The Butterfly Effect

Butterfly The Effect

Spreading

good practices of UPR

implementation

The Butterfly Effect

Spreading good practices of UPR implementation

ii

A publication by UPR Info

Rue de Varembé 3 1202 Geneva Switzerland +41 22 321 77 70 [email protected]

UPR Info is a non-profit, non-governmental organisation based in Geneva, Switzerland. It aims to raise awareness of the Universal Periodic Review and to provide capacity-building tools to all stakeholders, such as UN Member States, civil society, media, and academics.

UPR Info thanks the Ministries of Foreign Affairs of Norway and the Netherlands for their support.

http://www.upr-info.org

http://twitter.com/UPRinfo

http://www.facebook.com/UPRInfo

Get inspired

how they concretely can support the government in the implementation process, thus opening the door for constructive and transparent cooperation built on trust between UPR stakeholders. The UPR has been successful in providing a platform for unprec- edented dialogue between CSOs and governments.

Governments frequently appreciate that civil society is willing to seek compromises and solutions to com- mon issues rather than embarking on naming and shaming campaigns. Such dialogues establish a joint understanding of the needs, opportunities and chal- lenges between actors which constitute the baseline for sustainable multi-stakeholder implementation of UPR recommendations. Multi-stakeholder coop- eration moreover creates a fruitful foundation for merging the development agenda with the human rights doctrine. Implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals inevitably improves human rights as they are linked together in a mutually rein- forcing structure. The mechanism is also increasingly recognising the significant contributions of National Human Rights Institutions. They continue to play a key role as bridge-builders between governments and civil society as well as providing input to the UPR. It is crucial that NHRIs are allowed to carry out their mandate independently and free from govern- ment influence.

It is commendable that states can access financial support from the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights’ UPR Voluntary Fund for Financial and Technical Assistance in the follow-up phase, but it is equally regrettable that no equivalent opportu- nity exists for civil society organisations. Thus in the third cycle, the donor community urgently needs to ensure that civil society organisations have adequate resources to sustain their UPR activities throughout and between cycles. If this is not achieved alongside increased political support for civil society interac- tion, it will ultimately undermine the efficiency and legitimacy of the UPR.

After nine years and approximately 57,000 recom- mendations addressed to 193 states reviewed over two cycles of the Universal Periodic Review, the present study offers a detailed overview of how UPR stakeholders have cooperated with the mechanism and what concrete result it has yielded. Beyond num- bers and promises, the success of the third cycle, starting spring 2017, will inevitably be measured against its ability to deliver sustainable implementa- tion of UPR recommendations.

This publication extracts good practices while also noting difficulties from stakeholders’ interaction with the UPR. Furthermore, it illustrates that the UPR is an efficient tool for the amelioration of human rights on the ground. Moving into the third cycle, the purpose is to provide stakeholders with concrete ideas on how to achieve sustainable implementation of UPR recommendations.

Alongside concrete human rights improvements such as Fiji removing references to the death penalty from the military code, Côte d’Ivoire’s implemen- tation of a law for the protection of human rights defenders, the Seychelles and Nauru lifting bans on same-sex activities, and China reducing the number of crimes carrying the death penalty, the UPR has also triggered institutional progress. To ensure effec- tive and inclusive human rights engagement, states have established National Mechanisms for Reporting and Follow-Up to strengthen inter-ministerial coor- dination and implementation as well as civil society input.

Civil society organisations typically seize the momen-

tum created by the Geneva stages of the UPR to

kick-start national multi-stakeholder implementation

of recommendations by developing strategy docu-

ments and SMART (Specific, Measureable, Achieva-

ble, Relevant and Time-bound) indicators to monitor

implementation efforts undertaken by the govern-

ment. Civil society also benefits from highlighting

Since most recommendations made in the UPR are in line with the states’ human rights duties enshrined in national, regional or international instruments, in general, the UPR does not impose additional obli- gations on states. It follows that when civil society holds the government accountable for the level of implementation, civil society organisations are not asking for supplementary actions but rather that the state fulfils their already existing human rights obli- gations. However, the phrasing of recommendations is instrumental to assess implementation of recom- mendations and can weaken recommendations.

Vague recommendations create confusion among civil servants, who do not know how to implement recommendations urging them to “improve the human rights situation in your country”. Fortunate- ly, the recent increase of SMART recommendations shows that states are taking this issue seriously.

Action-oriented recommendations also have the added value of facilitating monitoring and implemen- tation as they are ideally geared towards improving human rights on the ground.

Despite its significant achievements, it would be both inaccurate and hubristic to say that the UPR is flaw- less as all stakeholders have been facing significant challenges since the inception of the UPR. It is our ambition that the good practices contained in this study will assist stakeholders to overcome some of these organisational and financial challenges as well as inspire actors to share tools and concretes ideas on how to facilitate the protection of human rights on the ground through the UPR. The true power of the UPR lies in the universality of its stakeholders.

Good practices established in Mongolia inspired civil society colleagues in Thailand, Myanmar, Uganda, Moldova and Venezuela. Similarly, states, such as Paraguay, promote their human rights architecture in other countries and regions. When political will is compounded by structured and professional civil society, the UPR has the potential to improve the life of millions of people. In the same way as we have been inspired, this publication aims to inspire all UPR stakeholders to promote the effectiveness of the UPR.

CAN PAKISTAN, 2015

Table of Contents

1. Introduction 1

1.1 Methodology 2

2. Advancements brought by the UPR 3

2.1 Impact of UPR recommendations 4

2.2 Impact of the UPR process 6

2.2.1 Civil society coalitions: The Thai CSOs Coalition for the UPR 6 2.2.2 National Mechanisms for Reporting and Follow-up: SIMORE 11 2.2.3 Multi-stakeholder cooperation: The Kenyan UPR Implementation Plan 13 2.2.4 Funding for states’ human rights implementation 15

3. Stakeholders’ engagement with the UPR 17

3.1 States 17

3.1.1 State under Review 17

3.1.2 Recommending states 20

3.2 Civil society organisations 23

3.2.1 Funding for CSOs UPR activities 24

3.2.2 Civil society coalitions 25

3.2.3 Collaboration between CSOs and governments 27 3.2.4 Parliamentarians: underestimated allies for CSOs? 29 3.2.5 CSO partnerships with National Human Rights Institutions 30 3.2.6 UN agencies as drivers for CSO UPR engagement 30 3.2.7 Advocating for underrepresented issues at the UPR 31

3.2.8 Tools for CSO participation 31

3.2.9 CSOs Linking the Sustainable Development Goals to the UPR 33

3.3 Other UPR stakeholders 34

3.3.1 National Human Rights Institutions 34

3.3.2 UN agencies 37

4. A checklist for successful UPR engagement 39

4.1 State under Review 39

4.2 Recommending states 39

4.3 Civil society organisations 40

4.4 National Human Rights Institutions 40

4.5 Parliamentarians 40

4.6 United Nations agencies 41

4.7 Journalists 41

4.8 Academics 41

5. Conclusion 42

6. Endnotes 44

1

Introduction

states to collect data and follow-up in a systematic manner that is relevant for reporting on all human rights obligations of the state.

