UPR Conference Summary by DHRP

SUMMARY DOCUMENT

CONTENTS

CONFERENCE IN BRIEF ................................................................................................................................................................. 3

Session 1: Regional Tendencies in the Area of Human Rights Promotion and Protection: the Role of Media and Human Rights Defenders ................................................................................................................................. 4 Session 2A: Human Rights Advocates: Taming the Leviathan. Joining Efforts for Change........................... 6 Section 2B: Journalists for Human Rights: Between Passion and Impartiality ..................................................... 6 Session 3: Human Rights Defenders and Journalists: Why We Need to Talk to Each Other? ......................... 8 Session 4: Universal Periodic Review: Triangulation of Cooperation ...................................................................... 9 Session 5: From International Human Rights Mechanisms to National Transformations – the Need for a Holistic Approach to International Recommendations ............................................................................................. 11 CONFERENCE AGENDA .............................................................................................................................................................. 13 SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS AND PUBLICATIONS OF THE CONFERENCE: “UPR IN THE CIS COUNTRIES” AND “30 STEPS TO EFFECTIVENESS: A MANUAL FOR MEDIA AND HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVISTS ................................. 18 PROJECT IN BRIEF ......................................................................................................................................................................... 20

CONFERENCE IN BRIEF In all countries there are institutions and groups that stand by as human rights guardians. State agencies have a key role and primary responsibility for upholding and protecting human rights. They have the legitimate right to limit freedoms and use force, but are also accountable for human rights observance, and for that reason, they need to be open to other human rights actors for cooperation. No less essential are non-state entities that drive the human rights agenda forward—the civil society organizations and the journalist community. While the role of CSOs in the promotion and protection of human rights has long been recognized, the significance of the journalist community as a system of “checks and balances” for human rights observance has been less underscored. It is a fact, however, that free, independent and pluralistic media are a core element of any functioning democracy. In addition to disseminating information, the media educate and shape opinions, and in order to fulfill these roles effectively, networks are necessary both within the human rights oriented journalist community and between the civil society and the media. Such interactions can amplify not only the human rights message but also its impact. In recent years, a new UN mechanism – the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) – has been created to allow for a review of human rights issues between states. This instrument enables to receive critical feedback on human rights issues from other states, and to review and adopt some of the good practices that other countries have tried for themselves. While being primarily a peer review instrument involving states, the opportunities the UPR offers to advance human rights protection can only be realized to their full extent through the involvement and mobilization of national human rights institutions, local grass-root organizations and the media community. All these topics were covered extensively as part of a one-and-a-half day conference “Building Bridges: Collaborative Networks and International Mechanisms for Human Rights Protection” which took place on 21-22 March 2013 in Kyiv and brought together over 140 human rights defenders, journalists, representatives of National Human Rights Institutions, and public officials from ten countries. Despite having a regional focus on CIS states – represented by Belarus, the Russian Federation, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and , Uzbekistan, – delegates from Denmark, Great Britain, Poland, Slovakia and Switzerland also joined the event. The Forum was organized by the United Nations Development Programme in Ukraine and supported by the British Embassy in Kyiv and the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. The Helsinki Human Rights Union stood up as human rights partner, the Human Rights Information Center acted as information partner, and the Ukrainian Association of Press Publishers – as media partner.

CONFERENCE HIGHLIGHTS • • • • •

Over 140 human rights defenders and journalists 10 countries represented, including Belarus, Denmark, Great Britain, Poland, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Switzerland, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan 46 presentations delivered to share experience and forge partnerships 15 hours of intense interaction in the conference halls and followed by informal discussions afterwards 3 knowledge products produced shared: 2 of them designed for the Europe and the CIS (ECIS) region

