UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW: AN INSTRUMENT TO

C O N F I D E N T I A L GENEVA 000107

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/04/2018
TAGS: PHUM UNHRC
SUBJECT: UNIVERSAL PERIODIC REVIEW: AN INSTRUMENT TO
PROMOTE USG HUMAN RIGHTS GOALS

REF: A. A) GENEVA 96

B. B) 07 GENEVA 2541

Classified By: Ambassador Warren W. Tichenor. Reasons: 1.4 (b/d).


1. (C) SUMMARY: Universal Periodic Review, a new UN human
rights mechanism, remains untested but could prove a useful
instrument for promoting USG human rights goals. There is
general consensus that it should proceed in a cooperative not
confrontational spirit, and we are likely to get more
traction if we maintain that approach. That will not
preclude using UPR to shed light on countries' human rights
problems, however, both by posing questions about how a
country addresses key human rights issues and by discreetly
urging NGOs to provide input to the process. Using our
interventions during reviews to suggest our own best
practices can also be useful. In addition, we should
publicize those outcomes of reviews that we see as valid to
reinforce the message that our concerns about a country's
behavior are widely shared by the international community.
UPR is certain to evolve, possibly creating new opportunities
for us to use it to promote our views, but this cable offers
some initial ideas for Department consideration. END SUMMARY.


2. (U) The Human Rights Council is gearing up to begin
country reviews under the Universal Periodic Review, the
newest mechanism in the UN's human rights toolkit. Although
there is some possibility of delay (ref A),the first tranche
of reviews remains scheduled for April 7-18 at the Council in
Geneva. Work is underway on all three of the documents that
are to be submitted as an initial part of each review: the
concerned country's own national human rights report (20-page
maximum),a summary by the Office of the High Commissioner of
Human Rights (OHCHR) of information from treaty body reports,
special procedures and other official UN documents (10-page
maximum),and a summary of information from other
stakeholders, including NGOs (10-page maximum),which OHCHR
hopes to post on its website for the first tranche of
countries on February 25 in its original language, with
translations to be posted as they are completed. A second
part of the process will occur when the Council meets for an
interactive dialogue, in which Council members and observer
states (but not NGOs) can take part. A written report of the
session will then be presented to the Council for formal
adoption. Much remains unclear about this final phase of the
process, including review of implementation. (Ref B lays out
UPR's overall workings in greater detail.)

A "COOPERATIVE" MECHANISM
--------------


3. (SBU) When UPR was taking shape, the U.S. joined with many
other countries in encouraging that it be a cooperative not
confrontational mechanism, and that position won out. That
does not mean downplaying countries' human rights
shortcomings, but is generally interpreted among those
involved in the process in Geneva as meaning an emphasis on
constructive ways to address such shortcomings rather than on
"naming and shaming." We believe that using that approach
will gain more traction during UPR reviews, and need not come
at the expense of stressing a country's human rights
problems. Some countries will chafe at having their human
rights records scrutinized, including through the kinds of
questions that can be posed "constructively" during reviews.
Others are likely to see UPR as a chance to demonstrate their
commitment to improving their records, and our cooperative
approach, including mention of best practices, is likely to
encourage that.


4. (SBU) Indeed, it is these "middle tier" countries, rather
than the worst violators, who might be most influenced by
UPR. The process seems particularly well suited to those
countries willing to make a good faith effort to identify and
understand their strengths and weaknesses and then to work
cooperatively with others to improve in key areas. Likewise,
UPR may prove particularly valuable in helping the
international community focus its human rights assistance
efforts, to the extent that the final reports accurately
highlight areas where assistance is needed, and help identify
areas where assistance would be duplicative.

INFLUENCING INPUTS
--------------


5. (SBU) U.S. Human Rights Reports and similar documents
offer a treasure-trove of information on countries' human
rights records for potential use during UPR. Although there
appears to be no formal mechanism for us to provide these as
input for UPR's three initial reports, we can bring them to
the attention of OHCHR, troika members and other key players
in Geneva ahead of each review, highlighting how helpful they

can prove in examining countries' human rights behavior.


6. (C) NGOs are among the institutions that can provide
formal input, which is to be included in the summary of
stakeholders' information. Several international NGOs
already have provided their own input for the first and even
second tranche of reviews, and have been encouraging their
smaller national partners to do so as well. The USG,
including our diplomatic posts, also could bring UPR to the
attention of NGOs that we think provide a good perspective on
a country's situation, encouraging them to take advantage of
the opportunity to help shape how that country is
characterized during the process. Some deadlines have
passed, but submissions for half the countries in the second
tranche (Switzerland, Pakistan, Zambia, Japan, Ukraine, Sri
Lanka, France, Tonga, Romania and Mali) can still be made,
with a February 8 deadline; timing for the third tranche has
yet to be determined.

POSING TOUGH QUESTIONS
--------------


7. (C) A centerpiece of each review will be the three-hour
interactive dialogue, which is to be webcast. No standard
set of questions is anticipated for this session, but
participating delegations will be able to pose questions.
Singling out a few countries for particularly tough
questioning might be seen as engaging in "naming and
shaming," several like-minded delegations have told us. They
are considering posing the same question to each country
under review, thus ensuring that the issue gets the spotlight
and forcing those who violate a particular aspect of human
rights to answer for it, but not singling out any country for
particular scrutiny. Discreet agreement among like-minded
states to coordinate their questions -- one raising rule of
law, another asking about religious freedom, etc. -- would
ensure that all key issues are addressed in each review, and
make human rights violators aware that they will not be able
to avoid a particular issue.

HIGHLIGHTING BEST PRACTICES
--------------


8. (C) In its own interventions during the interactive
dialogue, and possibly when implementation of UPR
recommendations comes under review, the USG can place
particular focus on our own best practices. Doing so will be
in the spirit of UPR, can highlight the differences between
our own behavior and that of significant violators, and may
encourage those serious about addressing their own human
rights shortcomings to try new approaches. Focusing our
attention on best practices the U.S. has developed in a few
key areas, involving both laws and practice, might be a good
way to start.

PUBLICIZING UPR REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
--------------


9. (C) The nature of the assessments and recommendations
contained in the "outcome documents" of the UPR process
remain to be determined. Depending on how the process plays
out, they coul include, in addition to requests for
technical ssistance, both hard-hitting judgments and "free
passes," and may range from very general assessments to
detailed recommendations. Nonetheless, we believe that the
USG will be able to highlight key aspects of the report in
order to show the international community's concern with
particular issues.
TICHENOR