Leveraging UPR recommendations in domestic courts
Legal practitioners can add Universal Periodic Review (UPR) recommendations to their toolbox of resources for supporting and promoting human rights in domestic courts.
Research conducted by Dr Michael Lane from the University of Worcester and Dr Frederick Cowell from Birkbeck University of London explores how legal practitioners, particularly those working in common law systems, may utilise UPR recommendations in court to advance human rights. While their article focuses specifically on UK courts, practitioners from all jurisdictions are able to gain insight from this research and explore how they themselves can use UPR recommendations as potential avenues for reinforcing human rights within their states.
During a virtual workshop hosted by UPR Info 20th August 2024, Dr Cowell and Dr Lane instructed participants on four specific ways legal practitioners can potentially utilise UPR recommendations. According to their research, these methods fall into two categories: referencing multiple recommendations or a single recommendation. Practitioners may refer to collections of UPR recommendations of the same subject matter to reveal the existence of customary international law.
It is important to note these recommendations should reveal a widespread consensus amongst states. Additionally, practitioners can evoke groups of recommendations to provide evidence for international standards. This may also prove beneficial when, for example, presenting evidence for human rights conditions in states. UPR Info’s database lends itself particularly helpful for identifying grouped recommendations, because individuals can filter recommendations based on specific issues and other criteria.
Along with referencing UPR recommendations in groups, practitioners can refer to a single recommendation. When taking this route, Dr Lane and Dr Cowell suggest diving into the UPR reports themselves to view the recommendations in context. A recommendation may help clarify interpretation of international human rights obligations, such as treaties, and can potentially demonstrate the existence of a ‘legitimate expectation’, or grounds for holding a public authority accountable for a promise, if the state has accepted the recommendation. Practitioners must note pursuing the latter option may prove extremely challenging, especially if a jurisdiction has strict criteria for making such a claim. With the majority of UPR recommendations vague and broad in nature, this route may only succeed in rare circumstances. Therefore, practitioners must investigate the criteria required by their own jurisdictions when seeking to use UPR recommendations in domestic courts.