Transcript UPR & NGO Submission

Importance and Perspectives of
Universal Periodic Review (UPR) and
Roles of Civil Society Organisations
Workshop to Accelerate the Implementation of
the Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities (CRPD)
18-21 August 2011, New Delhi, India
Presented by
Birendra Raj Pokharel
President
National Federation of the Disabled-Nepal
(NFDN)
South Asian Sub-Regional Chair of DPI
Importance and Perspectives of Universal
Periodic Review (UPR)










Presentation Contents:
Background of UPR:
The objectives of the UPR:
GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR THE PREPARATION OF
INFORMATION UNDER THE UPR:
South Asian Experience:
Initiatives taken by Civil Society in Nepal:
Documentation for the review:
The Schedule of the review in some of the Asia-Pacific
Countries:
Recommendation for the Establishment of "New Decade of
Rights of Persons With Disabilities in Asia-Pacific Region:
Annex I: UPR recommendation of the countries for Nepal:
Background:







CRPD helps increase public awareness of barriers faced by
PWDs,
, urge law and policy changes,
provide redress in individual cases of rights violations or
abuses and
channel resources into programs that support the rights of
PWDs.
.
Integrating disability into the global human rights
framework
CRPD requires the state parties to recognize the human
rights of PWDs,
The Convention requires to periodically reporting to the UN
on its progress in implementing and enforcing the treaty
obligations.
Background of UPR:





CRPD committee formed under article 34 review state
report
The UPR is a unique process which involves a review of the
human rights records of member states of UN every four
years.
The UPR is a State-driven process under the auspices of the
Human Rights Council,
provides the opportunity to declare what actions the
countries have taken to improve the human rights situations
the UPR is designed to ensure equal treatment for every
country when their human rights situations are assessed.
The objectives of the UPR
to address human rights violations,
 improve the human rights situation,
 encourage States to fulfill their human
obligations and commitments,
 assess the positive developments and
challenge,
 enhance the State's capacity,
 provide technical assistance and share
best practices between stakeholders.

GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR
INFORMATION UNDER THE UPR:
The Human Rights Council made the Decision 6/102. Followup to Human Rights Council resolution 5/1 at its 20th
meeting on 27 September 2007
 “Reaffirming the relevant provisions, related to the universal
periodic review, of General Assembly resolution 60/251 of 15
March 2006
 Human Rights Council resolution 5/1 of 18 June 2007
 the institution-building package.

Guideline for UPR








A. Description of the methodology and the broad
consultation process
B. Background of the country under review and existing
framework,
C. Promotion and protection of human rights on the ground:
D. Identification of achievements, best practices, challenges
and constraints;
E. Key national priorities, initiatives and commitments
F. Expectations of the State concerned in terms of capacitybuilding and requests,
G. Presentation by the State concerned of the follow-up to
the previous review.
States should consult their national human rights institutions
and civil society organizations while applying.
South Asian Experience:
Scope of international obligations
 Constitutional and legislative framework
 Institutional and human rights
infrastructure
 Policy measures such as national action
plans
 National jurisprudence
 Human rights infrastructure including
national human rights institutions

II. Promotion and Protection of
human rights on the ground
2008
 1st Session: India, 2nd Session: Pakistan, Sri
Lanka.
 2009
 4th
Session: Bangladesh, 5th Session:
Afghanistan, 6th Session: Bhutan.
 2010
 9th session: Maldives
 2011
 10th session: Nepal.

Some of the observations within the
UPR of the South Asian Countries:
stakeholders' submission:
 India-37
 Bhutan-6
 # pages of National Report:
 Shree Lanka -32
 India – 16
 Others more than 20 pages

Number of Recommendations to
SuR:
Afghanistan -98+,
 Bhutan - 99
 India – 18
 # of Advance Written Questions to SuR:
 Afghanistan – 52
 India - 23.

