7.3 Universal Periodic Review: Process and Impact

Universal Periodic Review: Purpose and Functioning

The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is the UN's mechanism for evaluating every member state's human rights record on a regular cycle. It was created in 2006 specifically to fix a major problem: the old Commission on Human Rights was widely criticized for selectively targeting certain countries while ignoring others. The UPR's core promise is that every country gets the same treatment.

Mechanism Overview and Objectives

The UPR reviews all 193 UN Member States on a rotating 4.5-year cycle. Each review draws on three sources of information:

• A national report prepared by the state under review
• A compilation of relevant UN information (from treaty bodies, special procedures, etc.) prepared by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)
• A summary of stakeholder submissions from NGOs, national human rights institutions, and other civil society actors

States are assessed against their obligations under the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, treaties they've ratified, and voluntary pledges they've made. At the end of each review, the state receives recommendations from other countries. It can either accept or note each recommendation. "Noting" is diplomatic language for declining without formally rejecting.

The mechanism rests on several guiding principles: universality (every state is reviewed), equal treatment (no country gets special exemptions), and the interdependence of all human rights (civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights are treated as equally important).

Key Features and Principles

What makes the UPR distinct from other UN human rights mechanisms is its peer review structure. States review each other, rather than independent experts issuing judgments. This has trade-offs.

On the positive side, peer review encourages diplomatic buy-in. States are more likely to engage constructively when they know they'll face the same scrutiny. The process also allows civil society organizations to participate by submitting reports and attending sessions, giving non-state voices a formal channel into the review.

The UPR is designed to complement, not replace, other mechanisms like treaty bodies and special procedures. Treaty bodies monitor compliance with specific conventions, while special procedures address thematic or country-specific issues. The UPR ties these threads together by looking at a state's overall human rights situation in one review.

Follow-up is built into the design. States are expected to implement accepted recommendations and report on progress in the next cycle, creating at least some accountability over time.

Examples of UPR Impact

The UPR has produced tangible results in a number of countries:

• Treaty ratification: Several states have ratified instruments like the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities after receiving UPR recommendations to do so.
• Institutional development: Myanmar established a National Human Rights Commission partly in response to UPR pressure.
• Legislative reform: Benin abolished the death penalty, a change linked to UPR recommendations.
• Increased cooperation: Some states have issued standing invitations to UN special procedures, allowing more country visits by independent experts.
• Domestic follow-up structures: A growing number of countries have created national mechanisms specifically to track implementation of UPR recommendations, which also opens space for government-civil society dialogue.

These examples are real, but they represent best-case outcomes. As you'll see below, implementation is uneven.

Stages of the UPR Process

The UPR unfolds in three distinct phases: preparation, review, and follow-up.

Stage 1: Preparation and Information Gathering

1. The state under review compiles a national report describing its human rights situation, progress since the last review, and challenges it faces. This report is ideally prepared through consultations with civil society, though the quality of those consultations varies widely.
2. The OHCHR prepares a compilation of information from UN treaty bodies, special procedures, and other UN entities relevant to that state.
3. The OHCHR also summarizes submissions from stakeholders, including NGOs and national human rights institutions (NHRIs). These stakeholder reports often provide the most critical assessments.
4. Other UN Member States prepare questions and draft recommendations in advance, sometimes informed by briefings from civil society organizations.

Stage 2: Review and Interactive Dialogue

1. The state under review presents its national report before a Working Group in Geneva. This Working Group consists of all 47 members of the Human Rights Council, though any UN member state can participate.
2. An interactive dialogue follows, during which other states pose questions, make comments, and offer recommendations. Each review session lasts approximately 3.5 hours.
3. A group of three rapporteurs, called the troika, facilitates the process. The troika is selected by drawing lots from different regional groups to ensure geographic balance.
4. The state under review responds to questions and provides clarifications during the session.

Stage 3: Adoption and Follow-up

1. The Working Group produces an outcome document containing all recommendations made during the review.
2. The state under review has time to examine the recommendations and indicate which ones it accepts and which it merely notes.
3. The Human Rights Council formally adopts the outcome during a plenary session, where NGOs and NHRIs can also make brief oral statements.
4. The state is expected to implement accepted recommendations and report on progress in the next cycle.
5. Many states now voluntarily submit mid-term reports (roughly halfway through the 4.5-year cycle) to update on implementation progress.
6. Civil society organizations play a critical monitoring role between cycles, tracking whether states follow through on their commitments.

