Welcome to Permanent Mission of India in Geneva

Statement by Shri Ajit Kumar, Ambassador & Permanent Representative of India to UN during Agenda Item 6 (Universal Periodic Review): General Debate on behalf of the Like Minded Group (23 September 2016)

Please check against delivery

PERMANENT MISSION OF INDIA TO THE UN, GENEVA
HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL
33rd Session (13-30 September 2016)
Agenda Item 6 (Universal Periodic Review): General Debate
(23 September 2016)

Statement by H.E. Mr. Ajit Kumar, Ambassador & Permanent Representative of India
On behalf of the Like-minded Group (LMG)

Mr President,

I have the honour to make this statement on behalf of 23 countries of the Like-minded Group.

2. We continue to firmly believe that the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is a unique mechanism that sets the Council apart from its predecessor and has emerged as an effective and visible instrument for the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms in and for the sharing of best practices among all participating members of the United Nations.

3. We would like to put on record our appreciation and gratitude to the OHCHR for its role in the UPR process. The compilation of basic documents requires sincerity and effort to which the Office has consistently proved equal. We also commend the Office’s technical support for capacity building to various States in this process.

4. There are suggestions emanating from some quarters that the process of UPR is “losing its steam” and needs to be reviewed in order to make it more effective. We reiterate that the UPR mechanism should not be tinkered with as any such attempt carries the potential of diluting the universal support that it currently enjoys. This process is less than ten years old, and hence, it is too early to pronounce on its ultimate effectiveness or to identify need for reforms.

5. We believe that the rules and regulations of the UPR process must be strictly adhered to. Any attempt to circumvent this with the objective of projecting preferred issues should be resisted. Such attempts violate the Institutional Building Package of the Council that established three distinct documents on which the review should be based. Pressurizing member states to focus on selected areas of concern can turn counter-productive by adversely affecting a country’s voluntary and objective participation.

6. An important issue that has occupied all the stakeholders is the implementation of UPR recommendations. The primary reason for universal participation in the UPR process is the policy space this mechanism provides to the member states with regard to their final decisions on the recommendations, taking into account their respective social, political and economic circumstances. We believe that national or domestic mechanisms remains best placed to translate UPR recommendations into concrete outcomes for their citizens and trust in them is crucial for member states’ continued engagement.

7. It is a matter of concern that some doubts have been raised regarding the content and methodology of national reports prepared by the States under Review. This is avoidable as member states do their utmost to undertake a broad consultation process at the national level with all relevant stakeholders. There may be issues of capacity constraints in some cases that could be addressed through adequate capacity-building support. This also remains true for implementation of accepted recommendations.

Thank you.

********

List of countries supporting the statement: