P 111400Z FEB 09
FM USMISSION GENEVA
TO SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 7975
INFO USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 
HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL COLLECTIVE

UNCLAS GENEVA 000117 
 
 
DEPT PASS TO L/HRR, DRL/MRLG, IO/RHS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS:PHUM, PREL, UNHRC-1 
SUBJECT: Canada's Human Rights Council Universal Periodic Review 
 
Summary 
----------------------------------- 
 
¶1.  On February 3, an 18 member delegation from the Government of 
Canada led by Deputy Justice Minister John Sims, participated in the 
Human Rights Council (HRC) Universal Periodic Review (UPR) Working 
Group "interactive dialogue."  During this three hour session, 
Canada described its actions to protect human rights and received 
extensive questions and recommendations from governments.   Pursuant 
to normal UPR processes, on February 5, the HRC Working Group issued 
a report regarding Canada, containing 68 specific recommendations 
for consideration by the GOC.  Canada will appear again in June 
before a plenary session of the HRC to discuss the report and 
announce which of the recommendations it accepts. 
 
¶2.  To make initial preparations for the US Government's December 
2010 UPR report and Working Group presentation, the Assistant Legal 
Adviser for Human Rights and Refugees and Mission Geneva policy and 
legal staff attended Canada's sessions, met with senior UN 
Secretariat staff, the UK and the Danish Missions on the UPR 
process, and held an "after action" briefing with the Canadian 
Government following the conclusion of Canada's Working Group 
process.  This cable describes the Canadian process and some of the 
highlights from those private meetings. End Summary 
 
An Overview of the UPR Process 
--------------------------------------- 
 
¶3.  The General Assembly Resolution creating the Human Rights 
Council (60/251) decided that the Council would "undertake a 
universal periodic review . . . of the fulfillment by each State of 
its human rights obligations and commitments."  It further provided 
that the "review shall be a cooperative mechanism, based on an 
interactive dialogue, with the full involvement of the country 
concerned."   Three times each year, the Human Rights Council holds 
Working Group sessions for the UPR. 
 
¶4.   For each country, the working group review is based on three 
written documents: (1) a twenty page national report by the country 
being reviewed; (2) a UN Secretariat staff compilation of NGO 
comments; and (3) a UN Secretariat staff compilation of treaty body, 
special procedure and other UN documents related to the human rights 
performance of the country under review.  For each country, a 
"troika" of representatives from three Council Member States works 
with the Secretariat and the country in question to facilitate the 
review.  Prior to the review, countries may provide advance written 
questions and recommendations to the Troika, to be transmitted to 
the reviewed country no later than 10 days before the working group 
session.   The principal action by the working group is a three hour 
"interactive dialogue," where the country presents its national 
report and addresses questions from human rights council Member and 
Observer States.  Representatives from civil society do not speak 
during this part of the process. 
 
¶5.  During the interactive dialogue, countries present both 
questions and recommendations for action by the country.  During the 
two or three days between the interactive dialogue and the adoption 
of a report on the country by the Working Group, the secretariat 
staff and the Troika consult with the country on the drafting of the 
report, which includes a list of the recommendations made by states 
during the interactive dialogue.  At the end of this stage of the 
process, the working group holds a very short meeting (typically 30 
minutes or less) in which it adopts the report. 
 
Canada's Interactive Dialogue 
-------------------------------------- 
 
¶6.  In a three hour, well attended interactive dialogue, Deputy 
Justice Minister Sims and his delegation presented the Canadian 
report and answered questions.  Pursuant to the rules of the 
session, Canada was given exactly one hour to speak, with the rest 
of the time devoted to short (i.e., two minute) statements, 
questions and recommendations by Human Rights Council Member States 
and Observers.   (Comment:  Typically Member States have three 
minutes to make their statements from the floor, while Observers 
have two minutes.  Given the unprecedented number of States wanting 
to make comments and offer recommendations, the Chairman decided to 
allow all States (irrespective of membership status) only two 
minutes to speak.  The HRC maintains a large digital clock at the 
front of the room, which kept track of Canada's 60 minutes and 
individual countries' two minute interventions.  Several delegations 
commented on the unfairness presented by such long speakers lists: 
in such a situation, some States who have signed up to speak during 
the interactive dialogue may not, in the end, realize their 
opportunity to do so if they find themselves toward the end of the 
list and time has run out for State interventions before their turn 
is due.  Furthermore, only those States who actually make statements 
and offer recommendations from the floor will be allowed to have 
their recommendations reflected in the Working Group report for the 
state under review.  Therefore, States that have not had the 
opportunity to comment from the floor are also effectively excluded 
from having their recommendations noted in the report.  This is an 
issue with which the HRC will inevitably have to contend, given the 
rise of concerned voices on this development.) 
 