UPR Effectiveness in Improving Human Rights

Positive Impacts and Achievements

The UPR has driven measurable changes in some countries. Beyond the examples mentioned above, additional outcomes include:

• States ratifying the Convention against Torture after receiving specific recommendations
• Oman establishing a National Human Rights Commission
• Saudi Arabia criminalizing domestic violence
• Increased state reporting to treaty bodies, suggesting that UPR pressure can improve engagement with other mechanisms

More broadly, the UPR raises the visibility of human rights issues within reviewed countries. The process of preparing a national report can itself spark domestic conversations about rights that might not otherwise happen. And the public nature of the review creates a record that civil society can use for advocacy long after the session ends.

Limitations and Criticisms

The UPR has significant structural weaknesses that limit its effectiveness:

• No enforcement power. The UPR relies entirely on state cooperation. There's no penalty for ignoring accepted recommendations, and implementation rates vary dramatically across countries and regions.
• Politicization. The peer review format can devolve into mutual praise between allied states. Some countries coordinate "friendly" recommendations that are easy to accept but don't address serious concerns. This practice, sometimes called "mutual back-scratching," undermines the review's credibility.
• Shallow depth. With only 3.5 hours per country, there's limited time to examine complex or systemic human rights problems in any real detail.
• Vague recommendations. Many recommendations are phrased in broad terms ("continue efforts to promote gender equality") rather than calling for specific, measurable actions. This makes follow-up and accountability harder.
• Difficulty measuring impact. Even when states accept recommendations, tracking whether conditions actually improve on the ground is challenging. Legislative reform doesn't always translate into changed practice.

Factors Influencing UPR Effectiveness

Whether the UPR actually improves human rights in a given country depends on several variables:

• Political will of the state under review. This is the single biggest factor. Without genuine commitment, recommendations remain on paper.
• State capacity and resources. Some states may accept recommendations in good faith but lack the institutional infrastructure or funding to implement them.
• Civil society strength. Countries with active, well-organized NGOs and independent NHRIs tend to see better follow-through, because these actors keep pressure on governments between cycles.
• Recommendation quality. Specific, actionable recommendations ("ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture by 2025") are far more useful than vague ones ("improve the human rights situation").
• International pressure and support. Donor countries and international organizations can incentivize implementation through technical assistance, capacity building, or diplomatic engagement.
• Media and public awareness. When the UPR process gets domestic media coverage, it creates public accountability that can push governments to act.

Civil Society Engagement in the UPR

Roles and Contributions of Civil Society

Civil society organizations are essential to making the UPR work. Their contributions span the entire cycle:

Before the review, NGOs and NHRIs submit stakeholder reports that often provide the most candid picture of a country's human rights situation. These reports fill gaps that national reports may leave out. Civil society groups also organize pre-sessions in Geneva, where they brief diplomats from recommending states, directly shaping the questions and recommendations those states will raise.

During the review, civil society has limited formal speaking time (typically two-minute oral statements during the plenary adoption), but their written submissions are part of the official record.

After the review, civil society plays the most critical role: monitoring whether the state follows through on accepted recommendations. NGOs conduct national-level advocacy, build coalitions, and engage with government officials to push for implementation. Some organizations develop scorecards or tracking tools to publicly measure progress.

Challenges for Civil Society Participation

Despite their importance, civil society actors face real obstacles:

• Limited formal access. NGO speaking time during official sessions is extremely short, and there's no opportunity for back-and-forth dialogue with the state under review.
• Reprisals. In some countries, individuals and organizations face intimidation, harassment, or worse for engaging with the UPR. The UN has documented cases of reprisals against civil society actors who participated in the process.
• Technical barriers. The UPR process is complex and bureaucratic, which can exclude smaller, grassroots organizations that lack experience navigating UN procedures.
• Resource constraints. Traveling to Geneva, conducting research, and preparing submissions all cost money that many organizations don't have.
• Sustaining engagement. The 4.5-year cycle is long. Maintaining advocacy momentum and organizational focus over that period is difficult, especially for groups with limited staff.
• Government openness varies. Some governments actively consult civil society during report preparation; others treat the process as a purely governmental exercise.

Strategies for Effective Civil Society Engagement

Organizations that engage effectively with the UPR tend to use several approaches:

• Coalition building. Joint stakeholder reports from broad coalitions carry more weight and pool limited resources. They also reduce the risk to any single organization.
• Strategic engagement with NHRIs. National human rights institutions can amplify civil society concerns through their own submissions and their access to government officials.
• Diplomatic outreach. Engaging embassies and permanent missions, both in national capitals and in Geneva, helps ensure that recommending states raise the issues civil society cares about most.
• Capacity building. International NGOs can partner with local organizations to provide training on UPR procedures, report writing, and advocacy strategies.
• Long-term planning. The most effective groups align their advocacy strategies with the UPR cycle, setting benchmarks for implementation and planning media outreach around key moments (mid-term reports, the next review).
• Digital tools. Social media and online platforms help organizations raise public awareness, mobilize supporters, and maintain pressure on governments between review cycles.