•

SUMMARY OF SESSIONS1 Introductory opening remarks to the Conference discussions emphasized the inalienability of human rights from the development discourse and the necessity to utilize all possible means and tools to advance human rights as cornerstone of socio-economic development, as opposed to seeing them as a prize that comes in when such development is achieved. Evolution of human rights instruments in the world was noted, and emergence of such peer-based instruments as the Universal Periodic Review commended. Any country had to be in constant progress towards bettering its human rights record, and should not shy away from legal debates that were a necessary part of the society’s maturation to embrace human rights in their entirety. When touching upon the opportunities that the Universal Periodic Review presented before the member-states, it was noted that the most important stages of this cycle were not taking place in Geneva during the review of the National Report and alternative submissions from civil society organizations. Instead, the Geneva-based interaction was but one short stop alongside the four-and-a-half year cycle, and the most crucial events took place after the recommendations were marked down as accepted and the national implementation plan adopted. The keynote address, which followed welcoming and introductory observations, concentrated on the perspectives on the paths that Poland had gone through in nurturing its media as a guardian of democratic values and aspirations of the state. The trend towards “infotainment” in media was spotlighted as alarming worldwide. Necessity of cooperation between highly qualified and ethical representatives of media with other stakeholders in the human rights and democratization realm was marked down as a cornerstone for nurturing the societal awareness of its human rights and freedoms. Session 1: Regional Tendencies in the Area of Human Rights Promotion and Protection: the Role of Media and Human Rights Defenders Session 1 acted as a springboard into Conference discussions and was moderated by well-known Ukrainian TV-host, Mr. Andriy Kulykov. The section’s discussants included Executive Director of the Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Group, Mr. Arkadiy Bushchenko, Advocacy Programme Director of the Human Rights House Foundation, Mr. Florian Irminger, Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights, Ms. Valeria Lutkovska, journalist, co-founder of the “Mirror Weekly”, Mr. Vladimir Mostovoi, and Human Rights Defender and Editor-in-Chief of “The Caucasian Knot”, Mr. Grigory Shvedov. A blitz-interview launched the section discussions regarding the general situation in Ukraine regarding human rights, as the most recent report of human rights organizations for 2012 in Ukraine noted that in 2012 “the State policy in this [human rights] sphere changed somewhat and the human rights situation became more diverse and tapestry-like”2. The responses to the statement were versatile: ranging from apprehension to speak of the holistic situation in the country without concrete examples and voicing concerns about some alarming trends in the human rights realm within Ukraine (including rise in homophobic attitudes) to acknowledgement of progress in some areas coupled with backslides in others and general hopes for better prospects in the years to come. Speakers noted that indeed a degree of diversity could be observed on the human rights stage. Positive trends included the beginning of the criminal justice reform and launch of the free legal aid provision; on the other hand, in a lot of spheres, including the freedom of assembly, the situation had deteriorated. As far as the cooperation with media in the human rights area was concerned, much was left to be yet attained, as—for example—not enough analytical publications were being presented by the media.

The summary remarks are intended to grasp the general themes and issues discussed throughout the Conference. They should not be taken as an official position of the UN system, including UNDP and UNHCHR, or of other agencies participating in the discussions. The summary, even when using quotes, should not be treated as shorthand minutes of the meetings and discussions. 2 http://helsinki.org.ua/files/docs/1362720077.pdf

Notably, not all of the burning human rights issues in the country had been addressed properly and received due and deserved attention. At the same time, underlying cooperation between human rights defenders, the National Human Rights Institution and the media were by themselves a prerequisite for fruitful work. Developments with the National Preventive Mechanism (for torture prevention), the personal data protection systems and antidiscrimination themes were further discussed. Emphasis was made on the openness and readiness of the Ombudsman’s Office to cooperate with the civil society in Ukraine. This could guarantee a more effective upstream of priorities determined by the CSOs to the national level through the Office. The journalistic take on the problem vocalized a problematic relation between the two professional communities: human rights defenders oftentimes could find, summarize and put together certain information and statistical data. At the same time, even this pre-processed information was very often not presented in a bright and interesting manner. The readers would not be touched by mere numbers— no matter how impressive those were—but would be compelled to read good stories and well-crafted materials. The author needed to be engulfed in the topic, so that it could be of interest to others. As such, the degree of cooperation between the human rights and journalist communities had to be much bigger. A contrasting point of view was immediately presented, noting that the work of the media should be viewed through the prism of market relations, where there should be demand for human rights stories from the audience first. Media forming the demand for human rights stories and spoon-feeding such materials to the audience was not the best way to proceed. In the Caucasus region, it was noted, there was no lack of human rights stories, whereas the issue at root was the lack of human interest in such stories. Hence, human rights should not be promoted through media (a faulty approach, according to some panelists), but instead one should engage in human rights “marketing” approaches to make stories appealing. Additionally, there should be a gradual shift in the societal mentality from the concept of “crowdsourcing” of the information (getting it from the citizens) to “crowdsharing” of the information, where everyone who published would be part of the demand-fabric for human rights stories and by publishing himself or herself increase the overall interest. Another point of view maintained that human rights journalism should be promoting human rights as a value. At the same time, the state had to proactively protect both human rights journalists and the human rights activists. According to further deliberations, in some countries of the region the state machinery was oftentimes playing with the civil society, while effectively preventing change. Responding to the question from the audience regarding a possible and necessary shift in the Ukrainian context from human rights defense to human rights offensive, some of the panelists noted that the onsets of the human rights defenders against injustice have begun long ago and were picking up speed. This was one of the signs of civil society maturity and ability to pressure the state into compliance with human rights norms. Furthermore, a number of cases were mentioned when in cooperation and with assistance from the Office of the Ombudsman human rights violation cases were solved. On the other hand focus had to be maintained at solving systemic challenges through attention to separate stories. This, in turn, sparked an internal discussion regarding the preference to individual stories or systemic challenge highlighted in the media. One of the arguments dealt with importance of a human rights precedent in journalism, whereas systemic issues needed to be brought closer to the audience through separate cases but with necessary reference to a wider framework. The speaker lamented the fact that certain journalist genres could be dying out due to absence of the high-quality professionals to write such materials. One of the examples that was under duress was the so-called “courtroom story” that delved into the details behind a concrete court-case.

