UPR IN THE CIS COUNTRIES: REGIONAL TRENDS Analytical report

Transcription

1

2

3 UPR IN THE CIS COUNTRIES: REGIONAL TRENDS Analytical report Kyiv 2013

4 The report contains an analysis of the UPR process in the region of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) through the study of the data collected from the national reports, stakeholders reports, and the UPR Working Group reports while summarising the recommendations received by states under review. In many respects a path-breaking effort is made to identify certain regional trends based on the comparative analysis of quantitative data.the present study also catalogues some available examples of national UPR experiences concerning preparation of national reports and implementation of the recommendations, focusing on the experiences identified as promising. Author: Takhmina Karimova Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights (Geneva). UNDP Coordination Team: Yuliya Shcherbinina, Maksym Klyuchar, Vasyl Romanyuk Contributions from the following OHCHR and UNDP colleagues are gratefully acknowledged: Vrej Atabekyan (OHCHR), Marc Bojanic (OHCHR), Theresa Khorozyan (OHCHR), Monjurul Kabir (UNDP). The report was produced within the framework of the UNDP project Leveraging change through the Universal Periodic Review (UPR): supporting CSOs and journalist communities in human rights advocacy efforts, funded by the British Embassy in Ukraine. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) partners with people at all levels of society to help build nations that can withstand crisis, and drive and sustain the kind of growth that improves the quality of life for everyone. On the ground in 177 countries and territories, we offer global perspective and local insight to help empower lives and build resilient nations. In Ukraine, three development focus areas define the structure of UNDP s assistance activities. These include democratic governance and local development; prosperity, poverty reduction and MDGs and energy and environment. In each of these thematic areas, UNDP ensures balance between policy and advocacy work, capacity building activities and pilot projects. UNDP established its presence in Ukraine in 1993 / ISBN United Nations Development Programme in Ukraine, 2013 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission. Opinions, conclusions or recommendations are those of the authors and compilers of this issue and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Government of Great Britain, United Nations Development Programme or other UN agencies.

5 Table of contents Introduction... 7 i. Objective of the report... 7 ii. Structure of the report... 7 iii. Methodology of the analysis...8 I. Universal Periodic Review: a very short introduction... 9 II. Analysis of recommendations concerning CIS states i. Presentation and analysis of the data...11 ii. Issues raised by NGOs iii. Human rights issues raised in the recommendations made to the CIS states iv. The response of CIS states to recommendations v. Overall analysis III. National processes in preparation and implementation of the UPR recommendations i. Reporting methodologies: national experiences ii. Implementation modalities: national experiences...38 National human rights action plans...38 National monitoring body/or government focal point...39 National Human Rights Institutions...40 Processes adopted (e.g. involvement of, and consultations with, CSOs, legislature, etc.)...41 IV. Conclusions: current use of the UPR process from the regional perspective...44 Annex References

6 List of acronyms CAT CERD CID treatment CIS CP rights CRPD CSO ESC rights HRC ICCPR ICCPED ICESCR ICRMW IDPs IGO INGO IHL NGO NHRI OHCHR UDHR UNDP UNGA UPR Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination Cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment Commonwealth of Independent States Civil and Political Rights Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Civil Society Organization Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Human Rights Council International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families Internally Displaced Persons Inter-Governmental Organization International Non-Governmental Organization International Humanitarian Law Non-Governmental Organization National Human Rights Institution Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights Universal Declaration of Human Rights United Nations Development Programme United Nations General Assembly Universal Periodic Review 6

