FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:
Laurie Singh,
OAK National Spokesperson
888.478.4439 Ext 3
OAK@njcdlp.org
LINK

Activists Conclude American Government Does Not Adequately Respect Human Rights

Summary: “While it can be magnanimous, America’s ruling class does not respect the constitutional and universal human rights of its underclass.” So concludes a broad-based group of grassroots advocates in its submission to the U.N. which is reviewing America’s human rights record later this year. The group is OAK, Organizations Associating for the Kind of Change America Really Needs. Based on scholarly findings, public policy thought leaders, social science research, and empirical data, OAK contends that “. . . the ability of average Americans to effectively petition their government is so diluted or compromised that what would otherwise be . . . constitutional and universal human rights are no more than privileges, doled out at government discretion.”

Washington, D.C. (PRWeb) April 22, 2010 -- “While it can be magnanimous, America’s ruling class does not respect the constitutional and universal human rights of its underclass.” So concludes a broad-based group of grassroots advocates in its submission to the U.N. which will be reviewing America’s human rights record later this year. The international process is known as a Universal Periodic Review (UPR).

Participating as a "stakeholder" in America's human rights activities is OAK, Organizations Associating for the Kind of Change America Really Needs. OAK is a national consortium of grassroots advocates "committed to protecting and advancing all aspects of human rights for low and moderate income Americans” to include people earning up to $200,000 annually.

OAK's National Spokesperson, Laurie Singh, explains that the group is more a management tool than an advocate. "We supplement the administrative capabilities of advocates, particularly when they lack major institutional support." OAK bylaws indicate the consortium "was created to assemble a wide spectrum of grassroots advocates; help them transcend obvious differences to harness their critical similarities; otherwise help maximize their efficiency and effectiveness; and gear them to function much like a large voting bloc."

On April 15, 2010, OAK with key NGO members submitted what is projected to be “a historic contribution to the Universal Periodic Review (UPR).” Little more than a month earlier, CNSNews.com covered Secretary of State Hillary Clinton addressing the international process. America participates in the UPR as a member of the U.N. Human Rights Council.

‘(W)e are committed to holding everyone to the same standard, including ourselves . . .’’ confirmed Secretary Clinton at a March 2010 State Department press briefing. She encouraged related input from citizens and NGOs, noting that ‘(a)ssessing opportunities for progress and soliciting citizen engagement is one way that we demonstrate our commitment in word and deed to the basic principles that guide us toward a more perfect union and a more peaceful world.’

Yesterday a delegation of OAK members met with congressional staff in D.C. to share the consortium’s requested input and propose legislative solutions. The advocates focused on one aspect of America that the U.N. Office of High Commissioner on Human Rights will address, the country’s “administration of justice and rule of law.”

According to OAK, the rule of law cannot exist without meaningful citizen oversight. Reading directly from the group's UPR submission, Singh explains “. . . the ability of average Americans to effectively petition their government is so diluted or compromised that what would otherwise be our constitutional and universal human rights are no more than privileges, doled out at government discretion. Such is not the rule of law.”

Attorney Zena Crenshaw-Logal crafted OAK’s UPR submission from scholarly findings, public policy thought leaders, social science research, and empirical data. She interjects that the lack of meaningful citizen oversight is “less obvious when a government is generally fair and magnanimous, but most apparent in its treatment of anti-corruption advocates / government whistleblowers.”

OAK’s Capitol Hill delegation reportedly demonstrated that “lack” through personal circumstances and /or advocacy. In addition to Singh, a Virginia resident, and Crenshaw-Logal who lives near Chicago, the delegates included Dr. Glenn Vickers-Bey of Maryland, Betsy Combier and Rebecca Ocampo, both of New York, and attorney Tom Devine of D.C. They met with congressional staff, usually representing the Chair and / or Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as well as subcommittees for the Senate and House Judiciary Committee. The visits were part of OAK’s annual lobbying event coined “Grass On The Hill Day” (GROTH).