Session 2A: Human Rights Advocates: Taming the Leviathan. Joining Efforts for Change The session was led by a panel of four experts, amongst them Advocacy Expert at the Human Rights House Foundation, Ms. Anna Innocenti, Director of the Human Rights Institute, Mr. Valentin Gefter, Programme Officer at the Ukrainian Center for Independent Political Research, Mr. Maksym Latsyba, and Head of the East Ukrainian Center for Civic Initiatives, Mr. Volodymyr Shcherbachenko. The session was moderated by Programme Director for the Rule of Law at the International Renaissance Foundation, Mr. Roman Romanov. In the course of this section the lead-in presentation dealt with the most important elements of the UPR process and highlighted the key entry points through which advocacy efforts could be channeled within the periodic review paradigm. The earlier thought was reconfirmed that while the events in Geneva may have the potential for attracting attention of journalists (in particular the deliberations that are webcast live from the Palace of Nations), the most important, and by far the hardest, stage came once the recommendations were adopted to deliver upon the promises made in front of the international community. The panel further concentrated on the crucial necessity of civic control over the activities of government bodies. The situation with monitoring certain types of government bodies could be complicated, especially if one talked of monitoring the law enforcement agencies. Indeed, there existed multiple instruments to exercise such civic control, including monitoring, visits to places of incarceration, review of individual complaints, civic investigations and, without doubt, support to litigation. At the same time one of the main problems in the civic control realm lay in the fact that it was performed by activists, nonprofessionals, whereas especially for such agencies it was important to have professional controllers who could work on par with the agency representatives. A Ukrainian case study followed, presenting the history behind adoption of the new Ukrainian Law “On Public Associations” which entered into force in 2013. The advocacy strategies to get the legal instrument passed through the Ukrainian Parliament included face-to-face lobbying with the relevant Committee members and MPs that would be interested in supporting the bill. This was preceded by careful mapping of both possible allies and adversaries and devising of a strategy to empower the first ones and neutralize the second. Tactics for building bipartisan support to the bill were shared alongside tips to use public rallying techniques to attract attention to the issue. Advocacy for the adoption of this important piece of legislation that would ease registration and operation of civil society organizations in Ukraine was an uneasy but totally doable task provided that smart strategies were utilized in getting parliamentary support and inclusion of civic expertise at the elaboration stage. To conclude the session deliberations, a story was shared of a project on declassifying city master-plans, which should be basis for urban development in Ukrainian municipalities. Strategies that the project used to garner support were discussed alongside challenges that showed up along the way. The recognized issue of most concern was the complexity of balancing out the rights for access to information with the requirements for secrecy imposed by certain Ukrainian agencies. Intermediate results of the work aimed at disclosing the data of the city master-plans were presented. Section 2B: Journalists for Human Rights: Between Passion and Impartiality This parallel session was moderated by the founder of “Svidomo” Bureau of Journalist Investigations, Mr. Yegor Sobolev, and its panelists featured the journalist of Uznews.net, Mr. Said Abdurakhimov, coordinator of the No Borders Initiative, Mr. Maksym Butkevych, head of the Association of Media Lawyers, Ms. Tatiana Katiuzhynskaya, co-founder of the “Mirror Weekly”, Mr. Vladimir Mostovoi, editor-inchief of the “Rakurs” website, Ms. Alexandra Prymachenko, and the Society Columnist of the Den’ daily newspaper, Ms. Maria Semenchenko.

The opening discussion necessitated the need for solutions: people-solutions who could inspire others with their example and lead forward, as well as systemic solutions, which could chip at the underlying societal challenges. It was also crucial for the human rights defenders and journalists to share the toolsets for self-protection as well as field expertise. Journalists were not merely responsible for raising a human rights issue on the pages or a screen, but they were rather responsible for solving those issues on par with other stakeholders involved. Discussions proceeded to the problematic of positioning human rights in Ukraine: whereas these rights were considered important, they have not positioned themselves in the crucial niche of societal discourse. Moreover, Ukrainian journalists lacked critical self-reflection regarding the work they produced, while human rights defenders were unaware, most of the time, of the specifics of journalist work. It was reiterated that protection of journalists was an important topic, as well as a shared domain for human rights defenders and journalists. There was another potent and logical connection between the two communities, as the first one was the carrier of the content, whereas the second one—a medium to rethink, re-produce and carry the content widely. Yet, while one TV story or article could help solve one stand-alone issue, systemic human rights journalism work was on demand, especially in the unfortunate situation of today’s dominance of fragmented “infotainment”. Worthwhile remembering was also the fact that a journalist could either help in a situation or make it only worse, if acting unprofessionally. Growing importance of social media to prevent journalists’ rights violations was emphasized. The discussion then proceeded to review the barriers to fully free functioning of media in Uzbekistan, existence of a rather limited circle of human rights defenders and independent journalists, as well as scarcity of human rights as a topic in official media. Alleged persecution of journalists and human rights defenders was noted, coupled with cases of them seeking asylum. Returning to the more general theme of the session, the discussion dwelled on the need for high-quality texts that deal with human rights coupled with a firm position regarding human rights and objectivity. The journalists had to operate not through emotions, but through facts that could elicit emotions from the audience. At the same time, journalists could not function without human rights defenders, since the latter keep track of the situation in real-time. The most precious asset in this realm was the trust between a human rights defender and the journalist that had to be cherished—not abused. It was further proposed that interaction between journalists and human rights defenders was “a natural marriage”. The professional standards in this realm were rather simple – there were no boring themes: only boring authors. Human rights could and had to be described in an interesting manner. It was also observed that a journalist diploma was—to a certain extent—a contract with the society. Thus, journalists had to be able to master the relevant standards of work, also thereby protecting them from court cases. Furthermore, a human rights defender had to be interesting for both the press and the government authorities, the discussion maintained. Too often human rights defenders wrote in bland, dry language of legalese, which somewhat devalued the messages. On a different note, protection of journalists from unlawful activities of the law enforcement representatives was crucial. A success story that was shared with the audience pertained to joint elaboration of a special instruction for the police on prevention of such cases. Systemic awareness-raising amongst the journalist community regarding the existing legal framework was also deemed necessary. Closer to the end of the discussion it became evident that a problem rested with insufficient attention of national media to the violations of rights of local journalists, which could have been used as an effective means of addressing this malady in many cases. Additionally, the audience exchanged opinions as to the current state of editorial offices in Ukraine, which was rather dire, and hence journalists could not have specializations (were forced to cover a wide variety of themes). This, in turn, led to inexperienced journalists making mistakes that sometimes cost them a court case. Finally, it was noted that there was no separate genre of human rights journalism per se. Rather, there was the ability of a journalist to comment upon an issue from a human-rights-based perspective and better understand what human 7

