The Universal Periodic Review (“UPR”) is a mechanism of the United Nations Human Rights Council. Under the UPR, the human rights records of all 192 United Nations member States will be reviewed by the Council on an ongoing, regular basis. We share a presentation made by ARC on how to use UPR to advance LGBTI rights.

1. The Universal Periodic Review (UPR)

2. Icebreaker Quiz:
Question 1: How long ago was the UPR established?
A: 10 years
B: 6 years
C: 8 years
D: 5 years
Answer: C: 8 years
Question 2: The acronym SMART stands for?
A: specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, time-bound
B: suitable, modifiable, accessible, regulatory, time-sensitive
C: simple, modest, allowable, resourceable, teachable
D: straight, male-identified, aggresive, righteous, Trump
Answer: A: specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, time-bound (even though you wanted to answer D!!)

3. Icebreaker Quiz:
Question 3: What percentage of civil society submissions have included SOGIESC issues?
A: 1 in 20
B: 1 in 30
C: 1 in 10
D: 1 in 2
Answer: C: 1 in 10 (claiming that often used 1 in 10 queer percentage!)
Question 4: The report identifies which of the following gaps in SOGIESC recommendations?
A: family/partnership rights
B: torture or degrading treatment, including death penalty
C: freedom of expression
D: decriminalization
Answer: B: torture or degrading treatment, including death penalty

4. Icebreaker Quiz:
Question 5: What makes the UPR a unique human rights mechanism?
A: universal
B: peer-reviewed
C: regular
D: all of the above
Answer: D: all of the above
Question 6: What percent of the 46,584 recommendations reviewed have been on SOGIESC issues?
A: 2.5
B: 0.5
C: 5
D: 0.1
Answer: A: 2.5

5. Icebreaker Quiz:
Question 7: At the request of which state, and based on early SOGIESC recommendations, all UPR reports
now say that the reports are the views of the states proposing them and do not reflect the position of the HRC?
A: China
B: Egypt
C: Samoa
D: Ecuador
Answer: B: Egypt (based on a review of Ecuador who willingly accepted the recommendations)
Question 8: This region had the highest number of states (not percentage) receiving SOGIESC
recommendations with 41?
A: Asia
B: Africa
C: Latin America/Caribbean
D: Western Europe
Answer: A: Asia (only slightly inching out Africa with 40)(both regions remain lowest percentage)

6. Keeping in mind that the UPR was set up only eight years
ago, the overall picture looks promising. 1,110 SOGIESC
and LGBTI recommendations have been made over the
22 UPR sessions considered here. If SOGIESC issues
are not in the top list of issues addressed, a great
percentage of countries putting the LGBTI community in a
critical situation have been addressed. More than half of
the recommendations made between 2008 and 2015 are
close to qualifying as specific, measurable, achievable,
relevant and time-bound (SMART) recommendations.
Recommended calls to action mostly lie in law reform
and, to a lesser extent, in awareness-raising and training
measures. Great emphasis has been placed on the
principle of non-discrimination, the right to security,
freedom from arbitrary detention and the right to privacy,
through the decriminalisation of consensual same-sex
sexual relationships. Most remarkably, the
recommendations related to the right to found a family,
addressing both partnerships and right to adopt,
constitute the fourth main category of rights addressed.

7. The Universal Periodic Review
The Universal Periodic Review (“UPR”) is a mechanism of the United Nations Human
Rights Council. Under the UPR, the human rights records of all 192 United Nations member
States will be reviewed by the Council on an ongoing, regular basis.
The UPR was set up as part of the reform of the UN human rights system. It was designed
to respond to criticisms that consideration of countries’ human rights records had become
politicised and selective, focusing only on certain countries, while allowing more politically
influential States to escape scrutiny.
As a result, the UPR will ensure that the human rights records of all 192 member States will
be regularly reviewed on a 4-year cycle. This means that 48 States will be reviewed per
year, 16 at each of three sessions annually.
The UPR is intended to be a cooperative mechanism, designed to assist States in fulfilling
their international commitments and improving their human rights situation.
The next slides outlines the reporting timetables for Round 3 of the Universal
Periodic Review (UPR).