7 Introduction i. Objective of the report The Human Rights Council s Universal Periodic Review is an important mechanism for the improvement of human rights internationally. The main purpose of the study is, therefore, to assess the potential of the Universal Periodic Review mechanisms to instigate changes, advancing the human rights agenda on the ground in the CIS region. For this purpose, the following questions informed the analysis: how did the CIS states and the civil society organizations approach the Universal Periodic Review mechanism? What were the concerns of the civil society in terms of human rights issues in the region? How have these concerns been addressed in the recommendations of states? What has been the response of the CIS states to those human rights issues raised? How did CIS states themselves engage in the inter-state dialogue with their peers on human rights issues? Additionally, the report discusses the question of the implementation of the UPR recommendations. To date, no general and consistent state practice regarding the follow-up procedure has as yet consolidated. Rather different implementation modalities are currently practiced, some examples of which, identified as good practices, will be discussed in the framework of this report. The extent to which CIS states themselves are currently taking meaningful action as a result of the UPR process at the domestic level is examined insofar as relevant data is available. In light of these parameters, the present study fulfils a dual function. First, it represents an analysis of the UPR process in the region of the Commonwealth of Independent States, through the study of the data collected from the National Reports, stakeholders reports, and the Working Group reports summarising the recommendations received by states under review. Nevertheless, there are inherent limits on the extent to which generalisations can be made about human rights situation in CIS states. Comparative analysis on the basis of quantitative data can only reveal certain trends and provide general directions, which can be the subject of further research. Second, since the potential and ultimate efficiency of the UPR is assessed on the basis of its impact on state performance, the present study will catalogue some available examples of different national UPR experiences concerning preparation of National Reports and implementation of the recommendations. The focus will be on those experiences identified as promising. It then discusses these processes as adopted by the CIS states. ii. Structure of the report The present report is divided into three main sections. Chapter I provides a very short introduction to the UPR process and its basic components. It summarises the outcome of the first cycle of the UPR and modifications introduced to improve the functioning of the UPR review. The aim of this Chapter is to set the framework for the subsequent analysis. Chapter II of the report is dedicated to the quantitative and qualitative assessment of the first cycle of the Universal Periodic Review for eleven CIS states. It first examines how other stakeholders, including both national and international civil society organizations, approached the process and types of human rights issues they identified as constituting a concern for the CIS states. It then looks at the trends and patterns outlined in recommendations given to the states under review. It examines the recommendations made to, and by, CIS states. Apart from substantive human rights issues, the report examines the level of reception by CIS states of recommendations made and finally discusses whether the concerns of the civil society organizations have been reflected in state recommendations. A comparative assessment of the CIS region with global assessments of the first and second cycle on this issue will also form part of this cluster. Chapter III of the report is dedicated to distilling available models of reporting and implementation under the UPR. This part of the research will also draw upon the preparatory process at the national level for the first cycle of reporting and the followup to the recommendations. A proviso is in order in this regard. It will be ambitious to attempt here anything like a complete analysis of the UPR preparation and implementation process. This Chapter draws from other available studies and analysis in this regard. Furthermore, it might be too early to say that the implementation practices are consolidated or to draw definite 7

8 Introduction contours of the problems and challenges of the preparation and follow-up to the UPR recommendations and which lessons can be identified as success stories. Chapters III and IV are then followed by some general conclusions from the findings. It must be emphasized that the present study does not engage in the comprehensive discussion of human rights issues in the region. Its purpose is rather to bring together various components of one process: the views of states undergoing the UPR, recommending states, national and international NGOs. This will allow comparing their approaches to what they deem as an issue of concern or priority, whether recommending states and NGOs raised the same issues and how CIS states themselves approached the UPR process in the review of their peers. iii. Methodology of the analysis This report analyses the Universal Periodic Review process of eleven states, comprising the CIS region, namely Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, the Republic of Moldova, Russian Federation, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan. 1 These countries were reviewed in second, third, fourth, seventh, eighth, twelfth, and fourteenth sessions, spanning from 2008 to Where applicable, information on the second cycle of the UPR review is also provided. The data was extracted from national UPR reports, Working Group reports summarising the recommendations received, and submissions of stakeholders. The report also uses a number of other sources for the purpose of analysis. For example, where necessary and applicable, statistics and data presented in the UPR-info.org were used. This choice is warranted in order to allow the purpose of comparative assessment of CIS trends with those at the global level. In addition, this report benefited from a number of other reports that have set in motion basic criteria of analysis of similar kind. 1 Membership in the CIS group of states does not correspond to membership of geopolitical regional groups disaggregated by the United Nations. Rather, it denotes official, associate members and participating states of the regional organization of the Commonwealth of Independent States that comprises eleven (or twelve) former Soviet Union republics. 8

9 I. Universal Periodic Review: a very short introduction The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is a new mechanism for human rights protection. The Human Rights Council through the Universal Periodic Review mechanism reviews on a periodic basis, the fulfilment by the United Nations Member states of their human rights obligations and commitments. 2 Unlike treaty bodies, such as, for example, the Human Rights Committee or Committee on the Rights of the Child where the review process is carried out by independent experts, the UPR is a peerreview mechanism. 3 It is a cooperative mechanism, based on an interactive dialogue. 4 The UPR is also a human rights mechanism that is responsible to deal with the capacity-building considerations and provision of technical assistance to states. UPR offers an institutional forum permitting all States to voice their concerns. 5 One of the advantages of the UPR process is that it covers a broad field of human rights. The review process is not limited to any set of rights; rather it underlines the unity of all human rights. Human rights obligations that are reviewed are defined as those comprising the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and human rights instruments to which the state under review is a party. 6 The scope of review involves obligations under international human rights law and applicable international humanitarian law. 7 Roughly the UPR process comprises the following stages: preparation of the National Report, review of the human rights records of the State under review (which formally consists of the Working Group review and interactive dialogue and adoption of the Outcome Document), implementation of the recommendations received in the process of review. The implementation is then assessed at the subsequent review four and a half years later. The UPR process: 4 ½-year cycle Generally, three sources of information are examined in the UPR session. The state under review submits an assessment of its own human rights performance, in the form of a National Report (20 pages). 8 This report is complemented by a second report prepared by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) on the basis of the information available from the UN (including the work of the treaty bodies and special procedures) in the field of human rights (10 pages). Finally, the OHCHR also prepares a summary report (10 pages) on the basis of information received from other relevant stakeholders, 2 UN GA Resolution 60/251 established that states: ( ) Undertake a universal periodic review, based on objective and reliable information, of the fulfilment by each State of its human rights obligations and commitments in a manner which ensures universality of coverage and equal treatment with respect to all States; the review shall be a cooperative mechanism, based on an interactive dialogue, with the full involvement of the country concerned and with consideration given to its capacity-building needs; such a mechanism shall complement and not duplicate the work of treaty bodies; the Council shall develop the modalities and necessary time allocation for the universal periodic review mechanism within one year after the holding of its first session; UN GA Resolution 60/251, UN doc. A/RES/60/251, 3 April 2006, para 5(e). 3 Other existing examples of peer-reviewed mechanisms include the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and African Peer Review Mechanism. 4 UN GA Resolution 60/251, op. cit., para5(e). 5 Ibid., p See HRC Resolution 5/1, annex. 7 Ibid. 8 UNHCR Resolution 6/102, 27 September 2007; See UN doc. A/HRC/6/22, 83. 9

10 I. Universal Periodic Review: a very short introduction i.e. non-governmental organizations and National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs). Then, other UN member states have an opportunity to review the assessment together with a compilation of the UN findings and contribution from other stakeholders, e.g. National Human Rights Institutions and civil society organizations. Another feature of the UPR is the broad participation. NGOs represent a fundamental component of the system of human rights protection. The UPR process provides for the participation of all relevant stakeholders, including non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and National Human Rights Institutions. 9 NGO reports may supplement additional information (on certain issues or problems) not addressed in the report of a state under review. Like with other reports, NGO input needs to meet certain qualitative and quantitative criteria. 10 In 2011, upon completion of its self-review process, the HRC adopted a set of modifications to improve the functioning of the UPR. 11 Some of these new modalities are well worth being rehearsed in the context of the present report. Under the revised modalities, states are required to clearly communicate to the HRC their position regarding all recommendations received in their respective review process. 12 The HRC stated, among others, that the second and the subsequent cycles of the UPR should focus on the implementation of the accepted recommendations and the developments of the human rights situation in the state under review. 13 Therefore, states are encouraged (i.e. on voluntary basis) to provide mid-term reports updating on implementation of recommendations. 14 The reviewed modalities also addressed to an extent the process of the review itself. 15 The duration of the review is extended to three hours and thirty minutes for each country in the working group, with the state under review being given 70 minutes and other states 140 minutes. The list of speakers for the interactive dialogue in the working group under the revised modalities is open on Monday of the week preceding beginning of the working group session. All speakers are given three minutes (and two minutes for Observer States). The speaking time is reduced to two minutes for all, should the allocated time be insufficient to accommodate all speakers. If needed, the speaking time is divided among all delegations registered to ensure that all states are given the floor. 16 These alterations were introduced to address deficiencies of the previous process which was not sufficiently conducive for an equal participation of all delegations in the interactive dialogue. 17 Finally, changes to the review modality did not overlook the role of the stakeholders in the process. Given that national consultations for the first cycle of the review were not consistently practiced, under the revised modalities states are advised to have broad consultations with all the relevant stakeholders on the follow-up to recommendations. 18 Finally, the review of the HRC s functioning produced reforms concerning the participation of other stakeholders. Namely, it was decided that National Human Rights Institutions with A status will have a separate section in the summary of other stakeholders information. 19 Other stakeholders are also encouraged to include in their submissions information on the follow-up to the preceding review HRC Resolution 5/1 states: UPR should ensure the participation of all relevant stakeholders, including non-governmental organizations and national human rights institutions, in accordance with General Assembly resolution 60/251 of 15 March 2006 and Economic and Social Council resolution 1996/31 of 25 July 1996, as well as any decisions that the Council may take in this regard in HRC Resolution 5/1, Institution-building of the United Nations Human Rights Council, Annex., para. 3(m). 10 See Universal Periodic Review: information and guidelines for relevant stakeholders written submissions. See also for NHRIs: Technical guidelines for the submission of information by national human rights institutions, both at OHCHR website: 11 HRC Resolution 16/21: Review of the work and functioning of the Human Rights Council, UN doc. A/HRC/RES/16/21, 12 April Ibid., para Ibid., para Ibid., para See HRC Decision on the Follow-up to the HRC Resolution 16/21, UN doc. A/HRC/17/L.29, 17 June Ibid. 17 Preliminary Report: Reflection group on the strengthening of the Human Rights Council, Second meeting: 25-26th January, Paris, available at ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/report_paris_meeting.pdf. 18 HRC Resolution 16/21, op. cit., para Ibid., para Ibid., para

11 II. Analysis of recommendations concerning CIS states i. Presentation and analysis of the data To facilitate analysis and presentation of data, as well as for comparative purposes, all human rights issues were grouped under eleven broad categories/clusters. The following categories further defined in the Annex have been employed: 1) human rights obligations and institutional protection; 2) the right to life, freedom from torture, security of person; 3) justice and impunity; 4) other civil and political rights; 5) trafficking; 6) economic, social and cultural rights (ESC rights); 7) equality and non-discrimination; 8) women, children and persons with disabilities; 9) other vulnerable groups; 10) environment; and 11) counter-terrorism and human rights. 21 In arranging these eleven categories, the analysis took into consideration the frequency of mentions, 22 the logic and structure of the National Reports, 23 the classification adopted by the OHCHR summaries of stakeholders submissions 24 and the categorisations adopted by other similar studies. 25 For example, the right to life, freedom from torture, security of person as well as justice and impunity are all civil and political rights. Their separate categorization was possible owing to the high number of mentions they received in state recommendations and stakeholders reports. The number of human rights issues that served as the basis of analysis does not correspond to the number of recommendations as summarised in the Working Group reports for each of the CIS states undergoing the review. This is because one recommendation from a recommending state may in effect include two or more human rights issues. 26 Rather, the data tabulated derives from the statistics collected by UPR-info. 27 Such an approach is warranted in order to create consistent data that will allow comparative analysis with global trends. It is also necessary to detail the presentation of the analysis. The eleven categories of issues are further grouped under thematic sections such as equality and non-discrimination, civil and political rights, economic, social and cultural rights, etc. Furthermore, this report presents the question of equality and non-discrimination and the related issues of the protection of women, children, persons with disabilities and other vulnerable groups, namely minorities, IDPs, refugees, asylum-seekers, and migrants altogether. This is because it is discrimination on the ground of race, sex, colour, religion, social origin or other basis that essentially lies at the heart of all issues. 21 The list of issues included under each category can be found in Annex I of the present report. 22 Where a human rights issue received a lesser degree of attention to the extent possible they were grouped under one category. An example would be issues concerning minorities, indigenous people, refugees, IDPs, stateless persons who have all been grouped under the rubric of other vulnerable groups. 23 For example, the structure of National Reports is designed first to provide an overview of the normative and institutional framework of human rights protection of a given state prior to addressing specific human rights categories/issues. 24 See an example of the Summary of stakeholders information at the UPR documentation section of the OHCHR website at HRBodies/UPR/Pages/Documentation.aspx. 25 See e.g. UNDP report, Arab States and the Universal Period Review: Study undertaken on behalf of the United Nations Development Program, Regional Centre in Cairo, 12 November 2012, p. 27 (on file with author). 26 Consider, for example, the following recommendation made to Ukraine: Take further efficient measures to ensure that all people deprived of their liberty are held in conditions that meet international standards and that the recommendations of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment regarding pre-trial detention are fully implemented. Another example made to Belarus: Continue its actionoriented policy on the reduction of infant mortality, maternal care, combating HIV-AIDs and environmental protection. 27 UPR Info is a Geneva-based non-governmental organization, with a Special Consultative Status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), that is raising awareness and providing capacity-building tools to the different actors of the UPR process, such as United Nations Member States, NGOs, National Human Rights Institutions and civil society in general. Presentation and analysis of the data 11

12 II. Analysis of recommendations concerning CIS states ii. Issues raised by NGOs This section examines human rights issues as raised by stakeholders report for the first cycle of the UPR process. The total of 984 mentions of different human rights issues were grouped under three categories: international NGOs, domestic NGOs, and mentions that were submitted jointly consisting of both international and domestic stakeholders. 28 Although, regional intergovernmental organizations also made submissions, their contribution was grouped under INGOs for the purpose of simple categorization but also due to their overall limited number. It is necessary to point out two limitations here. First, for certain countries, domestic NGOs made submissions as a coalition. For example, a joint submission for the Russian Federation comprised 15 Russian NGOs. Consequently, a reference to a particular human rights issue by such a submission is counted as one, rather than 15. Second, an important factor to keep in mind is that in some of the countries of the CIS region, independent civil society is still lacking. Resources and capacity constraints in identifying, documenting and analysing human rights violations can contribute not only to the level of participation but also may explain the scant attention paid to certain human rights issues. With these provisos in mind, Figure 1 is indicative of a number of trends in the human rights issues raised by international and domestic NGOs. Analysis of stakeholder reports for eleven CIS states shows that INGOs made 527 mentions of human rights issues, with NGOs making 395 mentions, and joint submissions totalled 62 mentions. Figure 1: Categories of human rights issues brought up by NGOs (by type of NGO and in percentage of the total of all submissions) 29 0% 5% 10% 15% It is possible to draw the following general trends from a panoramic view of all human rights issues raised by all stakeholders submissions. Both international and domestic NGOs expressed concerns over civil and political rights encompassing the right to life, freedom from torture, security of persons, justice and impunity. The category under the heading of other civil and political rights comprising various freedoms and rights pertaining to political participation constituted 30% and 22% of all human rights 28 A mention in this context denotes a reference to a human rights issue. For example The Ombudsman stated that, although targeted reforms continuously take place in the sphere of education, and each year more schools are built and provided with modern equipment, schools in remote regions and IDP settlements still experience shortages of teaching staff and equipment. 29 That is the total number of 984 mentions by all stakeholders. 12 Issues raised by NGOs

13 II. Analysis of recommendations concerning CIS states issues raised by international and domestic NGOs respectively. 30 These rights also ranked high in the priority, namely 27% of the total of all interventions by joint submissions. Systemic issues such as adherence to international human rights treaties and reform of internal structures to increase protection of human rights were of concern in equal measure for all groups of stakeholders. Economic, social and cultural rights such as fundamental rights at work, right to education, right to health, adequate standards of living (housing, poverty, social security) received equal attention from both groups of organizations. Conversely, protection of women, children and persons with disabilities figured more prominently among the concerns of the domestic NGOs than in interventions of the international counterparts (representing 10% of all the interventions, i.e. twice as much when compared to 5% by INGOs). At the same time, international NGOs mentioned the protection of other vulnerable groups, such as migrants, IDPs, refugees, minorities and indigenous people more than the national non-governmental actors did (9% and 7% respectively). Human rights protection in counter-terrorism measures and human rights education and training represent the issues that did not figure in the interventions of the domestic NGOs. In terms of priority among specific human rights issues, the table below illustrates the first ten issues of concern for all groups of stakeholders. Table 1: Human rights issues by priority INGOs NGOs Joint submissions Freedom of religion and belief Justice Women s rights Justice Torture and CID treatment Scope of international obligations/ International instruments Torture and CID treatment Women s rights Justice Freedom of opinion and expression Equality and non-discrimination (racial, Freedom of opinion and expression vulnerability) Freedom of association and peaceful Impunity Special procedures and Treaty Bodies assembly Refugees, IDPs, stateless persons Freedom of religion and belief Torture and CID treatment Scope of international obligations/ International instruments Conditions of detention Sexual orientation and gender identity Equality and non-discrimination (racial, vulnerability) Freedom of association and peaceful assembly Right to health Right to health Right to health Freedom of association and peaceful assembly Impunity Freedom of opinion and expression Labour Overall, there appears to be little discrepancy between international and domestic non-governmental organizations. Variation may, however, exist at the level of specific human rights issues within the broad categories identified above. It is, therefore, useful to have a closer look at the highest categories and particularly the specific human rights issues raised within them. 30 The category included freedoms such as freedom of movement, freedom of association and peaceful assembly, freedom of opinion and expression, freedom of religion and belief, right to privacy and family, political participation, elections and the right to privacy and family including the question of gender identity and sexual orientation. Issues raised by NGOs 13

14 II. Analysis of recommendations concerning CIS states Civil and political rights This section consolidates various civil and political rights concerns altogether as listed in Figure These rights figured prominently in the CSOs comments and views on human rights performance of CIS states. In total, all civil and political rights (i.e. right to life, freedom from torture, security of person, justice, impunity, and other civil and political rights) accounted for an average half of the total number of interventions (Figure 1). International NGOs prioritised civil and political rights as high as 58% of all the human rights issues they raised, whilst for national NGOs the number amounted to 50% with 48% for joint submissions. In aggregate terms, noticeably, the difference between the groups is not significant. Rather the difference becomes visible at the level of specific human rights issues. The data below (Figure 2) indicates that in terms of order of concern over civil and political rights, the issue of freedom of religion, conscience and belief clearly takes precedence over other concerns. It is also one of the two issues, where there is a considerable difference between international and national NGOs. Freedom of conscience, religion and belief is number one priority for the INGOs compared to the national NGOs, where the degree of concern is three times less (only about 2% compare to 6%). Figure 2: Specific civil and political rights issues raised by NGOs (as a percentage) 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% Equally, INGOs mentioned right to life, torture and other CID treatment, freedom of opinion and expression, freedom of movement as well as concerns with issues of justice more frequently than the domestic NGOs It includes the right to life, freedom from torture, security of person, justice and impunity and what has been earlier classified as other civil and political rights. 32 This finding, however, should be put into the context of methods outlined in the beginning of the section, in particular that the domestic NGOs often acted as a coalition thus formulating their concerns as one submission. 14 Issues raised by NGOs

15 II. Analysis of recommendations concerning CIS states Equality and non-discrimination and protection of group rights According to the collected data, comments on equality and non-discrimination, women, children, persons with disabilities and other groups identified as other vulnerable groups represented 19% of all interventions by all groups of NGOs. Equality and non-discrimination encompassed a number of human rights issues such as racial discrimination, discrimination on the basis of sex, health status (namely HIV/AIDS) and sexual orientation. Racial discrimination including the racially motivated violence was not relevant to all states except for few, 33 while discrimination of women was raised in relation to all CIS states. Issues identified under the heading of women s rights included gender mainstreaming, violence against women, training of law enforcement on domestic violence and institutional reforms to ensure gender equality, etc. Figure 3: Equality and non-discrimination and protection of group rights (number of mentions) It can be concluded that in aggregate terms, NGOs approached the problem of human rights protection of the groups consistently. This being said, national NGOs raised women s rights, rights of the child, rights of persons with disabilities, as well as the issue of sexual orientation and gender identity far more often that their international counterparts. In addition, NGOs, both national and international, raised issues in this context in relation to both economic, social and cultural and civil and political rights. Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Analysis of the data reveals that socio-economic rights were mentioned far less than issues related to civil and political rights. In total, economic, social and cultural rights accounted for 6% of the total of all interventions for both international and national NGOs (see Figure 1). There is no observable divergence between how national and international NGOs mentioned the topic. At the same time, one has to bear in mind that socio-economic concerns can be in-built into the issues of equality and non-discrimination. For example, the rights of women, children, persons with disabilities, minorities are raised in relation to all human rights and not only civil and political. In the context of protection of IDPs, CSOs raised the issue of access to housing, health services and education. Among specific socio-economic rights, the right to health and the right to education ranked highest. The right to health category collates issues related to financing of health care, quality of health care services, HIV/AIDS prevention and care, health care of elderly, LGBT, drug users, sexual and reproductive rights. 33 These included mainly the Republic of Moldova, Russia, and Ukraine, and marginally Azerbaijan. Issues raised by NGOs 15

16 II. Analysis of recommendations concerning CIS states Although, some of the countries of the CIS region experience socio-economic difficulties, references to adequate standards of living, poverty and development were minimal in the interventions from all groups of NGOs. One reason to such occurrence can be related to the fact that economic, social and cultural rights for long have been a neglected dimension of human rights, both in theory and practice. At the inter-state level these rights were relegated to the development or poverty discourse measured by economic parameters, whilst in the analysis of international NGOs, they have been largely ignored until recently. Alternatively, perhaps legal guarantees related to work, food, housing, healthcare, social security, or education are not seen as a priority amid rampant violations of rights relating to life, liberty, and security which typically attract greater attention. Be that as it may, a review of two stakeholders submissions (Azerbaijan, Ukraine) for the second cycle reveals a more balanced approach of the CSOs towards these rights. 34 Figure 4: Distribution by specific economic, social and cultural rights (number of mentions) % 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 34 See Summary OHCHR: Ukraine, UN doc. A/HRC/WG.6/14/UKR/3, 20 July 2012; Summary: Azerbaijan, UN doc. A/HRC/WG.6/16/AZE/3 16 Issues raised by NGOs

17 II. Analysis of recommendations concerning CIS states iii. Human rights issues raised in the recommendations made to the CIS states This section analyses the recommendations made to eleven states by both non-cis and CIS states in the first cycle of the UPR process. For the first cycle of the UPR process, a total of 2347 human rights issues were raised to eleven CIS countries. Out of this number only 146 recommendations were made by the CIS states themselves, which constitutes merely 6% of the total number of recommendations. CIS states seem not to have had a substantial participation in the review of their peers. Such a limited contribution creates difficulties for comparative purposes. Nonetheless, despite this limitation, the graphs in this section are aimed to capture the type of issues raised by the CIS states in the review of their fellow states. The percentage under each group of states is calculated relative to the total number of recommendations raised by the respective group of states. Analysis of the data below shows a great difference in frequency of human rights issues raised by CIS states and non- CIS states. The frequency expressed in percentage is calculated in relation to the total number of recommendations made by respective groups. Table 2: Priority in human rights issues raised by recommending states (number of recommendations) Other states CIS states International instruments 223 Minorities 11 Women s rights 167 Women s rights 10 Rights of the child 164 Trafficking 9 Torture and other CID treatment 135 Rights of the child 8 Justice 113 ESC rights general 8 Freedom of the press 91 International instruments 6 Detention conditions 88 Justice 5 Special procedures 85 Poverty 4 Freedom of opinion and expression 72 Special procedures 3 Persons with disabilities 59 Persons with disabilities 3 To gain some insight into the types of recommendations received by each individual state in the CIS region, it is instructive to take a glance at the distribution of recommendations under eleven categories in percentage relative to the total number of recommendations received by each state (Table 3). Human rights issues raised in the recommendations made to the CIS states 17

18 II. Analysis of recommendations concerning CIS states Table 3: Recommendations received by CIS states (in percentage relative to the total number of recommendations received by each state) ARMENIA AZERBAIJAN BELARUS KAZAKHSTAN KYRGYZSTAN Republic of Moldova RUSSIA TAJIKISTAN TURKMENISTAN UKRAINE (1ST AND 2ND CYCLES) UZBEKISTAN HR obligations, Institutional protection 23% 19% 22% 25% 23% 16% 27% 27% 34% 29% 16% 29% Right to life, freedom from torture, security of persons 11% 8% 15% 12% 8% 10% 13% 22% 11% 11% 7% 23% Justice and Impunity 11% 3% 3% 7% 8% 7% 9% 3% 6% 8% 18% 4% Other Civil and Political Rights 19% 28% 27% 20% 23% 12% 16% 10% 34% 7% 12% 17% Trafficking 3% 1% 4% 3% 1% 7% 1% 3% 1% 3% 6% 1% Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 8% 10% 8% 9% 8% 9% 5% 10% 4% 5% 3% 9% Equality and non-discrimination 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 4% 7% 0% 1% 8% 15% 0% Women, Children, Persons with Disabilities 22% 24% 14% 17% 23% 22% 12% 23% 5% 16% 12% 10% Other vulnerable groups 4% 6% 2% 4% 4% 8% 7% 1% 1% 12% 9% 1% Environment 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 2% 0% Counter-terrorism 0% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 18 Human rights issues raised in the recommendations made to the CIS states

19 II. Analysis of recommendations concerning CIS states With regard to the frequency of the recommendations under the categories of human rights used in the analysis of stakeholders interventions, Figure 5 can provide an overview. Some general observations can be drawn at this stage. For CIS countries, issues concerning minorities, women s rights and rights of the child were identified as important in their recommendations. In effect, economic, social and cultural rights appeared three times more often in the recommendations made by CIS states. In the same vein, trafficking accounted for 9% of all the issues raised by CIS state. Figure 5: Human rights issues raised by the recommending states 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% It is now suggested to discuss more in detail the most representative categories to get a sense of issues raised within each of them. We shall examine, in turn, human rights obligations and institutional protection, civil and political rights (all rights included), equality and non-discrimination together with protection of women, children, persons with disabilities and other vulnerable groups, and finally economic, social and cultural rights. Human rights obligations and institutional protection of human rights Recommendations involving international obligations and human rights institutional protection were mentioned 528 times, representing 24% of all recommendations made. For non-cis states, adherence to, and implementation of, international human rights obligations accounted for almost half of this number (10 %, i.e. 229 mentions, see also Figure 6). It appears that recommendations under this category were prioritized almost for all CIS countries (see Table 3). 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% Closely connected to the question of implementation of international human rights obligations is the issue of ensuring an effective institutional framework for the protection of human rights. The basic ingredients of establishing effective institutional frameworks typically include a) establishment of national human rights institutions, b) development of national programmes of human rights education, and c) the development of national plans of action for the promotion and protection of human rights. All these issues were raised in recommendations to CIS states. Recommendations included also issues of cooperation with international human rights mechanisms, such as treaty bodies, special procedures and with the UPR itself. Human rights issues raised in the recommendations made to the CIS states 19

