United Nations: UPR Human Rights Review Summary, United States Fails (Full Document)

General Assembly

Human Rights Council
Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review Twenty-second session
4–15 May 2015


Distr.: General 16 February 2015

Original: English

Summary prepared by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in accordance with paragraph 15 (c) of the annex to Human Rights Council resolution 5/1 and paragraph 5 of the annex to Council resolution 16/21

United States of America*

The present report is a summary of 91 stakeholders’ submissions1 to the universal periodic review. It follows the general guidelines adopted by the Human Rights Council in its decision 17/119. It does not contain any opinions, views or suggestions on the part of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), nor any judgement or determination in relation to specific claims. The information included herein has been systematically referenced in endnotes and, to the extent possible, the original texts have not been altered. As provided for in Human Rights Council resolution 16/21, where appropriate, a separate section is provided for contributions by the national human rights institution of the State under review that is accredited in full compliance with the Paris Principles. The full texts of all submissions received are available on the OHCHR website. The report has been prepared taking into consideration the periodicity of the review and developments during that period.

* The present document was not edited before being sent to United Nations translation services. GE.15-02557 (E)




Information provided by stakeholders A. Background and framework

1. Scope of international obligations2
1. JS63, JS24, JS415, JS116, JS267, AI8, FLG9 and JS2010 recommended the ratification


2. JS2911, JS212, JS4113, JS1114, JS2615, UNA16, JS1917, AI18, WILPF19, FLG20 and JS621 recommended ratifying CEDAW.

3. JS1622, JS223, JS4124, JS2625, UNA26, AI27, JS128, WILPF29, FLG30 and JS631 recommended ratifying CRC.

4. JS832, JS233, JS4134, JS1135, JS4536, JS2637, UNA38, FLG39 and JS640 recommended the ratification of CRPD.

  1. AI41 and JS242 recommended the ratification of OP-CAT and ICPPED.
  2. JS343 and JS244 recommended the ratification of OP1-ICCPR.
  3. SCU/IHRC45, JS4146 and JS647 recommended considering the ratification of


  1. HRW recommended ratifying the Rome Statute of the ICC.48
  2. SCU/IHRC recommended the ratification of the ILO Convention concerning Forced

or Compulsory Labour n° 29 and its 2014 Protocol.49

10. IACHR indicated that the United States of America (US) had not ratified the American Convention on Human Rights.50

11. AI noted that in its first UPR the US rejected calls to withdraw reservations to international human rights treaties, despite UN treaty monitoring bodies’ calls to withdraw certain reservations because they defeat the object and purpose of the treaty.51 AI recommended that the US review its current ratifications, with a view to withdrawing all reservations, understandings and declarations.52

12. JS8 recommended reviewing laws at the federal and state levels with a view of bringing them in line with US’s international human rights obligations.53 JS1454 recommended that the Government fully adopt UPR first cycle recommendations 92.5255 and 92.22756.

2. Constitutional and legislative framework

13. CIVICUS recommended revising Section 805 of the 2001 USA PATRIOT Act to ensure that civil society organizations undertaking legitimate humanitarian activities cannot be sanctioned for supporting groups designated as terrorist entities.57

14. HRW recommended passing legislation to reduce incidents of profiling, such as the End Racial Profiling Act.58 JS43 made a similar recommendation.59 AI noted that legislation prohibiting racial profiling nationwide has been pending before Congress since 2001.60

3. Institutional and human rights infrastructure and policy measures

15. JS661 and JS4462 recommended the creation of a national human rights institution in accordance with the Paris Principles. ISHR made a similar recommendation.63 JS26 made remarks in connection with the same subject.64

16. JS8 recommended the establishment of a human rights institution at the federal level.65 WI66 and WSNC67 made similar recommendations. JS8 also recommended incorporating human rights training and education strategies in public policies.68

17. JS7 recommended that the Government support: the establishment of federal mechanisms mandated to coordinate with state and local officials around human rights monitoring and implementation at the federal, state and local levels; a reinvigorated Inter- Agency Working Group on Human Rights; and a national human rights monitoring mechanism, such as the US Commission on Civil and Human Rights.69

18. JS670, JS2671 and JS4172 recommended the implementation of a national plan of action for human rights education, as called for in the UN World Programme for Human Rights Education.

19. FLG recommended adopting and implementing a national racial justice plan consistent with the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action.73

20. JS11 recommended the increase of funding to programs focusing on women with disabilities under the Violence against Women Act.74

21. JS5 recommended implementing programs to protect the most vulnerable children from exploitation, including children living in poverty, minority children and undocumented children.75

B. Cooperation with human rights mechanisms

22. HRW indicated that the US had failed to implement many recommendations from the prior review, including on human rights treaties ratification, national security, criminal justice, treatment of immigrants and privacy.76

23. AC noted that in order to fulfil its obligations under the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the US should reform existing grievance mechanisms to lower barriers and increase transparency with a view to providing remedies for business-related abuses at home and abroad.77 AC urged the US Government to take steps towards the full implementation of the Guiding Principles.78

1. Cooperation with treaty bodies

24. AI recommended reviewing all outstanding recommendations from UN treaty bodies and experts with a view to implementing them.79

25. AA4RR stressed that the US lacks any national mechanism to review government policies for compliance with CERD and ICCPR.80

2. Cooperation with special procedures

26. JS25 recommended providing follow-up to the Special Rapporteur on the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation 2011 report on her mission to the US and to the recommendations therein.81

27. JS3082 recommended implementing the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur on the implications for human rights of the environmentally sound management and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes concerning Marshall Islands.83





C. Implementation of international human rights obligations, taking into account applicable international humanitarian law

1. Equality and non-discrimination

28. JS29 recommended that the Government prohibit federal law enforcement authorities from engaging in racial profiling; support an anti-racial profiling law, and investigate the disproportionate use of deadly force against individuals of colour by state and local police.84

29. LL recommended adopting measures to address profiling, including passing and implementing legislation such as the End Racial Profiling Act, amended to additionally prohibit profiling individuals based upon sexual orientation and/or gender identity.85 JS41 stated that black people experience discrimination in employment, housing and education.86

30. JS17 called upon the US to identify the root causes of ethnic disparities pertaining to the death penalty and ethnically disparate sentencing, with the objective of developing means to eliminate ethnic or racial bias in the criminal justice system.87 JS2788 and JS4389 noted that the vast majority of the youth who are criminalized and incarcerated in adult facilities are racial and ethnic minorities.