It is often stressed that the success of the UPR ulti- mately depends on the level of implementation of UPR recommendations. It is therefore promising that in 2014 our organisation concluded that one in two recommendations were either fully or partially imple- mented halfway through the first UPR cycle. How- ever, contrary to common discourse, the crux of the matter is that implementation of recommendations is not the litmus test of the UPR. Rather, the success of the mechanisms must be measured against its raison d’être: the actual impact that implemented rec- ommendations have on improving the human rights situation on the ground.

In this context, it is promising that the second cycle of the UPR succeeded in increasing participation of CSOs and states. It is evident that CSOs have learnt that they can improve and influence key elements of the mechanism. When comparing the percentage of specific and action-oriented recommendations within the second cycle, an increase from 31%

to 39%

is visible.

In the third cycle it is essential that this trend is further boosted to strengthen the link between implementation of UPR recommendations and human rights improvement on the ground.

The UPR recognises the crucial contributions and legitimate roles of CSOs and NHRIs in all steps of the UPR. The modalities of the UPR that allow more space for joint submissions to the UN in advance of the UPR have encouraged cooperation and coor- dination among civil society. As such, the UPR has been employed as a springboard for CSOs to interact with each other and the international community on their areas of concern. In Viet Nam and Sri Lanka, the UPR was decisive in legitimising the role of LGBTI (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex) activ- ists. Moreover, the mechanism has had an impact

the UPR 2nd cycle

sessions 13–18 sessions 19–24 0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

other categories 9 688 10 267

category 5 4 425 6 546

As the third cycle of the United Nations’ Universal Periodic Review (UPR) begins in Spring 2017, the international community as a whole have a vested interest in its continued success. It is therefore use- ful to take stock of what the UPR has achieved, and how can it be improved. In order to offer insights into these crucial points, this publication contains testimonies from states, Civil Society Organisa- tions (CSOs), National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs), UN agencies outlining how they have uti- lised the UPR to achieve their objectives.

The UPR is the only global human rights mechanism

that scrutinises the human rights situation of all UN

Member States. Strengthening the complementa-

ry dynamic of the UN human rights system, some

UPR recommendations address issues raised by

Treaty Bodies and Special Procedures; or calling for

standing invitations to its mandate holders and for

ratification of international instruments. Drawing on

its universal coverage, periodicity and transparency,

many states have found it advantageous to struc-

ture their overall human rights engagement around

the UPR. It also remedies the often cited “reporting

fatigue” since the mechanism’s predictability allows

on the way CSOs structure their organisations. As a consequence of the broad scope of human rights that are examined during the UPR, both thematic and cross-thematic CSO coalition-building have been popularised. Civil society coalitions in Malaysia, India, Kenya and Thailand have, to mention a few, utilised the UPR to make cooperation more effective.

These coalitions have also functioned as a platform to initiate discussions between CSOs and the govern- ment, and among CSOs themselves, on contentious issues including abortion and female genital muti- lation. Crucially, joint UPR strategies have improved the ability of civil society to follow up on the imple- mentation of recommendations.

Our present study sets out to uncover what, both in terms of substance and structure, the UPR has achieved to-date, and the prerequisites for harness- ing progress. From their diverse perspectives, those closest to the implementation process share their success stories, challenges and suggestions on how to further improve the UPR. The first chapter sets out the introduction and makes a brief comment on the methodology behind the study. The second chapter offers a detailed account of the advance- ments brought by the UPR, elaborating both on the impact of recommendations and the process itself.

The third chapter highlights stakeholders’ engage-

ment with the UPR. It explores the reasoning behind, and results of, their efforts as well as the challenges they face. Drawing on good practices compiled from the UPR since its inauguration in 2006, the fourth chapter provides an ‘at a glance-guide’ for UPR stake- holders on how to successfully interact with the UPR.

Finally, in chapter five, we conclude that the UPR works at its best when all actors cooperate to ensure sustainable implementation of action-oriented rec- ommendations.

1.1 Methodology

We carried out 45 in-depth semi-structured inter- views with representatives from various branches of governments, CSOs, NHRIs, UN agencies, and aca- demics to complement our accumulated experience through our regional offices and various projects implemented over nine years. Transcripts from each interview and finalised chapters have been circulated to the interviewees for validation. Any omissions or factual mistakes are solely attributable to UPR Info.

UPR Info would like to extend its deepest apprecia-

tion to all interviewees for their participation in this

project and their continued efforts to ensure the effi-

ciency of the UPR. It is our hope that their input will

lend insights and inspirations to UPR stakeholders

reading this publication.

2

Advancements brought by the UPR

ation. The process of developing the Kenyan Nation-

multi-stakeholder cooperation and is the object of the fourth case study.

Fifth, while regrettably no official UPR fund exists that supports CSOs UPR activities, some states have made excellent use of the UPR Voluntary Fund for

Fund) in implementing UPR recommendations. The final case study outlines how a UPR recommendation made to Panama was implemented with support from the UPR Voluntary Fund.

It is difficult to isolate the exact impact of UPR rec- ommendations as they are frequently reiterated in other human rights mechanisms. Implementation is thus often a result of the combined power of nation- al, regional and international human rights mech- anisms and instruments. While the substantive link between UPR recommendations and human rights improvement might be challenging to establish, it is easier to make the direct correlation between the UPR and the processes it has triggered at the nation- al level including CSO coalitions, and cooperation between government and civil society. In fact, the

‘process’ link constitutes a precursor necessary to establish the ‘substance’ link. Consequently, stronger substantive links ultimately depend on the constant improvement of procedural links. The importance of the latter can therefore not be overstated.

The UPR is at its most effective when all stakeholders cooperate and adhere to the notion of universality. If these elements are in place, a bedrock is created for partnership built on transparency and trust between the government and CSOs. While the case studies, and subsequent chapters only scratches the surface of the substance and processes triggered by the UPR, it is hoped that the experiences highlighted in this publication will inspire UPR stakeholders to share good practices with each other.

The purpose of the case studies contained in this chapter is to illustrate good examples of how ele- ments crucial for the functioning of the UPR have been fulfilled; both in terms of its substance and process.

