The more the better? The complementarity of United Nations institutions in the fight against torture

Abstract

When the United Nations Universal Periodic Review was established in 2007, it was stressed that it should complement the work of the United Nations treaty bodies. At the same time, fears were expressed that similarities between the two procedures might lead to potentially problematic duplications or contradictions among them. To shed light on whether this is the case, this article devises a framework to assess the degree to which human rights bodies provide duplicating or contradicting recommendations to States. Focusing on the case of torture, it creates an original database of recommendations delivered to 14 countries in the years 2012–2016. Results show that duplications are frequent and provide opportunities to States to use the Universal Periodic Review to contest the implementation of treaty bodies’ recommendations. Contradictions are limited, although when they occur, they create room for States to selectively choose which recommendations to implement.