| Jänner | Februar | März | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| April | Mai | Juni | ||||||
| Mai | ||||||||
| Mo | Di | Mi | Do | Fr | Sa | So | ||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | ||
| 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | ||
| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | ||
| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | ||
| 29 | 30 | 31 | ||||||
E-Mail Service
Medienakkreditierung
Hotelreservierung
Routenplaner
Wetter
Statement by H.E. Ambassador Wolfgang PETRITSCH
Permanent Representative of Austria
on behalf of the European Union
Geneva, 28 June 2006
Check against delivery
Mr President,
The Acceding Countries Bulgaria and Romania, the Candidate Countries Turkey, Croatia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia*, the Countries of the Stabilisation and Association Process and potential candidates Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, as well as Ukraine and the Republic of Moldova align themselves with this declaration.
The EU attaches great importance to progress our work for the establishment of the system of a Universal Periodic Review. The new review constitutes one of the innovative instruments at the disposal of the Council.
The creation of a universal periodic review mechanism includes several complex questions which require in-depth reflexion and preparation. Considering the important role of the UPR within the new Council, necessary time needs to be devoted to the elaboration of its modalities.
First let me turn to the process of setting up the review mechanism:
We welcome the draft resolution by the President addressing the issue of the Universal Periodic Review. We feel that this draft resolution constitutes a very good basis and we are confident that we can find consensus on the text.
In general, the Position of the EU is that the elaboration of the UPR needs to be governed by the principles of transparency, efficiency and inclusiveness. Of particular importance for the EU is that an interactive dialogue with all stakeholders, including NGOs and NHRI, is ensured in the process.
Given the complexity and the premature stage of the elaboration of the UPR mechanism, the EU favours a two stage approach but we have some flexibility as to how exactly this is taken forward. At the first stage the process could be lead by a facilitator, in order to move consultations forward without delay. Consultations by a facilitator should begin immediately. At a second stage, after having achieved more clarity on the various options for consideration, the discussion on the modalities could move into an open ended inter-sessional Working Group. We should keep December 2006 as a goal for finishing the modalities of the UPR.
On the mandate of a possible WG the EU holds the view that OP 5e and OP 9 of the Resolution establishing the HRC provide a sufficient basis. The EU believes that, if established, such a working group, should report regularly to the Council about the progress of its work.
Regarding the 14 members of the Council whose mandate will expire in June 2007, the EU holds the view that these countries should be subject to the universal periodic review as soon as the mechanism is established.
Secondly, let me turn now to the content of the new universal periodic review:
As stated in the resolution establishing the HRC, the UPR shall be truly universal, objective, and based on dialogue. All states should be examined on a regular basis within a reasonable period of time.
The UPR should not impose any additional reporting obligation on states. Instead, countries undergoing the review, could present, for example, a declaration on the state of human rights in their particular country.
The system should be efficient and meaningful but with a relatively light procedure. To ensure that the Council would not be overburdened by the review mechanism a separate inter-sessional working group or sub-committee responsible for undertaking the review could be established. The final outcome of the UPR process should be dealt with in the plenary to ensure oversight and follow up as necessary.
The UPR should not duplicate but build on the work of Treaty Bodies and Special Procedures. The main focus of the review should be on implementation and follow-up.
Objective and reliable information will be crucial in the new UPR. The HCHR could produce a synthesis document compiling available information i.e. reports and conclusions from Treaty Bodies and Special Procedures, reports from regional organisations and other UN organs, which could serve as a basis for dialogue.
In order to ensure transparency in the process NGOs, in particular, local NGOS as well as National Human Rights Institutions should be able to participate and substantively contribute in the UPR mechanism.
* Croatia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia continue to be part of the Stabilisation and Association Process.