rights were. The discussion concluded with agreement as to the absence of an effective and free media market in Ukraine, which—led to debilitation of democratic safeguards in the country. Session 3: Human Rights Defenders and Journalists: Why We Need to Talk to Each Other? The session that followed on in the general assembly hall, as the Conference proceeded, was called to look closer at such issues as press-freedom and censorship, social media and the role of citizen-journalism as well as human rights education. The session was moderated by a well-known former TV journalist in Ukraine, Ms. Natalia Sokolenko. The expert panel included the Director of the Humanitarian Human Rights Center, Mr. Shukhrat Ganiyev, Head of the Freedom of Press Committee with the Union of Journalists of Russia, Mr. Pavel Gutiontov, journalist and editor of the “Telekrytyka” Magazine, Ms. Diana Dutsyk, Director of the Human Rights Information Center, Ms. Tetiana Pechonchyk, and human rights defender and co-founder of “We understand human rights” programme, Mr. Kostiantyn Reutski. The tone was set by enumerating the latest trends regarding strengthening of censorship, adoption of new laws that limit the freedom of speech, as well as stranglehold of so-called “jeans” materials (unmarked political PR articles which were positioned as good-faith publications) and paid materials in Ukrainian media. Special attention was given to the proposal of the First Deputy Prosecutor General to re-introduce criminal responsibility for defamation, as well as the reaction of the national and international journalist communities. Human rights education at the school level and possible variants for effective awareness-raising programmes were highlighted as themes for possible elaboration. In response to the introductory points it was noted that the official position in Uzbekistan was the absence of censorship. At the same time, there seemed to be no demand from the citizens to go deeper into the human rights theme. This could be explained by several reasons: amongst them—the fear of retaliation of the system, fear to lose a job and not be able to find a new one (especially in smaller locations). On the other hand, media tended to react to the demand created by their audiences and there seemed to be no demand for the human rights themes. Shifting to the Russian context, it was mentioned that encroachments on the freedom of press in Russia were much more severe and aggressive than in Ukraine. A recent situation was showcased where a seemingly innocent mispronunciation by a famous TV host in a live show triggered the Russian Parliament to start considering a law which would “prohibit foreigners that discredit Russia to work in state-owned media.” While upon public apology of the journalist the idea was revoked, this illustrated the extent to which a law could be promptly put together to target a single person. Assails against human rights in Russia took a wave-like shape with first administrative responsibility introduced, and later on – criminal responsibility. Human rights had been well studied by their opponents and those who violate them, therefore, protection could come from being knowledgeable in these rights as well. Describing the Ukrainian context some figures were shared pertaining to the topics that were hushed down by national TV channels over the last months. According to the presenter’s data, the number of such topics, especially pertaining to protest activities and courts forbidding peaceful assembly, was on the rise—almost in parallel to election times. The other challenge was the lack of information regarding the violations of human rights of grassroots journalists by national media. At the same time, such fragmentation of the journalist community was not conducive to united defense against onslaught on the freedom of speech. The observed mistrust between the journalists and human rights defenders was oftentimes the fault of journalists, due to overwhelming attention to entertainment rather than to serious materials. Speaking from the point of academia, one could also note decreased quality of students of journalism, and possibility to introduce a course in media literacy into the school system to teach the children to discern high-quality materials from their poor-quality counterparts. The panelists were then presented the results of the questionnaire which was conducted amongst Ukrainian citizens in September 2012 regarding the general understanding of human rights and assessments of whether the state respected those rights. The research resurfaced a paternalistic approach to the state-citizen interaction, where the respondents talked of poor medical care, low pensions and salaries without referring to the freedom of speech or peaceful assembly. Furthermore, the 8

