States have chosen different ways to present the information concerning the implementation of the recommendations received during their previous review. As pointed out before, 89% of countries included information concerning the follow-up (Section “D” of the Guidelines of the 17/119 Decision of the HRC) in their reports.
This information is either divided by specific topics (such as ‘women’s rights’,
‘education’ or ‘judiciary system’) or by recommendations. In certain cases, some States such as the Philippines also address measures taken in order to implement the voluntary commitments made during the previous review.
While reporting on the follow-up some States only refer to the implementation of accepted recommendations. However, other countries such as Comoros, Mali, Senegal and Serbia also include information concerning the status of noted recommendations, either in the same or in a different section. This approach is believed to be a good practice by UPR Info, since ‘noting’ a recommendation does not prevent the government from eventually taking action towards its implementation.
Furthermore, all recommendations made during the review are a reflection of the concerns of different States regarding the human rights situation within a particular country. As such, it is of interest to the international community and consequently to the UPR mechanism, to report on the measures (or the lack of) taken in relation to all the issues raised during the review.
At this stage, it is worth drawing attention to the national reports of Mali and Sri Lanka. These States reported on the follow-up by providing a table showing all the recommendations and voluntary pledges and assessing their status, for example:
No Action (not implemented), Ongoing (in progress) or Completed (implemented). As mentioned in the previous section, Colombia also included a similar table as an annex. These tables are extremely useful. On the one hand it encourages the SuR to
carry out a self-assessment of its own policies and practices. On the other hand, the inclusion of those tables facilitates the work of States making the recommendations to identify the level of implementation of those recommendations they made during the previous review. Thus, “recommending States” will be able to identify, when appropriate, the need to reiterate recommendations made in the last review.
In terms of how the national reports link the information provided to the recommendations received in the first cycle, some countries, while providing information on the follow-up, do not make any specific reference to the recommendations from the first review. In relation to accepted recommendations 12 out of 84 reports adopted this format. Concerning noted recommendations and voluntary commitments, the numbers were even higher, respectively 40 and 35 reports out of 84. These formats make it difficult to identify which measures the government has undertaken to implement each recommendation and voluntary commitment. This can lead to particular difficulties in assessing the performance of the State and in making accurate new recommendations.
Moreover, only a few reports refer to all the recommendations and voluntary pledges. Out of 79 states that accepted recommendations in the first cycle, only 53%
of them referred to all accepted recommendations. In addition, out of 75 States that noted recommendations during the first review, only 20% of them cited all the noted recommendations received. In relation to the 51 States that made voluntary pledges during the first cycle, only 27% of the reports mention all of their commitments (see graphic below).
According to the graph below, overall States have not reported on all recommendations received and voluntary pledges. All governments should provide a comprehensive overview on each recommendation received, since the evaluation of the implementation is crucial to fully assess the performance of the SuR.
DO
Report on the implementation (or the lack of it) of all recommendations received during the previous review, including those noted;
Report on the status of the voluntary pledges made during the previous cycle;
Refer to each specific recommendation when providing information on follow-up in order to facilitate the assessment of the performance of the State in implementing the recommendations;
Provide an assessment of the level of implementation of each recommendation (fully implemented, partially implemented, and not implemented).
DON’T
Only report on accepted recommendations;
Provide information without referring to which recommendation the information concerns.
5. Participation of civil society in the drafting
society in drafting the national report (national consultations, regional meetings, online forums, etc.). At this point, it is essential to bear in mind that all statistics provided are based solely on the information included in the national reports. As a consequence, we are only able to report on the practices that were reflected in such documents and that the information has not been cross-checked.70 out of the 84 national reports analysed (83%) stated that civil society had been included in the drafting process through national consultations. Such consultations are mainly held in the capital, though some countries, such as Guatemala, stated to have also held consultations in different regions. In some cases, such consultations were made up of committees. For instance, Burkina Faso set up a multispectral committee comprising government departments, institutions and civil society organisations to monitor the implementation and preparation of the report. Furthermore, following Bangladesh and Cameroon’s examples, UPR Info encourages States to include in an annex the list of organisations that participated in those consultations.
In some other cases, including Brazil and the United Arab Emirates, the government opted for making a draft national report available on their website to allow civil society and other interested stakeholders to submit their comments via the website, email or, as Finland did, via online discussion forums. In some cases, this procedure was used as an additional measure after holding national consultations.