ILEP and the Universal Periodic Review

What it is

The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is the mechanism by which the UN Human Rights Council assesses the human rights record of every UN member country, over a five-year cycle. The purpose is to improve the human rights situation on the ground. This link, including a short video, provides a good overview.  The UPR aims to cover the totality of the human rights situation in a country. ILEP aims, where possible, to submit reports to the UPR because we want to ensure that leprosy and disability are strongly featured there. If our reports make a good impression, along with appropriate lobbying of the Permanent Missions in Geneva, then the final recommendations made by state parties at the Human Rights Council are more likely to include disability and leprosy.

What we do

ILEP has collaborated in reports to the UPR on Sierra Leone, Nepal, Myanmar, Mozambique and – most recently – Papua New Guinea (PNG). In most of these cases the report was specifically about the human rights situation related to leprosy, and was usually written in collaboration with a national organisation of persons affected by leprosy. The PNG report went further. This was a collaboration between The Leprosy Mission, two PNG coalitions of persons with disabilities, and ILEP. The report contains recommendations about access to justice, equality before the law, rights of women with disabilities, right to education, right to health, access to employment, participation in cultural and social life, accessibility in general, and public awareness raising. The report is on the ILEP website.

What we are learning

Geoff Warne (ILEP CEO) recently interviewed Natalie Smith, country leader of The Leprosy Mission PNG, who had led the process of consultation and development of the report. This was a good achievement and we hope that the PNG experience will inspire other ILEP members who are thinking about how to produce or collaborate in reports for countries in which they are working. The following paragraphs are a summary of Natalie’s key points of advice.

Don’t leave it too late

Natalie recommends starting the process three months before the deadline. It takes time to plan what is needed, coordinate meetings with stakeholder groups such as DPOs, look at what happened as a result of previous UPR recommendations, discuss the key human rights issues affecting persons with disabilities and persons affected by leprosy, and come up with recommendations. Plenty of time is also needed for the final writing, review and editing of the report.

Respect the stakeholders

The two leading national DPOs in PNG were key stakeholders. Their engagement was essential but could not be taken for granted. TLM organized three meetings over two months, in pleasant surroundings, and although enthusiasm dwindled over time, the input from the DPO representatives was invaluable. They knew how things really were ‘on the ground’ and what the key barriers were, and they were able to provide real-life case studies which are very much valued in the UPR reports. Other persons with disabilities, who were not DPO representatives but who had good knowledge and linkages, also gave valuable input.

Start with reports from the previous UPRs

UPRs are undertaken every five years and the final reports by the Human Rights Council are readily available. When providing reports into the UPR process, NGOs are urged to highlight areas where the government has not, or not adequately, followed the recommendations. So the PNG group started by looking at all the recommendations related to disability or leprosy in the 2011 and 2016 reviews, and discussing what the government had, or had not done, in response to the recommendations. The PNG group also looked at recommendations in previous reports that were not specifically about leprosy or disability but which might have linkages, for example recommendations on violence against women, police brutality, sorcery, and shame-related issues.

Look at other publications

Other evidence and data should also be considered. The PNG group looked at:

• UN human rights conventions or treaties the government had signed up to, that might be relevant to disability and leprosy (examples: CRPD Convention, Convention on Rights of the Child, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, CEDAW Convention)
• the annual Human Rights Watch reports on human rights violations regarding women, children and persons with disabilities
• legislation related to persons with disabilities and/or leprosy, and major legislative gaps
• national development plans relevant to disability or leprosy
• national disability policy or strategy
• UN disability factsheets
• World Report on Disability (WHO and World Bank)

The ILEP Secretariat can assist with identifying and providing links to many of these documents.

Use the CRPD Convention as a framework for the report

The paragraphs of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) cover the main aspects of human rights protection for persons with disabilities. Moreover, DPOs are usually familiar with the CRPD (or, if not, they benefit from looking closely at what it says). So the PNG group looked at the main headings in the Rights section of the CRPD and, when they had something to say about those topics and some real-life examples or case studies, they used the headings as the framework or structure for their report.

Work together on the recommendations

Recommendations in UPR reports are about what the government should do to improve the human rights environment in the country. Well-thought and well-framed resolutions, supported by factual information and case studies, are the most important feature of the report. The PNG group brainstormed recommendations arising from their discussions and their review of previous UPR recommendations and other publications.

Make sure that a capable writer is available

A good writer from the TLM International Office was available. The PNG team used a spreadsheet to list recommendations, references, supporting evidence and case studies or examples, and the writer used these as the basis for the first draft. The final report was ten pages long and contained 29 recommendations. The ILEP Office recommends looking at this report as a potential model, but not seeing it as a target: some other UPR reports are shorter.

It was worth doing

At the outset the task seemed very big but once the stakeholders were together and a structure had been decided upon, it became more straightforward. In addition to the production of the UPR report, it was a very good way for an ILEP member to work with the DPOs and other in-country stakeholders.