The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) was established when the United Nations Human Rights Council (UN HRC) was created on 15 March 2006, by the UN General Assembly. On 18 June 2007, one year after its first meeting, the members of the UN HRC agreed on its institution building process, providing a road map to guide the future work of the UN HRC. The UPR is the newest addition to the longstanding regulatory framework for monitoring or supervising the UN Member States.

Do the 193 Member States honour and implement agreements and promises made to the UN? Some countries are not concerned about human rights violations in their countries. The UPR is a tool for investigating or scrutinising such issues and has been implemented for the last 14 years. It combines different concerns, previously monitored by separate treaty bodies and working groups, into one process.

The UPR takes place thrice a year in a series of meetings of the UPR Working Group in Geneva, Switzerland. In this process, the UN questions its Member States to see whether those States have honoured their obligations. It also gives an opportunity for other Member Countries to question or criticise a State that is undergoing the UPR process. At this time, friendly countries of the scrutinised country will exaggerate its positives, portraying it as a country that respects human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. It is to be noted that any country can ask a few questions, make statements, and propose recommendations.

In this process, a country subject to its UPR cycle will submit a report to the UPR Working Group at a specific time. This is called a national report and may exaggerate the country’s “achievements”, misinforming the UN about what it is implementing, what it is going to implement, what it has not implemented, its intentions, etc. The UPR unit of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) also submits its report on the country. Members of civil society organisations including human rights activists who carry out specific country-based programmes submit reports too. This is known as stakeholder reporting. These reports are compiled into a summary.

To oversee this process, representatives of three countries known as the “troika”, selected by the 47 Member Countries of the UN HRC, are appointed to discuss all the reports with the country under scrutiny.

Following this, on a specific day, the UPR Working Group meeting is discussed in an open forum in the UN. During this process, Member Countries express their doubts, fears, and apprehensions about the country under scrutiny. Within exactly 48 hours of this scrutiny, the troika, facilitated by the OHCHR, submits an outcome report on the country to the UPR Working Group. The statements, recommendations, and queries that have been accepted or rejected by the country under scrutiny can be found in this report.

Fourth cycle underway

Although the UPR Working Group would have adopted the report, the respective country is allowed to make some changes in their position within two weeks.

Following this, the report is submitted for approval by the UN HRC in their usual session. At that time, the country under review is allowed to present its views again. In addition, Member States and non-Governmental organisations (NGOs) may also submit comments.

So far, 41 UPR Working Groups have been held. Three cycles for Member States have been reviewed, and the fourth cycle is currently underway.

In December 2008, when Israel faced its first UPR, 50 countries including Islamic and certain other countries, raised very serious questions about Israel.

Because of this, in January 2013, Israel refused to participate in its second UPR cycle. At the time, this was seen as a revolutionary decision by Israel. Due to UN pressure, Israel eventually re-joined the UPR process and 47 countries raised questions to Israel, putting it under severe pressure.

Based on the fourth cycle of the UPR, Sri Lanka will be discussed at the 42nd session of the UPR Working Group on 1 February 2023, in Geneva.

Sri Lanka's national report for this has been published, consisting of 13 pages and 83 paragraphs. Meanwhile, the stakeholders’ reports covering 17 pages and 82 paragraphs have also been published. In this report, certain important NGOs’ reports were not included due to late submission. Fortunately, their submissions are covered in other joint statements.

The UK, Algeria, and Qatar have been appointed as the troika of countries for the 42nd session on Sri Lanka.

Countries waiting to question Sri Lanka

In the impending UPR process on Sri Lanka, it is believed that many countries are waiting to question Sri Lanka on accountability, as promised to UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon in May 2009, and on the draconian law known as the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act (PTA). In addition, States are waiting to ask questions about the failure of 74 years of promises to create a political solution for the Tamil community, especially after 13 years since the end of the war.

Now, it is obvious to the international community that Sri Lanka is buying time and space until its Government fully achieves its four pillars, namely, militarisation, Buddhisisation, Sinhalisation, and the colonisation of the North and the East. It is believed that once this is fully done, there will be no question of a political solution for the Tamils on the Island.

The first cycle on Sri Lanka was held in May 2008, at the 12th session of the UPR Working Group. At the time, Bangladesh, Cameroon, and Ukraine acted as the troika countries. During this process, 56 Member Countries asked serious questions, creating a very embarrassing situation for Sri Lanka.

The second cycle on Sri Lanka was held in November 2012, at the 18th session of the UPR Executive Committee. At that time, India, Benin, and Spain acted as the troika. In this cycle, 98 Member Countries questioned Sri Lanka. This may be a record breaking number of countries questioning a country under scrutiny in the UPR Working Group meetings. Over 50% of the 193 Member Countries raised questions, making Sri Lanka's atrocious human rights situation known to the world.

The third cycle took place in November 2017, at the 28th session. In this process, 88 countries questioned Sri Lanka.

To be frank, Sri Lanka has never implemented or respected the recommendations that it agreed to, nor kept the voluntary pledges it has made during the UPR process.

Sri Lanka has either rejected or delayed answering, or diplomatically said that it noted the contents of many of the recommendations or statements made by other States in the past UPR cycles. Although the number of statements and recommendations agreed to is high, the point is as to whether they are taken seriously or not, and whether they are implemented or not. Some interesting questions, concerns and recommendations raised by other countries, on Sri Lanka, are given below:

Questions raised in the past

Many countries wanted Sri Lanka to examine the possibility of ratifying the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and ratifying the Rome Statute; accede to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and draft a law on co-operation between the State and the ICC; ratify the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; continue its efforts to ratify the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance; fully incorporate the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women into its domestic system; adopt a number of laws on the freedom of expression and speech and of the media; and consider the possibility of abolishing the death penalty.

Countries remained concerned about Sri Lanka’s consolidation of executive power; the militarisation of former conflict zones; serious human rights violations, including disappearances, torture, extrajudicial killings, and threats to the freedom of expression; reports of human rights violations under the PTA; the intimidation and harassment of human rights defenders and journalists; and the insufficient protection of the rights of religious minorities and the prevention of acts of violence.

Sri Lanka was encouraged to continue the reconciliation and peace process, urged to resolve residual resettlement and rehabilitation-related issues, and develop a strategic plan against human trafficking. Countries were concerned about the slow progress in the constitutional reform and transitional justice process, urging a constructive approach to addressing post-conflict reconciliation-related issues and resolving post-conflict challenges.

Many countries encouraged Sri Lanka to adopt an action plan to implement its UN HRC Resolution-related commitments, noting that much work remained on accountability, transitional justice, and reconciliation. Concerns remained about recent developments in the fight against impunity, the Assistance to and Protection of Victims of Crime and Witnesses Act, and the peacebuilding priority plan. 

So far, what we have learned from the UPR mechanism and process of the UN HRC is that although it looks different to the earlier mechanisms (treaty bodies and other working groups), eventually, the UPR has no teeth. It is just like any other mechanism in its incapacity to punish a country’s failure to implement its agreed commitments.

If one seriously considers the time, energy, finances, and other means spent on the UPR process, one comes to the conclusion in UN language to what counts as ‘just’ the potentially powerful act of "naming and shaming".

It is to be noted that according to the last Resolution, Sri Lanka will not be on the agenda during the 52nd session of the UN HRC, which will begin in the last week of February. However, lobbying on Sri Lanka continues as usual.

(The writer is a human rights activist including the General Secretary of the France based Tamil Centre for Human Rights, a freelance research analyst, and an author)

…………………………………………………….......................

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect those of this publication.