Statement by India for LMG under Agenda 6 at the Resumed 43rd Session of the Human Rights Council (15 – 19 June, 2020), delivered by Mr. S. Senthil Kumar, First Secretary, Permanent Mission of India, (Geneva, 15 June 2020) Statement by India for LMG under Agenda 6 at the Resumed 43rd Session of the Human Rights Council (..

Statement by India for LMG under Agenda 6 at the Resumed 43rd Session

of the Human Rights Council (15 – 19 June, 2020), delivered by

Mr. S. Senthil Kumar, First Secretary, Permanent Mission of India,

(Geneva, 15 June 2020)

Madam President,

               I have the honour to make this statement on behalf of the Like-minded Group of countries.

  1. LMG continues to firmly believe that the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is a unique mechanism of the Council that has emerged as an effective and visible instrument for the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. It has also provided an opportunity for sharing the best practices among all participating members of the United Nations. Therefore, we reiterate that the UPR mechanism should not be tinkered with as any attempt that carries the potential of diluting the universal support that it enjoys.
  1. 3. Any attempt to circumvent this with the objective of projecting preferred issues should be resisted. Such attempts would violate the Institutional Building Package of the Council that established three distinct documents on which the review should be based.
  1. 4. The primary reason for universal participation in the UPR process is the policy space this mechanism provides to the member states with regard to their final decisions on the recommendations, taking into account their respective social, political and economic circumstances. We believe that national or domestic mechanisms remains best placed to translate UPR recommendations into concrete outcomes for their citizens and trust in them is crucial for member states’ continued engagement.
  1. 5. On the preparation of national reports, we believe that member states do their utmost to undertake a broad consultation process at the national level with all relevant stakeholders. There may be issues of capacity constraints in some cases that could be addressed through adequate capacity-building support.
  1. 6. In conclusion, we appreciate the OHCHR and the Secretariat for its role in the UPR process. The compilation of basic documents requires sincerity and effort of the staff for timely availability of the reports. We also call for continued technical support from OHCHR for capacity building to various States in this process.

Thank you, Madam President.

*****