According to the adopted timetable, the 192 member states of the United Nations should normally be submitted to this review by the end of 2011. This review consists of evaluating the compliance of national policies with international human rights law; each state is submitted to the review according to the same methodology, the same criteria and the same and the same objectives.
After the first cycle, we will have at our disposal an unprecedented fresco of the exceptional evolution of the human rights doctrine and policy since the middle of the 20th century as well as a picture of the human rights situation the way member states, the UN system and the family of national and international NGOs perceive it.
Our website provides data processing and analysis of 1) the Human Rights Council recommendations by theme, region and community, 2) the voluntary commitments of the states under review and 3) the implementation of these recommendations and commitments.
This research is undertaken at the Research Center in Public Law of the University of Montreal's Law Faculty.
English French Arab Spanish Russian Chinese
Please enable javascript and/or install the Adobe Flash Player and reload the page.
What will the States do about the recommendations expressed to them by the Human Rights Council? These recommendations, according to the Council itself, “should be implemented primarily by the State concerned”. We at UPR Watch think this “implementation” is binding in nature since the following review cycle (2012-2016), if it is to take place, will focus precisely on the implementation of these recommendations.
Our Website offers a follow-up, country by country, of the implementation – or lack thereof – of the recommendations received and accepted by the states under review.
Without this implementation, the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) and the Human Rights Council would lose all credibility and all legitimacy. Without this implementation, the effective promotion and protection of the rights of “all members of the human family” would simply be negated. Indeed, the Council’s recommendations express a consensus between the international community and a given country in terms of rights protection within that State. Consequently, failure to act constitutes an “informed” refusal to guarantee fundamental rights protection.