First, to sustain the credibility and legitimacy of the UPR it is pivotal to continuously assess whether the UPR fulfils its promise of delivering positive impact on the human rights situation on the ground. There- fore, the first case study provides hard evidence of some of the human rights improvements that UPR

Second, an active civil society that monitors imple- mentation and supports the government and other stakeholders is vital for a sustainable implementation process. It has proved beneficial for CSOs to come together in coalitions to approach UPR actors with one uniform voice, a structure that also strengthens financial and human resources as well as increases the likelihood of obtaining external funding. Thus, the second case study looks at the establishment and

Third, anchored in the wide scope of UPR recom- mendations, the government must employ a holistic approach to implementation with internal collab- oration at the centre of its efforts. National Mecha- nisms for Reporting and Follow-up (NMRF) that are transparent and inclusive of CSO input facilitates inter-ministerial cooperation in all stages of the UPR, as well as increasing government accountability. The third case study addresses the opportunities offered

Fourth, in order to ensure that the UPR remains a pri-

ority for UPR stakeholders throughout and between

UPR cycles, a national implementation plan contain-

ing SMART indicators constitutes an effective tool for

tracking implementation of human rights duties. The

development of the instrument also lends itself as a

platform for constructive multi-stakeholder cooper-

2.1 Impact of UPR recommendations

As presented in UPR Info’s publication Beyond Promises, already by the mid-term stage of the first UPR cycle, 55% of accepted recommendations and, encouragingly, 19% of noted recommendations were either partly or fully implemented.

In this light, some of the most significant stories are contained in the list below. They constitute concrete examples of improvements in civil, economic, political and social rights identified as direct results of the UPR.

Republic of Korea

In the first cycle (2008), Canada

recommended Korea to criminalise marital rape. In the second cycle (2012) Slovakia

recommended that domestic vio- lence, including marital rape, is properly punished.

Both recommendations were accepted and marital rape was criminalised in the Republic of Korea in 2013.

Brazil

In its second UPR (2012), Estonia recommended that Brazil:

“Consider freedom of expression concerns when drafting cybercrime legislation.”

Passed in 2014, the Brazilian Civil Rights Framework for the Internet (Marco Civil da Internet) aims to strengthen the protection of fundamental freedoms in the digital age.

Finland

In its second UPR (2012), Indonesia recommended that Finland:

“Continue its efforts in eliminating discrimination and preventing violence against women and children.”

Finland’s mid-term report states that:

“After the reform the Equality Act would prohibit extensively discrimination of trans- and intersex persons. Discrimination based on sexual orientation will continue to be covered in the Non- Discrimination Act.”

The reform of the Equality and anti-discrimination legislation came into force in January 2015.

Pakistan

In its first review, Pakistan accepted recommenda- tions from Egypt,

Ireland

and the United Kingdom

calling on the state to establish a NHRI. Although the National Commission for Human Rights Act was passed in June 2012, eight Recommending states returned to the topic in the second cycle. Egypt fol- lowed up on its first cycle recommendation by rec- ommending Pakistan to:

“Dedicate sufficient resources to national human rights institutions to enhance their effective functioning and independence.”

In 2015, the institution commenced its work and a Chairperson and six members were nominated to lead the institution.

Burkina Faso

In the first UPR (2008) of Burkina Faso, the Nether- lands recommended the state to:

“Share best practices with other countries regarding female genital mutilation and continue efforts to fully eradicate it.”

Burkina Faso subsequently reported in its second National Report that it had established the Nation- al Council to Combat Female Circumcision, and is expanding the teaching of modules on female genital mutilation in primary and secondary education pro- grammes in the country. Burkina Faso also reported implementing a joint UNFPA-UNICEF programme on eliminating cross-border female circumcision, which “aims to achieve zero tolerance of female cir- cumcision by 2015”.

Tajikistan

In the first UPR (2011) of Tajikistan, Switzerland rec- ommended that the state:

“Take all measures in order to protect and

encourage the freedom of expression and make the limitations to the freedom of expression to comply with the international obligations.”

In 2013 Tajikistan adopted the Law on Print and

Other Mass Media of the Republic of Tajikistan.

Czech Republic

In the second UPR (2012) of the Czech Republic, Slo- vakia recommended that the state:

“Adopt concrete measures to fight discrimination against women in all spheres of life, especially by increasing the representation of women in the middle and higher positions of political and economic life.”

In its mid-term report, the Czech Republic declares that the target of approximately 40% representation of women in decision-making positions in the public as well as private sectors should be achieved b 2020.

To this end, a Plan of Action for balanced representa- tion of women and men in decision-making positions was adopted in November 2014.

Namibia

In the first UPR (2011) of Namibia, Slovenia recom- mended that the state:

“Ensure access to education employment, health care and other basic services for the members of all ethnic communities, including the San and Himba communities.”

As from January 2013, free primary education, includ- ing for children belonging to ethnic minorities, is being rolled out over the course of three years.

Botswana

Over two UPR cycles, Botswana received 33 UPR recommendations in relation to the death penalty.

The state only accepted two recommendations from Uruguay in its second cycle review in 2013. These rec- ommended Botswana to:

“Hold a public debate on the death penalty, in which all aspects of the issue should be highlighted in a holistic manner”.

“Meanwhile, provide information to concerned families, so that they can know in advance the date of execution of their relatives.”

The civil society mid-term report assesses implemen- tation of second cycle UPR recommendations from 2013 to 2015 and was submitted by DITSHWANELO – The Botswana Centre for Human Rights (Ditshwanelo), on behalf of the UPR NGO Working Group. It states that “the Government of Botswana has not done any-

thing in relation to recommendation to hold a pub- lic debate around the issue of the death penalty”.

As a civil society contribution to implementing the recommendation, Ditshwanelo hosted in February 2016 a two-day dialogue on access to justice and the death penalty. Participants included attorneys, Uni- versity of Botswana Law Students, Botswana Council of Non-Governmental Organisations (BOCONGO) and the media. Issues discussed during the meeting included the need to explore alternative sentences to the death penalty, the urgency to involve the judiciary when holding dialogues on the death penalty and that the death penalty does not deter crime more than any other punishment. It was also highlighted that the death penalty is a part of Botswana’s inherit- ed colonial legislation.

In the state’s 2016 mid-term report, the government stated that it is “in the process of commissioning a study on the issue, which will inform the debate it wants to open on the moratorium on death penalty in Bot- swana. The UPR will be informed of the outcomes of the debate and the steps the government will be taking to deal with the death penalty issue”.

