Presentation by the facilitator Mr. Omar HILALE Bangkok, December 8,

Introduction Last Friday, I made a short briefing during the President’s informal consultations on the progress achieved on the UPR facilitation. In today’s presentation, I envisage to go into more details of the different proposals discussed. In this regard, I will try to give my evaluation of the degree of acceptability of each of these proposals, based on the discussions we held during the three informal consultations and the three “informal informals”: Issues upon which there is a large convergence of views will be identified in green. Issues that require further discussions will be represented in orange. Issues with deep divergences will be identified in red. 2

Topics of the presentation Our discussion will be divided into three sections, following the same structure of the discussions during the consultations of the UPR facilitation: I. The general issues; II. The process and modalities of the UPR; III. The follow-up of the UPR. 3

I. The general issues 1. Basis of the UPR. 2. Principles of the UPR. 3. Objectives of the UPR. 4. Order of the review of States. 4

1. basis of the review Maintain as defined in paras 1 and 2 of IBP: The Charter of the United Nations; The Universal Declaration of Human Rights; Human rights instruments to which a State is party; Voluntary pledges and commitments made by States, including those undertaken when presenting their candidatures for election to the Human Rights Council. Applicable international humanitarian law. The Basis of the review 5

2. Principles of the review Maintain as defined in para 3 of IBP: (a)Promote the universality, interdependence, indivisibility and interrelatedness of all human rights; (b)Be a cooperative mechanism based on objective and reliable information and on interactive dialogue; (c)Ensure universal coverage and equal treatment of all States; (d)Be an intergovernmental process, United Nations Member-driven and action ‑ oriented; (e)Fully involve the country under review; (f)Complement and not duplicate other human rights mechanisms, thus representing an added value; (g)Be conducted in an objective, transparent, non-selective, constructive, non ‑ confrontational and non ‑ politicized manner; (h)Not be overly burdensome to the concerned State or to the agenda of the Council; (i)Not be overly long; it should be realistic and not absorb a disproportionate amount of time, human and financial resources; (j)Not diminish the Council’s capacity to respond to urgent human rights situations; (k)Fully integrate a gender perspective; (l)Without prejudice to the obligations contained in the elements provided for in the basis of review, take into account the level of development and specificities of countries; (m)Ensure the participation of all relevant stakeholders, including non-governmental organizations and national human rights institutions, in accordance with General Assembly resolution 60/251 of 15 March 2006 and Economic and Social Council resolution 1996/31 of 25 July 1996, as well as any decisions that the Council may take in this regard. Principles of the review 6

3. Objectives of the review Maintain as defined in para 4 of IBP: (a)The improvement of the human rights situation on the ground; (b)The fulfilment of the State’s human rights obligations and commitments and assessment of positive developments and challenges faced by the State; (c)The enhancement of the State’s capacity and of technical assistance, in consultation with, and with the consent of, the State concerned; (d)The sharing of best practice among States and other stakeholders; (e)Support for cooperation in the promotion and protection of human rights; (f)The encouragement of full cooperation and engagement with the Council, other human rights bodies and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Objectives of the review 7

4. Order of the review Maintain the order of the review of States during the 1 st cycle for the 2 nd cycle: Starting with Bahrain; Ending with Moldova. Order of the review 8

II. The process and modalities of the UPR 1. Periodicity of the cycle and the gap between the 1 st an 2 nd cycles. 2. Duration of the review. 3. HRC plenary for outcome adoption. 4. UPR Voluntary fund for participation. 5. Focus and content of the reports of 2 nd cycle. 6. Recommendations. 7. Role of Troika, OHCHR and other stakeholders. 9

1. Periodicity and gap Maintain current 4-years periodicity Extend periodicity to 5 years Compromise proposal: establish a periodicity of 4.5 years Implying: 14 countries per session instead of the current 16, and 14 sessions per cycle instead of 12 now, without increasing the number of sessions of the Working Group per year. Periodicity Start the 2nd cycle immediately after the first. Observe a one year gap between the 1st and the 2nd cycles. Compromise proposal: Start the 2nd cycle on June Providing countries to be examined first with enough time to prepare for their UPR (nearly 9 months if adjustments to UPR reports is finalised by September 2011). Gap between the 1 st and 2 nd cycles 10

2. The interactive dialogue Extend the duration of the interactive dialogue by one hour, while keeping the same proportionality between the time allotted to the SuR and the list of speakers. This will allow for the participation of almost 80 speakers, which is more than the current average of speakers per country rating between 50 and 60, while respecting the principles of the UPR: of universality, equality and interactivity and at the same time not being overly burdensome to the SuR or the agenda of the Council. Flexibility with regards to the duration of the review depending on the number of States in the list of speakers. Cluster the interactive dialogue into themes. Allow 72 hours between the interactive dialog with the SuR and the adoption of the outcome of the review by WG. The interactive dialogue 11