media space almost had no niches for human rights education as of now. On a different note, journalists had to take their stands, and many of them did through the Ukrainian Human Rights Journalist Network, which united over 100 media specialists. Returning to the issue of human rights education, it was highlighted that it could not yiled fast results and the existing programmes, such as “We understand human rights”, were but pieces of a large puzzle. The main task at the present point in time was to align the strategies and tactics in struggling for rights. Human rights education as integrated into the educational system was needed. At the same time, anything which went into the curricula through the “top-down” approach was unlikely to take root and would be alien to the student body as something “forcefully implemented”. If such a subject was to be introduced, it has to be under control of the civil society. Another important task for human rights education programmes for adults was emphasized (in particular journalists who oftentimes did not understand the essence of human rights): to teach them to see / comment events through the human rights lens. In fact, there was no special genre of human rights journalism and it probably would not be needed as such. At the same time, if journalists learned to comment issues through the human rights lens, this would be a true breakthrough. Another issue was the absence of a free media market and the challenge of its emergence and stimulation. The discussion further on returned to the feasibility and necessity to merge the two identities—those of a journalist and a human rights defender—into a unifying human rights journalist notion. The audience noted that it might not be a good idea to force activists to identify themselves every time that they perform their task or write an article. It could be wrong to mix the two terms into one and produce something stand-alone. This thesis was supported by the example of Anna Politkovskaya, who managed to be a human rights activist, but remained unmistakably a journalist by trade. In addition, it was noted that the issue of human rights education and, even more important, the exercise of such rights, rested with each individual. Finally, the audience agreed that—talking of social media— these constituted much more than computer networks, hence spread of human rights ideas through these new media was of extreme importance. Session 4: Universal Periodic Review: Triangulation of Cooperation This session took place in the course of day two, which dwelt on international frameworks for human rights monitoring and assessment, including, in particular, the UPR mechanism. The session was moderated by Human Rights Advisor, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mr. Marc Bojanic, and its five-person panel consisted of Chief of UPR Section, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mr. Christophe Peschoux, Deputy Head, Office of the Commissioner for Human Rights in the Russian Federation, Mr. Georgiy Kunadze, Government Commissioner for European Court of Human Rights Matters, Mr. Nazar Kulchytskyi, Head of Department, National Institute of Democracy and Human Rights, Ms. Semshat Atajanova, as well as Human Rights Defender, Co-Manager “No Borders” Project, Ms. Iryna Fedorovych. Introductory remarks concentrated on main principles of the UPR, including universality, periodicity and peer intergovernmental review, which offered new opportunities to the governments and stakeholders to assess positive developments and challenges with the purpose of improving human rights situation and fulfilling human rights obligations. UPR as a process based on interactive dialogue and participation was designed to complement and not duplicate other UN human rights mechanisms. It was underlined that the participation of all relevant stakeholders including human rights CSOs and media was encouraged throughout all relevant steps of the UPR process. This could include broad dissemination of outcomes and recommendations of the UPR, sound public advocacy to encourage the government’s establishing a national mechanism for monitoring implementation of UPR recommendations and commitments made by the government, as well as proactive liaison with international organizations including the UN Country Teams for sharing practices and promoting the integration of UPR recommendations in their work and programmes at country level. 9

Based on OHCHR engagement to advance inclusive participation of stakeholders at all phases of UPR process, National Human Rights Institutions had a critical role to play in preparing and submitting information and ensuring active interaction with UPR mechanisms along with respective governments. In this context, OHCHR Moscow explored the possibility of engaging with the Office of the Commissioner for Human Rights in light of the 2nd cycle of UPR of Russia, which would take place in April 2013. To this end, the Ombudsman’s Office in its NHRI capacity of with status “A”, submitted a separate contribution on the situation of human rights in the Russian Federation. While reiterating the importance of the UPR mechanism and involvement of NHRIs in the process, it was also noted that restrictive modalities for submitting information by stakeholders could deter efficient input and contribution of NHRIs to the UPR process. In addition, it was necessary to stimulate real public debate coupled with new thinking and analysis of different obstacles that hinder efficient follow-up to UPR considering the fact that UPR recommendations are nonbinding. On a different note, it was emphasized that the national report for UPR in Ukraine was prepared by an inter-Agency Working Group comprising representatives of concerned government institutions. Preparation of the report involved broad public discussion whereas participation of key actors from the civil society’s behalf was facilitated and coordinated by the Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union. With support of UNDP Ukraine a special web page regarding the UPR mechanism was established on the website of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine containing relevant information and documents for UPR. Moving over to issues within Turkmenistan, it was noted that the country had acceded to a number of international human rights bodies. With the support of the National Institute of Democracy and Human Rights the Government of Turkmenistan initiated the joint project “Strengthening the National Capacity of Turkmenistan to Promote and Protect Human Rights” carried out in collaboration with the European Commission, OHCHR, and UNDP. An Interdepartmental Commission on compliance with Turkmenistan’s international obligations in the field of human rights and international humanitarian law was established to interact with human rights mechanisms. The activities of this institution were coordinated by the President of the National Institute of Democracy and Human Rights. In this regard, the Interdepartmental Commission was responsible for preparing and submitting country reports to UN Treaty Bodies and monitoring the conformity of national legislation with international human rights norms. The Interdepartmental Commission established a constructive dialogue with international actors, namely OHCHR, UNDP, UNICEF, UNFPA, UNHCR and other UN agencies on preparing country reports, implementing the recommendations of the United Nations treaty bodies and carrying out joint initiatives. The discussion proceeded to look at the space for freedom of expression and association in Uzbekistan. Discussants noted a rather complicated context for human rights defenders, government critics and independent journalists. According to the speakers representing Uzbekistan, human rights defenders and journalists continued to be summoned for questioning at their local police stations, placed under house arrest or otherwise prevented from attending meetings with international organizations’ representatives, or from taking part in peaceful demonstrations. It was further emphasized that Uzbek authorities had been very lukewarm to allowing independent human rights organizations to operate in the country, and the few activists that remained in the state faced sustained surveillance, harassment, and abuse. In the course of the Q&A session main topics raised dealt on efficient implementation and follow-up to UPR recommendations as well as inclusive participation of civil society at all steps of UPR process ranging from the preparation of the national report to the implementation of UPR outcomes and recommendations. The panelists came to a common vision that UPR was an opportunity for governments to develop/strengthen internal consultation, cooperation and coordination mechanisms to implement their human rights obligations, monitor their implementation and facilitate periodic assessment/reporting about progress to United Nations human rights mechanisms. UPR was also an opportunity for civil society actors and NHRIs (a) to be recognized as relevant human rights actors with an important role to play at national/international levels in the promotion and protection of human rights, and to promote this role; (b) to coordinate and strengthen their human rights work at the national 10

