A gender lens for a more inclusive UPR
How can the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) better reflect the lived realities of women, girls, women human rights defenders and communities facing intersecting forms of discrimination?
This question guided the side event “Strengthening the UPR Cycle: Gender Perspectives, Inclusivity, and Civil Society Participation,” held on 29 June 2026 during the 62nd session of the Human Rights Council. The event was co-organised by the Permanent Mission of North Macedonia to the United Nations in Geneva, the Permanent Mission of the United Kingdom to the United Nations in Geneva, the European Policy Institute – Skopje and UPR Info, which also moderated the discussion.
As the UPR approaches its fifth cycle, speakers reflected on how gender perspectives can be better integrated across the whole review cycle: from national consultations and stakeholder submissions to recommendations, implementation and follow-up.
While gender equality is frequently addressed in UPR recommendations, the discussion underlined that a gender lens is still not systematically applied to the way the mechanism operates.
“We really need to start using a gender lens in every stage of the UPR process, not as a thematic add-on, but as a structural requirement throughout the UPR cycle,” said Juliette de Rivero, Head of the UPR Branch, OHCHR
A first message was clear: a gender-responsive UPR depends on meaningful and safe participation. Women human rights defenders, women’s rights organisations and LGBTQIA+ groups often face specific barriers when engaging in accountability processes, including online abuse, stigmatization, restrictive legal environments, funding constraints and risks of reprisals. When these actors are silenced or excluded, the UPR loses essential evidence and recommendations become less connected to realities on the ground.
One of the most concrete examples came from the European Policy Institute – Skopje, which shared its work with national institutions and civil society in North Macedonia during the fourth UPR cycle. Through its Joint Action for Human Rights project, the organisation introduced judges and public prosecutors to the UPR mechanism and to recommendations related to non-discrimination and gender-based violence. The aim was to explore how these recommendations could inform judicial practice, case law and institutional cooperation.
“When the UPR is brought closer to those who actually apply the law, it becomes less of an abstract UN process and more of a practical tool to advance equality and protection,” said Ardita Veceli, European Policy Institute – Skopje
This example showed how the UPR can move beyond Geneva and become useful for actors who apply rights in practice. It also illustrated why an intersectional approach matters: EPI considered issues such as the right to education of persons with disabilities and statelessness affecting Roma people, while asking how these challenges affect women and girls in specific ways.
The discussion also highlighted the importance of keeping UPR recommendations alive after the review. The United Kingdom shared how recommendations inform bilateral human rights dialogues and follow-up through embassies in country. Civil society participants also emphasized that recommendations adopted in Geneva can provide a concrete and internationally recognised entry point for national advocacy, especially on politically sensitive issues such as sexual and reproductive rights, gender equality and civic space.
Speakers further pointed to the complementarity between the UPR and treaty bodies. Nahla Haidar, Chair of the CEDAW Committee, underlined that CEDAW concluding observations can help States formulate more precise and action-oriented UPR recommendations, while the UPR can give additional visibility and political momentum to issues identified by the Committee.
As the UPR approaches its fifth cycle, the message shared by many participants was clear: gender perspectives must be integrated systematically across the mechanism. A gender-responsive UPR requires both a whole-of-State and a whole-of-society approach, bringing together governments, parliaments, national institutions, civil society, UN actors and practitioners to exchange experiences and identify practical ways to make the UPR more participatory, inclusive and impactful.