10. Advocacy cycle

11.  the State’s National Report
 a compilation of UN Information
 a compilation of NGO information
Three reports are submitted:

12. NGO reports:
 up to 5 pages
 concrete recommendations to
improve human rights situation
 online submission system at
https://uprdoc.ohchr.org
 Please also e-mail to arc@arc-
international.net

13. Working Group
review :
 The State is reviewed over a 3.5-hour
period
 Based on the three reports, other
countries make recommendations
 The State must indicate which
recommendations it accepts before
the final report is adopted
 The State must indicate which
recommendations it accepts before
the final report is adopted
 ECOSOC accredited NGOs can apply to
participate as observers which means
they are able to observe the
proceedings without making oral or
written statements, though may
organize Information Meetings on the
UPR process, with a view to sharing
information

16. Step 1: submit input report
You must register an account and then use the online submission system at
http://uprdoc.ohchr.org . Please also send a copy to arc@arc-international.net so that we
know what information has been submitted and can make use of it in follow-up advocacy.

17. Step 2: excerpt references from the 3
preliminary reports
NATIONAL REPORT
F. The legislation
57. The Employment Act 1995 makes provision for prevention of and redress for discrimination. It states: “Where an employer
makes an employment decision against a worker on the grounds of the worker’s age, gender, race, colour, nationality,
language, religion, disability, HIV status, sexual orientation or political, trade union or other association, the worker may
make a complaint to the Chief Executive stating all the relevant particulars.”
UN COMPILATION
[No references to sexual orientation or gender identity]
COMPILATION OF STAKEHOLDERS’ INFORMATION
2. Right to privacy, marriage and family life
5. JS1 recommended that provisions which maintain criminal sanctions for sexual activity between consenting adults be repealed. It
referred to Section 151 of the Penal Code which establishes, among others, sanctions for sexual activity “against the order
of nature”. JS1 stated further that provisions against sexual activity between consenting adults have been found to
constitute a clear violation of international human rights law. JS1 referred to, inter alia, the views of the Human Rights
Committee in Toonen v Australia adopted in Mary 1994 as well as the Committee’s Concluding Observations on several
countries. Also, it was indicated that this position was consistent with other regional and national jurisprudence.
6. JS1 recommended that Seychelles bring its legislation in conformity with its commitment to equality and non-discrimination, and
its international human rights obligations, by repealing all provisions which may be applied to criminalise sexual activity
between consenting adults of the same sex.

18. Step 3: formulate and disseminate sample intervention
and recommendations
 Key Issues/Recommendations: recommend that the Seychelles: a) bring its Penal Code into conformity with its
international human rights obligations by repealing those provisions which criminalise same-sex activity between
consenting adults, and b) extend existing legislation protecting individuals from discrimination on the basis of
grounds including sexual orientation , to include gender identity.
 Sample Intervention: We commend the Seychelles for it’s commitment to equality and non-discrimination,
including on grounds of sexual orientation, as illustrated in the Employment Act of 1995. We further commend the
Seychelles for their support of the recent joint statement on ending acts of violence and related human rights
violations based on sexual orientation and gender identity, delivered at the 16th
session of the Human Rights
Council. Can the delegation indicate what steps are being taken or planned to advance non-discrimination on
these grounds?
We note that some stakeholders expressed concern that Section 151 of the Criminal Code might be used to
penalise same-sex activity between consenting adults.
The UN Human Rights Committee has confirmed that such laws violate the rights to both privacy and non-
discrimination, contrary to articles 17(1) and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The
Committee further considered that these laws “run counter to the implementation of effective education
programmes in respect of HIV/AIDS prevention” by driving marginalised communities underground. UN Secretary
General Ban Ki-moon has also recently called for the repeal of laws criminalising consensual same-sex conduct.
We therefore recommend that the Seychelles: a) bring its Penal Code into conformity with its international
human rights obligations by repealing those provisions which criminalise same-sex activity between consenting
adults, and b) extend existing legislation protecting individuals from discrimination on the basis of grounds
including sexual orientation, to include gender identity.