level, including their cooperation with and involvement in the UPR process and cooperation with other UN human rights mechanisms; (c) to engage with, and initiate human rights dialogue with national authorities; and, finally, (d) to promote the public accountability of national authorities. Session 5: From International Human Rights Mechanisms to National Transformations – the Need for a Holistic Approach to International Recommendations The last session of the Conference touched upon a crucial stage in delivering upon international human rights commitments and promises: the recommendations implementation stage. The session, moderated by Policy Adviser for Rule of Law, Human Rights & Justice at the UNDP Bureau for Europe and the CIS, Mr. Monjurul Kabir, was joined by Senior Adviser at the Danish Institute for Human Rights, Ms. Annete Faye Jakobsen, Representative of the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights, Mr. Mykhailo Chaplyha, Head of the Initiative Group of Independent Human Rights Defenders, Mr. Surat Ikramov, Head of the Human Rights Union “Ezgulik” Ms. Vasila Inoyatova, as well as OHCHR Human Rights Officer, Mr. Nicolas Fasel. Opening remarks for the session dealt with the short overview of the main points from previous sessions and emphasized that UPR was the space for many stakeholders to come and join efforts. At the same time, one of the most crucial questions was how to meaningfully implement UPR recommendations on the ground after adoption. Danish experience of the UPR participation from the point of view of the National Human Rights Institution was presented first. The main achievement within Denmark was establishment of bridges between national and international levels. Examples of two biggest success and biggest failure stories were shared. The failure lay in the fact that the NGO community was left completely disillusioned after the national consultation process, as the government took nothing from their preparatory work and did not build on their experience and practical achievements. On the other hand, the success story was that the Child Rights Coalition (one of the strongest among NGO coalitions within the whole process), harmonized their priorities—building on previous recommendations gained with other monitoring/reporting mechanisms—and worked on a much stronger outreach campaign. All their joint work resulted in establishing a special position of the Child’s Ombudsman after the UPR cycle. Summing up, a more strategic vision needed to be cultivated amongst the CSOs so that they asked themselves the question of “how to deal with UPR recommendations after you get them”. Within the Ukrainian perspective, new leadership of the country’s Office of the Ombudsman brought in new approaches and values into the work of the NHRI. One of these was the stable cooperation with CSOs and their coalitions. During the implementation stage vis-à-vis the recommendations received through the second UPR cycle, the OO planned to concentrate on using its CSO Consultative Council under the Ombudsman, promoting the UPR mechanism, ensuring understanding of the executive government branch regarding the necessity and importance to comply with UPR recommendations, as well as elaboration of a unified government concept of human rights defense in Ukraine and promotion of its adoption as a law or decree. Dwelling on the plans for the nearest future, it was noted that there were several target groups and avenues for popularizing the work of the Ukrainian NHRI. The first audience was obviously the CSOs, which were reached out to jointly develop indicators for assessment of recommendations’ progress in Ukraine. The second thing would be to launch a campaign on raising awareness regarding the UPR mechanism. The third step would be to keep announcing as widely as possible through all media the position of the Ombudsman regarding human rights issues with necessary reference to relevant UPR recommendations and notes on what UPR is. This would increase journalist awareness of the Review. The last step in this direction would be to work with the government agencies to lobby the implementation of recommendations. Lastly, experiences of international / regional networks of human rights defense networks, as well as a network to protect human rights defenders themselves (in Uzbekistan) were shared. A challenge for such entities in repressive environments was the fact that they could not be registered, and thus become ineligible for international donor assistance. Returning to the situation in Uzbekistan, the discussants gave a detailed account of the human rights violation landscape in the country giving concrete examples and describing persecutions that human 11