In Ditshwanelo’s message on the 14th Annual World Day Against the Death Penalty, the organisation once again referred to the accepted UPR recommendations and regretted that the government failed to comply with the accepted recommendation to “provide infor- mation to concerned families, so that they can know in advance the date of execution of their relatives”.

To mark this day, October 10 2016, Ditshwanelo host- ed a human rights workshop for journalists to raise awareness about the death penalty.

Seychelles

Seychelles was recommended in 2011 by Canada,

Norway,

France

and Spain

to repeal discrimina- tory provisions against same-sex activities. In May 2016, the Seychelles’ National Assembly passed an amendment to the penal code that decriminalizes same-sex activities.

Attorney General Ronny Govin- den stated that international attention had contribut- ed to the move:

“It is a priority for the country because whenever

the Seychelles is participating in an international

[mechanism]… we face pressures from other

countries who are asking us to remove this law.”

The opportunities offered to Recommending states, and the complementarity of the UPR, are clear in this case, since a Recommending state which did not make a recommendation on this topic was men- tioned as a an actor that contributed to the human rights improvement. The Seychelles Secretary of State at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Barry Faure said:

“Seychelles was committed in 2011 to review the law on homosexuality and this had not been done and Britain questions us saying that we have not made progress on this issue.”

Noted recommendations

It must be recalled that a noted recommendation is not the end of the road. Sexual Rights Initiative (SRI) highlights that noted recommendations stemming from CSO initiatives should not be viewed as a fail- ure as they are contained in the UPR documentation stating that the topic raised is an issue of concern in the State under Review (SuR). In India, recommenda- tions on the situation of Dalits and violence against women were noted as the view of the government is that these are internal issues that do not concern the international community. Nonetheless, due to pres- sure from CSOs, the government had to implement the 2015 Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes Act.

The public outrage and concerted activism from civil society caused by the 2012 Delhi gang rape similarly forced the government to take very stringent meas- ures including a host of new laws, definitions and polices. For more information on noted recommen- dations, we recommend consulting our study Beyond Promises.

2.2 Impact of the UPR process

The following case studies provide an in-depth com- mentary into four procedural developments that in various ways have been pronounced by the UPR process; civil society coalitions, NMRFs, multi-stake- holder cooperation, and the need for funding for state UPR activities. Through these tangible exam- ples, we aim to demonstrate how the UPR can be utilised effectively and hope to provide inspiration for similar projects to be replicated and adapted in accordance with national contexts. The examples of the Thai Coalition for the UPR and the Kenyan UPR implementation plan are directly linked to UPR Info’s

projects. We endeavour to draw lessons from these exercises in order to share them with the wider UPR community.

2.2.1 Civil society coalitions: The Thai CSOs Coalition for the UPR

Established in 2015, UPR Info Asia swiftly established itself as the regional peak body providing expertise on the UPR. One of their first priorities of UPR Info Asia was to bring national and grassroots CSOs together within the framework of the UPR to make the con- cerns of voiceless local communities visible on the national and international arena. With the end goal of an independent Thai CSO coalition, we succeeding in bringing together what is likely the broadest ever CSO coalition in Thailand to contribute to a UN human rights mechanism. This chapter chronicles the series of activities that were undertaken by our organisation and partner organisations to build the capacity of the coalition in human rights and institutional organisa- tion. In order to adequately portray how the strategy of setting up the coalition unfolded, the chapter goes into significant detail to reflect how the coalition over time gained visibility and impact.

August 2015. The first step towards establishment of

the Thai CSOs Coalition for the UPR was undertaken

at the “Civil Society Capacity Building Training on the

Universal Periodic Review Process” event in Bangkok

in August 2015. It was the inaugural event of UPR Info

Asia that had opened its doors in May the same year,

attended by over 100 Thai activists from organisa-

tions mainly based in Bangkok. At the event, hosted

at the UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia

and the Pacific (UNESCAP), emphasis was put on

the strategic advantages of working in coalitions, and

representatives of UPR coalitions in Burma, India and

Vietnam shared their experiences with their Thai col-

leagues. The August workshop also resulted in the formation of joint CSO submissions to Thailand’s second UPR in May 2016.

November 2015. In November 2015, People’s

Empowerment Foundation (PEF), Asylum Access Thailand and UPR Info Asia jointly decided to approach the Royal Thai Govern- ment with the proposal of co-organising a national consultation as contained in UN Human Rights Council Resolution 16/21,

§ 17, encouraging states “to conduct broad consultations with all relevant stakeholders”

at the national level. When the government stated its willingness to cooperate within

this framework, the process commenced of ensuring participation of CSOs from all regions of Thailand working on a diverse array of human rights. This was particularly important since the government, with very few exceptions, is exposed only to Bangkok based CSOs. Consequently, it was in the interest of both the government and grassroots CSOs to seize this opportunity for a dialogue on national human rights improvement. UPR Info Asia reached out to CSO colleagues and their extended networks to get in contact with activists from north to south. Numer- ous links were established with potential participants through People’s Empowerment Foundation, social media, such as Facebook pages of community organ- isations, and phone calls. The latter proved particu- larly relevant for grassroots CSOs working in the rural north.

UPR national consultation

December 2015. With the specific objective of ensur-

ing that local voices could be heard by the govern- ment prior to the submission of the National Report, a two-day National Consultation in December 2015

was co-organised by the Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Justice, UPR Info Asia and Peo- ple’s Empowerment Foundation. What was at stake could not be overemphasised as inclusive and mean- ingful consultations had never before been carried out between such a vast number of civil society rep- resentatives and government officials on how to take joint action to improve the national human rights record. Overall, more than 165 participants attended the National Consultation including over 30 govern- ment representatives, 2 Commissioners and 14 staff

members of the National Human Rights Commission of Thailand (NHRCT) and 119 representatives from 64 NGOs. A CSO preparatory day was organised with grassroots CSOs on the day before the dialogue to guarantee that their input would result in construc- tive recommendations aimed to efficiently inform the National Report, in full compliance with the UPR principles. As a result, 14 CSO working groups were created.

Emphasis was put on the absolute need to avoid naming and shaming and instead to invoke a three-pronged approach when presenting their argu- ments:

1. To be concrete about concerns by going to the

2. To situate concerns within the relevant national and international legal framework;

3. To formulate the solution in an action-oriented

The subsequent consultation-day between govern-

ment representatives and civil society organisations

started with an update given by the Thai Deputy

Director-General of the Rights and Liberties Protec-

tion Department and the Deputy Director-General of

the Department of International Organization, Minis-

try of Foreign Affairs, on the progress made in imple-

menting UPR recommendations from Thailand’s

first UPR cycle and an overview of the draft National

Report for Thailand’s second UPR Cycle. CSO repre-

sentatives from each of the thematic working groups

delivered statements focusing on concrete recom-

mendations to improve the livelihoods of marginal-

ised communities and to advance the realisation of

human rights on the ground.