Initiatives taken by Civil Society in
Nepal:







Nepal is reviewed in January 2011
crucial and timely intervention for a member of civil society
Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development and INSEC
organized workshop (11-13 April 2010)
to discuss on the UPR and to develop common strategies
and work plans
Nepal NGO Coalition for the UPR is a loose coalition
The coalition comprises national coalitions; federations;
human rights NGOS, lawyers, academicians, media
professionals and individuals.
The secretariat of the coalition and HRTMCC is both are in
INSEC
The Nepal coalition of DPOs









The National Federation of the Disabled -Nepal (NFDN) is
coordinating for CRPD sub-committee
the presenter is the convener of the sub-committee under
HRTMCC.
Nepal Disabled Human Rights Center
Nepal Disabled Women Association
National Association of Physical Disabilities
National Federation of Deaf And Hard of Hearing
Nepal Disabled Society
The coalition also aimed to discuss UPR process and
practices.
with series of consultation and joint initiatives.
Documentation for the review:
1) National report Prepared by Nepal after consultation
process between Government and civil society (10 700
words (approximately 20 pages)
 2) Compilation of information from Treaty Bodies, Special
Procedures and other United Nations documents, prepared
by OHCHR (5350 words (approximately 10 pages),
 3) Summary of stakeholders’ submissions prepared by
OHCHR (5350 words (approximately 10 pages)

The Schedule of the review in some
of the Asia-Pacific Countries:











Lao People’s Democratic Republic
Working Group: May 2010,
Plenary: September 2010
Myanmar
Working Group: February 2011,
Plenary: June 2011
Altogether 135 recommendations to Nepal
Nepal entertained 56 recommendations,
28 recommendations, Nepal said, have already been implemented
or in the process of implementation. Another 36 recommendation
will be examined and responded in due time (no later than June
2011);
15 recommendations that Nepal rejected.
Some specific recommendations
relevant to PWDs that Nepal
enjoyed:
China: Implement effectively the Human Rights Action Plan and
other national action plans, including CIDAW and CRPD
 Argentina: Continue its efforts to overcome discrimination and
social exclusion on the basis of gender, caste, class, ethnic group,
disability or geographic situation, in order to ensure the respect of
civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights
 Cuba: Redouble efforts to promote and protect the rights of
vulnerable groups such as children, women, people with disabilities
and aged persons
 Hungary: Improve food safety of vulnerable groups , particularly
indigenous people, former bonded labourers, Dalits, Muslims,
persons with disabilities and those who are infected with HIV/AIDs







Some specific recommendations
relevant to PWDs that Nepal
considers that they are already
implemented or in the process of implementation:
Criminalize discrimination based on caste, gender, religion, ethnicity,
political belief or disabilities (Germany); rec. No. 107 (12)
Some specific recommendations relevant to PWDs that Nepal will
examine and respond in due time:
Implement measures to ensure that persons with disabilities are enabled
to participate in job training, vocational training, literacy and numeracy
programmes and set concrete targets measurable within one year to
this effect, in consultation with persons with disabilities and their
representative organisations (New Zealand); rec. No. 108(13)
Ensure, without any discrimination, the rights of people with disabilities
and others belonging to vulnerable groups, such as women and children
(Chile); rec. No. 108 (14)
Note: There are other general recommendations which are equally
relevant to PWDS.
Schedule of some Countries of AsiaPacific Region
Singapore
 Working Group: May 2011,
 Plenary: September 2011
 Thailand
 Working Group: December 2011,
 Plenary: March 2012
 Timor Leste
 Working Group: December 2011,
 Plenary: March 2012.

Recommendation for the
Establishment of "New Decade of
Rights of Persons With Disabilities





The erratic behaviors of different Governments has
hindrance the implementation of the BMF
Realized that the Governments strongly restrict for the
monitoring mechanism of the CRPD
interventions through the National Human Rights
Institutions.
The importance of establishment of New Decade deserves
paramount importance for pushing governments obligated
towards rights of Persons With Disabilities.
To achieve universal solidarity and enjoyed human rights
should be one of the paramount aims of the "New Decade
of Rights of Persons With Disabilities in Asia-Pacific Region".
RECOMMENDATION
The DPOs should harmonized alleviating and reducing
global poverty
Major step ensuring civil, political, economic, social and
cultural rights of PWDs.
In respect of the principle guideline of the CRPD for
mainstreaming Disability in the development agendas by
domestication.
The violence in the basis of Disability has victimized is
staggering fact,
the global solidarity is overwhelming necessities in the
following decade for ensuring Human Rights of Persons
With Disabilities.
Now the things to be done differently rather doing the
different things for achieving the goals of "Towards an
inclusive, barriers free and rights based society for Persons
With Disabilities".
THANK YOU !