|
Early
in 2009, Canada was examined by members of
the UN Human Rights Council
under
Universal Period Review, UPR, a new
procedure only in its third year of
operation. A UN Report and Recommendations
issued in March.[1]
There
is also a UN summary of NGO advice.[2]
“2.
Consider signing and
ratifying (Brazil, Chile)/accede to
(Liechtenstein; Czech Republic)
/ratify
(Denmark; France; Chile; Azerbaijan) the
OP-CAT and establish an
effective
National Preventive Mechanism (Denmark;
Liechtenstein; France; Czech
Republic)
as required under the Protocol
(Liechtenstein) and further adopt
additional
measures to ensure its full
implementation without any exceptions of
the
principle of non-refoulement (Czech
Republic) “14.
Create or reinforce a
transparent, effective and accountable
system that includes all levels
of the
government and representative of the
civil society, including
indigenous
people, to monitor and publicly and
regularly report on the
implementation of
Canada’s human rights obligations
(Portugal); establish a mechanism
that will meet regularly with the
effective participation of civil society
organizations and indigenous
peoples,
and have national reach to implement all
Canada’s international
obligations and
facilitate the acceptance of pending
commitments, (Mexico); consider
measures
to make the Continuing Committee of
Officials on Human Rights more
operational,
ensure its better accessibility for the
civil society enabling thus a
permanent
dialogue process on international human
rights obligations including
those from
the Universal Periodic Review
(Slovakia);” “15.
Effectively implement
United Nations treaty bodies’
recommendations (Azerbaijan) and as
appropriate
on indigenous people (Jordan); implement
in national norms, the
commitments
made when ratifying the ICESCR and the
CERD through the implementation
of the
recommendations which have come out of
their respective Committees
(Bolivia);
analyze United Nations treaty bodies
recommendations in consultation
with
representatives of the civil society,
including indigenous people, and
implement them or publicly report on the
reasons why it considers no
implementation is more appropriate
(Portugal); include participation of
civil
society (in mechanisms and procedures
that are in place for national
follow up
to recommendations of treaty bodies) and
publication of the concluding
recommendations of treaty bodies (Czech
Republic);” “41.
Ensure that any complaint
of violations of international human
rights obligations can be examined
in
Canadian courts and effective adequate
remedies will be provided to
victims
(Portugal);” Note
that
this concern about lack of
implementation of international human
rights obligations and
recommendations
from treaty bodies is general. There
were calls for Canada to ratify
the
regional American Convention on Human
Rights (Mexico & Brazil) and
at least
sign the Migrant Worker Convention
(Chile, Egypt, Syria, Mexico). Then
there were
more specific suggestions relating to
migrants and refugees: “57.
Increase efforts to
enhance the protection of the human
rights of migrants and hold open
consultations with civil society on the
ICRMW [Migrant worker
Convention]
(Philippines); 58.
Launch a
comprehensive review leading to legal
and policy reforms which protect
the
rights of refugees and migrants,
including rights to family
reunification and
enact legislation creating an offence
for racial violence, and design
and implement
training for judges and prosecutors on
the nature of hate crimes on the
basis
of race (Egypt); 59.
Continue
efforts to
bring its system of security
certificates concerning immigration into
compliance with international human
rights standards (Switzerland);” These
recommendations
transcend the usual
bickering among governments. There is
not much rehearsal of world
inter-regional
differences – like the differences
around the current revisit of the
World
Conference against Racism. It is
remarkable to note how in this forum
as in
many UNHCR gatherings countries which
are not normally known for human
rights
can provide able representatives who
make sound contributions. NGOs can
draw on
them for advocacy. The various country
suggestions can be usefully
remembered
and brought back when their own country
is examined under UPR. Producing
so
many recommendations may not be
a good idea, but all of them are more or
less on target and helpful.
One
wonders how Canadians and Canadian
parliamentarians are to be made
aware of them?
This article is only a beginning. In
theory the Senate Standing
Committee on
Human Rights should do that but it
wouldn’t hurt for NGOs to help. [1] See UN
Doc.
A/HRC/11/17, 3 March 2009. [2] See UN
Doc.
A/HRC/WG.6/4/CAN/3, 24 November
2008. [3] International
Service for Human Rights, the Geneva
based agency which documents UN
human
rights activity. TOP
Click: |