Working together

The government officials participating in the nation- al consultation were positively surprised by the articulate grassroots CSOs and their constructive recommendations. They found it encouraging that local CSOs seized the momentum to engage with the government in this manner, rather than taking an adversarial approach.

February 2016. Strengthened by this experience, the

informal network took a decisive step towards ini- tiating the formation of the Thai CSOs Coalition for the UPR in a two-day Bangkok workshop in February 2016 co-organized by UPR Info Asia and Chulalong- korn University. Entitled “CSO Coalition Building Workshop: Working Together to Foster Solidarity”,

the main objective of the event was for grassroots

CSOs to build greater understanding of how to address common challenges utilising the UPR as a vehicle for change. It was jointly agreed by organisers and participants, including human rights defenders, land rights activists, women leaders, youth organ- isations, indigenous peoples, sexual minorities and religious minorities that forming a CSO coalition would maximise the potential of effectively engaging in Thailand’s second UPR. The event gathered 138 participants in total, and included the NHRCT and representatives from UN agencies.

Our core strategy was to share best practices from other CSO UPR coalitions in the region with the Thai CSOs Coalition for the UPR. In this vein, we invited CSO leaders from UPR coalitions in Myanmar, Mon- golia and Malaysia to share their experience and expertise in building influential and credible coali- tions. A workshop segment was dedicated to strat- egies and challenges in developing evidence-based research and good practices for influencing policy- making. Good examples of how to integrate human rights in the realisation of the SDGs were spotlighted, and diplomats from the Dutch and British embassies shared their views on how CSOs could influence the development of the UPR recommendations to be for- mulated in May 2016. In addition, participants were trained on how to develop SMART recommendations and contribute to convergence between UPR recom- mendations and Treaty Body observations.

At this stage, Thai CSOs were equipped with a strategy that should be common to all CSO coali- tions before the UPR takes place in Geneva. This crucially includes an understanding of how to draft recommendations, and how to advocate for them, by developing UPR advocacy factsheets, building on the factsheets developed by the Mongolian and Myan- mar UPR coalitions.

Drafting UPR recommendations:

n

The substance of recommendations (evidence- based information, broad representation of human rights issues);

n

The wording of recommendations (SMART);

n

The potential of human rights linkages (Treaty Bodies, SDGs, Special Procedures).

SMART UPR Recommendations

The SMART method applied to the UPR adds helpful criteria for writing precise and action- oriented recommendations. These should be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound.

Specific The specific dimension is meant to

address a well-defined action in relation to a specific right or violation.

Measurable A measurable recommendation is

a recommendation that can be assessed. Was the recommendation implemented or not?

Achievable The achievable aspect is

determined by the capacity of a State to comply with the recommendation. Such a limit should be defined only by material means, not by political will.

Relevant Relevance refers to the link between

the recommendation and the situation in the country. Relevance also refers to the link between the recommendation and the improvement of human rights on the ground.

Time-bound The time-bound is related to a

time frame during which the recommendation is expected to be implemented. It is

understood that all recommendations should be implemented by the next review but shorter deadlines can be suggested.

More information in UPR Info, A Guide for

Recommending States at the UPR, 2015

Advocating for UPR recommendations:

n

Be constructive and collaborative with the govern- ment;

n

Include and collaborate with Recommending states;

n

Bring together a high number of diverse CSOs into one coalition;

n

Advocate for UPR recommendations and develop relevant materials.

As a result of the workshop, the Thai CSO Coalition decided to cluster itself into 23 thematic issues, resulting in the development of 23 UPR advocacy factsheets. The next step for the Thai CSOs Coalition for the UPR was to build on this knowledge, develop advocacy factsheets and to advocate for relevant rec- ommendations.

Pre-sessions in Bangkok and Geneva

March 2016. UPR Info organises since 2012 “UPR Pre-sessions”

in Geneva to allow space for mul- ti-stakeholder discussions on the human rights situa- tion in states prior to their UPR. In Thailand, UPR Info Asia replicated this concept as an in-country event in March 2016, the “Thai Voices from the Ground:

Bangkok UPR Pre-Session”.

Before meeting with diplomats, members of the Thai CSOs Coalition for the UPR were trained on how to diplomatically and effectively engage with the diplo- mats during a pre-session. For example, in order to have real impact, CSOs must inform about the pro- gress of implementation of the first cycle UPR recom- mendations and provide solutions to diplomats. To raise awareness about the UPR and CSO recommen-

dations to the wider public, they were briefed by a media expert on the importance of triggering journal- ists’ attention with powerful interventions. The day after, at the Thai UPR pre-session, 22 Recommending states attended the meeting in Bangkok to learn from local communities mainly coming from rural areas and to obtain their UPR advocacy factsheets.

April 2016. The Geneva stage of the pre-session

series was conducted in April, four weeks ahead of Thailand’s UPR. This time the diplomatic presence in Geneva was the target audience. This comprehensive approach covered both the national (Bangkok) and international (Geneva) levels thus maximising the potential for Recommending states to adopt civil society’s recommendations.

As a result of these activities, the members of the coalition grew closer together and benefitted greatly from learning from each other’s human rights work on different topics. At the pre-session stage there was a sense of all of these insights coming together and being used to raise awareness of the concerns of coalition members and to offer constructive solu- tions as a uniform coalition. This atmosphere was felt not only by the members themselves but also by the diplomats and other attending UPR stakeholders. In this light, the pre-sessions marked a clear departure from the initial phase of bringing individual organisa- tions together to a juncture where they now worked as a team.

Formalising the coalition

August 2016. One year after the first meeting, the Thai

CSOs Coalition for the UPR was formally established during a CSO Strategy Workshop on Implementation of UPR recommendations,

organised by UPR Info Asia.

During a preparation meeting, new CSOs that previously had not engaged with the UPR were briefed on the mechanisms and subsequently invited to join the coalition.

As an outcome of plenary dis-

cussions, it was decided that

a core team of five members

representing different organ-

isations and regions should

function as a secretariat for the Thai CSOs Coalition for the UPR. The 23 thematic clusters that developed UPR advocac factsheets ahead of the second UPR, and subsequently worked together, continue to work under the umbrella of the coalition. The workshop benefitted greatly from once again interacting with representatives from the Malaysian UPR coalition (COMANGO) and the Myanmar UPR coalition (Bur- ma/Myanmar UPR Forum). During the workshop, the coalition commenced the process of drafting an implementation plan including SMART indicators to measure the implementation of recommendations, and an action strategy plan setting out what activities CSOs can undertake to support the government in the implementation process. The coalition intends to present these documents to the government and subsequently to the diplomatic community in December 2016 to further demonstrate that the coali- tion is a credible UPR stakeholder.

