The Follow-up Programme

Assessments for the second cycle are now completed. Please write to if you would like to share any additional documents.
Select a country assessed (165 in total)

Or by UPR Session
Session 21
Session 22
Session 23
Session 24
Session 25
Session 26

>>Latest Follow-up Report: Haiti<<

The second and subsequent cycles of the review should focus on, inter alia, the implementation of the accepted recommendations and the development of the human rights situation in the State under review.
A/HRC/RES/16/21, adopted on 12 April 2011 (Annex I C § 6)
While the importance of recommendation follow-up is highlighted in the Human Rights Council, no precise guidelines have been set up on the way this should be undertaken. The key to UPR is for recommendations to be implemented. To ensure this State implementation the international community has a monitoring and reporting duty. Unless UPR follow-up is seriously considered, the UPR mechanism as a whole could be jeopardized.

Since 2011 UPR Info has published assessments on the implementation of Universal Periodic Review recommendations, through its "Follow-up Programme". Every country of the world which was reviewed at the UPR is covered at mid-term by the Programme, in between two UPRs. In a first stage, every stakeholder (State reviewed, Scholars, NGOs, National Human Rights Institutions, UN Agencies) is invited to provide information about the implementation. In a second stage, we publish a "Mid-term Implementation Assessment" (MIA) which compiles all inputs received by stakeholders. An overall study showing the first findings and addressing the challenges for the second UPR cycle is available: On the road to implementation.

The MIA presents a comprehensive picture to all stakeholders of the level of implementation, and thus saves time (MIAs can be downloaded using dropdown lists above). Such a summary is a useful tool for at least three reasons: first, as several stakeholders share their concerns related to human rights situation, the summary covers different areas at once - it requires less time to gather scattered information about the progress made by the State. Second, Stakeholders can identify other organisations with the same area of concern, helping to pool means of action. Third, stakeholders can use the digest to advocate for further governmental measures to fully implement recommendations received. The MIA is a quicker and easier way to show State's compliance with both international and domestic raised issues, and will support stakeholders' work.

Help corner

(1) Technical Guide (en français, en español)
(2) Excel sheet's response exemple
(3) The civil society follow-up kit (en français)
(4) Planning for stakeholders submission (next countries to be assessed): *year 2014

To ask further information:

The Follow-up Programme is supported by the Kingdom of Norway