The interim president of the Arab Republic of Egypt addressed the nation a few days ago. His speech contained a clear and unequivocal reference to human rights; the first time a president of Egypt has made such a strong human rights statement commensurate with the primary objectives of the 25 January Revolution and the 30 June Revolution. We should remember that both were revolutions for human rights in the first instance. What does that mean and what does it imply? It should imply that the newly sworn-in government of Egypt underscore human rights and social justice in all its programmes and policies. Some actually expected that the new government would designate a new ministry solely devoted to human rights, as a clear cut message of the new government's commitment and strong resolve to respect the principles and provisions of a broad-based human rights approach. Nabil Fahmi, the new foreign minister of Egypt, a seasoned and veteran diplomat of multilateral diplomacy, is best suited to deal with these issues. However, the government should be aware of a crucial target date, which is 2014. This is the date for the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of Egypt next year in the UN in Geneva. Egypt must be ready from now, by establishing a specialised national committee headed by a minister, hopefully judge Amin Al-Mahdi, a former capable and active member of the Egyptian National Council for Human Rights (NCHR), to prepare the necessary documents, explain what happened since the last review several years ago, which recommendations were accepted, which were delayed and why, and which deferred with specific remarks by the government at the time. An inventory or balance sheet on relevant issues must be drawn up in full transparency. The government must be also aware that it will be subject to a strict review of acts and violations that occurred covering the period of both revolutions and the period in-between, including the time the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) was in command. Egypt's file must be well prepared in advance, in full transparency, and in cooperation with Egypt's vibrant civil society. The unfortunate facts surrounding the present status of the NCHR necessitates that the interim president himself be personally involved to salvage this reputable “A status” institution by selecting new capable members enjoying national recognition and respect, honouring diversity and equitable women representation in the new council. To explain the gravity and importance of this task let me shed some light on what is the UPR. The UPR process is a periodic review of the status of human rights of a UN member state. It is based on equal treatment for all. The review allows states to declare the actions they have taken to improve the status of human rights as well as sharing best practices in the human rights field. The UPR process was established under the Human Rights Council in 2006, giving this process the tools to undertake a viable review based on objective and reliable information as well as sufficient evidence of respect of states to their human rights obligations in a universal manner. The review aims to improve human rights statuses in all countries by expanding, promoting and protecting human rights. The UPR assesses states' records as well as violations; it also provides technical assistance to states to enhance their capacity, to share best practices of human rights among stakeholders. Each year, 42 states are reviewed, 14 states of which are subject for review in each UPR session. The review is conducted by the working group consisting of 47 members of the Human Rights Council and also by allowing any member state to discuss and engage in an interactive dialogue with the reviewed state. The review is based on information provided by a state under review in terms of a national report, information from independent human rights experts and groups, human rights treaty bodies and other UN entities. The review occurs in an interactive discussion between the state under review and other UN states in a UPR working group meeting. NGOs are encouraged to submit information and reports on the situation of human rights in a country under review in order to assess the respect by a state for its human rights obligations as outlined in the UN Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, human rights treaties to which the state is party, voluntary pledges and commitments made by states, and finally applicable international humanitarian law. Following the review, an outcome report is prepared; later the reviewed state has a chance to comment on the recommendations from its review. Needless to say, the state has primary responsibility to implement the recommendations contained in the final outcome. Holding states accountable for progress or failure in implementing such recommendations is highly honoured, and finally the Human Rights Council can decide on what measures to take in the wake of non-cooperation by a specific state with the UPR. It must be remembered that in the last review process from February 2010 to May 2012 a trilateral committee, or troika, was formed and this troika referred questions prepared by 13 countries, in addition to questions posed by 97 members who participated in an interactive debate on Egypt. In this review the national human rights machinery of Egypt was discussed, cooperation with international agencies, the need for amending legislation to achieve equality between men and women, as well as the challenges faced by Egypt, such as the financial and monetary economic crisis, food shortages, population explosion, terrorism, as well as the need to end the state of emergency. Specific preference was made to the need to amend national laws in the field of anti-torture, a much needed change of practices allowing administrative arrests, the need for legislation prohibiting violence against women, human trafficking, the independence of the judiciary and the abolition of extraordinary courts. In this review, recommendations were divided to four sectors. Recommendations accepted by Egypt, flatly unaccepted recommendations, unrealistic recommendations, and finally recommendations accepted by Egypt after expressing willingness to look into them. It is important to highlight that such a review in order to be successful must take place in an interactive cooperative transparent milieu, using and gaining from the contributions of civil society, lessons learned from other states, reports by the NCHR, and cooperation channels with human rights committees in the upper and lower houses of parliament. In conclusion, the aim of this article is to draw the attention of the government of Egypt to the target date of 2014 and the need to start the UPR preparatory process immediately. The other aim is to underline the importance of human rights in government practices, legislation, and especially with respective ministries that deal and interact on a daily basis with citizens. The preparation of a national plan for human rights in Egypt by this government is highly desired, as is dissemination of human rights principles and objectives through integration into various educational curricula.
The writer is former secretary-general of the Egyptian National Council for Human Rights (2010-2012).