rights defenders face (including torture and inhumane treatment, trumped-up charges and persecution of dissidence, absence of a fair trial, persecution of journalists and activists). It was also emphasized that it was no easy task to collect the information for the UPR, and that it was not easy to participate in such international instruments for the activists from within of Uzbekistan. International monitors and international (including intergovernmental) organizations were velvetly forced out of the country. Persecution of members of religious communities was also on the rise. Recommendations which were put together and up-streamed to the national level by CSOs were disregarded. On the other hand, it was noted that there were cases when individual officials reacted and dealt with situations on a case-by-case basis. There could be, therefore, underlying hidden dissent of some officials but they were afraid of going against the government. Another alarming trend was the fear of the youth in Uzbekistan to engage in human rights activities and hence—the decreasing number of human rights defenders and independent journalists in the country. The final presentation concentrated on a recent publication prepared and published by OHCHR – “Human Rights Indicators: a Guide to Measurement and Implementation”. The book had been launched at the HRC to member states the week before. This publication was a tool devoted to building bridges between researchers, NGOs, lawyers and other constituencies. This tool was to measure human rights violations and acts to overcome them and, hopefully, would build bridges between the HR community and policy makers. Apart from publishing this tool and presenting it on various platforms, OHCHR was planning on organizing trainings for different target groups on how to use this tool. The manual contained simple expiations on how to use indicators and was also built on examples from different countries.

CONFERENCE AGENDA

SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS AND PUBLICATIONS OF THE CONFERENCE: “UPR IN THE CIS COUNTRIES” AND “30 STEPS TO EFFECTIVENESS: A MANUAL FOR MEDIA AND HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVISTS

What is the experience of the CIS countries in going through the UPR? What questions did UN member states raise in relation to the CIS states? How did the CIS countries react to recommendations? These were just some of the issues discussed at the morning session of the “Building Bridges: Collaborative Networks and International Mechanisms for Human Rights Protection” Regional Conference for human rights defenders and journalists held in Kyiv on 21-22 March. Developed within the framework of UNDP project “Leveraging change through the Universal Periodic Review” with financial support from the British Embassy in Kyiv, the “UPR in the CIS Countries” study is a pathblazer, presenting a first ever comprehensive analysis pertaining to the CIS region. It resulted in a number of interesting findings, in particular: • • •

• • •

•

Recommendations involving international obligations and human rights institutional protection were mentioned 528 times in total, representing 24% of all recommendations made to CIS countries. Only 6% of all recommendations to CIS countries came from regional counterparts, which testifies to a rather low participation rate in the mutual, intra-regional review. There is thematic variation between the topics raised by CIS and non-CIS states in recommendations to countries within the region: o Most frequently the non-CIS delegations recommended enhanced participation in the international human rights instruments (223 items), ensuring protection of women’s rights (167 items), and promoting the rights of the child (164 items); o CIS-countries called on their regional peers to observe the rights of minorities (11 items), women’s rights (10 items) and to prevent human trafficking (9 items). In terms of acceptance and rejection rates in the first UPR cycle, the acceptance rate of all recommendations in the region (74%) parallels the rate for the rest of the world (73,5%). The CIS countries with highest recommendation acceptance rates are Moldova (122 accepted, 1 rejected) followed by Kyrgyzstan (154 accepted, 3 rejected), while the highest rejection rates rest with Russia (75 accepted, 41 rejected) and Belarus (124 accepted, 45 rejected). Recommendations pertaining to adherence to OPCAT (Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture) and ICCPR (OP2) (Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that abolishes the death penalty) constitute the category of “most rejected” recommendations. The “international instruments” category has an overall rejection rate of 28% in the region, while at the same time being most popular recommendation. In their alternative submissions to the UPR process, international CSOs raised the issues of civil and political rights much more often than national CSOs in the region. At the same time national CSOs highlighted the rights of women, children and people with disabilities more frequently than their international colleagues.

The last section of the research report detailed the success stories and best practices behind some of the UPR national preparation and implementation processes. Examples of Lichtenstein, Ukraine, Panama, Denmark, Burkina-Faso, Australia, Costa-Rica, FYR Macedonia and other states were briefly analyzed and suggested for further study and replication. The full publication in English and Russian may be found here: http://www.undp.org.ua/en/media/41-democratic-governance/1574-through-the-regional-prism-of-uprexperience

