Pamela Taylor/Human Rights Tribune – The Human Rights Council concluded the first cycle of its much-vaunted UPR mechanism with comments across the room calling it an historic, transparent and professional process. The reports on the first round of 32 countries whose human rights records were examined by their peers and included comments from NGOs, were approved by consensus.

Russia called the UPR process “powerful and effective”, Brazil said the transparent process left politics behind and Cuba called it an ‘outstanding historical success” and said “we have found the path to non-politicization.”

The proof of the pudding will of course be in the eating or as Peter Splinter of Amnesty International put it, “the test will be how human rights improve on the ground” in the individual countries reviewed.

The only criticism came from Western countries who, while granting overall approval for the process, cautioned that more needed to be done to take into consideration the concerns of civil society. Slovenia, speaking on behalf of EU and other non-EU European countries, cautioned that “we should take care to involve civil society more in future proceedings.”

The UPR mechanism was designed in three parts: a 10-page document from the state under review, another 10 pages from the appropriate UN experts and a final 10-page report grouping NGO concerns. The office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights synthesized these documents into the final reports that the Council considered in public session this week in Geneva.

Within the one hour time frame given to each country to present its case, respond to recommendations and make pledges for the future, NGOs got only 20 minutes to publicly raise issues that may or may not have been included in the final report.

“This is a key issue that’s been under dispute all week,” Marianne Lilliebjerg of Amnesty International, told HRT, “because different countries have different interpretations about what civil society should be allowed to say. Of course we don’t think there should be any restrictions other than to stick to the subject at hand – the human rights issues in the countries being reviewed!”

But Egypt, speaking for the African bloc of countries, clearly disagreed and objected to an NGO intervention first on Monday (June 9) and again Friday during the general debate when speakers are given more latitude.

With support from China, Algeria and others, Egypt called for a point of order three times to interrupt a speaker from the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS) who referred to four Arab countries who use procedures to avoid reforms. Three times, President Doru Romulus Costea allowed the NGO to continue until the speaker ran over his allotted time and, ignoring the President’s gavel, named the four countries: Bahrain, Tunisia, Morocco and Egypt.

Egypt was incensed and demanded the remarks be stricken from the record. Western nations cried foul with Germany calling Egypt’s demand ‘censorship’. The uproar lasted 45 minutes and took up much of the time allocated for the NGOs. President Costea reminded everyone that, in any case, the proceedings could be followed on the Council’s webcast.

“This reveals a weakness in the UPR mechanism,” Rolin Wavre of the World Organization Against Torture (OMCT) told HRT. “There should be more space for NGOs”. He called UPR a learning experience for everyone concerned. “Nobody knew what we were doing. But I would say overall the glass is both half empty and half full.”

At the end of the day, President Costea gave himself a point of order to have the final word. “General debates are one of the most extensive and exciting tools we have,” he said. “Don’t destroy it. General debate presumes disagreement.” He noted that there had been plenty of that in the room. “Imagine if we all agreed in this room. I lived in such a system for 50 years and I don’t think we want that!” and he gaveled the session to a close.

See our article "Egypt would censor NGOs at UN"