International Rhetoric, Domestic Evidence

Civil society reports on sexual and reproductive health provide a contrast to the claims and assurances made by the government’s report to an international human rights mechanism on its public health commitments and achievements, with information that is at gross variance to the official report. This discordance questions the credibility and accountability of the government to these international human rights processes and more so, its citizens.

The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is an important human rights accountability mechanism established in 2006 within the United Nations’ Human Rights Council (UNHRC) through which each UN member state is subject to a peer review of its human rights situation every five years. During each review, other member states provide recommendations to the state under review. While these are not binding, if the state under review accepts a recommendation, it makes a commitment to implement it. For each review cycle, the state under review has to submit a report on the efforts made to implement the previous cycle’s recommendations. Along with this, reports are submitted by human rights institutions (in India’s case, by the National Human Rights Commission) as well as civil society organisations and coalitions.

India in UPR 3: Reports Contradicting Evidence