ON March 14, 2013, Pakistan accepted recommendations made during its second Universal Periodic Review (UPR) at the United Nations Human Rights Council, promising the Pakistani people as well as the international community to take a number of significant steps for the promotion and protection of human rights.

A year later, lack of progress and lack of any implementation plan in relation to any of the accepted recommendations cast doubt over the government’s commitment to human rights. The UN General Assembly established the Human Rights Council in 2006 to replace the existing Human Rights Commission, seen as a politically selective institution in its treatment of individual states. By contrast, the HRC was tasked by the UNGA to undertake a UPR of “the fulfilment by each state of its human rights obligations and commitments in a manner which ensures universality of coverage and equal treatment with respect to all states”.

Since its inception in 2008, all 193 UN member states have participated in the UPR, creating a unique mechanism in which UN member states can make recommendations to fellow states on how to improve their human rights performance.

During its second UPR, Pakistan received 166 recommendations, of which it rejected seven, merely ‘noted’ 34, and accepted 124.

The seven recommendations rejected by Pakistan relate to allegations of the most serious human rights violations in the country.

Pakistan strongly opposed calls to stop the ongoing security operation aimed at silencing dissent in Balochistan. It denied any state repression in the province — a denial that persists despite the Supreme Court acknowledging evidence that the security agencies are responsible for perpetrating extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances against the Baloch population, including journalists, political activists and human rights defenders.

Other recommendations rejected by Pakistan included adopting an official moratorium on the death penalty with a view to abolishing capital punishment in law and practice, repealing blasphemy laws, and reconsidering laws that criminalise adultery and non-marital consensual sex.

The government’s rejection of these recommendations constitutes serious disregard of Pakistan’s obligations under international human rights law, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and ignores long-standing pleas by international and national human rights defenders.

It is equally telling that a majority of the recommendations that Pakistan did accept refer to vague commitments that lack a sense of urgency and are not necessarily action-based. These recommendations urge Pakistan to continue its efforts to protect women and children’s rights and strengthen measures to protect vulnerable groups.

Pakistan did, however, make a number of concrete commitments. The first relates to criminalising enforced disappearances and bringing the perpetrators to justice. Yet Pakistan has not taken any steps to fulfil these commitments. Instead, it has in the last year passed laws that seek effectively to legalise enforced disappearances and provide blanket immunity to those responsible.

Another set of recommendations accepted by Pakistan relates to expediting the operationalisation of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and appointing independent commissioners.

In May 2012, parliament passed a bill constituting Pakistan’s first NHRC. Even though the proposed commission is weak and lacks the mandate to investigate violations committed by state security and intelligence agencies, almost two years later, the commission is still not functional and no commissioner has been appointed.

Lastly, Pakistan also accepted recommendations calling on the government to increase budgetary allocations for realising the right to education. But the government allocated only 1.9pc of GDP to education in 2013. According to UNDP, only seven developing countries spend less on education than Pakistan.

It comes as no surprise therefore, that more than 70pc of the Pakistani population is estimated to be illiterate and public education is in a shambles. While the government has suggested that the defence budget will rise, there are still no indications that education will be made a budgetary priority.

The government must adopt more comprehensive measures to credibly address human rights concerns highlighted in the UPR recommendations.

First, it should make public the steps it has already taken to fulfil its commitments under the UPR. Second, it should adopt a concrete national plan setting out the steps it will take to implement accepted recommendations.

Third, there needs to be greater cooperation and coordination between the federal and provincial governments clarifying their division of power in relation to UPR commitments. Fourth, the government should involve civil society groups as it implements the accepted recommendations. And fifth, it should start preparing already for the third UPR cycle in around three years’ time.

The writer is a legal adviser for the International Commission of Jurists.

reema.omer@icj.org