31. In connection with US’s acceptance of UPR WG recommendations 92.6590 on compliance with international obligations, 92.10791 and 92.11192 on racial discrimination, and 92.22593 on UPR follow up, JS33 called upon the US Attorney General to provide all the resources necessary to ensure timely and thorough investigations of unsolved civil rights murders.94

32. ODIHR noted that the US did not report on the number of prosecutions and sentences related to hate crime cases.95

33. JS20 stated that women have continued to experience higher rates of poverty and to make less money for comparable work than their male peers throughout the recession and recovery periods.96

34. JS5 recommended taking measures to eradicate discrimination against women and children.97 EN recommended amending the Immigration and Nationality Act and all other relevant provisions so that men and women could transfer their nationality to their children on an equal basis.98

35. Noting that the US accepted recommendations 92.109, 92.133 and 92.19799, and partially 92.62, 92.67 and 92.100100, JS34 stated that barriers to employment, housing, civic engagement and education for detainees should be removed.101

36. NCLR observed that the rights of LGBT families may change by crossing a state line or by passing from a state to a federal jurisdiction.102 JS43 made similar remarks.103 JS28 recommended investigating discriminatory practices based on race, gender, sexual orientation, homelessness, and other categories.104 WI recommended prohibiting any form of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.105 JS41 made similar recommendations.106 WI107 and UNA108 recommended passing legislation prohibiting LGBT discrimination in employment. HRC recommended the adoption of legislation covering sexual orientation and gender identity in both the public and private sectors.109

2. Right to life, liberty and security of the person

37. AI observed that the US capital justice system is marked by arbitrariness, discrimination and harsh conditions on death rows. People with serious mental illness continue to be subjected to the death penalty. AI recommended that federal and state authorities impose a moratorium on executions with a view of abolishing death penalty


nationwide.110 HRW noted that the US accepted recommendation 92.95111 on the death penalty and recommended recommitting to undertaking studies on racial disparities in application of the death penalty to end discriminatory practices.112 JS29 recommended urging the Congress to eliminate capital murder from federal law.113 JS41114 and JS17115 made similar recommendations.

38. CNUUS expressed concerns about excessive use of force by the police and indicated that Stand Your Ground laws allow the use of deadly force whether or not the party for which the violence was being used was armed. It recommended reviewing these laws.116 JS51 made reference to a number of fatal shootings in which citizens of Afro American descent were unlawfully killed by the police.117 JS13 noted that despite UPR recommendations, excessive use of force has been a continuing problem since 2010, especially by the Customs and Border Protection (CBP).118 WILPF recommended taking federal measures to enforce transparency into any case of death of an immigrant brought against the Department of Homeland Security.119

39. AAAN urged upon the US to condemn practices of torture.120 PHR recommended the holding of public hearings and investigations into the alleged torture and ill-treatment of detainees and compensate those who have been tortured or abused, including access to medical care.121 JS2 recommended investigating torture

122 JS38 recommended completing investigations and prosecutions of high-level officials for war crimes and torture in Iraq.123 AI124 and JS43125 made similar


JS43 also recommended appointing an independent body to provide compensation and rehabilitation

services to those who suffered torture or other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.127

40. AI recommended reviewing conditions in federal maximum security prisons and developing national standards to ensure humane conditions in all such units, with adequate monitoring procedures.128 HRW recommended reviewing the length and proportionality of criminal sentences at the federal and state level, and develop alternatives to incarceration, and pass laws that eliminate mandatory minimum sentences.129 JS41130 and JS24131 recommended banning prolonged solitary confinement. In connection with US’s support to UPR WG recommendation 92.177132, PHR recommended ceasing the use of solitary confinement as a disciplinary tool and allow independent organizations to visit inmates.133

41. JS5 expressed concerns about the phenomenon of violence against women.134 JS19 recommended removing discriminatory legal barriers that fail to protect American Indian and Alaska Native women and children against violence.135 AI made a similar recommendation.136 JS26 stated that the US should adopt legislation to protect women from violence in the military.137

42. EN welcomed the US commitment to address Female Genital Mutilation domestically and abroad. It recommended ensuring victims access to services, including healthcare and emergency shelters.138 AIC stated that intersex people in the US suffer harm from genital-normalizing surgery in childhood and recommended that enforcement agencies take action to enforce laws prohibiting FGM and involuntary sterilization and investigate violations to protect children with intersex conditions. AIC also recommended that US Courts recognize genital-normalizing surgery and involuntary sterilization performed on intersex children as violations of federal civil rights and offer remedies for these harms.139

43. JS41 recommended repealing laws against prostitution and prostitution-related offenses, and eliminating “zero tolerance” policies.140 SCU/IHRC noted that LGBTQ youth

allegations, extrajudicial executions

and other violations of human rights committed in Guant

namo, Abu Ghraib, Bagram,

NAMA and BALAD camps, and those carried out by the Joint Special Operations

Command and the CIA.

PHR recommended ending the practice of force-feeding detainees and

allow independent medical monitoring of hunger-striking prisoners.126




are up to five times more likely than heterosexual youth to be victims of trafficking.141 JS2142 and JS1143 recommended punishing trafficking in persons and child prostitution.

44. JS50 noted that the US accepted recommendation 92.86144 on combating stereotypes and violence particularly against sexual workers and recommended decriminalizing children and adults victims of trafficking in the sex trade, ensure they are neither arrested nor detained, and develop policies to address discrimination against sex workers.145 JS41146 and SCU/IHRC147 made similar recommendations. UNA recommended increasing resources for nationwide anti-trafficking awareness programs, including law enforcement training.148 EN recommended improving access to comprehensive services for all victims, regardless of age.149

45. SCU/IHRC stated that the Government has not addressed adequately labour trafficking. The US labour laws explicitly exclude farm and domestic workers from key aspects of protection. SCU/IHRC recommended reviewing laws and regulations to ensure protection against exploitation and forced labour for all categories of workers.150

46. WI stated that sexual orientation-based hate crimes make up approximately 30% of the reported hate crimes in the US.151 ICAAD recommended allocating sufficient resources to states to provide comprehensive training for law enforcement officers on bias and hate crimes.152

47. GIEACPC stated that in the US, corporal punishment of children was lawful, despite a recommendation by the Human Rights Committee to abolish it in all settings. GIEACPC noted that no recommendations were made in this area during the first UPR and hoped that the matter will be addressed during the second review.153

3. Administration of justice, including impunity and the rule of law

48. JS2154, HRW155 and PHR156 recommended the closure of the Guantánamo prison. AI recommended the release of all detainees still held in Guantánamo, unless they are to be charged and tried without further delay in ordinary federal civilian courts.157 HRW recommended that the US transfer the remaining detainees home or to third countries, unless they have been charged with a credible criminal offense.158 JS43 recommended taking all necessary measures to end the practice of indefinite detention, including opposition to any efforts to broaden the practice of indefinite detention beyond Guantánamo Bay.159

49. JS43 recommended that Congress ban the CIA from operating any detention facility or holding any person in its custody.160 HRW recommended that the US hold accountability those responsible for the CIA secret detention program and the mistreatment of prisoners.161

