Statement by H.E. Dian Triansyah Djani, Ambassador/Permanent Representative of Indonesia at the 1st Meeting of the Open-ended Intergovernmental Working Group On the Review of the Work and functioning of the Human Rights Council
Agenda Item 4: Discussion on the IBP, including the Presentation on Concrete Proposals on UPR
Allow me to thank you once again, Mr. President, for continuing our important discussion today.
My delegation would like to align itself to the statements made by Egypt and Pakistan on behalf of the NAM and the OIC respectively.
As my delegation has mentioned before, the review of the Council’s work and functioning of the Human Rights Council is an important first milestone in the career of this still young institution.
The UPR mechanism is one of the newest and most prominent mechanisms of the promotion and protection of human rights. So far, 127 States have gone through the Review which aims at promoting and protecting human rights on the ground consistent with their national priorities and international obligations.
Therefore it is essential that this process is carried out impartially, effectively and efficiently, as per the principles that guided its creation. We should avoid politicization and focus on the quest of promoting and protecting human rights. On this basis, we would like to offer some further remarks and suggestions.
Over the past UPR sessions, my delegation observes that it has become increasingly clear that, to some countries, more technical assistance is needed for the preparation of the report, and equally important is technical assistance and capacity building for the implementation of the UPR recommendations, particularly for developing countries. Discussions on the format, resources allocation and other related modalities on this issue need to be further elaborated upon and we support efforts in this regard.
Regarding the UPR duration, Indonesia proposes and supports the recommendation that the review cycle should be extended to five years. This, we believe, would give the participating States more time to implement the recommendations accepted during the UPR and to prepare for the next UPR report. It would also give an ample time for the review process, including allotment of speaking times.
Moreover, Indonesia strongly believes that any recommendations made to States within the framework of the UPR process should be realistic and implementable. Therefore, States are encouraged to thoroughly consider the political and social structures of the States under Review in order to formulate practical and useful recommendations. At the end of the day, what is important is the improvement in the field of human rights.
Noting the report of Mr. Comba of the OHCHR Secretariat this morning that recommendations have increased 6 folds, Indonesia proposes that the formulation and clustering of recommendations should be further streamlined and rationalized, so as to ensure they can be accepted and implemented effectively by the States under Review (SuR). We believe that the Troika, with the full consent of the SuR and the assistance of the Secretariat, could play a bigger role in the formulation of the clustered recommendations. We propose that guidelines on formulating the UPR Working Group report should also be further elaborated upon.
Taking the cue from the Secretariat, documentation related to UPR should be user-friendly and not burdensome to delegations. We welcome proposal in this regards.
In order to ensure more attention focused on UPR, we propose that one of the 3 sessions of the HRC annually, is dedicated to the discussion and adoption of the UPR final outcomes under agenda item 6. The other two sessions will discuss other agenda items aside from agenda item 6. In principle, this would not change the IB Package which stipulates that The Council should hold 3 sessions per year.
Moreover, in response to the challenges arising from the past sessions of the UPR, there is a clear need to find a solution to the issue of the list of speakers, bearing in mind the increasing number of speakers as well as the queuing method. On the practical arrangements, we propose that the idea of drawing lots combined with alphabetical approach could be further explored.
Mr. President, my delegation remains open to further deliberation on this pertinent issue and look forward to engaging actively in our discussion.
Geneve, 26 October 2010