Attorney Tom Devine is Legal Director of the acclaimed Government Accountability Project. He "applauds OAK's work to enfranchise private citizens and expand their capacity as private attorneys generals." The Government Accountability Project is a veteran advocate for government whistleblowers or "truth tellers" exposing fraud, waste, and abuse. During GROTH visits Devine emphasized OAK's expansion of whistleblowing beyond the employment context to include citizen whistleblowers. He projects, “OAK can be the pioneer for citizen whistleblower rights, to break the government’s monopoly on law enforcement and to strengthen all our defenses against unprecedented government threats to freedom.”

Singh reports that Senators Richard Lugar (R-Ind); Richard Durbin (D-Ill); and Mark Warner (D-Va) as well as Representatives Hank Johnson (D-Ga); Howard Coble (R-NC); and F. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wi) have been asked to place OAK’s groundbreaking UPR submission in the Congressional Record. "Until now, national noncompliance with the rule of law seemed impossible to prove as the proof entailed unmanageable amounts of empirical data" states Crenshaw-Logal. "In contrast, OAK hinges that noncompliance on the presence or lack of meaningful citizen oversight which can be readily proven."

All OAK lobby day delegates confirmed their hope to closely partner with Congress to help restore meaningful citizen oversight in America. Singh adds, “the UPR transforms our domestic issues into foreign affairs meriting international outcry, thereby expanding our scope of potential heroes on Capitol Hill.” Betsy Combier interjects, “what we are saying is there is an immediate need for ‘third rail’ oversight of our Justice Department and Courts and that we, a coalition of concerned and committed individuals and groups, can be successful in bringing about meaningful and sustainable reform." Rebecca Ocampo, an OAK member focusing on human rights as they relate to housing, stressed the groups forthcoming, aggressive campaigns in housing, health, education, justice, work and other priority areas.

Specifically joining OAK’s UPR submission is its sponsor, National Judicial Conduct and Disability Law Project, Inc.; attorney Tom Devine; and OAK Anchor Members: National Forum On Judicial Accountability (NFOJA); POPULAR, Inc. (POPULAR – Power Over Poverty Under Laws of America Restored); and the National Whistleblowers Center.

Click Here To Learn More

Visit OAK

Basic facts about the UPR

What is the Universal Periodic Review?

The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is a unique process which involves a review of the human rights records of all 192 UN Member States once every four years. The UPR is a significant innovation of the Human Rights Council which is based on equal treatment for all countries. It provides an opportunity for all States to declare what actions they have taken to improve the human rights situations in their countries and to overcome challenges to the enjoyment of human rights. The UPR also includes a sharing of best human rights practices around the globe. Currently, no other mechanism of this kind exists.

How was the UPR established?

The UPR was established when the Human Rights Council was created on 15 March 2006 by the UN General Assembly in resolution 60/251. This mandated the Council to "undertake a universal periodic review, based on objective and reliable information, of the fulfilment by each State of its human rights obligations and commitments in a manner which ensures universality of coverage and equal treatment with respect to all States”. On 18 June 2007, one year after its first meeting, members of the new Council agreed to its institution-building package (A/HRC/RES/5/1) providing a road map guiding the future work of the Council. One of the key elements of this package was the new Universal Periodic Review.

What is the goal of the UPR?

The ultimate goal of UPR is the improvement of the human rights situation in every country with significant consequences for people around the globe. The UPR is designed to prompt, support, and expand the promotion and protection of human rights on the ground. To achieve this, the UPR involves assessing States’ human rights records and addressing human rights violations wherever they occur. The UPR also aims to provide technical assistance to States and enhance their capacity to deal effectively with human rights challenges and to share best practices in the field of human rights among States and other stakeholders.

When will States have their human rights records reviewed by the UPR?