50. Regarding military commissions at Guantánamo, AI stated that trial of civilians by military tribunals is inconsistent with international standards, especially when civilian courts are available.162 JS32 noted that the US military justice system systematically fails to prosecute cases of sexual violence against its service members.163 JS3 recommended that the US bring all aspects of its military justice system into compliance with the ICCPR, that under no circumstances civilians be subject to trial by court-martial, that court-martial jurisdiction be confined to military offenses and exclude human rights violations.164

51. JS34 noted that the US accepted recommendations 92.70, 92.96, 92.97, 92.177 and 92.179165 on racial bias in the criminal justice system and living conditions in prisons. JS34 stated that reliance on detention should decrease in favour of alternatives to incarceration and that excessive sentencing should be reduced for all non-violent, non-serious and non- sexual offences.166 JS43 recommended abolishing the sentence of life without parole for nonviolent offenses.167


52. JS13 expressed concern for the lack of accountability for CBP officers engaging in excessive force.168 AI recommended ensuring that all victims of human rights violations have full access to meaningful remedy.169

53. JS9 stated that the arrest and incarceration of pregnant women and mothers deprive women of their fundamental rights, and threaten maternal, foetal and child health. The effect of these policies is most devastating to women who are marginalized on the basis of race and socioeconomic status.170 JS9 recommended protecting families by ensuring that pregnant women and mothers of young children are prioritized for alternatives to incarceration, such as community supervision.171 JS9 also recommended eliminating criminal penalties for personal use and possession of drugs and review the sentences of people incarcerated for nonviolent drug-related offenses.172

54. JS45 stated that in all 50 states, provisions in local penal codes allow children to be tried as adults.173 AI stated that the imposition of a sentence of life without parole against minors is a violation of international law.174


JS27 recommended ensuring that: youth in conflict with the law are not subjected to adult criminal procedures; that juveniles are not transferred to adult courts, and are separated from adults during pre-trial detention and after sentencing.179 JS41180, CRIN181 and HRW182 made similar recommendations. CRIN further

recommended raising the minimum age of criminal responsibility in all states.183

55. HRDC stated that US prisons continued to censor books and magazines, limit correspondence to and from prison facilities to postcards, and impose exorbitant fees to phone calls.184 HRDC recommended that state and local commission boards restrict funding to jails and other detention facilities that continue to enforce unconstitutional mail censorship policies, and that all jails allow personal communication via letter and envelope.185 JS16 recommended the protection of federal prisoners’ human right to artistic freedom.186

56. JS49 noted that the US accepted UPR WG recommendations related to and implicating access to counsel in civil cases, including 92.109187, 92.116188, 92.185189, 92.198190 and 92.214.191 JS49 recommended increasing efforts to provide access to legal representation in civil cases, including in immigration proceedings and establish a right to counsel for individuals in federal civil cases.192

57. HRA NGO recommended restoring the integrity of the IT systems of the courts, under accountability to the Congress, with the goal of making such systems as transparent as possible to the public at large.193

4. Right to privacy, marriage and family life

58. JS36 indicated that the US Government has been secretly sweeping up digital communications and personal data around the world with little oversight from either the judiciary or legislature,194 and recommended that the US respect the privacy of individuals outside its territorial borders.195 HRW made a similar recommendation.196 JS15 stated that the US authorities, on a daily basis, are intercepting the private communications and other personal electronic data of hundreds of millions people across the globe.197 JS15 recommended that the US discontinue all indiscriminate interception, retention, use and dissemination of individuals’ private communications both within and outside US territory and jurisdiction.198

JS18 noted that US did not adopt UPR WG

recommendation 92.180175 and recommended abolishing the sentence of life without parole for child offenders at the federal level. JS18 also urged the states to do likewise, and

encouraged them to prevent the transfer of offenders younger than 18 to adult court.

JS43177 and AI178 made similar recommendations.




59. JS10 stated that indigenous children are removed from their families and communities at disproportionate rates as compared to other children199 and once removed they often suffer psychological, economic and cultural harms.200

60. NCLR stated that LGBT people in the US are denied marriage rights to same-sex couples, and parental and custodial rights to LGBT parents.201 WI recommended recognizing same-sex relationships, including removal of bans on marriage.202

5. Freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly

61. JS35 stated that the Government’s prosecutions of leakers of classified information have created a chilling effect on journalistic reporting and free speech. The Government has sought to limit access to sensitive national security-related trials and documents on key issues of public interest.203 JS35 recommended that the Government guarantee that journalists will not be prosecuted for receiving confidential and/or classified information,204 and to end indiscriminate surveillance programs that collect either communications metadata or content.205

62. JS41206 and JS39207 recommended the implementation of previous related UPR recommendations 92.94208, 92.153 and 92.154209, to end the criminalization, incarceration and exile of Counter Intelligence Program – Civil Rights Era political activists, including immediate release of all the aged, terminally, or chronically ill. CIVICUS made a similar recommendation.210

63. ISHR recommended enacting laws and policies to recognise and protect human rights defenders and prohibit intimidation or reprisal by giving full force and effect to the International Declaration on Human Rights Defenders.211 ITHACA expressed concerns about attacks against human rights defenders and stressed that attorneys attempting to address these issues were suspended from the practice of law.212

64. JS4 reported that recently there have been efforts to silence college campuses’ viewpoints in favor of Palestinian rights, branding that expression as anti-Semitic and thereby worthy of censorship.213 CIVICUS made similar remarks and recommended terminating all unwarranted investigations into the activities of university student groups who advocate for the rights of Palestinians.214

65. JS37 expressed concern at the difficulties encountered by serving members of the armed forces who develop a conscientious objection to such service, and harsh treatment of those whose claim to be conscientious objectors.215

66. CIVICUS recommended amending all federal, states and municipal laws and policies requiring explicit approval to hold public protests and recommended ensuring that all journalists are permitted to report on protests without undue interference.216

6. Right to work and to just and favourable conditions of work

67. JS5 noted with concern discriminatory practices in the labour market towards women and migrant workers, and indicated that women are disadvantaged in pursuing work promotions and reaching the highest management positions. JS5 recommended taking measures to combat inequalities in the labour market especially regarding young people, women and migrants.217 UNA recommended passing legislation to ensure women receive equal pay for equal work.218

68. AHR indicated poor treatment and workplace violations against immigrants, primarily in unskilled labor positions: employers are taking advantage of undocumented immigrants’ fear of deportation by engaging in various levels of exploitation, from low wages and wage theft, to physical and sexual assault, to outright imprisonment.219 AHR

recommended increasing resources devoted to training, investigation, and prosecution of these crimes under state and federal laws.220

69. JS12 stated that a significant number of Hispanic children, age twelve and younger, are hired to work in agriculture exposing them to serious health hazards, in violation of ILO Conventions 138 and 182, and recommended a change of the Fair Labour Standard Act to increase the minimum age for hazardous work in agriculture.221 HRW made a similar recommendation.222

7. Right to social security and to an adequate standard of living

70. JS41 recommended prohibiting evictions of persons living in homeless encampments.223 JS22 recommended ensuring that public resources are wisely used for the improvement of the quality of life.224