Lessons learnt a. Factsheets

The thematic advocacy sheets are one of the suc- cess stories of the Thai CSOs Coalition for the UPR.

Created with the support of UPR Info Asia, we picked up the idea when collaborating with the Mongolian Human Rights NGO Forum (MHRN Forum), which used brilliant factsheets on the occasion of the UPR Info’s pre-session on Mongolia. The practice was first replicated when we worked with the Burma/Myanmar UPR Forum and their factsheets were widely used in advocacy during in-country pre-sessions in Yangon, Bangkok, and Geneva. CSOs in other countries including Moldova, Uganda and Venezuela have also developed factsheets to strengthen their advocacy activities.

Each of the 23 factsheets offers an overview of what had been implemented on a particular issue since the first review.

Designed to be as user-friendly as possi- ble, CSO priority recommendations were highlighted on each sheett and aligned with outputs from Treaty Bodies and Special Procedures to showcase that the recommendations are credible and legitimate.

The Ministry of Justice and diplomats have repeated- ly praised the Thai CSOs Coalition for the UPR and its partners for putting together the factsheets. Proud of the quality of the work undertaken by Thai civil society, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs have similar-

ly encouraged diplomats to use recommendations from the factsheets.

b. Funding and cooperation with other UPR stakeholders

The donor and diplomatic communities are always invited to all events and good relationships have been established with a plethora of states. Australia and Canada financially supported the coalition build- ing; the EU supported the Bangkok pre-sessions, factsheets and screening of the webcast of Thailand’s UPR, the United Kingdom supports follow-up activi- ties and Switzerland hosted the pre-sessions in Bang- kok. This has contributed towards consolidating the coalition and establishing a strong CSO partner, dis- playing that the role of Recommending states goes beyond making recommendations.

The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) organised an event together with the NHRCT and CSOs working on torture with a special focus to follow up on UPR recommendations calling for ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture.

c. The way forward

The Thai CSOs Coalition for the UPR has enabled an unprecedented number of local communities to strengthen their advocacy and capacity in parallel to contributing to the ultimate aim of the UPR; to improve human rights on the ground. Thai CSOs have seized this unique opportunity to build solidar- ity and to address challenges on similar topics such as land evictions, land grabbing, and abusive work- ing conditions across the country. The constructive approach of the coalition has positioned it as a legit- imate national movement equipped to collaborate with the government.

Moving forward, the Thai CSOs Coalition for the UPR needs to continue strengthening its strategy to develop systematic human rights documentation, in parallel to developing protection mechanisms safe- guarding members from reprisals.

Due to its constructive solution-oriented approach,

the Thai CSOs Coalition for the UPR has gained cred-

ibility and legitimacy in Thailand. For the first time,

civil society and the government have embarked on

joint discussions on how to improve human rights

in the country. This illustrates the power of the UPR;

the possibility to create avenues for human rights dis- cussions between UPR stakeholders under a military junta.

2.2.2 National Mechanisms for Reporting and Follow-up: SIMORE

The Thai CSOs Coalition for the UPR illustrates how CSO cooperation can contribute to an increase of SMART recommendations. Once recommendations are made in Geneva, it is the duty of the State under Review to implement and report on its implementa- tion activities. In this context, it has proven benefi- cial for states to establish National Mechanisms for Reporting and Follow-up (NMRF) to structure its UPR engagement and make it sustainable through- out and between cycles.

The mandate of OHCHR’s field presence in Paraguay is to provide technical assistance to the govern- ment and CSOs in order to facilitate their continued involvement in the follow-up phase of the UPR.

This has contributed to increasing stakeholders’

engagement from the first to the second UPR cycle.

The “Project on the Follow-up and Monitoring of International Human Rights Recommendations”

was financially supported by the UPR Voluntary Fund from May 2013 to December 2014 and implemented in collaboration between OHCHR and the Ministry of Justice and Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Gov- ernment of Paraguay. One of its main results is the digital platform SIMORE (System for Monitoring Recommendations).

SIMORE is an institutional mechanism that allows the executive, legislature and judiciary to work together with independent insti- tutions to follow up on recommendations from the Organisation of American States and the UN that fall within the remit of their respective mandates.

As a public tool, SIMORE offers transparent access

to reliable information on the status of implemen- tation of recommendations to the general public. It clearly indicates what institutions are responsible for implementation of specific recommendations, thus strengthening accountability of the state.

In its initial phase, SIMORE was a public search portal where the user could search for what recom- mendations Paraguay had received from regional and international mechanisms. The portal could disag- gregate information based on issues, mechanisms and year and proved a convenient way to compile in one place all recommendations that Paraguay had received.

The second stage focused on implementation of recommendations. OHCHR worked with the govern- ment to construct thematic governmental working groups comprised of focal points from the executive, legislature and judiciary to discern what state institu- tions should lead the implementation of the respec- tive recommendations. Anchored in the initial search portal, this work resulted in the current comprehen- sive online tool.

SIMORE is coordinated by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Justice. A network of focal points is composed by more than 50 state officials of the three government branches, including the Ombudsman and the General Prosecutor. The focal points work inter-institutionally in seven thematic groups and feed follow-up information directly into the database.

The thematic group responsible for a set of recommendations identifies public policies related to each of the recommendations, indicators to measure implementation and ways to overcome challenges in the implementation phase.

The SIMORE database is managed by an adminis- trator in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs who ensures

consistency in format and style.

According to the SIMORE regula- tions, the working groups should meet at least four times a year, but can also convene in extraordinary meetings.

The broad political backing that

SIMORE has received can be illus-

trated by the fact that the funding

proposal to the UPR Voluntary

Fund was drafted and submitted

by a different government than the one that, at a later stage, implemented the project. It follows that regardless of the government of the day, SIMORE has been a priority at the highest political level which has contributed to a common national agenda on human rights. Additionally, politicians across the board have been empowered by the success of SIMORE which in turn has triggered an increased engagement in the promotion and protection of human rights at the international level. This is evidenced by the UN Human Rights Council resolution on Promoting Inter- national Cooperation to Support National Human Rights Follow-Up Systems and Processes tabled by Paraguay and Brazil.

Anchored in its experience of developing SIMORE, Paraguay is currently support- ing the development of NMRFs in Uruguay, Chile, Brazil, Peru and Honduras. This bilateral cooperation is viewed as an excellent opportunity for Paraguay to bolster its international commitment.

