The Perennity Conditions of the UPR
As a consequence of the first paragraph of the 2006 United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/RES/60/251, the Human Rights Council (HRC) has to be reassessed five years following its creation, that is, in 2011. That review is ongoing and reunions to assess the HRC abound on all continents. The General Assembly’s President, Ali Abdussalam Treki, for his part, designated two facilitators for the negotiation of the review process of the HRC’s status: the heads of the diplomatic missions of Morocco and Liechtenstein at the UN in New York, Ambassadors Mohammed Loulichki and Christian Wenaweser.
This working note is to be seen as a first contribution from UPR Watch to the analyses, reflections and suggestions in the preparation of that important review.
Should We Aim for the Perennity of the UPR?
In an earlier text, available on our website http://www.upr-epu.org, we attempted to establish the perennity conditions of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) and the Human Rights Council (HRC). Today we ask a more radical question: Should we even aim for the perennity of the UPR?
Implementation: The UPR's Imprecise Finality
The central question of implementation is the topic of this working paper. After our general assessment of the UPR mechanism as a political process, we now focus on implementation itself, its general terms of reference as established by the Human Rights Council (HRC), and the lessons we can draw from the first "Progress Reports" and similar documents prepared and published by a limited number of states.