71. JS20 recommended providing additional federal relief to state and local governments to prevent cuts to education, health and core social services.225

72. MSU observed that water and sanitation services are not economically accessible and recommended enhancing programmes to ensure greater access to these basic services.226 MGA recommended engaging civil society and communities to ensure that all residents enjoy the human right to water and sanitation.227 MWRO made similar remarks and recommended prohibiting the termination of basic water services for lack of ability to pay and for vulnerable population.228 Noting that the US accepted recommendations on homelessness and housing, JS23 recommended ensuring that every person can afford adequate housing and that no person loses access to water or sanitation.229 JS25 recommended convening a national inter-agency consultation on drinking water with the aim of developing responses to water challenges in the country.230

8. Right to health

73. VWC stated that the US should allow everyone within its borders to enjoy the right to health, and that universal healthcare laws should be passed on a federal level.231

74. AI recommended ensuring that all women have equal access to quality maternal health care services.232

75. FLG expressed concerns about the over-medication of psychotropic drugs on African descent girls in foster care and recommended collecting data categorized by race and ethnic origin among children in foster care.233

76. GJC indicated that the US noted recommendation 92.228234 to remove blanket abortion restrictions on humanitarian aid for girls and women raped in war, and stated that these restrictions violate US obligations under, among others, CAT and ICCPR.235 It recommended permitting US foreign assistance to be used for safe abortion services in the cases of rape, life endangerment or incest.236

77. UNA recommended that the Government continue to support universal access to voluntary sexual and reproductive health services.237

78. LTCCC recommended enforcing longstanding standards of care and treatment of nursing home residents and, particularly, of the numerous residents suffering from Alzheimer’s disease or other forms of dementia.238

9. Right to education

79. JS16 noted that the US accepted a number of recommendations related to the right to education and recommended protecting young people’s freedom to choose text and books.239





80. AHR stated that many immigrant students attend “high-poverty, low-performing schools” due to increasing segregation240 and recommended creating a plan that meets the educational and mental health needs of all refugee students.241

81. JS5 welcomed acceptance of UPR WG recommendation 92.109242 aimed to promote, inter alia, educational opportunities, and commended attempts by the Government to facilitate the equal integration of all students in the education system. However, JS5 remained concerned that particularly African American, Hispanic and Native American children face a high level of discrimination. Schools in low-income neighborhoods tend to have the fewest resources, funding, and least experienced teachers compared to schools in more affluent neighborhoods. High school drop-out rates remain high for African American and Hispanic students.243 JS12 stated that the school dropout rate for Hispanic children who labour in agriculture is four times the national rate.244

82. JS21 indicated that African Americans still suffer from disproportionately lower standing in social indicators including education.245 JS5 recommended increasing measures to combat discrimination, particularly against children from poor families and minority children, through programmes and policies to reduce inequalities in access to education and health.246

10. Cultural rights

83. QR drew attention to the precarious conditions of the Quindaro Ruins and Underground Railroad site, which has a high historical value related to slavery.247

11. Persons with disabilities

84. JS11 stated that women with disabilities are two to three times more likely than non- disabled women to experience violence, including but not limited to sexual and domestic violence and recommended that the funding to programs focusing on women with disabilities under VAWA is increased.248

85. JS8 stated that violations, including denial of legal capacity, and discrimination against persons with disabilities are still occurring.249

12. Minorities and indigenous peoples

86. JS46 stated that Alaska and Hawaii were each a state of peoples recognized under the law of nations and international law as nations, claiming self-determination and self- governance. According to JS46, the US submitted misleading reports to cloak the violations of the Charter of the United Nations and international law.250

87. While acknowledging the efforts made by the Government in recent years to advance the rights of indigenous peoples, JS5 noted with deep concern that indigenous peoples, including American Indian, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian peoples, still face significant challenges that are related to historical discrimination, acts of oppression, and inadequate government policies.251 JS5 recommended the Government to adopt measures to effectively protect sacred areas of indigenous peoples against environmental exploitation and degradation.252 JS19 made similar recommendations.253

88. JS48 requested that the UPR Working Group recommend that the US fully implement the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples without seeking to diminish the inherent rights of Indigenous Peoples to, inter alia, self-determination, free, prior and informed consent, rights to traditionally owned, occupied and used lands, territories and resources, cultural rights and sacred areas.254 JS44 made similar remarks and recommended protecting cultural landscapes and sacred areas of indigenous peoples and

ensure that consultations are held with the communities affected by development projects and exploitation of natural resources.255 JS42 made a similar recommendation.256

89. JS26 stated that the principle of free, prior and informed consent relating to indigenous peoples must be central to domestic and foreign policy. Sacred sites must be protected across the country.257

90. JS40 stressed that the reclamation of traditional lands and natural resources is a primary goal for the Nipmuc Nation and the Chappaquiddick Wampanoag Tribe.258 Tribal members are continually challenged in their right to hunt and fish without license. Some cases have resulted in arrests of tribal members.259 WSNC recommended that the Government respond to WSNC requests for negotiation on treaty and land rights.260

91. JS48 indicated that the US continues to make unilateral decisions to extract resources (gold, uranium, coal, timber, water, etc.), and to carry out development projects with devastating impacts on the sacred areas, including waters and other resources.261

92. JS48 requested that the UPR WG recommend that the US reconsider its rejection, in its first UPR review, of recommendation 92.154262 regarding the end of the incarceration of the Indian activist Leonard Peltier.263

93. JS42 asked the UPR WG to recommend that the US engage in peace processes with Indigenous Peoples by providing safe access to land, water and education, and safety from violence.264

13. Migrants, refugees and asylum seekers

94. JS47 highlighted that the US immigration system fails to protect fundamental human rights to fair deportation proceedings, humane detention conditions, freedom from persecution or torture, and family unity.265 NIJC stated that the Government denied immigrants the right to a fair hearing and judicial review though summary removal processes in contradiction with its support of UPR WG recommendation 92.185.266 JS41 recommended halting the practice of prosecuting, in the criminal justice system, people charged with immigration offenses.267 AI recommended detaining migrants only in exceptional circumstances, in humane conditions, with such detention justified in each individual case and subject to judicial review.268 PHR269 and JS43270 made similar recommendations.

