The Committee on Foreign Affairs adopted the report\ndrafted by Laima Liucija ANDRIKIENĖ (EPP-ED, LT) on the\ndevelopment of the UN Human Rights Council, including the role of\nthe EU. The committee welcomes the work carried out by the UNHRC in\nits first two years of activity and notes that it has the potential\nto develop into a valuable framework for the European Union's\nmultilateral human rights efforts. However, the committee regrets\nthat during the first two years of its activities, the new body has\nnot yet achieved more substantial progress in improving the United\nNations' human rights record.
\nMEPs regret the failure of the UNHRC to take action on\nmany of the world's most urgent human rights situations, partly due\nto the growing reluctance on the part of numerous UNHRC States\nwhich oppose any consideration of country situations including\nthrough country resolutions, special sessions and Special\nProcedures country mandates on the grounds that this would\nallegedly politicise the UNHRC. MEPs reiterate the view that the\nUNHRC's ability to address country situations effectively is\ncentral to its authority and credibility.
\nOther issues are raised as concerns the HRC,\nsuch as:
\nMEPs also examine certain procedures and practices of\nthe UNHRC:
\nSpecial Procedures: MEPs\nconsider that the Special Procedures are at the core of the UN\nhuman rights machinery and stress that the credibility and\neffectiveness of the UNHRC in the protection of human rights rests\non cooperation with Special Procedures and their full\nimplementation. They regard Special Procedures on country\nsituations as an essential instrument for improving human\nrights on the ground. They consider that the nature and frequency\nof the country reviews under the UPR cannot replace country\nmandates and consequently opposes the attempts by certain countries\nto use the argument of \"rationalisation\" of Special Procedures in\norder to eliminate those mandates. MEPs deplore in this respect the\ntermination of country mandates in respect of Belarus, the\nDemocratic Republic of the Congo and Cuba, and the abolition of the\nGroup of Experts on Darfur. They also condemn the efforts made by\nseveral UNHRC Members to limit the independence and efficiency of\nSpecial Procedures and welcome the adoption of a Code of Conduct\nfor Special Procedures Mandate-Holders. They call for improvement\nas regards the\nselection and nomination of appropriate special procedures\nmandate-holders and for continuous support to be given to Special\nProcedures in terms of finance and human resources.
\nUniversal Periodic Review: MEPs recognise the potential value of the UPR\nmechanism in improving the universality of the monitoring of human\nrights commitments and practices throughout the world. However,\nMEPs regret that these first two sessions have not entirely lived\nup to expectations with regard to an \"objective, transparent,\nnon-selective, constructive, non-confrontational and\nnon-politicized\" process.
\nMEPs call for increased attention to be given to\neconomic, social and cultural rights as well as the rights of\nminorities during the UPR process. MEPs denounce the use of\npolitical alliances to shield certain States from scrutiny\nrather than to critically assess human rights conditions and\nprotections, which seriously undermines the very purpose of the\nUPR. They express concern that, in several cases, the final report\nof the UPR and the interactive dialogue during the review did not\nreflect the information contained in the summary documents or even\ncontradicted independent experts' findings, thus depriving the\nreview process of its pertinence, and that the recommendations put\nforward in the reports of the Working Group were too vague and\nlacked any operational substance.
\nThe members of the UPR Working Group are called upon\nto provide measurable, concrete, realistic and victim-oriented\nrecommendations in its future reviews, based on information\nestablished by independent monitoring mechanisms or NGOs. MEPs\nregret the non-binding character of UPR recommendations,\nwhich stems from the right that the UPR affords States to decide\nwhich recommendations they can accept.
\nParticipation of civil society and the Office of the\nHigh Commissioner for Human Rights:\nMEPs reiterate the importance of participation by civil society in\nthe work of the UNHRC, and urges the EU Member States to introduce\neffective ways and instruments enabling civil society to\nparticipate in the UNHRC. MEPs reaffirms\ntheir opinion that the OHCHR is a key body within the United\nNations system since it plays a crucial role in protecting and\nupholding human rights by mainstreaming those rights throughout the\nUN system and within all relevant organisations, notably in\nconnection with activities linked to the restoration or\nstrengthening of peace, development and humanitarian action. They\nencourage the efforts of the OHCHR to strengthen its presence on\nthe ground through the opening of regional offices for example in\nBishkek (Kyrgystan). They expresses their\nappreciation of the work of Ms Louise Arbour as head of the OHCHR\nand are confident that her successor, Ms Navanethem Pillay, will\nengage with similar enthusiasm and live up to the challenges of the\npost.
