Human Rights Council at 20: what impact?
2026 marks the 20th anniversary of the United Nations Human Rights Council.
Established by the General Assembly in 2006, the Council has become a central space for international dialogue, standard-setting and accountability on human rights. Its first meeting was convened in Geneva on 19 June 2006, and twenty years later, the anniversary offered an opportunity not only to look back, but also to reflect on how the Council can remain relevant and impactful in a changing world.
This was the focus of the high-level informal discussion Twenty Years, One Council: What We Have Built, and Where We Go held on 19 June 2026 during the 62nd session of the Human Rights Council.
The UPR as one of the Council’s key innovations
A recurring message was that the Council’s value lies not only in the debates held in Geneva, but in whether its mechanisms can support concrete change for people on the ground. In his video message, António Guterres described the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) as “one of its most innovative tools”, noting that it requires every UN Member State to account for how it fulfils its human rights obligations and commitments. He also underlined that the UPR has fostered a culture of dialogue contributing to legal reform, stronger public institutions and improved protection.
The importance of participation was also highlighted throughout the discussion. Volker Türk, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, described the Council as “a model of participation”, pointing to the involvement of civil society, Indigenous Peoples, children, young people, survivors and victims. He also referred to the UPR as a major innovation, allowing direct engagement with Member States and connection with victims, survivors and human rights defenders.
Luis Alfonso de Alba Góngora, the first President of the Council, reflected on the early years of the Council and the importance of building trust, opening the institution to wider participation and reducing selectivity. He noted that the UPR contributed to this shift by making it possible to review the human rights situation in all countries without exception, while also encouraging support for national efforts, including those led by civil society.
As the Human Rights Council enters its third decade, the UPR remains one of its most important tools for linking international dialogue with national implementation. It can help identify emerging human rights challenges, widen participation, strengthen accountability and support cooperation among States, civil society, national human rights institutions, parliaments, local authorities and UN actors.
Reflections from the Annual Conference
The anniversary week was also marked by the Geneva Human Rights Hub Annual Conference 2026 "HRC@20", organised from 15 to 19 June. The conference explored the Council’s role through three thematic lenses: standard setting, interpretation and guidance in the digital age, and prevention and implementation. UPR Info contributed to two discussions, focusing on how the UPR can connect the Council’s guidance role with national follow-up and implementation.
During the discussion on digital transformation, data, artificial intelligence and implementation, UPR Info shared findings from its analysis of UPR recommendations addressing the digital sphere. Digital-related human rights issues are becoming much more visible in recent UPR practice. The trend shows that while earlier recommendations on the digital sphere were often linked to media freedom, online expression, surveillance and access to the internet, more recent recommendations are beginning to address digital technologies in connection with a wider range of rights and groups. These include education, equality, children’s rights, women’s rights, access to public services, non-discrimination and protection from online violence.
This remains uneven. For example, UPR Info’s work on digital violence against women and girls shows both progress and a gap: digital violence is increasingly recognised as a human rights issue, but its gendered dimension is still not sufficiently visible or specific in UPR recommendations. For the Council to provide meaningful guidance in digital contexts, recommendations need to help States address technology-facilitated violence in concrete ways, including through prevention, survivor-centred protection, accountability, effective remedies, safeguards for women human rights defenders and the participation of women’s organisations in digital governance.
The quality of recommendations is central. As Nicoletta Zappile, Deputy Director of UPR Info, noted during the discussion,
Digital-related recommendations should become more precise if they are to support implementation. Where relevant, they should refer to safeguards, transparency, independent oversight, remedies, data protection, non-discrimination and the participation of civil society and affected communities."
A second discussion focused on how broader stakeholder engagement can contribute to implementation, follow-up and prevention. As Ms Zappile noted:
When used strategically, the UPR can create structured spaces where national actors discuss priorities, responsibilities, progress and remaining gaps.
Benin offers one example. Following its review under the fourth UPR cycle in January 2023, UPR Info supported follow-up in cooperation with Changement Social Benin, the National Human Rights Commission and a civil society coalition. The process combined capacity-building for civil society, the NHRI and authorities with multi-stakeholder dialogue, engagement with the diplomatic community and a briefing with Parliament.
Implementation is not only a technical exercise. It requires trust, continuity and cooperation among actors with different roles. It also showed why inclusion matters: an organisation representing the LGBTIQ+ community, initially not part of the civil society coalition, was later involved through UPR Info workshops, and LGBTIQ+ issues were reflected in the coalition’s mid-term report.
The experience also highlighted the value of connecting recommendations across mechanisms. Civil society actors in Benin linked UPR recommendations with recommendations from treaty bodies, Special Procedures and broader international standards, making them more usable for monitoring, advocacy and dialogue with duty bearers.
The next twenty years of the Council will depend not only on the standards it adopts or the debates it hosts, but on whether its mechanisms continue to create meaningful pathways for people and institutions to turn recommendations into concrete change.