United Nations Human Rights Council

UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW

Statement by Jeffrey D. Kovar
Legal Adviser
Mission of the United States of America

October 2, 2006

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  We are grateful to the distinguished Ambassador from Morocco for his helpful and inclusive statement.  We agree that the secret of success for this working group will lie in the care and openness with which we consult together.

Let us look to establish a human rights review process that does not duplicate other mechanisms.  In the view of this delegation that means a true peer review – conducted by member states of the Human Rights Council.

The United States has submitted a proposal that I shall briefly highlight.  Our ideas echo suggestions made by many other delegations today:

First, who would be reviewed?

--       All UN members would be reviewed on an equal basis and with the same frequency.  Pursuant to our mandate from the General Assembly, members must be reviewed during their terms of membership.  Order of review for all other countries would be determined by lottery.

Second, who would conduct the review?

--       Peer review would be conducted by a Peer Review Working Group (PRWG) made up of members of the Council, consisting of two members from each regional group.

Third, how frequent would be the reviews?

--       As there are more than 190 countries to be reviewed and limited resources to conduct this process, at the rate of 40 meaningful reviews a year, meeting intersessionally four weeks out of the year, each country would be reviewed once every five years.  This is frequently enough to have impact without being burdensome on nations.

Fourth, what would be the review process?

--       The process would begin with the circulation by the PRWG of a short factual questionnaire for each country, regarding, inter alia, the human rights treaties to which it is party and other measures it is taking relating to human rights (for example, under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights).

--       The PRWG would also solicit information from other sources: including from observer states, UN treaty bodies, and NGOs.

--       During each session the PRWG would invite each country being reviewed to participate in a two-hour public session, in which the PRWG and the country conduct a dialogue, integrating the information received from all sources.

--       The dialogue would be cooperative, non-condemnatory and directed at facilitating concrete results (including identifying areas suitable for technical assistance and support).

--       During the process, all countries would be treated equally and with no double standards.

Fifth, what would be the follow-up to the review?

--       The PRWG would submit to the Council an annual report of its activities for appropriate action.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.