\nMEPs call on the EU Member States to continue to\nsupport the OHCHR, especially in the Administrative and Budgetary\nFifth Committee of the General Assembly, so as to ensure that there\nis no interference with its independence and that it is granted all\nthe financial resources needed to enable it to carry out its\nmandate.
\nThe EU's role in the UNHRC: MEPs welcome the fact that all of the resolutions\nproposed or co-sponsored by the EU have been approved by the UNHRC\nduring its first eight regular sessions and first seven special\nsessions; however, they regret that many controversial and\nnon-consensual issues were not put to a vote. They note that the EU\nMember States participating in the UNHRC are split into two\nregional groupings, namely the Western European States group and\nthe Eastern European States group. They also note that the EU\nopposes the presentation of \"clean slates\" by regions, which\nresults, effectively, in EU Member States competing between\nthemselves for election to the UNHRC. The EU is encouraged to\ncontinue to press for the establishment of membership criteria for\nelection to the UNHRC.
\nNoting that the EU finds itself in a numerical\nminority within the UNHRC, which certainly presents a challenge\nwhen it comes to making its voice heard, MEPs call on EU Member\nStates to reinforce the EU's message by putting across \"one\nmessage, but with many voices\". They encourage EU Member States\nto further develop cross-regional initiatives as a useful way of\ncounteracting bloc policies.
\nAlthough MEPs support the EU's stance in seeking a\ncoordinated, common position at the UNHRC, they regret that, in the\nprocess of achieving a common policy amongst the EU Member States\nat the UNHRC, the EU often arrives at the UNHRC forum with the\nlowest common denominator, thereby restricting the dynamics of the\nEU diplomatic potential with other regional groupings. They regret\nthe rather defensive attitude adopted by the EU in the UNHRC, in\nparticular its reluctance to put forward resolutions on country\nsituations, as well as its deliberate choice of consensus and its\ntendency to avoid language that would generate opposition, which in\nturn results in the acceptance of compromises that do not reflect\nthe EU's preferences, as in the case of the resolutions adopted on\nDarfur in 2007, which resulted in the Group being disbanded despite\nthe EU having originally pushed for it to be maintained.
\nMEPs call on the EU and its Member States to make\nbetter use of their potential influence in order to exercise the\nrole that it could play as the leader of a group of democratic\ncountries with solid human rights records. They consider that this\nleadership role can be best achieved by enhancing the\npartnerships with states from other regional groups, as shown\nby several EU initiatives within the UN system, such as the General\nAssembly resolutions on a moratorium on the death penalty and on\nthe right to water.
\nMEPs calls for closer coordination and cooperation\nbetween the relevant Brussels-based working groups of the Council\nof the EU and the EU Offices and the EU Member States' Permanent\nRepresentations in New York and Geneva and encourage the regular\npresence of Parliament's delegations at the sessions of the\nUNHRC in Geneva.
\nLastly, as regards the\nreview of the UNHRC to be undertaken in 2011, MEPs calls on the EU\nto:
\nThe European Parliament adopted by 629 votes to 26,\nwith 10 abstentions, a resolution on the development of the UN\nHuman Rights Council (UNHRC), including the role of the\nEU.
\nThe own initiative report had been tabled for\nconsideration in plenary by Laima Liucija ANDRIKIENĖ\n(EPP-ED, LT), on behalf of the Committee on Foreign\nAffairs.
\nThe Parliament considers that after almost three\nyears, this body - created to cure weaknesses in the UN Human\nRights Council which suffers from a lack of credibility - has not\nfully fulfilled its objectives. While it is true that the UNHRC has\ncarried out considerable work since its creation and that it\nprovided for the adoption of important human rights\nstandard‑setting texts (such as the International Convention\nfor the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances and\nthe UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, as well as\nthe Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic,\nSocial and Cultural Rights, which constitutes a landmark decision\nas it provides for a mechanism enabling victims of such violations\nto present petitions at the international level), the Parliament\nregrets that it has not yet achieved more substantial progress in\nimproving the UN human rights record. The Parliament regrets, in\nparticular, the failure of the UNHRC to take action on many of the\nworld's most urgent human rights situations, partly due to the\nreluctance on the part of numerous States which oppose any\nconsideration of country situations, on the grounds that this would\nallegedly politicise the UNHRC. The Parliament reiterates, however,\nthe view that the UNHRC's ability to address country\nsituations effectively is central to its authority and\ncredibility.