19. Step 4: Monitor references and encourage States to
accept recommendations
 100.57 Faire en sorte que la législation nationale soit conforme à l’engagement du Gouvernement en faveur de l’égalité et de la non-
discrimination, en interdisant la discrimination fondée sur l’orientation sexuelle ou l’identité de genre (Canada);
 100.58 Adopter une législation qui interdise expressément toute discrimination fondée sur l’orientation ou l’identité sexuelles (Australie);
 100.59 Faire en sorte que le Code pénal tienne compte des engagements internationaux des Seychelles en prenant des mesures appropriées
pour garantir que les relations sexuelles entre adultes consentants du même sexe ne donnent pas lieu à des sanctions pénales (Norvège)
 100.60 Réaffirmer leur engagement en faveur de l’égalité et de la nondiscrimination en dépénalisant les relations sexuelles consenties entre
adultes du même sexe ainsi qu’en supprimant toute disposition discriminatoire enversvles lesbiennes, les gays et les personnes bisexuelles
ou transgenres (France);
 100.61 Abroger toutes les dispositions du droit pénal interne réprimant les relations sexuelles consenties entre adultes du même sexe et
lutter contre la discrimination à l’égard des lesbiennes, des gays et des personnes bisexuelles ou transsexuelles par des mesures politiques,
législatives et administratives (Espagne);
II. Conclusions et/ou recommandations
100. Les recommandations ci-après seront examinées par
les Seychelles, qui fourniront des réponses en temps
voulu, au plus tard à la dix-huitième session du Conseil des
droits de l’homme, en septembre 2011.

20. Step 5: NGO intervention during report adoption at
HRC plenary
Questions asked by NGOs:
“Can the Seychelles indicate a timeframe for decriminalising
consensual same-sex relations between adults? …
Can the delegation indicate what steps are being taken or planned
to advance non-discrimination on the grounds of both sexual
orientation and gender identity?”
Response of delegation:
“Regarding the question from Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network on timeframes
for changing the law – when it comes to Section 151 of the Criminal Code, I think
it will be pretty soon. It will not take us a long time to repeal this section. We all
know that its old and I don’t think either the government or Seychelles’ society
want it in there anymore.
On your second question: I think what needs to be done is to disseminate. First
of all we should repeal this provision in the Penal Code, and then we can
undertake some dissemination of what is the understanding or position of the
government concerning these persons. The very fact that the outcome of the
UPR will be published in a report – the position of the government and the
recommendations of other countries will be able to be seen in the report – will be
a very important step in the dissemination, and enabling us to provide more fair
provisions in our legislation and administration, and provide protection to these
persons.”

21. SOGIESC references from previous UPR reviews
Which TWO countries have NEVER received a
UPR recommendation on SOGIESC issues?

22. Team Exercise: Guessing SOGIESC references from
previous UPR reviews
Recommendation: Secure the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons by amending Article
534 of the Penal Code and by codifying a protection against the discrimination of lesbian, gay, bisexual and
transgender persons into law (Cycle 2)
Status: Noted
State under review (SUR): LEBANON
Recommendation: Push forward for the elimination of discriminatory provisions affecting lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender and intersex persons (Cycle 2)
Status: Noted
SUR: SUDAN
Recommendation: Modify or repeal Article 230 of the Penal Code in order to decriminalize same-sex relations of
consenting adults (Cycle 2)
Status: Noted
SUR: TUNISIA

23. Team Exercise: Guessing SOGIESC references from
previous UPR reviews
Recommendation: Guarantee the right to the protection of privacy to all persons and take measures to ensure
equality and non-discrimination on all grounds, including sexual orientation, in conformity with articles 17 (1) and
26 of the ICCPR, by revising article 338 of its Penal Code, which criminalizes sexual acts between consenting adults
of the same sex (Cycle 2)
Status: Noted
SUR: ALGERIA
Recommendation: Review national legal provisions, as e.g. those criminalising habitual debauchery, which are open
to abuse for persecution and intimidation of persons of minority sexual orientation or gender identity or of persons
with HIV-AIDS (Cycle 1)
Status: Noted
SUR: EGYPT

24. Building the Framework
for your UPR report
 Was there an LGBTI focused civil society report in the first round of the
UPR? Was it part of a broader report?
 Which groups participated? Who should participate in this round?
 Would you suggest a specific report or working with a coalition? Who
would you partner with?
 What were the recommendations from the first cycle? Were they
implemented? Do they require further investigation?
 Are there new or additional issues that need to be highlighted? Are these
issues documented?
 How would you structure a report for this round?