“30 Steps to Effectiveness: Using the Universal Periodic Review for Protecting and Advancing Human Rights”, a practical manual designed for the region of Eastern Europe and CIS states aims at encouraging a more proactive stance by human rights civil society organizations and journalists in relation to the Universal Periodic Review mechanism. It is also designed to equip them with the tools to do that effectively. Overall, it seems that the UPR mechanism has been underused by human rights defenders in the region and especially by the media, whether because of low awareness or simply caution about a new international instrument. While Ukrainian experience shows that participation of the civil society in preparing submissions for the UPR and forming coalitions to promote the human rights messages is on the rise (with four times as many organizations participating in the second cycle of the Review as the first one), the engagement of journalists with the mechanism has been less emphasized. This is especially unfortunate as the media are not merely informers but are seen as value-shapers and potent agents of change – of the mindsets and actions of individuals in the society. With these ideas in mind, the manual offers 30 steps — concrete actions and approaches — that can be taken by human rights activists and journalists to make the most of their participation in the UPR. The manual is one of the first to create an alloy of national experiences and global smart practices, and to specifically emphasize the cooperation of the two driving forces behind an effective UPR process and follow-up -- the CSOs and journalists. “30 Steps” is broken down into four main sections. The first gives a brief introduction into the foundations of Universal Periodic Review (UPR) as an international and national instrument of human rights oversight and promotion. The second part of the manual deals with practical advice for CSO activists on forming coalitions, preparing alternative submissions, partaking in the national consultations on the national report, lobbying the recommendations and shaping effective follow-up plans on the recommendations that the State has accepted for implementation. The third section dwells on the same issues but from the point of view of human rights journalists, offering suggestions on themes that can be highlighted in articles, news-pieces and talk-shows, and on strategies of effective interaction with the CSOs for mutually strengthening synergies. The fourth section, in this vein, highlights the experience of Ukrainian activists and journalists during the second UPR cycle from the beginning of 2012 until March 2013 when Ukraine adopted 145 recommendations from peer-countries. Ukraine’s experience has been meticulously collected, analyzed, documented and joined with the best practices that have been set out by Western researchers, practitioners and activists. Throughout the manual, links to documents, web-portals, databases and other resources are offered. The full publication Russian may be found here: http://www.undp.org.ua/en/media/41-democratic-governance/1575-step-up-action-on-upr

PROJECT IN BRIEF The “Leveraging Change through the Universal Periodic Review (UPR): Supporting CSOs and Journalist Communities in Human Rights Advocacy Efforts”3 Project was implemented by United Nations Development Programme in Ukraine from October 2012 until March 2013 with the financial support from the British Embassy in Ukraine. Background Ukraine was one of the first countries to undergo the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) in 2008. It received 40 recommendations, 34 of which were accepted by the Government of Ukraine, while six were rejected. However, the quality of the recommendations as well as their clarity was not always homogenous partly due to the experimental character of the UPR mechanism and partly due to the limited contribution of the CSOs to the process. The UPR was not followed up by continuous collective efforts of the Government, civil society and the donor community to implement accepted recommendations and to monitor progress. Three out of four Ukrainian CSOs which submitted contributions to the 2008 UPR focused on a limited number of human rights issues or specific rights-holder group, e.g. prisoners’ rights, LGBT rights and torture. As a result, the interests of other, equally important, vulnerable groups such as women, migrants, the disabled and youth were neglected. The year 2012 marked the second cycle of the UPR for Ukraine. The preparations for this review have started almost a year in advance with an active engagement of UNDP, which catalyzed coordinated contributions from Ukrainian human rights CSOs and raised awareness among government officials. UNDP backstopped an establishment of an informal coalition of human rights CSOs willing to contribute to the UPR collectively or individually. Joint facilitation and coordination of efforts paid off: whereas only 4 Ukrainian CSOs submitted inputs in 2008, this number grew tenfold in 2012, with 40 CSOs providing inputs either in a coalition with others or individually. In parallel, UNDP intensified its cooperation with the Ministry of Justice responsible for the UPR preparation on the Government side. This resulted in establishing of an Inter-agency working group for preparation of the State Report and a number of national consultations on the draft UPR State Report conducted between the Government and the human rights activists. UNDP support to the process at that time was provided within the framework of the Civil Society Development Programme, which phased out in June 2012. The UPR training for the media as well as the Contest on the best materials on UPR were conducted in September-October and funded from the BRC UPR Facility. In the Project that came as a follow-up to these efforts UNDP planned to keep supporting the CSO and media communities’ efforts in leveraging positive changes in the area of human rights through the UPR process. The Project was also designed to have a regional dimension. Selection of regional partner-countries was motivated by the fact that four of them will be undergoing their UPR cycle in April-May 2013. This timeframe, therefore, would be ideal for meaningful replication of Ukraine’s practices and lessons learned. Carrying out the mission The Project drew upon the lessons learnt and the results achieved during the preparation and follow up on Ukraine’s Universal Periodic Review in 2008 and 2012 to maintain a constructive dialogue between various stakeholders—the civil society, media and the Government—to make the UPR process a consultative and inclusive one. The Project aimed at using the UN UPR to advocate for necessary changes in countries’ policies and institutions to uphold the human rights agenda in Ukraine, Russia, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. The specific Project objectives were: • To strengthen capacities of human rights CSOs in Ukraine to provide coordinated and impactful inputs to the UPR and to effectively monitor implementation of its recommendations; • To enhance capacities of the media community in Ukraine to understand importance of the UPR, and serve as change agents (through covering important human rights dimensions in their work); To collect and share smart practices of successful and effective preparation and follow up on the UPR in the region. 3

The full Project Document http://undp.org.ua/files/en_94592ProDoc_signed.pdf.