\nThe UNHRC is criticised on several other issues,\nincluding:
\nHowever, the Parliament welcomes the fact that the\nprocedure for election to the UNHRC has made it possible to exclude\nfrom the UNHRC major human rights violators such as Iran and\nBelarus. While it acknowledges the desire for universality\nof the UNHRC (a 2011 review may provide for the opening up of the\nUNHRC to universal membership), the Parliament believes that a\nsmaller composition could also prove to be beneficial.
\nThe Parliament also refers to certain procedures and\npractices of the UNHRC, making the following points:
\nThe EU's role in the UNHRC: the Parliament believes that the UNHRC has the\npotential to develop into a valuable framework for the EU's\nmultilateral human rights efforts. It identifies, however, a\ncertain number of challenges, including the regrettable absence of\nthe United States from the UNHRC, which has led to the need for the\nEU to take on even more responsibility. However, EU Member States\noften constitute a numerical minority in relation to regional\ngroups from Africa and Asia, which reduces the EU's impact within\nthe UNHRC. The Parliament also notes some of the EU's successes,\nsuch as the call for special sessions on the situation regarding\nhuman rights in Darfur in December 2006, in Burma/Myanmar in\nOctober 2007 and in the East of the Democratic Republic of the\nCongo in November 2008.
\nReturning to the specific role of the EU within the\nUNHRC, the Parliament welcomes its sponsoring or co-sponsoring of\ncertain UNHRC resolutions, but regrets, nevertheless, that many\ncontroversial issues have still not been put to a vote. The\nParliament also notes that the EU Member States constitute a\nnumerical minority within the UNHRC, which seriously obstructs the\nEU's ability to influence the agenda, and therefore calls on EU\nMember States to reinforce the unanimity of the EU's message by\nputting across \"one message, but with many voices\". It\nencourages EU Member States to further develop cross-regional\ninitiatives as a useful way of counteracting bloc policies. It also\ncalls on the EU and the Organisation of The Islamic Conference to\nintensify efforts to improve their mutual understanding and\ncollaboration. The Parliament also calls on the EU to develop the\npractice put forward during the Slovenian presidency of \"outreach\"\ntowards other UNHRC members and burden-sharing between EU Member\nStates. It welcomes, in particular, the increasing trend whereby EU\nMember States intervene in the debates.
\nWhile the Parliament supports the EU's stance in\nseeking a coordinated, common position at the UNHRC, it\nregrets however that, in the process of achieving a common policy,\nthe EU often arrives at the UNHRC forum with the lowest common\ndenominator, thereby restricting the dynamics of the EU diplomatic\npotential with other regional groupings. It also regrets the rather\ndefensive attitude adopted by the EU in the UNHRC (in particular\nits reluctance to put forward resolutions on country situations, as\nthese usually meet with intense resistance from particular\ncountries) as well as its deliberate choice of consensus that does\nnot necessarily reflect the EU's preferences.
\nThe Parliament therefore calls on the EU and its\nMember States to make better use of their potential influence in\norder to exercise the role that it could play as the leader of a\ngroup of democratic countries, including by enhancing the\npartnerships with States from other regional groups (as was the\ncase for achieving a moratorium on the death penalty and the vote\non the resolution on the right to water).
\nThe Parliament calls for closer coordination and\ncooperation between the relevant Brussels-based UNHRC working\ngroups, as well as for the regular attendance of Parliament's\ndelegations at the sessions of the UNHRC in Geneva.
\nIn the light of the review of the UNHRC to be\nundertaken in 2011, the Parliament calls on the EU to:
\nLastly, the Parliament once again calls on the EU to\nmake more effective use of its aid and political support to third\ncountries, as well as other instruments such as human rights\ndialogues and consultations, with a view to guaranteeing broader\nagreement on its initiatives or initiatives that it co-sponsors. It\ncalls on the EU Member States and the Commission to take into\naccount the outcome of the UNHRC's work vis-à-vis a given\nState, including the recommendations and conclusions of the UPR,\nwhen defining the objectives and priorities of EU assistance\nprogrammes.
