1. By M. Omar Hilale, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of the Kingdom of Morocco Geneva, 15 June 2011 1

2. Introduction The President of the HRC requested me to pursue the consultations on the issue of the extension of the duration of the review and its operationnalisation in the framework of the Program of work of the WG sessions. During the last two informal consultations organized by the President, the proposal of adding one half hour to the duration of the review was accepted. However, the operationnalisation of these additional 30 minutes was difficult to implement. In this context, the President proposed several options that have evolved throughout the consultations, without reaching a common agreement. Hence, my delicate mission to reach a compromise thanks to your kind cooperation. Before doing so, it would be important to recall the options submitted by the President. 2

3. Option ‘A’: Status quo Option ‘A’ is modeled on the Program of work of the first session of the WG held in April 2008. The duration of the review in this option remains unchanged, meaning 3 hours, while the number of countries per session is reduced from 16 to 14. This option was de facto excluded, since it does not fulfill the provisions of paragraph 11 of HRC resolution 16/21 on the review of the HRC, which provides that “the duration of the Working Group meeting for the review will be extended from the present three hours”. 3

4. Option ‘A’ 4

5. Option ‘B’: full-day meetings This option follow the same Program of work as in option ‘A’, while adding one half hour to each review. Option ‘B’ implies almost full-day meetings with 8 working hours a day, since we have:  The review of two States per day : 3 hours and half each and  The adoption of two final reports per day: half hour each. 5

6. Option ‘B’ 6

7. Option ‘B’: Disadvantages Unfortunately, this option has several disadvantages:  A heavy daily workload for delegations: 8 hours a day with a lunch break of only one hour.  Budgetary implications: a need for an additional team of interpreters to cover lunch-time meetings, which would imply the following approximate costs:  14 000 CHF per day;  98 000 CHF per session;  1 372 000 CHF per cycle. 7

8. Option ‘C’: called « snack option » This option is based on two meetings per day of three hours each: from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. and from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. The first review will start on Monday at 10 a.m. and goes on until 3.30 p.m. with a lunch break from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. The following review will start as soon as the first one finishes and will continue the following day. The next reviews will follow accordingly. 8

9. Option ‘C’ 9

10. Option C: disadvantages This option is unprivileged by its many disadvantages:  It does not allow predictability: the exact start time of the review is not accurate. It depends on the previous review.  The reviews are discontinuous : since the meetings last only 3 hours, each review will be split over two meetings.  It does not guarantee equal treatment among States: The review of some countries might start in the morning and finish the afternoon, while for other countries it might start the afternoon and finish the following morning.  One additional half day is needed on the Monday of the third week. Which would imply additional financial implications. 10

11. Option ‘D’: a variant of option ‘B’ During the first consultations, Option ‘B’ was widely supported. However, it was necessary to search for a variant of this option that would not have financial implications. Thus, the new option ‘D’ was proposed where:  The adoptions of the final reports are separated from the reviews and grouped together.  The final reports on countries which have more than 48 hours between their review and the adoption of their final reports will be distributed 48 hours after their review. 11

12. Option ‘D’ 12

13. Option ‘D’: Disadvantages One disadvantage:  The last two countries of each week will have less than 48 hours between their review and the adoption of their final report. Which does not guarantee equal treatment among all States. 13

14. Option ‘E’: A compromise option To overcome the drawback of option ‘D’, a new proposal has been elaborated. This variant of option ‘D’ has all the assets of an acceptable compromise. In fact, it allows: 1. A minimum of 48 hours between the review and the adoption of the final report. 2. For countries that have more than 48 hours between their review and the adoption of their final report, the latter will be distributed 48 hours after the review. 3. The adoption of the final reports will be grouped together. 14

15. Compromise option 15

16. Compromise option : advantages 1. It guarantees equal treatment for all States. 2. The practice of 48 hours between the review and the adoption of the final report is respected: All reports are distributed 48 hours after the review. 3. The workload is not increased: a maximum of 7 working hours a day, which is equivalent the current system. 4. No financial implications since the number of working hours is identical to current one. Pending the confirmation by Conference services. 16

17. Compromise option: Disadvantage 17 This option has one disadvantage: the “elastic” period between the review and the adoption of the final report. Which might be uncomfortable for the heads of delegations who whish to be present during the adoption of the final report of their country. In fact, the length of this period will be in conformity with the current practice of 48 hours. However, it would more or less longer for some States. Hence, during each session  6 countries will have a period of 48 hours;  6 countries will have a period of 72 hours;  2 countries will have a period of 96 hours. However, this drawback is relatively minor since: 1. It does not create a real unequal treatment as the rule of 48 hours is respected for all States. 2. The practice shows that during the first cycle, only 12.5 % of the heads of delegations stayed until the adoption of the final report on their country. For the overwhelming majority, the adoption is headed by the Ambassador in Geneva.

18. Conclusion The limitations imposed in terms of the workload and the budgetary implications by the consensual resolution 16/21 make it difficult to operationnalize the 30 minutes added to each review. In fact, no option will satisfy all the member States. In the compromise I just presented to you, I was concerned that the aforementioned drawback does not alter the fundamental principles of the UPR as defined in the IBP. Meanwhile, I took into consideration the concerns expressed during the previous consultations. Hence, option ‘E’ has the fewest drawbacks, while responding to most of the concerns. Its strength is that it is the closest to the practice during the first cycle. This is why I highly recommend you to adopt this option.. 18