All UN Member States will be reviewed every four years - with 48 States reviewed each year. All the 47 members of the Council will be reviewed during their term of membership . On 21 September 2007, the Human Rights Council adopted a calendar detailing the order in which the 192 UN Member States will be considered during the first four-year cycle of the UPR (2008-2011). The reviews will take place during the sessions of the UPR Working Group (see below) which will meet three times a year. The first and second sessions took place in April and May 2008, respectively. The third review will take place from 1 to 15 December 2008.

Who conducts the review?

The reviews are conducted by the UPR Working Group which consists of the 47 members of the Council; however any UN Member State can take part in the discussion/dialogue with the reviewed States. Each State review is assisted by groups of three States, known as “troikas”, who serve as rapporteurs. The selection of the troikas for each State review is done through a drawing of lots prior for each Working Group session.

What are the reviews based on?

The documents on which the reviews are based are: 1) information provided by the State under review, which can take the form of a “national report”; 2) information contained in the reports of independent human rights experts and groups, known as the Special Procedures, human rights treaty bodies, and other UN entities; 3) information from other stakeholders including non-governmental organizations and national human rights institutions.
How are the reviews conducted?

Reviews take place through an interactive discussion between the State under review and other UN Member States. This takes place during a meeting of the UPR Working Group. During this discussion any UN Member State can pose questions, comments and/or make recommendations to the States under review. The troikas may group issues or questions to be shared with the State under review to ensure that the interactive dialogue takes place in a smooth and orderly manner. The duration of the review will be three hours for each country in the Working Group.

Can non-governmental organizations (NGOs) participate in the UPR process?

Yes. NGOs can submit information which can be added to the “other stakeholders” report which is considered during the review. Information they provide can be referred to by any of the States taking part in the interactive discussion during the review at the Working Group meeting. NGOs can attend the UPR Working Group sessions and can make statements at the regular session of the Human Rights Council when the outcome of the State reviews are considered. OHCHR has released "Technical guidelines for the submission of stakeholders”.

What human rights obligations are addressed?

The UPR will assess the extent to which States respect their human rights obligations set out in: (1) the UN Charter; (2) the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; (3) human rights instruments to which the State is party (human rights treaties ratified by the State concerned); (4) voluntary pledges and commitments made by the State (e.g. national human rights policies and/or programmes implemented); and, (5) applicable international humanitarian law.

What is the outcome of the review?

Following the State review by the Working Group a report is prepared by the troika with the involvement of the State under review and assistance from the OHCHR. This report, referred to as the “outcome report”, provides a summary of the actual discussion. It therefore consists of the questions, comments and recommendations made by States to the country under review, as well as the responses by the reviewed State.

How is the review adopted?

During the Working Group session half an hour is allocated to adopt each of the “outcome reports” for the States reviewed that session. These take place no sooner than 48 hours after the country review. The reviewed State has the opportunity to make preliminary comments on the recommendations choosing to either accept or reject them. Both accepted and refused recommendations are included in the report. After the report has been adopted, editorial modifications can be made to the report by States on their own statements, within the following two weeks. The report then has to be adopted at a plenary session of the Human Rights Council. During the plenary session, the State under review can reply to questions and issues that were not sufficiently addressed during the Working Group and respond to recommendations that were raised by States during the review. Time is also allotted to member and observer States who may wish to express their opinion on the outcome of the review and for NGOs and other stakeholders to make general comments.

What steps are taken as follow up to the review?

The State has the primary responsibility to implement the recommendations contained in the final outcome. The UPR ensures that all countries are accountable for progress or failure in implementing these recommendations. When it comes time for the second review of a State they must provide information on what they have been doing to implement the recommendations made during the 1st review four year’s earlier. The international community will assist in implementing the recommendations and conclusions regarding capacity-building and technical assistance, in consultation with the country concerned. If necessary, the Council will address cases where States are not cooperating.
What happens if a State is not cooperating with the UPR?

The Human Rights Council will decide on the measures it would need to take in case of persistent non-cooperation by a State with the UPR.

OHCHR, November 2008