\nThe Committee on Foreign Affairs adopted the report\ndrafted by Laima Liucija ANDRIKIENĖ (EPP-ED, LT) on the\ndevelopment of the UN Human Rights Council, including the role of\nthe EU. The committee welcomes the work carried out by the UNHRC in\nits first two years of activity and notes that it has the potential\nto develop into a valuable framework for the European Union's\nmultilateral human rights efforts. However, the committee regrets\nthat during the first two years of its activities, the new body has\nnot yet achieved more substantial progress in improving the United\nNations' human rights record.
\nMEPs regret the failure of the UNHRC to take action on\nmany of the world's most urgent human rights situations, partly due\nto the growing reluctance on the part of numerous UNHRC States\nwhich oppose any consideration of country situations including\nthrough country resolutions, special sessions and Special\nProcedures country mandates on the grounds that this would\nallegedly politicise the UNHRC. MEPs reiterate the view that the\nUNHRC's ability to address country situations effectively is\ncentral to its authority and credibility.
\nOther issues are raised as concerns the HRC,\nsuch as:
\nMEPs also examine certain procedures and practices of\nthe UNHRC:
\nSpecial Procedures: MEPs\nconsider that the Special Procedures are at the core of the UN\nhuman rights machinery and stress that the credibility and\neffectiveness of the UNHRC in the protection of human rights rests\non cooperation with Special Procedures and their full\nimplementation. They regard Special Procedures on country\nsituations as an essential instrument for improving human\nrights on the ground. They consider that the nature and frequency\nof the country reviews under the UPR cannot replace country\nmandates and consequently opposes the attempts by certain countries\nto use the argument of \"rationalisation\" of Special Procedures in\norder to eliminate those mandates. MEPs deplore in this respect the\ntermination of country mandates in respect of Belarus, the\nDemocratic Republic of the Congo and Cuba, and the abolition of the\nGroup of Experts on Darfur. They also condemn the efforts made by\nseveral UNHRC Members to limit the independence and efficiency of\nSpecial Procedures and welcome the adoption of a Code of Conduct\nfor Special Procedures Mandate-Holders. They call for improvement\nas regards the\nselection and nomination of appropriate special procedures\nmandate-holders and for continuous support to be given to Special\nProcedures in terms of finance and human resources.
\nUniversal Periodic Review: MEPs recognise the potential value of the UPR\nmechanism in improving the universality of the monitoring of human\nrights commitments and practices throughout the world. However,\nMEPs regret that these first two sessions have not entirely lived\nup to expectations with regard to an \"objective, transparent,\nnon-selective, constructive, non-confrontational and\nnon-politicized\" process.
\nMEPs call for increased attention to be given to\neconomic, social and cultural rights as well as the rights of\nminorities during the UPR process. MEPs denounce the use of\npolitical alliances to shield certain States from scrutiny\nrather than to critically assess human rights conditions and\nprotections, which seriously undermines the very purpose of the\nUPR. They express concern that, in several cases, the final report\nof the UPR and the interactive dialogue during the review did not\nreflect the information contained in the summary documents or even\ncontradicted independent experts' findings, thus depriving the\nreview process of its pertinence, and that the recommendations put\nforward in the reports of the Working Group were too vague and\nlacked any operational substance.
\nThe members of the UPR Working Group are called upon\nto provide measurable, concrete, realistic and victim-oriented\nrecommendations in its future reviews, based on information\nestablished by independent monitoring mechanisms or NGOs. MEPs\nregret the non-binding character of UPR recommendations,\nwhich stems from the right that the UPR affords States to decide\nwhich recommendations they can accept.
\nParticipation of civil society and the Office of the\nHigh Commissioner for Human Rights:\nMEPs reiterate the importance of participation by civil society in\nthe work of the UNHRC, and urges the EU Member States to introduce\neffective ways and instruments enabling civil society to\nparticipate in the UNHRC. MEPs reaffirms\ntheir opinion that the OHCHR is a key body within the United\nNations system since it plays a crucial role in protecting and\nupholding human rights by mainstreaming those rights throughout the\nUN system and within all relevant organisations, notably in\nconnection with activities linked to the restoration or\nstrengthening of peace, development and humanitarian action. They\nencourage the efforts of the OHCHR to strengthen its presence on\nthe ground through the opening of regional offices for example in\nBishkek (Kyrgystan). They expresses their\nappreciation of the work of Ms Louise Arbour as head of the OHCHR\nand are confident that her successor, Ms Navanethem Pillay, will\nengage with similar enthusiasm and live up to the challenges of the\npost.