¶7.  Opening Statement.  Canada opened the meeting with a twenty 
minute statement.  This statement was a broad overview of human 
rights enforcement in Canada.  (Comment:  A Danish diplomat later 
privately stated that, given the limited amount of time countries 
are given to answer the hundreds of questions posed to them, Canada 
would have done better to have not given such a broad overview, but 
to have begun to answer specific questions it had received from the 
Troika prior to the session.  Canada explained after the session 
ended that it was difficult to answer specific questions, both 
because it received some from the Secretariat only a week before the 
session and because only seven countries had shared questions in 
advance through the Troika, as contemplated in the UPR procedures. 
End Comment.) 
 
¶8.  Following the opening statement, the chairman posted a list of 
69 countries that wished to ask questions and present 
recommendations.  Given the strict three hour time limit for the 
session and the rule that the country under review is given one full 
hour to speak, the Chair informed the countries that each would be 
given only two minutes to make its intervention.  In practice, the 
chair was not strict in prohibiting longer interventions. 
Accordingly, only 45 of the 69 countries wishing to speak were given 
the opportunity.  The questions and recommendations of the other 
twenty-four countries were not included in the UPR report or in the 
list of recommendations for Canadian consideration.  (Comment: 
Should the USG decide to participate in UPR sessions as an observer 
in the future, if it wishes to ensure that there will be time to 
speak, it will need to ensure that it sends someone early to wait in 
line to sign a speakers' list.  On the Thursday interactive dialogue 
for Cuba, only 61 of the 102 countries that wished to speak were 
able to do so.) 
 
¶9.  Questions for Canada fell into several categories, many of which 
will also be relevant for the United States: 
-(a) procedures for dealing with terrorist suspects and whether they 
involve improper racial profiling; 
-(b) treatment of people in detention, including women and 
juveniles; 
-(c) the need for increased measures to prevent and punish violence 
against women (including indigenous women) and the fact that 
Canadian law does not create a special criminal offense for domestic 
violence; 
-(d) improving the domestic consultation with NGOs and First Nations 
within Canada for writing the UPR report, for considering 
recommendations going forward, and in implementing Canadian human 
rights obligations generally; 
-(e)  high levels of poverty and other economic and health 
disparities within Canada, especially as they apply to racial 
minorities and indigenous people; 
-(f) instances of harassment and racial discrimination of racial 
minorities, including people in Muslim and Arab communities; 
-(g) the treatment of foreign workers (including recommendations to 
ratify the UN Migrant Workers Convention); 
-(h) a wide range of recommendations related to indigenous peoples, 
including developing a national action plan, improving their 
socio-economic conditions (including housing, education, health and 
employment), settling land disputes, and changing its position with 
respect to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 
and consider ratifying ILO Convention 169; 
-(i) various recommendations to ratify virtually every human 
rights-related treaty to which Canada is not currently a party 
(including enforced disappearances, the protection of people with 
disabilities, the optional protocol to the Convention Against 
Torture, the Optional Protocol to the Covenant on Economic, Social 
and Cultural Rights, the American Convention on Human Rights and 
several International Labor Organization conventions; 
-(j) use of force by law enforcement officers, including the use of 
electronic "tasers" as a restraining/control device; 
-(k)  immigration procedures and implementation of Canadian 
non-refoulment obligations related to torture; 
 -(l) make economic, social and cultural rights directly enforceable 
in Canadian courts; requests by some to reconsider its decision not 
to participate in the April 2009 Durban Review Conference; 
-(m) questions related to the death penalty, particularly Canada's 
decision to stop seeking clemency as a blanket policy for Canadian 
nationals sentenced to death in countries that apply the death 
penalty consistently with international law (e.g., the United 
States); 
-(n) improving ways to implement human rights obligations by 
Provincial authorities; and 
-(o) activities by the Canadian armed forces in Afghanistan and in 
situations outside Canadian territory in which it might be an 
occupying power. 
 
