Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We thank the committee for the opportunity for us to provide an update on developments at the UN Human Rights Council, and specifically, the universal periodic review.
The UPR and its recommendations for improving Canada's human rights record falls under the purview of the Department of Canadian Heritage, so, as mentioned, I'll simply deal with the framework.
Canada championed the establishment of the universal periodic review mechanism as a key element in the reform of the UN human rights architecture. The UPR is an initiative to undertake a peer review of the human rights record of every UN member state on a regular basis, in a fair and impartial manner. As a state-led process based on constructive dialogue and cooperation, the UPR is intended to promote domestic follow-up to international commitments, thereby helping to improve the human rights record on the ground.
The UPR began in April 2008, and so far 64 countries have been reviewed. By the end of 2011, all 192 UN member states will have undergone their first review.
February 3 of this year was Canada's first UPR experience. As with all member states, we'll be up for review again in four years. Each review lasts about three hours and is conducted as an interactive dialogue between UPR participants and the state being reviewed.
All states may intervene in the UPR working group, whether or not they are council members. Non-governmental organizations may observe the review but cannot make recommendations. NGOs may, however, submit a written report prior to the UPR working group.
As we are committed to the impartiality of the UPR, Canada has made a concerted effort to pose specific, credible, and measurable recommendations to each state under review. In addition to consolidating Canada's position as a lead advocate of the UPR, this practice, we believe, complements our own process of understanding the human rights situations in other countries via consultations with the Department of Foreign Affairs’ geographic leads and with officers at our missions abroad.
Canada was an early and committed proponent of the UPR as one of the most important innovations of the then new Human Rights Council. The universality of the mechanism is its defining feature and its greatest asset. It's open and transparent, enriched by contributions from civil society, the UN human rights treaty bodies and special procedures and by experts from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Its emphasis on frank and constructive dialogue to promote real progress also adds to its potential. We remain committed to working to strengthen this new mechanism as it evolves. However, these are early days for the UPR, and challenges do remain. A degree of politicization remains in both the council and the UPR process, as some countries attempt to register complaints at the expense of the effectiveness of the human rights architecture. While this is a risk that is frankly common to all intergovernmental bodies, the universality of the UPR is the means intended to address this.
In addition, the UPR process has experienced isolated incidents of abuse, whereby some states have orchestrated praise from friendly delegations by circulating questions to allies or attempting to stack the speakers list in order to crowd out more critical interventions.
On the positive side, the reviews have been taken seriously by most states. With few exceptions, states have prepared extensively for their reviews and sent to their appearances in Geneva very large, high-level delegations headed by ministers or deputy ministers.
Many have taken positive steps or made commitments in the lead-up to, or as a result of, the reviews. These include, for example, signing and ratifying human rights treaties, agreeing to visits by the special rapporteurs and special procedures, and establishing national human rights action plans.
While it is necessary to reserve final judgment on the efficacy of the UPR until the second cycle of state reviews in order to gauge how effectively states have implemented recommendations made to them by their peers, our view is that the initial prognosis is positive.
Canada approached its own review with the goal of providing a model for transparency and accountability in addressing national human rights issues. The UPR was an important opportunity for us to look at our own record and benefit from the views and perspectives of other states participating in the dialogue. Canada welcomed the constructive input of other states.
By approaching the UPR process seriously and with integrity, Canada successfully enhanced its international reputation as a champion of human rights and strengthened its credibility while engaging other countries on their own human rights records. Following the review, our open and constructive approach was praised as a model by several delegations as well as some NGOs who had observed the review process.
We recognize that no country, including Canada, has a perfect human rights record. That is why it is essential that every country open their human rights record to scrutiny, both domestically and internationally.
The UPR has already had a positive incremental impact on the enhancement of human rights in various countries around the world. Efforts to implement the commitments in Canada's UPR response will contribute to ongoing efforts to strengthen respect for human rights.
Thank you.