95. JS47 stated that the US should ensure respect for the right to family unity for detained migrants.271 VIVAT International recommended revising detention and deportation policies to avoid separating family members.272 JS29 recommended minimizing the use of expedited removal against unaccompanied children.273 JS43 noted that the US Government has expanded the detention of immigrant families and has failed to protect children from abuse in CBP custody.274 NIJC recommended eliminating the use of family detention and improving detention conditions at the border.275 JS43 made similar recommendations.276 JS2 recommended avoiding the criminalization of migrants, end police brutality, guarantee migrants access to basic services.277

96. JS47 indicated that the sexual abuse of migrants in detention, including pregnant women, nursing mothers, and LGBTI migrants is a serious concern.278 VWC noted that in spite of US’s acceptance of UPR WG recommendation 92.195279, no executive or administrative action has been taken to provide access to healthcare for non-citizens.280

97. AHR indicated that eligibility for most public benefits hinges on immigration status denying benefits to qualified immigrants or family members. The exclusion of undocumented immigrants from almost all public benefits violates their basic human rights.281





14. Environmental issues

98. JS30 recommended supporting engagement and international partnership to sustain a comprehensive health treatment system in the Marshall Islands.282

99. JS52 suggested stopping new uranium mining in minority communities, and enforcing domestic environmental law consistent with human rights standards.283

100. GN requested the UPR WG to ask the Government to discuss with them ways to promote together adaptation measures to climate change and mitigation of climate change through the development of renewable energy and protection of ecosystems by empowering GN to manage human interaction with GN lands.284

15. Human rights and counter-terrorism

101. JS31 stated that the US accepted but failed to implement UPR recommendations 92.58 and 92.65285 by which all domestic counterterrorism legislation and action should have been made consistent with international human rights standards and laws.286 JS31 recommended engaging with the civil society in a realignment of national security and counterterrorism laws in order to lower barriers to humanitarian access to civilians in armed conflict.287


1 The stakeholders listed below have contributed information for this summary; the full texts of all original submissions are available at: http://www.ohchr.org.
Civil society
Individual submissions:

AA4RR Africans in America for Restitution and Repatriation, Bronx (United States of America);

AAAN Arab American Action Network, Chicago, IL (United States of America);

AC Accountability Counsel, San Francisco, California (United States of America);

AHR Advocates for Human Rights, Minneapolis (United States of America);

AI Amnesty International, London (United Kingdom of Great Britain); AIC Advocates for Informed Choice, Cotati, CA (United States of

CIVICUS CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation, Johannesburg

(South Africa);
CNUUS Coalition of NGOs for UPR United States, Tallahassee (United States

of America);
CRIN The Child Rights International Network, London (United Kingdom of

Great Britain and Northern Ireland); EN Equality Now, Nairobi (Kenya);

FLG The Franklin Law Group P.C, Baltimore (United States of America); GIEACPC Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children, London

(United Kingdom of Great Britain);
GJC Global Justice Center, New York (United States of America);

GN Guale Nation, MGA 31420 (United States of America); HRA-NGO Human Rights Alert (NGO), Tel Aviv (Israel);
HRDC Human Rights Defense Center, Lake Worth (United States of

HRW Human Rights Watch, Geneva (Switzerland);

HRC Human Rights Campaign, Washington, D.C. (United States of America);

ICAAD International Center for Advocates Against Discrimination, New York (United States of America);

ISHR International Service for Human Rights, Geneva (Switzerland); ITHACA ITHACA, Lake Arrowhead, California (United States of America); LL Lambda Legal, New York (United States of America);
LTCCC Long Term Care Community Coalition, New York (United States of

MGA Massachusetts Global Action, Boston (United States of America); MSU Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan (United States of

MWRO Michigan Welfare Rights Organization, Detroit, Michigan (United

States of America);
NCLR National Center for Lesbian Rights, San Francisco (United States of

NIJC National Immigrant Justice Center, Chicago (United States of

PHR Physicians for Human Rights, Cambridge, MA (United States of

QR/UGRR-2015 Quindaro Ruins/Underground Railroad- Exercise 2015, Kansas City

(United States of America);





SCU/IHRC International Human Rights Clinic, Santa Clara (United States of America);

UNA-USA United Nations Association of the United States of America, Washington DC (United States of America);

VIVAT VIVAT International, New York (United States of America); VWC Vermont Workers Center, Burlington (United States of America); WI Williams Institute, University of California School of Law, Los

Angeles, California (United States of America);
WILPF Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, Geneva

WSNC Western Shoshone National Council, Austin (United States of


Joint submissions:

  1. JS1  Edmund Rice International, Geneva (Switzerland); Salesian Missions,

    New Rochelle (United States of America);

  2. JS2  Organization for Defending Victim of Violence, Tehran (Islamic

    Republic of Iran); Society for Supporting Victims of Domestic


  3. JS3  Yale Law School, New Haven CT (United States of America);

    University of California, San Francisco CA (United States of America); National Women’s Law Centre, Washington DC (United States of America); Amnesty International USA, New York (United States of America); the International Commission of Jurists, Geneva (Switzerland);

  4. JS4  Advancing Justice — Asian Law Caucus, San Francisco (United States of America); Centre for Constitutional Rights, New York (United

    States of America); Council on American Islamic Relations — San Francisco Bay Area, San Francisco (United States of America); American Muslims for Palestine, Palos Hills (United States of America); National Lawyers Guild International Committee;

  5. JS5  Istituto Internazionale Maria Ausiliatrice, Veyrier (Switzerland); VIDES International — International Volunteerism Organisation for

    Women, Education, Roma (Italy);

  6. JS6  Human Rights Educators USA, Ithaca (United States of America);

    U.S. Human Rights Network;

  7. JS7  Columbia Law School Human Rights Institute, New York (United

    States of America); Association of Official Human Rights Agencies,

    Washington DC (United States of America);

  8. JS8  Medical Whistle blower Advocacy Network, Washington (United

    States of America);

  9. JS9  The Sexual Rights Initiative, Ottawa (Canada); International Network

    of People Who Use Drugs, London (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland); International Network of Women who Use Drugs; the Women and Harm Reduction International Network; National Advocates for Pregnant Women, New York (United States of America); SisterReach, Memphis (United States of America); Family Law & Cannabis Alliance, Boston (United States of America); Native Youth Sexual Health Network, Toronto (Canada);

  10. JS10  National Indian Child Welfare Association, Portland (United States of America); Association on American Indian Affairs, Rockville (United

    States of America); the National Congress of American Indians,

    Washington DC (Unites States of America);

  11. JS11  Women Enabled International, Washington, DC (United States of

    America); Centre for Reproductive Rights, New York (United States

    of America);

  12. JS12  The Harvest, Tempe (United States of America);
  1. JS13  UC Irvine International Justice Clinic, Irvine (United States of America);
  2. JS14  American Friends Service Committee, Washington DC (United States of America); Centre for Constitutional Rights, New York (United

    States of America); Rachel Corrie Foundation for Peace and Justice, Olympia (United States of America); US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, Washington DC (United States of America); Jewish Voice for Peace, Oakland (United States of America);

  3. JS15  American Civil Liberties Union, New York (United States of America); Center for Democracy & Technology, Washington DC

    (United States of America);

  4. JS16  National Coalition Against Censorship, New York (United States of

    America); Freemuse, Copenhagen (Denmark);