¶10.  Following its initial statement, Canada spoke three additional 
times at thirty minute intervals to respond to country questions and 
observations. During these interventions, the Canadian delegation 
addressed issues in thematic clusters, such as racism, treaty 
ratifications, and immigration processes.  At the end of the 
Session, Canada used its remaining twenty minutes to answer 
remaining questions and to summarize generally its human rights 
policy. 
 
The Working Group Report and Next Steps 
--------------------------------------- 
 
¶11.  In the two days following the interactive dialogue and before 
the thirty minute Working Group session that adopted the UPR report 
for Canada, the Canadian delegation worked with the Troika 
(comprising the United Kingdom, Azerbaijan and Bangladesh) and the 
UN Secretariat staff in the writing of the report.  This brief 
summary of the behind the scenes process is based on conversations 
with the Canadian participants, UK Mission staff, and with Senior UN 
Secretariat Staff (Human Rights Council Secretary, Eric Tistounet). 
As a principal element of the report is reducing to writing the 
myriad recommendations emerging from the interactive dialogue, the 
Troika on February 4 shared with Canada both the list of questions 
and, later in the day, its attempt to summarize the Canadian oral 
interventions. 
 
¶12.  Although countries under UPR review are not supposed to edit 
recommendations made to them, they are given wide latitude to help 
the Troika and Secretariat edit them into more logical categories. 
Countries are also given wide latitude to correct the report of 
their own remarks at the interactive dialogue.  Accordingly, Canada 
worked late into the evening on February 4 to put the many country 
recommendations into more logical thematic categories and to edit 
and, in some instances, substantially rewrite the description of 
their oral presentation.  In the morning of February 5, the 
Secretariat and Troika asked countries to review the recommendations 
attributed to them for any last minute editing. 
 
¶13.  Adoption of the UPR Report.  At the end of each UPR Working 
Group process there is a short, largely pro forma, session dedicated 
to the adoption of the UPR report.  The reports themselves provide a 
summary of the interactive dialogue (which include statements by the 
country under review and the comments of the other states) and a 
section on "Conclusions and/or Recommendations."  In the case of 
Canada this section only contained recommendations and no 
conclusions. Although countries under review are free during this 
session to announce whether they intend to adopt any particular 
recommendations, countries are increasingly following the approach 
of the United Kingdom, which during its review simply said that it 
would evaluate all of the recommendations and inform the Council 
subsequently of which recommendations it would endeavor to 
implement. 
 
¶14.  On February 5, the Canadian report was adopted with a very few 
final editorial suggestions by those governments that had not yet 
given changes to their recommendations.  (Countries who spoke are 
given two weeks to provide revisions to the sections in the report 
more generally describing their interventions.  However, any final 
changes to country recommendations must be made at the time of the 
adoption of the Working Group report.)  Canada, following the UK 
approach, announced that it would study these recommendations 
carefully in collaboration with its provinces and in consultation 
with its civil society.  It will provide its responses in advance of 
consideration of the Canadian report before the plenary session of 
the Human Rights Council in June of 2009. 
 
After Action Assessment 
-------------------------------------- 
 
¶15.  On the afternoon immediately following adoption of the Canadian 
Report, Assistant Legal Adviser Harris, and U.S. Mission Pol and 
Legal officers met with the Canadian Government participants to 
discuss what, in their view, had been successful in their writing 
and presentation of their report and what things they would do 
differently in the future.  Canadian participants said that their 
principal conclusions were that they wished they had started the 
process of writing the report earlier than they had.  They also 
noted that they were criticized for not having a substantive 
consultation with Canadian civil society and First Nations until 
after it had submitted the Canadian report to the HRC.  With respect 
to the staffing of their delegation at this session, they 
underscored the importance of having a high level delegation on hand 
that can respond comprehensively and authoritatively on questions 
presented during the session.  That senior level participation is 
especially important as Canada will have only four months to 
evaluate which among the many recommendations it would be able to 
implement.  As such implementation in many cases would require 
changes in federal and provincial law and the expenditure of 
significant resources, having senior level leadership in Ottawa 
seized of the issue will be imperative to allow Canada to respond 
positively at the June HRC session.  Other observations will be 
conveyed less formally to the State Department action officers 
working on UPR. 
 
 
STORELLA