Data analysis of the follow-up questionnaires 2011

Overview of the answers to the questionnaire addressed to each participant following the 6th international training session on Universal Periodic Review (UPR), Geneva, Switzerland, october 24th-31st 2011

1. Introduction
After each training session on the Universal Periodic Review (UPR), the CIFEDHOP carries out an appropriate follow-up by addressing an online questionnaire to all participants.

This descriptive study was carried out by collecting and analysing the participants’ answers to the questionnaire relative to the session which took place during fall 2011. 18 out of 26 participants filled in the questionnaire, for a satisfactory percentage of 69,2%. The respondents came from Sub Saharian Africa (Benin, Burkina Faso, Senegal and Togo) and North Africa (Morocco and Tunisia), Asia (India, Kirghizistan and Pakistan), Europe (Germany, Croatia, Ireland and Moldovia) and from the Near East (Lebannon).

This study is also closely linked to the Follow-up UPR Interactive Platform which has been set up by the CIFEDHOP.

The questionnaire is divided into four parts : i) the civil society’ contribution to the UPR process; ii) the UPR session’s participation in Geneva and the participant session’s follow-up as well; iii) internal and external supports the participants might enjoy; iv) the online and interactive participation to human rights education and UPR. The instrument includes closed and multiple-choice questions. In addition, for each question asked, it was possible to add a comment. In all but one exception the participants filled in the questionnaire by using the interactive Platform.

2. Main observations

2.1 In a nutshell, the country’s situation as described by each participant looks as follow :
- nearly 87 % ot the participants have brought their participation to the UPR process;
- the UPR follow-up by the participants shows a rate 86 %;
- the percentage of internal and external supports is 54 %;
- the respondent’s participation to the interactive platform turns around a day a week for the majority of them.

2.2 The relations which the repondents have had with the authorities of their respective country can be qualified of either fonctionnal, political or antagonistic. In the first case , the collaboration is rather formal though it allows the respondents to lobby before the ministries and members of parliement. The second case leads to power struggle from which compromises can arise hopefully. The last situation is one of confrontation in response to the refusal of the authorities to collaborate with the NGOs. But all in all, the stakeholders show a general willingness to play the institutional game and to participate to the process of dialogue provided by the UPR.

2.3 The CIFEDHOP’s documentaty resources and interactive exchanges are both highly appreciated by a vast majority of participants. However, the use of the interactive and collaborative platform could surely be higher.




[1] Un répondant écrit : « A la suite de cette étape un lobbying est en cours au niveau du parlement afin que la loi soit effectivement votée avant la prochain passage du (nom du pays) devant le Conseil des Droits de l'Homme ».

[2] Un répondant s’exprime ainsi : « Oui, nous avons un programme national avec le ministère de l'Éducation nationale (un partenariat est signé avec le ministère et les 16 académies régionales de l'éducation). Ce programme vise les enseignants, le corps administratives, les associations des mères et parents des élèves et aussi les élèves.

[3] « Authorities in (nom du pays) see NGOs as a threat to their work because they often criticize government for lack of progress, unwillingness to improve the situation with human rights or even violating human rights of citizens. »