3. HRC plenary for outcome adoption Extend the duration of the HRC plenary for UPR outcome adoption by half hour while keeping the same proportionality between the time allotted to the SuR and the list of speakers. Separate HRC plenary meetings for the adoption of the UPR outcomes from the HRC regular sessions. HRC plenary for outcome adoption 12

4. UPR voluntary fund for participation Strengthen, operationalize and make more funds available the UPR Voluntary Trust Fund to facilitate the participation of developing countries, particularly LDCs and small island states, in the different stages of their review. This Fund can also cover the participation costs of: a. States without permanent representation in Geneva during the UPR WG session preceding their review. b. A-Status National Human Rights Institution of developing countries, particularly LDCs and small island states. UPR voluntary fund for participation 13

5. Focus and content of reports of 2nd cycle The 2nd cycle of the UPR shall focus on reviewing: a. Follow-up to and implementation of accepted recommendations made in the preceding cycle, as well as voluntary pledges and commitments; b. Developments in the country concerned since the preceding cycle; c. Assessment of received assistance for implementation of the outcome of the preceding review. Giving consideration to non accepted recommendations or including assessment of recommendations from special procedures. Focus of the 2 nd cycle Preserve the documentation, as set for in para 15 of IBP. Adjust guidelines for the UPR reports as set for in HRC decision 6/102 of September 2007 in order to adequate them to the 2 nd cycle by September Dedicate a separate section to A-Status NHRIs. Encourage Stakeholders to report on the implementation of accepted recommendations. Add a new report as basis for the review (assessment of follow-up of the review or contributions from NHRIs). Develop guidelines for national consultations or tabling reports to national parliaments. Develop guidelines for reports prepared by OHCHR. Reports of the 2 nd cycle 14

6. Recommendations Cluster the recommendations thematically, with the full consent of the SuR and the States that made them. SuR should provide its clear position on the received recommendations. SuR should prepare an addendum to the final report containing its position on the received recommendations. Develop guidelines for recommendations or for clustering recommendations. Establish a limit for the number of recommendations. Take into consideration recommendations by States that did not take the floor during the interactive dialogue. Allow one delegation to make a recommendation on behalf of several delegations. Use of Independent expertise or legal advise to ensure their conformity with IHRL. Recommendations of the 2 nd cycle 15

7. Role of Troika, OHCHR and other stakeholders Maintain the role of the Troika as defined in the IBP and the Presidential statement 8/1. This role includes the clustering of recommendations with the full consent of the SuR and the States that made the recommendations since it’s within the framework of preparing the outcome of the review. Nominate a Rapporteur among the Troika members Role of the Troika Compile comprehensive information on the UPR recommendations for each country, together with the SuR comments, as well as its voluntary pledges and commitments. Present the two reports it prepares before the Working Group. Role of the OHCHR Give A-Status NHRI of the SuR the floor right after the SuR during the adoption of the outcome by the HRC plenary. Use of new Information technology, such as video conference, for participation of stakeholders. Allow NHRIs and NGOs to participate in the Working Gourp and to make recommendations to the SuR. Role of the other stakeholders 16

III. The follow-up of the review 1. Follow-up by SuR. 2. Voluntary Fund for financial and technical assistance. 3. Role of OHCHR and other UN mechanisms 17

III. The follow-up of the review Encourage States to provide the Council with a mid term reporting on the follow-up of their review. Encourage States to continue consultations with civil society on the follow-up. Provide an implementation plan for accepted recommendations. Implement recommendations by treaty bodies and special procedures. NHRIs should provide a regular update on the follow-up of the review. 1. Follow-up by SuR Strengthen and operationnalize the voluntary trust fund for financial and technical assistance. Provide an implementation plan at the request for assistance. 2. VTF for financial and technical assistance OHCHR to operate as a clearing house for financial and technical assistance upon the request of the States. Encourage UN country teams to assist SuR, at its request, in the implementation of accepted recommendations. Link UPR to the other UN mechanisms. 3. Role of OHCHR and other UN mechanisms 18

Conclusion As you might have noticed, we have been able to build a large space of convergence on many issues thanks to your flexibility, your spirit of openness and your readiness to compromise. However, we still have much work to do, obstacles to overcome and divergences to resolve. The international community is following closely the review of the UPR. Thus, it is important to preserve the UPR achievements, which has the noble mission of improving the Human rights situation on the ground and everywhere in the world. Therefore, I would like to call for the continuation of our discussions without conditioning the flexibility or the concessions to the progress on the other clusters. The UPR cluster should be considered as a stand alone package. The UPR mechanism is very noble to be taken hostage by our debates in the other clusters. Not only our respective Governments, but also thousands of women and men are awaiting for the outcome of the review of the UPR. I would like to urge you to engage in concluding this review of the UPR as if the other clusters do not exit, while continuing the negotiations in the other clusters as if the UPR does not exist. 19