The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC)

		Website: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/
		Keywords: Universal periodic review, human rights, United Nations, human rights monitoring

[I]t noted that the major human rights issues in every State under review had been raised in a constructive manner, showing that the intention of the General Assembly that the universal periodic review should be a cooperative mechanism based on interactive dialogue could actually work. Secondly, the Netherlands was pleased to see so many Member States actively participating in the process. Thirdly, it experienced an increasing openness and transparency as the sessions evolve. For the moment, the Netherlands considered the review a 'work in progress' that would ultimately contribute to the improvement of the human rights situation in all countries.[14]

2) Initiate a debate on the death penalty, with a view to reaching responsive conclusions consistent with international human rights law (Egypt).
[It explained] The Kingdom of the Netherlands firmly opposes the death penalty everywhere. Capital punishment was abolished in the Netherlands in 1870. This principle is enshrined in the Constitution and applies even in wartime. The Kingdom of the Netherlands pursues the worldwide abolition of the death penalty partly through its bilateral foreign policy and more importantly through close cooperation with its EU partners. The Kingdom of the Netherlands therefore cannot support this recommendation.[15]

[T]he United States underscored the importance of civil society in the UPR process and appreciated Tunisia's statement of its engagement with civil society in preparing the national report. On the issue of NGOs and unions, the United States noted that there have been reports that the registration of some NGOs were refused by the Government and asked what the applicable registration requirements and controls were for NGOs operating in Tunisia. . . .[19]

The use of methods banned under the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment is not permitted in Poland. The Polish Penal Code envisages the penalty of between one and ten years imprisonment for the use of force, illegal threats or other form of physical or mental cruelty by a public official or person acting in his/her name in order to obtain specific testimony, explanations, information or statements. Furthermore, the Penal Code penalizes physical or mental cruelty against a person legally deprived of liberty, with punishment also envisaged for public officials who allow the commitment of such acts in dereliction of their duty. Any other abuse of force by public officials during the fulfillment of their duties, or in dereliction of duty, reported by the injured party or otherwise disclosed, is investigated in each instance through preparatory proceedings, being treated as autonomous crimes of abuse of authority or dereliction of duty, or cumulatively with other applicable offenses. Furthermore, it should be pointed out that Poland is a party to various international treaties dealing with prosecution of torture. The definitions of torture contained in these conventions constitute part of the Polish legal order and are applied directly by Polish courts.[23]

[N]oted that India has not ratified the Convention against Torture . . . or its Optional Protocol. It recommended that India ratify both instruments at the earliest opportunity. The United Kingdom asked for additional information on (a) reports of attacks against persons from religious or other minorities, in particular in Orissa State; (b) steps to implement treaty body recommendations on the Armed Forces Special Powers Act; (c) anti-conversion legislation; and (c) [stet] the communal violence crimes bill. It welcomed the involvement of civil society in the national preparatory process for the UPR session and recommended that they be fully involved in the follow-up to UPR.[24]

India noted that Canada, as well as others, referred to the impunity for human rights violations under the Armed Forces Act which was incorrect. India stated that no forces, armed or police, function with impunity. Armed forces were under strict orders not to transgress human rights and the strictest action is taken, and incidents are swiftly adjudicated, including through courts-martial.[25]

Regarding castes and racial discrimination, India noted that both Canada and Germany mentioned India's position on the scope of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD). India stated that their position on ICERD is unchanged and that while they recognize that caste-based discrimination exists in India, since the caste system, which is unique to India, is not racial in origin, caste based discrimination cannot be considered a form of racial discrimination.[26]

1. Certain countries make a point of lauding the UPR system, new though it is. The Netherlands and Poland are notable in this respect.
2. Certain countries praise the one under scrutiny. Japan's calling Tunisia "one of the most democratic societies . . . in the Arab world [with a] very high status of women" is an example, as is Malaysia's calling attention to Tunisia's ratification of "nearly all the international human rights instruments."
3. Criticism is also heard, as in the US's noting "reports that the registration of some NGOs were refused by the Government" of Tunisia and in the UK's calling attention to India's not having ratified the Convention against Torture or its Optional Protocol.
4. Defenses are plainly expressed, as the Netherlands did for its stance against the death penalty and Poland did as to torture. India was equally firm in its rejection of references to impunity under its Armed Forces Act.
5. Countries that are seen as overly critical of others may receive some of the same back when their turn comes, while those that praise may earn themselves a degree of tolerance.