Recent cycles of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) have increasingly prioritised the implementation of UPR recommendations. However, Human Rights Council (HRC) Item 6 adoptions remain largely procedural, with States under review (SuRs), UN entities, and CSOs mostly focusing on whether recommendations are supported or not. The 20th anniversary of the HRC in 2026 presents an opportunity to use the 60-minute adoption session more effectively by highlighting concrete implementation plans and identifying areas where support from recommending States and the UN system may be required.
For the SuR, the HRC adoption, held 3-4 months after the Working Group’s review, provides an opportunity to confirm which recommendations are supported or noted (information already available in the Addendum), but also to outline the key elements of an implementation plan to pursue before the next review. Such plans would include actions required for following up on supported UPR recommendations – each linked to the relevant Sustainable Development Goals and targets, therefore ensuring that human rights progress is aligned with the advancement of the 2030 Agenda. These can also be reflected in Voluntary National Reviews (VNRs) presented during the annual High-Level Political Forum convened by ECOSOC. This approach is consistent with the advice provided by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in his post-UPR adoption letter to each Foreign Minister.[1]
As a whole of government/whole of society effort, the implementation plan would need to be the result of coordination and consultations led by the Executive (in the NMIRF, where available) with other branches of the Government, State institutions, NHRIs (where available) and CSOs. NHRIs, CSOs, UN Entities, and the OHCHR – including its UPR regional advisors – could also assist in this process. In addition to indicating responsible departments/entities, timeframes, expected results, through the national budget, the SuR may also refer to assistance required from the UN System to carry out planned actions.[2]
For recommending States, this approach offers an opportunity to ensure development actors (including those responsible for ODA) are informed and engaged in the UPR process, and to consider the type of support they can provide SuRs in collaboration with other relevant stakeholders. For NHRIs/CSOs, it is a chance to assess government commitment to implementation and the steps planned to achieve it.
HRC Item 6 could thus become central to the coordination between human rights and development actors – ensuring that technical cooperation and HRBA are translated into concrete UPR follow-up actions at country level. This would involve active participation from each UN entity, in line with their respective mandates, and would encourage recommending States to support the implementation of their own recommendations, particularly when they are accepted by SuRs recipient of their ODA. Opportunities for South-South cooperation may also arise.
Voluntary UPR mid-term reports, submitted by States 2 to 3 years after their respective Item 6 adoption (currently some 90 States), as well as those from UN entities/NHRIs/CSOs, can provide updates on progress made and challenges encountered in implementation. The HRC Item 6 General Debate also offers a platform for sharing good practices and identifying further needs for technical or financial assistance.
At a time when international Geneva and the HRC face significant resource constraints, both can position themselves as venues where human rights and development intersect – where root causes of human rights violations, preventive efforts, not only emergency situations – are effectively addressed by Member States through an existing universal mechanism of the United Nations: the HRC UPR.
While the need for implementation and follow-up has been widely recognised, it is now essential to move from words to action – with some States leading by example. How? By presenting detailed implementation plans and assistance needs during Item 6 adoptions. This will strengthen national protection systems and advance the core objective of the HRC UPR: “The improvement of the human rights situation on the ground.”
Gianni Magazzeni, Former OHCHR UPR Chief / UPR Info Executive Board President
[1] See OHCHR UPR documentation page at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/hr-bodies/upr/documentation ).
[2] See the UPR Practical Guidance for Heads of UN Missions worldwide and the Repository of UPR Good Practices to advance the SDGs in 18 specific national contexts: https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/HRBodies/UPR/UPR_Practical_Guidance.pdf – https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/2022-02/UPR_good_practices_2022.pdf
Featured image: Members of the Somali civil society and human rights activists attend a consultation workshop on the human rights Universal Periodic Review process on 23 March 2015. The workshop was supported by the United Nations Assistance Mission in Somalia (UNSOM). UN Photo/Omar Abdisalam.
Share this Post