At present, the third stage of SIMORE is under devel- opment and aims at providing increased space for CSOs to add their comments to the data uploaded by the MFA administrator. The aspiration is that this will contribute to a dialogue on human rights priority concerns. In parallel, a universal multilingual version of SIMORE is under development at OHCHR. This unprecedented tool will allow governments to track the implementation of their human rights obligations in a systematic manner.

The OHCHR Human Rights Advisor for Paraguay notes that while the MFA is in charge of interna- tional and bilateral cooperation, it is important that state institutions continue to update information in SIMORE and integrate implementation of recom- mendations into their policies.

Mainstreaming. SIMORE is a tool for OHCHR to

mainstream its engagement with the legislative, executive and judiciary branches through workshops, follow-up and reporting. Corollary, the UPR is main- streamed through SIMORE and adds sustainability to implementation by integrating recommendations in the strategic plans of all state institutions.

Facilitating reporting and action plans. In the second

UPR of Paraguay, the drafting of the National Report was facilitated by the easy accessible and updated information in SIMORE. Similarly, SIMORE facilitat- ed the input to the UN Compilation Report which

was coordinated by OHCHR and prepared togeth- er with the focal points from other in-country UN agencies. SIMORE also facilitated the assessment of implementation of recommendations included in Paraguay’s National Human Rights Action Plan (NHRAP) adopted in 2012.

SDGs as a driver for human rights. While SIMORE

facilitates inter-ministerial follow-up and reporting to the UN human rights system, more institutions need to update SIMORE and use recommendations in their daily work to effectively utilise the full potential of SIMORE. It is sometimes challenging to convince the top segment of ministries to incorporate the human rights agenda into their work. In order to overcome this obstacle, OHCHR endeavours to bring the SDGs into SIMORE to merge human rights and development into a joint agenda. The concrete aim is to highlight the interconnectedness between SDGs and recommendations; that one activity can contrib- ute to the realisation of both a UPR recommendation and a SDG. In this light, OHCHR is working with the government and judiciary to establish national

indicators and fed into SIMORE. It will be a driver to approach institutions which are more familiar with development activities, rather than human rights work.

Beyond borders. The UPR Voluntary Fund was critical

for OHCHR to be able to support the government of Paraguay. The UN agency would not have been able to create SIMORE without its financial support.

What is a National Mechanism for Reporting and Follow-up (NMRF)?

It is an inter-ministerial body aiming to:

4 Coordinate and prepare reports to and engage with the international and regional human rights mechanisms (including Treaty Bodies, the Universal Periodic Review and Special Procedures)

4 Coordinate and monitor national follow- up and implementation of the treaty obligations and recommendations/

decisions emanating from these

mechanisms.

Well utilised, the Fund can help governments to implement decisive structures that help and ease their work. Later on, as Paraguay did with the sup- port of OHCHR, opportunities arose to share their experience with other states. This can work as a door opener towards other states, where human rights promotion in the shape of bilateral technical support might be perceived as credible and less threatening, particularly if it comes from a smaller state.

2.2.3 Multi-stakeholder cooperation: The Kenyan UPR Implementation Matrix

Established in 2015, UPR Info Africa rapidly posi- tioned itself as the leading organisation in the region providing expertise on the UPR. Compounded by the non-advocacy character of UPR Info, fruitful partnerships were formed with UPR stakeholders in Kenya including the Department of Justice, the Kenya National Commission for Human Rights (NHRI) and OHCHR Kenya. In fact, Kenya was one of the most successful UPR stories from the first cycle in terms of multi-stakeholder collaboration. Kenya has been a promising arena for cooperation since its third President, Mr. Mwai Kibaki increased civic space.

CSOs took this opportunity to engage in a construc- tive manner with the Kibaki government. In Kenya’s second UPR cycle, the NHRI and CSOs submitted reports and took part in UPR Info’s pre-session on Kenya in Geneva.

Against this backdrop, in March 2015, UPR Info Afri- ca organised a three-day CSO strategy workshop, together with partner organisations, on implemen- tation of UPR recommendations. The workshop was attended by dozens of civil society representatives working on issues such as female genital mutilation, transgender people’s rights, women’s empower- ment, rights of the child, access

to health, right to food, access to safe drinking water and san- itation, rights of indigenous and pastoralist communities, torture, justice and reconcilia- tion and freedom of expression among others. During the work- shop, Kenyan civil society mem- bers discussed their experiences with the UPR mechanism from 2010 to 2015. After reviewing

the recommendations that Kenya received in the 2015 UPR participants were divided into thematic sub- groups under the headings of justice, women, civil

& political rights, other vulnerable groups, children and transgender rights. Each group began working on an implementation plan setting out what actions they expected from the government in relation to their priority recommendations. The thematic imple- mentation plans also contained SMART indicators to facilitate monitoring of implementation and were complemented by action strategies mapping out how CSOs can support the realisation of the UPR recommendations. After the workshop, the Group Rapporteur of each thematic subgroup was respon- sible for coordinating the finalisation of their imple- mentation plan and to send it back to UPR Info Africa.

Upon receipt, UPR Info Africa compiled all thematic implementation plans into one document with a coherent structure.

Multi-stakeholder dialogue on UPR implementation

A few months later, at the adoption of Kenya’s second

UPR Working Group Report Kenya accepted 192 out

of 253 recommendations. On the back of the Ken-

yan government’s commitment to implement these

recommendations, UPR Info Africa co-organised a

two-day workshop with the aim of creating space for

a multi-stakeholder dialogue on effective and inclu-

sive implementation of UPR recommendations. 50

civil society members and over 15 government repre-

sentatives participated in the event. On the first day,

a workshop was held for CSOs to follow up on the

March meeting, where the implementation plan and

indicators for UPR recommendations were discussed

and updated. A parallel session trained government

representatives on the UPR, and prepared them for the dialogue with CSOs. Once all stakeholders were more aware of what they could gain through partner- ships with all actors, a bilateral dialogue was organ- ised on the second day for CSOs and government representatives to discuss the way forward, including identifying the opportunities for multi-stakeholder implementation of UPR recommendations. At the end of the meeting it was mutually agreed by all actors to continue the discussion in September 2015 in order to finalise a joint matrix for UPR implemen- tation. Crucial to the success of the multi-stakeholder dialogue was UPR Info Africa’s ability to financially support the implementation of the activity. This fur- ther deepened UPR Info Africa’s engagement with high-level government officials on policy and legisla- tive issues.

