Methodology uses independent and objective data as the basis of its summaries and analyses. The origin of that data is primarily official UN documents and information produced by other international organisations. To ensure transparency, information on the sources of all data used, together with the methodology applied and the timeframe, is presented below.

Overview of Membership

Previous Membership terms

Source: OHCHR Website.

Data as at: 9 October 2017.


Council Bureau membership

Source: OHCHR Website.

Data as at: 9 October 2017.


Voluntary contribution to OHCHR (2016)

Source: Voluntary contributions to OHCHR in 2016

Data as at: 9 October 2017.


OHCHR presence

Source: Human Rights Appeal 2017, pp. 8-9.

Data as at: 9 October 2017.


NHRI Accreditation Status

Source: GAHNRI Chart of the Status of National Institutions.

Data as at: 26 May 2017.


Voting records

Source: URG HRC Voting Portal.

Data as at: 9 October 2017.

Note: The analysis aims to be purely factual, without value judgement as to the merit of individual resolutions, or moral or legal judgements about the nature of State voting patterns. For each member State of the Council, past and present, URG analysts looks for patterns in State voting on both country-specific resolutions (items 2, 4, 7 and 10) and thematic resolutions (both civil and political, and economic, social and cultural – including the right to development).

Engagement with human rights system

Human Rights Council participation

Source: HRC Extranet.

Data as at: 9 October 2017.

Note: The level of participation in Panel Discussions, Interactive Dialogues and General Debates was calculated based on the joint statements listed on the HRC Extranet during the past three years (i.e. during HRC sessions 27-36). Statements not listed on the Extranet were not counted, nor were we able to count joint statements on behalf of a group of states that were not individually listed (this includes some statements on behalf of the Like-Minded Group).

Empty chair indicator: Shows whether the relevant state delivered individual statements in less than 11% of all Panel Discussions, General Debates and Interactive Dialogues (combined) during its last (most recent) two HRC membership terms.


Special Procedures cooperation

Standing Invitation

Source: OHCHR Website.

Data as at: 9 October 2017.


Country Visits/visit requests

Source: OHCHR Website.

Data as at: Data covers the period 1998-9 October 2017. (apart from for Montenegro, where the data only covers visits from June 2006, when Montenegro became a member state).

Note: The number of total country visits since 1998 includes all visits undertaken, visits agreed by the state concerned but which has not yet taken place, and requests that have received no reply, as listed on the OHCHR website. The number of visits undertaken includes only visits that have actually taken place, as listed on the OHCHR website.


Responsiveness to communications

Source: “Compilation of UN Information” report during the State’s latest UPR.

Data as at: 9 October 2017.

Note: The response rate to Special Procedures communications (i.e. to letters of allegations and urgent appeals) is based on the information provided in the “Compilation of UN Information” report submitted to the most recent UPR review of the state concerned.


Treaty Body cooperation

Source: OHCHR Website.

Data as at: Reporting and ratification scores were calculated on the 9 October 2017.

Note: Ratification and Reporting is recorded for the eight “core human rights conventions,” which include: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (CPED), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).

Treaty body reporting dates relate to the state’s current reporting cycle, as listed on the OHCHR website. In cases where there is no deadline for the current reporting cycle, the status of reporting of the previous cycle was used, where available.

Explanation of Options:

  • SUBMITTED ON TIME: The State Party Report submitted the report before the due date;
  • ON SCHEDULE: the current cycle due date is in the future. This occurs when a State’s reporting cycle changes, so the deadline for the next report is set.
  • SUBMITTED LATE: The State Party Report has been submitted for the current cycle, but was submitted late;
  • OUTSTANDING (OVERDUE): the current cycle report has not yet been submitted, and is overdue;
  • NOT PARTY: The State has not ratified the respective Treaty;
  • N/A: where data was not available.

The “most overdue” report time is for the outstanding report that is the most overdue.

Ratification: Whether the country has ratified the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture.
Source: OHCHR website – Country pages.
Data as at: 9 October 2017.

NMP Established: Shows if the country has notified the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture that it has designated a national preventive mechanism.
Source: OHCHR Website.
Data as at: 9 October 2017.

Sub-Committee visit: Indicates whether the country has been visited by the Sub-Committee against torture, and the years in which this occurred, when applicable.
Source: OHCHR Website.
Data as at: 9 October 2017.

Universal Periodic Review

Level of delegation

Source: the Head of a State’s delegation (for its last UPR) was determined using the “Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review.” Where the rank of the representative was not clear, the URG followed up with the relevant missions as far as possible.

Data as at: 23 May 2017.

Mid-term reporting

Source: OHCHR Website.

Data as at: 9 October 2017.

Note: The “mid-term reporting” score relates to whether the State has submitted a mid-term report for the first and/or the second cycles of UPR.

Participation in other reviews

Source: UPR Info “Statistics of UPR Recommendations”.

Data as at: 8 September 2017.

Note: Participation in other reviews relates to the number of other 1st and 2nd cycle reviews (out of 192) during which the state concerned made its own recommendations.


Image: UN Geneva, “Result of vote appears” (UN Photo/Patrick Bertschmann),” licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.