The significance of the UPR process in the advancement of Human Rights is not hidden to any Human Rights activist. However, Sudwind, as a member of civil society wants to raise its concern together with constructive suggestions for the following topics to be improved:
Sudwind noticed that one of the points about the UPR procedure that can be improved is the availability of the state’s report. As part of the procedure states can select some of the recommendations to be responded in the due time, however the term “due time” has been frequently misused by the states to be able to answer as late as possible. It has been observed several times that this addendum to reports have been provided at the same day in which the state’s UPR is in the order of the council. This behavior tightens the NGOs hands on reacting to the responses provided by the states.
In addition to the time constraints, the complexity for a specific NGO can grow even more when the answers provided by the states are just in one language and unknown that NGO. Sudwind is concerned that if this is a mechanism for some states to escape from well prepared observations.
To improve the UPR procedure, Sudwind suggests:
• Instead of using such vague terms as “due time”, a definite deadline shall be mentioned and followed by the states
• States to cover the topics that thematic and country Special Rapporteurs, Independent Experts and Working Groups have raised in their reports.