Cabinet adopts the UPR report

Before the September meeting, the Cabinet needed to table and discuss Kenya’s UPR Working Group Report that had been adopted by the UN Human Rights Council in March. Once approved, the Minis- try of Justice began coordinating implementation of recommendations together with line-ministries. It follows that UPR Info Africa and its partner organi- sations’ engagement at the ministerial level prior to the Cabinet adopting the report had largely depend- ed on the goodwill of the ministerial officials and their good relations with civil society. Before the September workshop, a series of meetings between UPR Info Africa and the Ministry of Justice took place to discuss how to most efficiently cluster the recommendations in the implementation matrix.

After constructive deliberations with the Ministry of Justice, it was ultimately decided that the imple- mentation matrix should be guided by four sets of themes, namely Legal and Institutional Reforms;

Civil and Political Rights; Economic, Social and Cul- tural Rights; and Group Rights. The rationale behind this decision was that clustering rights into four well- known umbrellas provides a clear structure and pin- points what recommendations a certain ministry is responsible for implementing. As a result, the imple- mentation plan has a designated column identifying what government body bears the duty to ensure fulfil- ment of a given recommendation.

A joint national implementation matrix

Financially supported by OHCHR, the September 2015 workshop brought together government offi- cials, the NHRI and CSOs to develop a national implementation matrix for the second cycle UPR recommendations. This matrix was developed using the CSO implementation plan that the CSOs and the NHRI developed at the CSO strategy workshop as a blue print. Participants were divided into working groups following the thematic clusters; Legal and Institutional Reforms; Civil and Political Rights; Eco- nomic, Social and Cultural Rights; and Group Rights.

An added value of this strategy was that CSOs bene- fitted from getting to know the UPR focal point within the ministry responsible for implementing recom- mendations related to their concerns. Government officials had the same advantage of getting to know civil society representatives working on the same issues as them. Such meetings contribute to build- ing a mutual understanding of each other’s needs, opportunities and challenges in the implementation phase.

In the implementation matrix, each recommenda- tion is provided with SMART indicators to guide all stakeholders in monitoring implementation rates. It was agreed that rather than putting in arbitrary time- lines for implementation, it would be convenient to illustrate the interaction between the UPR and ongo- ing government activities. Therefore, the timelines attributed to each recommendation are aligned with the country’s development programme, Vision 2030, and the strategic plans of the various ministries. This approach creates an added impetus for implementa- tion and makes it more sustainable as activities set out to implement Vision 2030 simultaneously con- tribute to fulfilment of UPR recommendations. The implementation plan moreover demonstrates the complementarity between concluding observations from Treaty Bodies and UPR recommendations, by pairing similar outputs together in the column identi- fying the number of the UPR recommendation.

The fine-tuning of the implementation matrix was conducted by a core group consisting of the Minis- try of Justice, UPR Info Africa, OHCHR, and Kenya National Commission on Human Rights. Once a finalised version was produced, a one-day mul- ti-stakeholder validation meeting was organised.

After the meeting, OHCHR Kenya edited the docu-

ment to incorporate additions made by the partici- pants. Finally, the matrix was published and officially launched on 3rd June 2016. The momentum around Kenya’s mid-term stage in 2018 will be a prime opportunity to take stock of implementation of UPR recommendations which will indirectly lend itself as an evaluation of how effective the implementation matrix has been. Looking back at, it is evident that the implementation matrix is a result of construc- tive multi-stakeholder cooperation involving the government, CSOs, the NHRI and OHCHR. This multi-stakeholder cooperation creates a promising foundation for an efficient and inclusive implemen- tation phase.

2.2.4 Funding for states’ human rights

Established by Human Rights Council resolution A/

HRC/RES/7/17,

the OHCHR disperses two funds to enhance states’ interaction with the UPR process.

First, the UPR fund for Participation

is geared towards facilitating participation of the State under Review (SuR) in the UPR Geneva stages, with a par- ticular emphasis on least developing countries. The UPR Voluntary Fund,

as already foreseen in the institutional-building package of the Human Rights Council contained in resolution A/HRC/RES/5/1,

supplements the first by focusing on assisting states in the implementation of UPR recommendations.

Funds are made available by donations from states and other stakeholders of the Human Rights Coun- cil. The fund also acts as an avenue for collaboration between UN agencies and states at the domestic level. The UPR Voluntary Fund was utilised to set up SIMORE in Paraguay and has been helpful in realis- ing implementation in several countries. While the example below showcases successful use of the UPR Voluntary Fund, throughout the process of collecting testimonies for this study we have come to realise that several countries that would qualify for applying to the fund are not aware of its existence.

Panama received a number of first and second cycle UPR recommendations

alongside several conclud- ing observations from Treaty Bodies

on increasing birth registration of indigenous children and children living in rural areas. In the aftermath of Panama’s second review, in 2015, OHCHR assisted the state in the establishment of an inter-ministerial UPR work- ing committee to coordinate implementation. In the

process, OHCHR noted that this set of recommenda- tions, if implemented in a sustainable manner, car- ried the potential of providing tangible human rights improvements. OHCHR approached the Electoral Tribunal, an independent state institution mandated to keep the civil registry, to promote the recommen- dations and identify what had already been done to fulfil them. It was discovered that, since 2011, the Directorate of Civil Registry of the Electoral Tribunal had implemented, with support from the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), various initiatives aimed at closing the gap in birth registration existing in the indigenous areas of the country (Comarcas).

The Electoral Tribunal informed OHCHR of the exist- ence, in remote areas of the Ngabe-Bugle Comarca, of communities of Mama Tata

followers that had tra- ditionally refused to be registered and, consequently, were not entitled to any public services.

The backdrop to the gap in birth registration among certain segments of the indigenous peoples living in the Comarca was rooted in, first, the difficulty to access these areas and, second, that the most ded- icated followers of Mama Tata, the predominant religion in the Comarca, interpreted the religion as preventing parents from registering their children with the Electoral Tribunal. Mama Tata communities had their own registration system kept by Mama Tata religious leaders. Most of those not registered with the Electoral Tribunal were believed to be women and children, since men were more likely to register themselves in order to be able to work outside of the Comarca (mainly seasonal work in Costa Rica).

As a result of contacts held through the traditional authorities of the Comarca with some Mama Tata leaders, some communities seemed to be open to be inscribed in the civil registry. However, further dialogue was needed with other leaders and at com- munity level, in order to ensure proper knowledge and understanding of the registration process and its consequences. The Electoral Tribunal also needed support in order to carry out the registration process.

The Electoral Tribunal and OHCHR agreed to under- take a concerted effort to address the issue, with sup- port from the UPR Voluntary Fund.

As part of the joint project, OHCHR and the Elec-

toral Tribunal conducted an investigation to explore

the reasons behind the reluctance to register. The

study revealed that many Mama Tata followers did