Other recommendations, together with the comments of the State concerned thereon, will be noted.
Comoros, Costa Rica, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People Republic Of Korea, Democratic Republic Of Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, France, Germany, Israel, Jordan, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Macedonia FYR, Malaysia, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Montenegro, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Portugal, Republic Of Congo, Romania, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Slovakia, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Viet Nam and Yemen.
When these countries are clustered by regional groups, we obtain this figure:
5.5. Action categories of UPR Info
The ranks are established according to following criteria:
Rank 1: Recommendation directed at non-SuR, or calling upon the SuR to request technical assistance, or share information (Example of verbs: call on, seek, share).
Rank 4: Recommendation of action that contains a general element (Example of verbs: accelerate, address, encourage, engage with, ensure, guarantee, intensify, promote, speed up, strengthen, take action, take measures or steps towards).
Rank 5: Recommendation of specific action (Example of verbs: conduct, develop, eliminate, establish, investigate, undertake as well as legal verbs: abolish, accede, adopt, amend. implement, enforce, ratify).
Principles
When there is a perfectly even rationale for two different actions in a recommendation, emphasis is generally placed on the first action.
When a recommendation starts with two verbs, the second one is privileged. Ex:
“Continue and strengthen...” -> category 4.
When a recommendation starts with a general action but then provide examples of specific actions, it is considered as category 5. Ex: “Improve women’s rights by amending the family code”.
5.6. Liste of acronyms
CAT Convention against Torture, Cruel, Inhuman
and Other Degrading Treatment
CEDAW Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination against Women
CRC Convention on the Rights of the Child
HRC Human Rights Council
ICC Rome Statute of the International Criminal
Court
ICRMW International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families
ICPED International Convention on the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance
MIA Mid-term Implementation Assessment
NGO Non-governmental organisation
NHRI National Human Rights Institution
OHCHR Office of the High Commissioner for Human
Rights
SuR State under review
UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees
UPR Universal Periodic Review
Promoting and strengthening the Universal Periodic Review http://www.upr-info.org