  5. JS17  Advocates for Human Rights, Minneapolis (United States of

    America); The Greater Caribbean for Life (Trinidad and Tobago); The Puerto Rican Coalition against the Death Penalty, San Juan (Puerto Rico);

  6. JS18  Human Rights Advocates, San Francisco (United States of America); The Campaign for the Fair Sentencing of Youth, Washington DC

    (United States of America); Human Rights Watch, Washington DC

    (United States of America);

  7. JS19  Indian Law Resource Center, Helena (United States of America);

    National Congress of American Indians, Washington DC (United States of America); National Indigenous Women’s Resource Centre, Inc., Lame Deer (United States of America); Clan Star, Inc.;

  8. JS20  Center for Women’s Global Leadership, Rutgers University, New Brunswick (United States of America); Political Economy Research

    Institute, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, (United States of


  9. JS21  International Human Rights Association of American Minorities,

    Nanaimo (Canada); Indigenous Peoples’ and Nations’ Coalition, Geneva (Switzerland); International Human Rights Council, London (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland); Iota Phi Theta Fraternity, Baltimore (United States of America); National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in America, Washington DC (United States of America); National Conference of Black Lawyers, Chicago Chapter, Chicago (United States of America);

  10. JS22  HELP ORG INC/Raccoon Hogg CDC/SALT, Atlanta, United States of America;
  11. JS23  National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty, Washington DC (United States of America); Chicago Anti-Eviction Campaign;

    National Coalition for the Homeless; National Fair Housing Alliance; National Low Income Housing Coalition; Unity Parenting and Counseling, Inc.;

  12. JS24  Center for Constitutional Rights, New York (United States of America); Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, San Francisco

    (United States of America); California Prison Focus, Oakland (United

    States of America);

  13. JS25  Safe Water Alliance; Environmental Justice Coalition for Water,

    Sacramento (United States of America); International Human Right Law Clinic, UC Berkeley School of Law, Berkeley (United States of America);

  14. JS26  Four Freedoms Forum; Hawaii Institute for Human Rights;
  15. JS27  International Women’s Human Rights Law Clinic, City University of New York Law School, Long Island City (United States of America);





ACLU Michigan, Detroit (United States of America); Juvenile Life

Without Parole Initiative, Philadelphia (United States of America);

  1. JS28  Best Practices Policy Project; Desiree Alliance, Fort Smith (United

    States of America); Sex Workers Outreach Project — New York City,

    New York (United States of America);

  2. JS29  The Leadership Conference Education Fund, Washington DC (United

    States of America); Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Washington DC (United States of America); the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People, Baltimore (United States of America);

  3. JS30  Center for Political Ecology, Santa Cruz (United States of America); ERUB/Enewetak, Rongelap, Utrik, Bikini Survivors; Iju in

    Ean/Northern Star Rongelap Women’s Club; Elimondik/Enewetak- Enjebi Sustainability Leadership Organisation; WUTMI/Women United Together Marshall Islands, Majuro (United States of America); Cultural Survival, Cambridge (United States of America); Indigenous World Association; IWAC/International Women Anthropology Conference; INDR/International Network on Displacement and Resettlement, Tucson (United States of America); IPPNW/International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, Somerville (United States of America); Gensuikyo/Japan Council Against A and H Bomb, Tokyo (Japan);

  4. JS31  Alliance for Peacebuilding, Washington DC (United States of America); American Friends Service Committee, Philadelphia (United

    States of America); Defending Dissent Foundation, Takoma Park (United States of America); The Fund for Global Human Rights, Washington DC (United States of America); Global Partnership for the Prevention of Armed Conflict, the Hague (the Netherlands); Karamah: Muslim Women Lawyers for Human Rights, Washington DC (United States of America); KinderUSA, Dallas (United States of America); Peace Appeal Foundation, Charlottesville (United States of America); Peace Catalyst International, Louisville (United States of America); Zakat Foundation, Chicago (United States of America); Eileen F. Babbitt, PhD, Professor of the Practice International Conflict Analysis and Resolution, The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy Tufts University Medford, Medford (United States of America);

  5. JS32  The Avon Global Center for Women and Justice at Cornell Law School, Ithaca (United States of America); Cornell Law School’s

    Global Gender Justice Clinic, and Service Women’s Action Network;

  6. JS33  Georgia Peace & Justice Coalition, Atlanta (United States of

    America); Southern Christian Leadership Conference, Atlanta (United States of America); Cold Case Justice Initiative at Syracuse University College of Law, Syracuse (United States of America);

  7. JS34  The Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, Oakland (United States of America); Forward Together; Research Action Design;
  8. JS35  PEN International, London (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland); PEN American Center, New York (United States of

    America); Committee to Protect Journalists, New York (United States

    of America);

  9. JS36  Brennan Center For Justice at New York University School of Law,

    New York (United States of America); Access, New York/Brussels; American Civil Liberties Union, New York (United States of America); Centre for Democracy and Technology, Washington DC (United States of America); Electronic Frontier Foundation, San Francisco (United States of America); Electronic Privacy Information

Centre, Washington DC (United States of America); Human Rights

Watch; PEN American Centre, New York (United States of America);

  1. JS37  International Fellowship of Reconciliation, Alkmaar (the

    Netherlands); Conscience and Peace Tax International, Clacton-on-sea

    (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland);

  2. JS38  Center for Constitutional Rights, New York (United States of

    America); Iraq Veterans Against the War, New York (United States of


  3. JS39  Malcolm X Centre for Self Determination, Greenville (United States

    of America); Jericho Movement for Amnesty & Freedom of All (U.S.)

    Political Prisoners, Chesterfield (United States of America);

  4. JS40  Nipmuc Nation, South Grafton (United States of America);

    Chappaquiddick Wampanoag Tribe, Boston (United States of


  5. JS41  US Human Rights Network, Atlanta (United States of America);

    Vermont Workers Centre, Burlington (United States of America); Four Freedoms Forum; Chicago Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression, Chicago (United States of America); Indigenous World Association; Sex Workers Outreach Project – NYC, New York (United States of America); ACLU of New Mexico, Regional Centre for Border Rights, Las Cruces (United States of America); Sunburst Projects, University of San Francisco, Sacramento (United States of America); National Law Centre on Homelessness & Poverty (Washington DC (United States of America); Dream Defenders; The Advocates for Human Rights, Minneapolis (United States of America); American Civil Liberties Union, New York (United States of America); SPARK Reproductive Justice NOW/Johnson C. Smith University; South Texas Human Rights Centre, Falfurrias (United States of America);

  6. JS42  Southeast Indigenous Peoples’ Center, Eatonton (United States of America);
  7. JS43  American Civil Liberties Union, New York (United States of America);
  8. JS44  Indigenous World Association, the Laguna Acoma Coalition for a Safe Environment, Casa Blanca (New Mexico);
  9. JS45  Real Time Leadership Solutions, South Holland (USA); United Nations Association-USA, Greater Chicago Chapter;
  10. JS46  Indigenous Peoples and Nations Coalition, Geneva (Switzerland); The Koani Foundation, Lihue (United States of America);
  11. JS47  Detention Watch Network, Washington DC (United States of America); The Advocates for Human Rights, Minneapolis (United

