Universal Periodic Review Explained: Why Civil Society Organisations Must Participate

The establishment of the United Nations (UN) human rights treaty bodies and the growth of the treaty body system are major achievements in the international community’s efforts to protect and promote human rights. Treaty bodies act as custodians of the legal standards in core human rights treaties, and states parties are required to report periodically. Through this reporting cycle, governments are expected to review relevant legislation and policies, receive guidance on improving compliance, and ensure that treaty obligations are translated into measurable improvements for individuals. Because the system is designed to be continuous, regular reporting and follow-up supported by national dialogue and debate are essential for strengthening implementation and for making effective use of recommendations and general comments that often function as both early-warning and practical implementation tools.

Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) and national human rights institutions strengthen this process at every stage. As emphasized by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the work of treaty bodies and special procedures is not possible without civil society input, which enhances the relevance and credibility of expert conclusions and recommendations. In Zimbabwe, the Government’s increased re-engagement, where state party reporting is used as a strategy, creates a crucial space for CSOs to encourage, support, and monitor the implementation of recommendations from treaty bodies, special procedures, the Universal Periodic Review (UPR), and other mechanisms. CSOs also provide independent information through activities such as monitoring, shadow reporting, petitions, inquiries, and early warning, helping ensure that national and global commitments are genuinely reflected in practice, not only in submissions.

Looking ahead, Zimbabwe’s preparation for the 52nd UPR session in January 2027 makes civil society engagement especially important. The UPR is a structured mechanism that reviews all UN member states, regardless of politics or power, and its credibility depends on grounded, detailed evidence from lived realities. If CSOs fail to engage, government reports may omit sensitive or inconvenient issues, accountability may weaken, and key advocacy opportunities may be lost. Just as importantly, the voices of vulnerable groups such as women, children, minorities, and persons with disabilities risk being excluded, making the UPR appear superficial and reducing public trust in the process.

Overview of the UPR Process

The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is a Human Rights Council (HRC) mechanism that assesses the overall human rights situation in every UN Member State through a peer-review process conducted by all member states. After a country is reviewed, it is expected to implement the UPR outcome comprising the recommendations and voluntary commitments it accepts so that the process leads to practical improvements on the ground. Following Zimbabwe’s third UPR cycle in January 2022 with the country report presented to the HRC, the framework being developed aims to track and monitor implementation in a top-track approach, enabling real-time, evidence-based advocacy and supporting the preparation of Zimbabwe’s alternative (civil society) report for the fourth cycle, provisionally scheduled for 2026.

In Zimbabwe’s third cycle, the Working Group produced 264 recommendations. During the 50th session of the HRC (13 June–8 July 2022), views were considered on the government’s conclusions, recommendations, voluntary commitments, and replies. Of the 264 recommendations, Zimbabwe indicated support for 168, meaning the government committed to implement them, while 96 were noted or deferred for further examination. The UPR, established in 2006 and guided by UN General Assembly resolution 60/251, is designed to improve human rights situations and share best practices, with Zimbabwe having been reviewed three times since the process began (Cycle 1: October 2011; Cycle 2: November 2016; Cycle 3: January 2022).

The UPR review relies on three main inputs: the national report prepared by the state under review, a compilation of UN information prepared by OHCHR, and a summary of information submitted by other stakeholders (including civil society, national human rights institutions, and regional organizations), also prepared by OHCHR. The review takes place in Geneva before the UPR Working Group (composed of 47 HRC member states) and involves an interactive dialogue between the state under review and council members/observers. Stakeholders can contribute written submissions and, where accredited, attend the session and make oral statements, helping ensure that alternative narratives and independent evidence are reflected in the review and outcomes.

Why CSOs should participate

• CSOs should participate in the UPR because it is meant to reflect real human rights conditions, not only government reporting; the people most affected by violations and the organizations that document and respond to them hold essential knowledge that should not be excluded.
• CSOs often work closely with affected communities and draw evidence from victims, witnesses, legal aid providers, and documentation networks to report on real patterns of harm, obstacles to justice, and day-to-day realities that may be missing from official narratives.
• CSOs strengthen the quality and accuracy of recommendations, making them more actionable, realistic, and aligned with what communities actually need.
• CSOs ensure underrepresented groups and people facing restrictions on civic space are heard, and often serve as key channels through which these communities’ experiences reach international institutions.
• They also expose gaps between laws and practice, even where rights-protecting laws exist on paper. CSOs can provide evidence on whether reforms are enforced, whether institutions function properly, and whether victims can access effective remedies.
• CSOs contribute to long-term monitoring to track whether governments accept recommendations, enact reforms, and allocate resources, helping identify both progress and ongoing shortcomings.
• In challenging political contexts, credible, well-documented CSO information can still influence recommendations made by other states, shape diplomatic discussions, and sustain domestic advocacy momentum.
• CSOs can submit alternative written shadow reports that are compiled alongside other stakeholder submissions; although CSOs may not speak directly in the session, they can also include addressed to Recommending States, supporting more informed recommendations based on evidence beyond the government’s submission.

Key Dates

The tentative timelines for Zimbabwe’s 2027 UPR process are as follows:

• Deadline for Stakeholder (CSO) Submissions: 17 July 2026
• Deadline for National Report: October 2026
• UPR Working Group Review (Geneva): January- February 2027, 54^th Session.

Conclusion: UPR Needs CSOs to be Meaningful

Zimbabwe’s human rights situation is widely reported as being undermined by serious and ongoing violations, and the concerns extend beyond individual incidents to the wider environment in which rights are exercised. At the same time, policy and legal changes that restrict civic space, such as the Private Voluntary Organisations (PVO) Amendment Act and the proposed Constitutional Amendment Bill Number 3, have raised fears that CSOs may face greater barriers to operating, documenting abuses, and engaging in public debate. In preparation for the UPR, these developments matter because they shape what information can be produced and by whom: as restrictions tighten, civil society may be limited in its ability to collect evidence, consult affected communities, and submit detailed shadow reports that help ensure the review reflects lived realities rather than official narratives. They also influence the credibility and effectiveness of follow-up, since implementation of recommendations depends not only on government action but also on whether independent monitoring and advocacy remain possible in practice.

That is why CSOs should participate. Their involvement strengthens the accuracy of information, improves the quality of recommendations, highlights overlooked communities, bridges law and implementation, and supports long-term follow-up. In short, CSO participation ensures that human rights reviews are not conducted for governments alone, but for the people whose rights are at stake.