Reporting the implementation: updates provided on recommendations of the first

Addressing recommendations in national reports does not necessarily means that recommendations were implemented. Firstly, it is sometimes hard to determine whether the response given by a State satisfactorily addresses the recommendation or pledge originally made. For instance, Bahrain responded to its voluntary pledge that the [Kingdom will commit to] consider seriously the possibility of enacting a law on combating racial discrimination, and it commented in its national report that the possibility of promulgating such a law continues to be studied. At first glance, considering the strong emphasis given by the word “seriously” in the pledge, the response given by the Kingdom is too vague to help us monitor the implementation status of the recommendation.

Secondly, it happens that even though States provided an update on the recommendations, their response indicates that either they did not yet implement or are not willing to implement them. South Africa was suggested by Romania to ratify the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and responded

Polish law guarantees most of the rights set forth in the Convention to migrant workers and members of their families. However, the ratification of the Convention would imply a need to introduce certain amendments to the legal acts governing migrant workers employed legally in Poland, and to make far-reaching changes with regard to the situation of illegal workers.

Apart from these specific situations, it should be noted that many recommendations received in 2008 were reported to be implemented, as the following selected examples will demonstrate. The Brazilian example is very encouraging, with its concrete reforms on the access to public information (law enacted in 2011), prison system (national programme to support the prison system established in 2011, law on precautionary measures approved in 2011), indigenous people (special secretariat for indigenous health established in 2010), and right to food (inclusion as a social right under the Federal Constitution in 2010).

In 2010, Ecuador updated its national plan to combat human trafficking, smuggling of migrants, sexual, labour and other forms of exploitation, and prostitution of women, children and adolescents, child pornography and corruption of minors. Since 2011, the Ministry of the Interior has been responsible for the coordination of the national plan. The State also improved considerably the situation of detainees in prisons, building new detention centres and expanding existing prison facilities. In order to comply with the OP-CAT, Ecuador designated its Ombudsman’s Office as the national mechanism for the prevention of crimes in prisons.

Indonesia is a good client of the main issue raised at the UPR, “international instruments” – in fact, 20 percent of recommendations are related to this topic.

Indonesia was requested to accede to the International Criminal Court, the OP-CRC on involvement of children in armed conflict, the OP-CRC on the sale of Children, child prostitution and child pornography, the OP-CAT, and the ICPED. Indonesia claimed in its national report to have scheduled all signatures and ratifications requested in its third National Action Plan on Human Rights (2011–2014).

The Netherlands had already ratified the OP-CRC on involvement of children in armed conflict (ratified in 2009), the OP-CAT (2010) and the ICPED (2011). The

State also took measures similar in nature to tackle both human trafficking and discrimination. In 2009, the Parliament passed a bill which increases the maximum penalties for trafficking in human beings. The change increased the maximum penalty for the basic crime from 6 to 8 years imprisonment; 10 years if two or more persons are acting in concert; 15 years in case of serious bodily injury; 18 years if the offence resulted in a person’s death. A bill to raise the maximum penalties for THB further will be submitted to parliament in 2012. In addition, the Kingdom explain regarding the fight against discrimination that when someone is prosecuted for an offence which also involves discrimination, the Public Prosecution Service counts the discriminatory aspect as an aggravating factor when deciding what sentence to demand. Since 2009, discrimination is defined as an aggravating factor warranting a 50% increase in the sentence.

Poland, aiming at addressing overcrowding detention centres, increased the number of prisoners’ quarters, introduced alternative punishments such as electronic surveillance and extended the eligibility for parole. To tackle delays in court proceedings, the Polish Government adopted in 2009 an amendment to obligate the courts to adjudicate sums of money in favour of the defendant, provided he or she has made such claim and it is wellgrounded. […] In the period after 2008, Poland has also adopted organisational measures to speed up court proceedings by, for example: assigning assistants to judges, docketing cases dealing with minor offenses within a month’s time from the date of their filing, or reassigning judges between court sections and courts. The General Prosecutor mandated appeal and regional prosecutors to take measures aimed at streamlining pre-trial proceedings. As a result, 2010 and 2011 saw a substantial decline in cases with proceedings exceeding two years.

In comparing the recommendations that the 14 States under review received during the first cycle with those put forth in the recent thirteenth session, it appears that few recommending States followed up on their first cycle recommendations in the thirteenth session of the UPR. Indeed, only 16 percent (57 out of 343) of recommendations made in 2008 have been followed up by similar or additional recommendations at the thirteenth session. This would imply that 84 percent of the recommendations have been fully implemented. This seems doubtful knowing that the average percentage of recommendations fully implemented at the mid-term is approximately 12 percent. Furthermore, less than half of recommending States, who participated both in the first and second cycle, made similar or follow-up recommendations to the same States under review, thus missing the opportunity to comment on implementation and recommend further measures.

Recommending States which followed up first cycle recommendations have made recommendations in two main ways. In some cases States chose to reiterate their previous recommendations, resulting in new recommendations very similar to their past recommendations, while other States made recommendations which called on the State under review to take further steps in the same direction as previously recommended, recognising the outcome of their previously made recommendations.

For example, Ecuador and Egypt repeated their previous cycle recommendations to both Finland and the United Kingdom to sign and ratify the International Convention for the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (ICRMW). Mexico recommended Finland to continue to take effective measures to prevent violence against women in 2008 and to give special attention to the prevention of domestic violence against women and children in 2012. Slovenia recommended India in 2008 to amend the Special Marriage Act in the light of article 16 and the Committee’s general recommendation 21 and in 2012 to amend the Special Marriage Act before its next UPR. The Russian Federation recommended that Poland and the United Kingdom take measures to reduce prison overcrowding at both cycles of the UPR.

The second way was for example Slovenia which called on the Philippines to consider the ratification of the Optional Protocol to CAT (OPCAT), by calling on the

Philippines through its 2012 recommendation to withdraw its reservations to OPCAT. The Russian Federation also followed up carefully a recommendation made to the Netherlands in 2008 and rejected by the latter, asking to consider withdrawal of reservations with respect to the CRC. In 2012, the Russian Federation recommended the Netherlands to reconsider the possibility of lifting reservations to the CRC. Mexico, with slight change in wording, recommended Poland in 2008 to ensure that practical policies in the area of immigration be geared to the standards set forth by the principles enshrined in the ICRMW. In 2012, Mexico recommended Poland to adopt measures to adapt the migratory policies to the standards established by the ICRMW. As one can see, last recommendation is more specific, requesting more action.

This exercise in May 2012 was a experiment before the next UPR sessions that will be more substantial; few recommendations were made during the first UPR session in 2008, and new challenges will rise when several States which received more than 100 recommendations will be reviewed.