    States of America);

  12. JS48  International Indian Treaty Council, San Francisco (United States of


  13. JS49  Columbia Law School Human Rights Institute, New York (United

    States of America), National Legal Aid & Defender Association, Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, Detention Watch Network, National Center for Access to Justice at Cardozo Law School, Public Justice Center, Western Center on Law and Poverty, National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty, Citizen Works, Program on Human Rights and the Global Economy, Northeastern University School of Law, American University Washington College of Law Center for Human Rights & Humanitarian Law Local Human Rights Lawyering Project;





  1. JS50  CUNY, International Women’s Human Rights Clinic, New York (United States of America); Trafficking Victims Advocacy Protection,

    New York (United States of America);

  2. JS51  New Future Foundation, New York (United States of America);

    Friends of the African Union, Cincinnati (United States of America);

  3. JS52  New Mexico Environmental Law Center, Santa Fe (United States of

    America); Multicultural Alliance for a Safe Environment;

Regional intergovernmental organization(s):

IACHR-OAS Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Washington, D.C. (United States of America);

OSCE-ODIHR Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, Warsaw (Poland).

2 The following abbreviations have been used in the present document:





  1. 3  JS6, page 9.
  2. 4  JS2, page 11.
  3. 5  JS41, section D, para.3.
  4. 6  JS11, page 9.
  5. 7  JS26, page 3.
  6. 8  AI, page 4.
  7. 9  FLG, page 5.
  8. 10  JS20, page 9.
  9. 11  JS29, page 7.
  10. 12  JS2, page 11.
  11. 13  JS41, section D, para.3.
  12. 14  JS11, page 9.
  13. 15  JS26, page 3.
  14. 16  UNA, page 2.
  15. 17  JS19, page 10.
  16. 18  AI, page 4.
  17. 19  WILPF, page 3.
  18. 20  FLG, page 5.
  19. 21  JS6, page 9.
  20. 22  JS16, page 11.
  21. 23  JS2, page 11.
  22. 24  JS41, section D, para.3.
  23. 25  JS26, page 3.
  24. 26  UNA, page 5.
  25. 27  AI, page 4.
  26. 28  JS1, page 3.
  27. 29  WILPF, page 3.
  28. 30  FLG, page 5.
  29. 31  JS6, page 9.

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Optional Protocol to ICCPR
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women

Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
Optional Protocol to CAT
Convention on the Rights of the Child

International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance.

  1. 32  JS8, page 9.
  2. 33  JS2, page 11.
  3. 34  JS41, section D, para.3.
  4. 35  JS11, page 9.
  5. 36  JS45, page 13.
  6. 37  JS26, page 3.
  7. 38  UNA, page 5.
  8. 39  FLG, page 5.
  9. 40  JS6, page 9.
  10. 41  AI, page 4.
  11. 42  JS2, page 11.
  12. 43  JS3, page 8.
  13. 44  JS2, page 11.
  14. 45  SCU/IHRC, page 5.
  15. 46  JS41, section D, para.3.
  16. 47  JS6, page 9.
  17. 48  HRW, para. 30 a.
  18. 49  SCU/IHRC, page 5.
  19. 50  IACHR, p. 2.
  20. 51  AI, page 2.
  21. 52  AI, page 4.
  22. 53  JS8, page 9.
  23. 54  JS14, page12.
  24. 55  A/HRC/16/11, page 16.
  25. 56  A/HRC/16/11, page 28.
  26. 57  CIVICUS, p.13
  27. 58  HRW, para. 10 b.
  28. 59  JS43, page 10.
  29. 60  AI, page 3.
  30. 61  JS6, page 9.
  31. 62  JS44, page 4.
  32. 63  ISHR, para. 6.
  33. 64  JS26, page 2.
  34. 65  JS8, page 9.
  35. 66  WI, page 2
  36. 67  WSNC, para.29.
  37. 68  JS8, page 9.
  38. 69  JS7, page 7.
  39. 70  JS6, page 9. See http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/education/training/programme.htm.
  40. 71  JS26, page 3.
  41. 72  JS41, section D, para. 2.
  42. 73  FLG, page 5.
  43. 74  JS11, page 9.
  44. 75  JS5, page 3.
  45. 76  HRW, paras. 4 and 5.
  46. 77  AC, pages 1 and 2.
  47. 78  AC, page 7.
  48. 79  AI, page 4.
  49. 80  AA4RR, p.6
  50. 81  JS25, page 2, A/HRC/18/33/Add.4.
  51. 82  JS30, page 9.
  52. 83  A/HRC/21/48/Add.1.
  53. 84  JS29, page 5
  54. 85  Lambda Legal, p. 6.
  55. 86  JS41, page 2.
  56. 87  JS17, page 20.