20 II. Analysis of recommendations concerning CIS states Figure 6: Components of international human rights obligations and institutional framework for protection 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% The recommendations from non-cis states stressed the need to expand standards of human rights protection through the ratification of international instruments. Almost 10% of the recommendations regarding the strengthening of the institutional framework encouraged CIS states to ratify international human rights treaties. This recommendation ranked as the highest priority for states such as Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russian Federation, and Tajikistan, while for Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, it followed as the second most frequent recommendation. 35 It needs to be underlined that such a high number is not particular to the CIS region only. Globally, adhesion to international norms and their incorporation in domestic law recommendations related to international instruments rank No. 1. It is estimated that international instruments represent 19.89% of all recommendations made to states under review. 36 CIS-states acknowledged the need to speed up the processes of ratification of international instruments, and also considered strengthening the cooperation with the Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council. Regrettably, little emphasis has been made so far on supporting human rights education and training. Civil and political rights Civil and political rights clearly received significant attention in the recommendations made by other states amounting to 39% of the total of their interventions, against 16% by CIS states. As the table below demonstrates, CIS states, compared to other states, made far fewer recommendations on civil and political rights issues. Among the civil and political rights, freedom from torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment (CID) ranked the highest in priority making up slightly over 6% of all recommendations. It is also one of the issues that CIS did not address at all in their submissions to their fellows from the region. 0% Other 1% issues avoided 2% concerns 3% regarding 4% death penalty, 5% extrajudicial executions and freedom of movement. However, the main areas of preoccupation for CIS states were justice, freedom of 6% conscience, religion and belief, and freedom of press (Figure 7). 35 According to the UPRinfo statistics, e.g. Armenia: 17.58%; Belarus: 18.34%; Kazakhstan: 17.83%; Russian Federation: 19.01%; Tajikistan: 26.67% and Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, 18.34% and respectively. The information is available at 36 For Global Statistic, see also UPR-Info.org, ibid. 20 Human rights issues raised in the recommendations made to the CIS states 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12%

21 II. Analysis of recommendations concerning CIS states Figure 7: Civil and political rights in recommendations to CIS states 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% Equality and non-discrimination and protection of vulnerable groups Equality and non-discrimination in general, particularly the issue of racial discrimination, has received relatively low level of attention compared to the discrimination on other grounds. Furthermore, recommendations on racial discrimination were made only with regard to few states, namely, Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine. Compared to other issues, women s rights and rights of the child were highly prioritized by both groups of states. As noted in the introduction of this section, women s rights, rights of the child and rights of minorities received a high level of engagement on the part of the CIS states. In terms of percentage of the total number of recommendations (97 in total), women s rights accounted for 11% of recommendations (Figure 8). Issues such as discrimination against women, general advancement of women in society, domestic violence, and improving economic situation of women to prevent their trafficking, among others, were voiced, to name a few. The issue of migrants was not touched upon by any of the CIS states, even if, due to the large number of migrants within the region, it is currently an important socio-economic 0% and human 2% rights issue. 4% One of the 6% most frequent 8% recommendations 10% 12% to CIS states included suggestion to ratify international instruments protecting rights of migrants - a proposal that some of the destination countries, such as Russian Federation, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine, rejected to accept. Equally, CIS states remained silent about rights of internally displaced persons, asylum seekers and refugees. It is also appropriate to mention at this point that while discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity drew significant attention of the NGOs, for CIS states, it did not form part of their interaction with their fellow states from the same region. Human rights issues raised in the recommendations made to the CIS states 21

22 II. Analysis of recommendations concerning CIS states Figure 8: Different dimensions of equality and non-discrimination invoked in recommendations 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Economic, social and cultural rights feature in recommendations made by both CIS and other states. These rights clearly ranked higher in recommendations made by CIS states (in proportion to all of their recommendations). They were one of the highest categories in the list of priorities, representing around 22% of all recommendations (Figure 5). While, CIS states most frequently referred to economic, social and cultural rights generally, in terms of specific issues, the largest numbers of recommendations fall into the right to education category (Figure 9). This was followed by poverty and development that together represented 7% of all recommendations made by the CIS states. Such a state of affairs is not surprising, as even if the CIS region consists of states with a varied socio-economic situation, as mentioned earlier, for some other states in the region (such as Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, the Republic of Moldova, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan) socio-economic conditions remain a real challenge. On the other hand, it will be not entirely fair to state that socio-economic rights did not receive sufficient attention on the part of other states. Recommendations involving socio-economic rights accounted for 8% of all of the interventions. Furthermore, some neglected aspects of these rights 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% such as the right to water, the right to food and the right to housing were voiced by other states. 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 200 Figure 9: Economic, social and cultural rights in recommendations to CIS states Armenia Azerbaijan Belarus Kazakhstan Kyrgyzstan Republic Russia Tajikistan Turkmenistan Ukraine Uzbekistan of Moldova 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% % Human rights issues raised in the recommendations made to the CIS states 40% 100