\nMEPs call on the EU Member States to continue to\nsupport the OHCHR, especially in the Administrative and Budgetary\nFifth Committee of the General Assembly, so as to ensure that there\nis no interference with its independence and that it is granted all\nthe financial resources needed to enable it to carry out its\nmandate.
\nThe EU's role in the UNHRC: MEPs welcome the fact that all of the resolutions\nproposed or co-sponsored by the EU have been approved by the UNHRC\nduring its first eight regular sessions and first seven special\nsessions; however, they regret that many controversial and\nnon-consensual issues were not put to a vote. They note that the EU\nMember States participating in the UNHRC are split into two\nregional groupings, namely the Western European States group and\nthe Eastern European States group. They also note that the EU\nopposes the presentation of \"clean slates\" by regions, which\nresults, effectively, in EU Member States competing between\nthemselves for election to the UNHRC. The EU is encouraged to\ncontinue to press for the establishment of membership criteria for\nelection to the UNHRC.
\nNoting that the EU finds itself in a numerical\nminority within the UNHRC, which certainly presents a challenge\nwhen it comes to making its voice heard, MEPs call on EU Member\nStates to reinforce the EU's message by putting across \"one\nmessage, but with many voices\". They encourage EU Member States\nto further develop cross-regional initiatives as a useful way of\ncounteracting bloc policies.
\nAlthough MEPs support the EU's stance in seeking a\ncoordinated, common position at the UNHRC, they regret that, in the\nprocess of achieving a common policy amongst the EU Member States\nat the UNHRC, the EU often arrives at the UNHRC forum with the\nlowest common denominator, thereby restricting the dynamics of the\nEU diplomatic potential with other regional groupings. They regret\nthe rather defensive attitude adopted by the EU in the UNHRC, in\nparticular its reluctance to put forward resolutions on country\nsituations, as well as its deliberate choice of consensus and its\ntendency to avoid language that would generate opposition, which in\nturn results in the acceptance of compromises that do not reflect\nthe EU's preferences, as in the case of the resolutions adopted on\nDarfur in 2007, which resulted in the Group being disbanded despite\nthe EU having originally pushed for it to be maintained.
\nMEPs call on the EU and its Member States to make\nbetter use of their potential influence in order to exercise the\nrole that it could play as the leader of a group of democratic\ncountries with solid human rights records. They consider that this\nleadership role can be best achieved by enhancing the\npartnerships with states from other regional groups, as shown\nby several EU initiatives within the UN system, such as the General\nAssembly resolutions on a moratorium on the death penalty and on\nthe right to water.
\nMEPs calls for closer coordination and cooperation\nbetween the relevant Brussels-based working groups of the Council\nof the EU and the EU Offices and the EU Member States' Permanent\nRepresentations in New York and Geneva and encourage the regular\npresence of Parliament's delegations at the sessions of the\nUNHRC in Geneva.
\nLastly, as regards the\nreview of the UNHRC to be undertaken in 2011, MEPs calls on the EU\nto:
\nThe European Parliament adopted by 629 votes to 26,\nwith 10 abstentions, a resolution on the development of the UN\nHuman Rights Council (UNHRC), including the role of the\nEU.
\nThe own initiative report had been tabled for\nconsideration in plenary by Laima Liucija ANDRIKIENĖ\n(EPP-ED, LT), on behalf of the Committee on Foreign\nAffairs.
\nThe Parliament considers that after almost three\nyears, this body - created to cure weaknesses in the UN Human\nRights Council which suffers from a lack of credibility - has not\nfully fulfilled its objectives. While it is true that the UNHRC has\ncarried out considerable work since its creation and that it\nprovided for the adoption of important human rights\nstandard‑setting texts (such as the International Convention\nfor the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances and\nthe UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, as well as\nthe Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic,\nSocial and Cultural Rights, which constitutes a landmark decision\nas it provides for a mechanism enabling victims of such violations\nto present petitions at the international level), the Parliament\nregrets that it has not yet achieved more substantial progress in\nimproving the UN human rights record. The Parliament regrets, in\nparticular, the failure of the UNHRC to take action on many of the\nworld's most urgent human rights situations, partly due to the\nreluctance on the part of numerous States which oppose any\nconsideration of country situations, on the grounds that this would\nallegedly politicise the UNHRC. The Parliament reiterates, however,\nthe view that the UNHRC's ability to address country\nsituations effectively is central to its authority and\ncredibility.
