Links to the Universal Periodic Review The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is a process whereby all States will have their human rights record reviewed by the Human Rights Council every four-and-a-half years. As a Human Rights Council mechanism, the review is conducted in Geneva through a three-and-a-half hour session, during which any state can ask questions and make comments and recommendations to the State under review. The State under review is also given the opportunity to provide responses during the session. While the Committee’s State review and the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) processes both focus on analysing States’ national implementation of human rights obligations, the two processes are very different. This is especially due to the fact that the UPR is a political rather than expert process, where States make recommendations to each other based on a number of different considerations that are not necessarily grounded in an expert analysis of the national situation. Nevertheless, the two processes can be mutually reinforcing if used in the right way. For instance, the UPR has proven to be a strong mechanism for encouraging States to ratify international human rights documents and for making States submit their reports to the relevant treaty bodies. 24 Furthermore, the UPR can be used to put more political weight behind implementation of treaty body recommendations by States recommending implementation of specific treaty body recommendations in the UPR. However, at the same time, it is important to avoid that UPR recommendations dilute the recommendations made by treaty bodies by oversimplifying the recommendations or making them less demanding. In the context of a Committee’s State review, it may be relevant to bring up UPR recommendations. However, this must be done carefully to avoid unnecessarily politicising the treaty body expert process. As a general rule, implementation of UPR recommendations accepted by the State should be addressed by the relevant treaty bodies, which are in a better position to make a technical assessment of how the State is performing this commitment in the context of its broader human rights obligations. As for rejected UPR recommendations, it is important for NGOs to ensure that these are addressed as a general issue on implementing the Convention and not as rejected recommendations. Otherwise, there is a risk that the treaty bodies enter a political arena where they do not belong. Engaging with State reviews in the UN Committee against Torture: A practical guide