  1. 88  JS27, page 2.
  2. 89  JS43, page 6.
  3. 90  A/HRC/16/11, page 17.
  4. 91  A/HRC/16/11, page 20.
  5. 92  A/HRC/16/11, page 21.
  6. 93  A/HRC/16/11, page 28.
  7. 94  JS33, pages 2, 4 and 11.
  8. 95  ODIHR, page 3.
  9. 96  JS20, page 6.
  10. 97  JS5, pages 5 and 7.
  11. 98  Equality Now, page 6.
  12. 99  A/HRC/16/11/Add.1, page 7.
  13. 100  A/HRC/16/11/Add.1, page 3.
  14. 101  JS34, pages 3 and 8.
  15. 102  NCLR, page 1.
  16. 103  JS43, page 11.
  17. 104  JS28, page 10.
  18. 105  WI, page 2.
  19. 106  JS41, section D, paras.3, 12 and 22.
  20. 107  WI, page 8.
  21. 108  UNA, page 4.
  22. 109  HRC, p. 7.
  23. 110  AI, pages 3 and 5.
  24. 111  A/HRC/16/11/Add.1, page 3.
  25. 112  HRW, paras. 18 and 19 b.
  26. 113  JS29, page 5.
  27. 114  JS41, section D, para.6.
  28. 115  JS17, page 17.
  29. 116  CNUUS, pp. 2 and 3
  30. 117  JS51, pages 6 and 7.
  31. 118  JS13, pages 3 and 4.
  32. 119  WILPF, page 3.
  33. 120  AAAN, page 3.
  34. 121  PHR, page 6.
  35. 122  JS2, page 12.
  36. 123  JS38, page 3.
  37. 124  AI, page 4.
  38. 125  JS43, page 6.
  39. 126  PHR, page 5.
  40. 127  JS43, page 6.
  41. 128  AI, page 5.
  42. 129  HRW, page 4.
  43. 130  JS41, section D, para.7.
  44. 131  JS24, page 5.
  45. 132  A/HRC/16/11/Add.1, page 3.
  46. 133  PHR, page 2.
  47. 134  JS5, page 6.
  48. 135  JS19, page3
  49. 136  AI, page 5.
  50. 137  JS26, page 4.
  51. 138  Equality Now, pages 3 and 6.
  52. 139  AIC, pages 4 and 5.
  53. 140  JS41, section D, para.11.
  54. 141  SCU/IHRC, page 7.
  55. 142  JS2, page13.
  56. 143  JS1, page 3.
  1. 144  A/HRC/16/11/Add.1, page 2.
  2. 145  JS50, pages 3 and 4.
  3. 146  JS41, section D, para.11.
  4. 147  SCU/IHRC, page 8.
  5. 148  UNA, page 3.
  6. 149  Equality Now, p. 6.
  7. 150  SCU/IHRC, pages 4 and 5.
  8. 151  WI, page 4.
  9. 152  ICAAD, p. 8.
  10. 153  GIEACPC, p. 1.
  11. 154  JS2, page 13.
  12. 155  HRW, para. 16 a.
  13. 156  PHR, page 3.
  14. 157  AI, page 4.
  15. 158  HRW, page 3.
  16. 159  JS43, page 4.
  17. 160  JS43, page 6.
  18. 161  HRW, para. 16 c.
  19. 162  AI, page 2.
  20. 163  JS32, page 2.
  21. 164  JS3, pages 8 and 9.
  22. 165  A/HRC/16/11/Add.1, page 3.
  23. 166  JS34, pages 3, 6 and 8.
  24. 167  JS43, page 7.
  25. 168  JS13, page 9.
  26. 169  AI, page 5.
  27. 170  JS9, page 1.
  28. 171  JS9, page 12.
  29. 172  JS9, page 6.
  30. 173  JS45, page 20.
  31. 174  AI, page 3.
  32. 175  A/HRC/16/11/Add.1, page 4.
  33. 176  JS18, pages 2, 8 and 9.
  34. 177  JS43, page 6.
  35. 178  AI, page 5.
  36. 179  JS27, page 5.
  37. 180  JS41, section D, para.25.
  38. 181  CRIN, pp. 3 and 4.
  39. 182  HRW, para. 24 b.
  40. 183  CRIN, page 3.
  41. 184  HRDC, para. 5.
  42. 185  HRDC, section III, a (i) and (iii).
  43. 186  JS16, page12.
  44. 187  A/HRC/16/11/Add.1, page 7.
  45. 188  A/HRC/16/11/Add.1, page 3.
  46. 189  A/HRC/16/11/Add.1, page 6.
  47. 190  A/HRC/16/11/Add.1, page 2.
  48. 191  A/HRC/16/11/Add.1, page 6.
  49. 192  JS49,pp.1,2,3,5and6.
  50. 193  HRA NGO, p. 6.
  51. 194  JS36, page 1.
  52. 195  JS36, page 13.
  53. 196  HRW, page 3.
  54. 197  JS15, page 1.
  55. 198  JS15, page 10.
  56. 199  JS10, page 8.





  1. 200  JS10, page 4.
  2. 201  NCLR, page 5.
  3. 202  WI, page 8.
  4. 203  JS35, paras. 1, 16 and 17.
  5. 204  JS35, section V.
  6. 205  JS35, section VI.
  7. 206  JS41, section D, para.8.
  8. 207  JS39, page 2.
  9. 208  A/HRC/16/11, page 20.
  10. 209  A/HRC/16/11, page 24.
  11. 210  CIVICUS, p.14
  12. 211  ISHR, para. 6.
  13. 212  ITHACA, p. 2.
  14. 213  JS4, page 4.
  15. 214  CIVICUS, pages 6 and 13
  16. 215  JS37, page 1.
  17. 216  CIVICUS, p.12
  18. 217  JS5, page 5.
  19. 218  UNA, page 2.
  20. 219  AHR, page 10 and 11.
  21. 220  AHR, page 13.
  22. 221  JS12, pages 5 and 6.
  23. 222  HRW, page 5.
  24. 223  JS41, section D, para.19.
  25. 224  JS22, page 3.
  26. 225  JS20, page 9.
  27. 226  MSU, pages 2 and 3.
  28. 227  MGA, page 3.
  29. 228  MWRO, page 8.
  30. 229  JS23, pages 2 and 12.
  31. 230  JS25, page 2.
  32. 231  VWC, page 2.
  33. 232  AI, page 5.
  34. 233  FLG, pages 1 and 5.
  35. 234  A/HRC/16/11/Add.1, page 8.
  36. 235  GJC, pages 1-6.
  37. 236  GJC, pages 6 and 7.
  38. 237  UNA, page 2.
  39. 238  LTCCC, para. 4.
  40. 239  JS16, pages 3 and 11.
  41. 240  AHR, pages 8 and 9.
  42. 241  AHR, page 10.
  43. 242  A/HRC/16/11/Add.1, page 7.
  44. 243  JS5, page 4.
  45. 244  JS12, page 4.
  46. 245  JS21, pages 2-3.
  47. 246  JS5, page 5.
  48. 247  QR/Underground Railroad Exercise 2015, page 3 and 4.
  49. 248  JS11, page 1.
  50. 249  JS8, page 5.
  51. 250  JS46, pages 1 and 8.
  52. 251  JS5, p.7
  53. 252  JS5, p.8
  54. 253  JS19, p.10
  55. 254  JS48, p.13
  56. 255  JS44, pages 1 and 4.
  1. 256  JS42, page 5.
  2. 257  JS26, page.3.
  3. 258  JS40, p.4-5
  4. 259  JS40, p.5
  5. 260  WSNC, para. 29.
  6. 261  JS48, p.8
  7. 262  A/HRC/16/11/Add.1, page 9.
  8. 263  JS48, p.13
  9. 264  JS42, page 5.
  10. 265  JS47, page 18.
  11. 266  NIJC, page 1 and A/HRC/16/11/Add.1, page 6.
  12. 267  JS41, section D, para. 23.
  13. 268  AI, page 5.
  14. 269  PHR, page 3.
  15. 270  JS43, page 14.
  16. 271  JS47, p.6
  17. 272  VIVAT International, pages 2 and 3.
  18. 273  JS29, page 7.
  19. 274  JS43, page 12.
  20. 275  NIJC, page 6.
  21. 276  JS43, pages 14 and 16.
  22. 277  JS2, pages 11 and 12.
  23. 278  JS47, page 16.
  24. 279  A/HRC/16/11/Add.1, page 7.
  25. 280  VWC, page 5.
  26. 281  AHR, p. 14
  27. 282  JS30, page. 9.
  28. 283  JS52, page 7.
  29. 284  GN, p. 7.
  30. 285  A/HRC/16/11, page 17.
  31. 286  JS31, page 2.
  32. 287  JS31, page 1.




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s