\nThe UNHRC is criticised on several other issues,\nincluding:
\nHowever, the Parliament welcomes the fact that the\nprocedure for election to the UNHRC has made it possible to exclude\nfrom the UNHRC major human rights violators such as Iran and\nBelarus. While it acknowledges the desire for universality\nof the UNHRC (a 2011 review may provide for the opening up of the\nUNHRC to universal membership), the Parliament believes that a\nsmaller composition could also prove to be beneficial.
\nThe Parliament also refers to certain procedures and\npractices of the UNHRC, making the following points:
\nThe EU's role in the UNHRC: the Parliament believes that the UNHRC has the\npotential to develop into a valuable framework for the EU's\nmultilateral human rights efforts. It identifies, however, a\ncertain number of challenges, including the regrettable absence of\nthe United States from the UNHRC, which has led to the need for the\nEU to take on even more responsibility. However, EU Member States\noften constitute a numerical minority in relation to regional\ngroups from Africa and Asia, which reduces the EU's impact within\nthe UNHRC. The Parliament also notes some of the EU's successes,\nsuch as the call for special sessions on the situation regarding\nhuman rights in Darfur in December 2006, in Burma/Myanmar in\nOctober 2007 and in the East of the Democratic Republic of the\nCongo in November 2008.
\nReturning to the specific role of the EU within the\nUNHRC, the Parliament welcomes its sponsoring or co-sponsoring of\ncertain UNHRC resolutions, but regrets, nevertheless, that many\ncontroversial issues have still not been put to a vote. The\nParliament also notes that the EU Member States constitute a\nnumerical minority within the UNHRC, which seriously obstructs the\nEU's ability to influence the agenda, and therefore calls on EU\nMember States to reinforce the unanimity of the EU's message by\nputting across \"one message, but with many voices\". It\nencourages EU Member States to further develop cross-regional\ninitiatives as a useful way of counteracting bloc policies. It also\ncalls on the EU and the Organisation of The Islamic Conference to\nintensify efforts to improve their mutual understanding and\ncollaboration. The Parliament also calls on the EU to develop the\npractice put forward during the Slovenian presidency of \"outreach\"\ntowards other UNHRC members and burden-sharing between EU Member\nStates. It welcomes, in particular, the increasing trend whereby EU\nMember States intervene in the debates.
\nWhile the Parliament supports the EU's stance in\nseeking a coordinated, common position at the UNHRC, it\nregrets however that, in the process of achieving a common policy,\nthe EU often arrives at the UNHRC forum with the lowest common\ndenominator, thereby restricting the dynamics of the EU diplomatic\npotential with other regional groupings. It also regrets the rather\ndefensive attitude adopted by the EU in the UNHRC (in particular\nits reluctance to put forward resolutions on country situations, as\nthese usually meet with intense resistance from particular\ncountries) as well as its deliberate choice of consensus that does\nnot necessarily reflect the EU's preferences.
\nThe Parliament therefore calls on the EU and its\nMember States to make better use of their potential influence in\norder to exercise the role that it could play as the leader of a\ngroup of democratic countries, including by enhancing the\npartnerships with States from other regional groups (as was the\ncase for achieving a moratorium on the death penalty and the vote\non the resolution on the right to water).
\nThe Parliament calls for closer coordination and\ncooperation between the relevant Brussels-based UNHRC working\ngroups, as well as for the regular attendance of Parliament's\ndelegations at the sessions of the UNHRC in Geneva.
\nIn the light of the review of the UNHRC to be\nundertaken in 2011, the Parliament calls on the EU to:
\nLastly, the Parliament once again calls on the EU to\nmake more effective use of its aid and political support to third\ncountries, as well as other instruments such as human rights\ndialogues and consultations, with a view to guaranteeing broader\nagreement on its initiatives or initiatives that it co-sponsors. It\ncalls on the EU Member States and the Commission to take into\naccount the outcome of the UNHRC's work vis-à-vis a given\nState, including the recommendations and conclusions of the UPR,\nwhen defining the objectives and priorities of EU assistance\nprogrammes.
\n