The Universal Periodic Review

In one line

Every Member State of the United Nations is reviewed in turn on a fixed cycle by other States, on the basis of a national report, a compilation of United Nations information and a summary of stakeholder submissions, producing recommendations that the State accepts or notes and that are examined again in the next cycle.

Why it exists

It was designed against one specific failure. The Commission on Human Rights lost its standing because it examined some States and not others, so governments sought membership to escape scrutiny. [The Economic and Social Council and the Commission on Human Rights] sets out the collapse.

Resolution 60/251 answers it in one phrase: a review of the fulfilment by each State of its human rights obligations and commitments in a manner which ensures universality of coverage and equal treatment with respect to all States.

And the second answer is in the same resolution: members of the Council shall be reviewed under the mechanism during their term of membership, so election confers no immunity.

What is reviewed against

Four bases, and this is the point candidates most often miss.

The Charter of the United Nations.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Human rights instruments to which the State is a party.

Voluntary pledges and commitments, including those made when standing for election to the Council.

Applicable international humanitarian law is also taken into account.

So a State that has ratified nothing is still reviewed, against the Charter and the Declaration, which is why this is the only universal mechanism in the system.

The three documents in

A national report prepared by the State, subject to a page limit, ideally through a broad national consultation.

A compilation prepared by the Office of the High Commissioner of information contained in the reports of treaty bodies, special procedures and other United Nations sources.

A summary prepared by the Office of credible and reliable information submitted by other stakeholders, meaning national human rights institutions, non-governmental organisations, academic bodies and others.

The third document is where civil society enters, and it is the reason the exercise is not simply a State speaking about itself.

The review itself

Conducted in a Working Group of the whole Council, chaired by the President, with the assistance of three rapporteurs drawn by lot from different regional groups, known as the troika.

The core is an interactive dialogue in which States take the floor to comment and to make recommendations, with the State under review responding. Questions may be submitted in advance.

The outcome is a report listing the recommendations, and the State under review accepts a recommendation or notes it. Accepted recommendations are commitments; noted ones are refusals recorded as such.