UPR Info: Follow-up Programme

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)

The review process takes place every four years; however, some recommendations can be implemented immediately. In order to reduce this gap, we have created an update process to evaluate the human rights situation two years after the examination at the Universal Periodic Review.

Broadly speaking, UPR Info seeks to ensure the respect of commitments made in the UPR, but also more specifically to give stakeholders the opportunity to share their views on the progress made in fulfilling them. To this end, about two years after the review, UPR Info invites States, NGOs and National Institutions for Human Rights (NHRI) to share their comments on the implementation (or lack thereof) of recommendations adopted at the Human Rights Council (HRC).

Once we receive the mid-term updates, we publish a digest (the so-called Mid-term Implementation Assessment) including States and civil society appreciation of the implementation in between two reviews. The MIA aims at showing how governments implement recommendations.

The resolution 16/21 repeatedly calls for civil society participation in the follow-up and that States provide midterm reports as well. The legitimacy to involve all stakeholders in the follow-up is widely recognised, and will strengthen the UPR mechanism.

All stakeholders that submitted to the OHCHR a report are contacted; as a result of this, they are reminded the importance of the UPR. For instance, NGOs participating in monitoring States will initiate public debates in countries and keep the momentum from the review in Geneva alive. The follow-up programme is expected to make durable such debates, and to encourage governments to implement the recommendations.

Additionally, the follow-up programme is a way to prepare the next review; collected data can be used for the next UPR. While midterm follow-up requires allocating (financial/personal) resources, it's worth the investment; the next UPR submission to the OHCHR is made easier, the framework will be already set up.

Regarding the digest itself, the latter shows a comprehensive picture to all stakeholders of the domestic implementation's level, and thus saves them time. The aim of the digest is to provide a simpler overview on the implementations of recommendations in a particular country. The 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. Indeed, one will require less time to gather scattered information about the progress made by the State. Stakeholders will have neither to go through States' diplomatic responses, nor NGOs numerous reports. 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 the recommendations received. As a result of the broad participation in the Follow-up Programme, the digest can include several identical comments to a same recommendation which indicates that many stakeholders share the same view on the lack of implementation. It will strengthen stakeholders' position whenever they will negotiate with their State. The summary is a quicker and easier way to show State's compliance with both international and domestic raised issues, and will support stakeholders' work.

Eventually, while the follow-up's importance is highlighted, no precise directives have been set up on the way the follow-up should take place. Therefore, UPR Info is willing to set good standards as soon as possible, and to influence the collaboration's pattern between States and stakeholders. Unless the UPR's follow-up is seriously considered, the UPR mechanism as a whole could be jeopardized.