in authoritarian contexts, it is who can defend them against the systematic violation of their rights and why organizations such as the United Nations or the Organization of American States "seem" to do nothing in the face of serious violations of Human Rights (DDHH). In this sense, these lines are presented as an approach to the functioning of these organizations, their powers in the protection of human rights in order to have expectations much closer to reality and to make a special call on the Universal Periodic Review.

 

What are Human Rights Protection Systems?

 

In general terms, these systems are understood as the set of bodies and instruments responsible for the promotion and protection of Human Rights at the national, regional and universal levels. It is in these last two areas that we find the Universal System for the Protection of Human Rights as part of the United Nations and the Inter-American System for the Protection of Human Rights as part of the Organization of American States.

 

However, these protection systems find constant limitations, among them, state sovereignty and the lack of will of the States to comply with their commitments, since one of the distinctive features of these systems is that they are complementary to state institutions, therefore, they cannot directly replace the functions of the State. It should be noted that this will does not exempt them from being responsible in case of violation of their international commitments, but direct intervention in the territories is not conceived and another of the main weaknesses of the systems is the lack of mechanisms that can subdue the States . Until now, the controversial Responsibility to Protect continues to be debated as a more effective way to overcome these limitations and help the population in serious cases. However, some countries claim that this is a way of masking the intervention.

 

How do the Human Rights Protection Systems work?

 

Although it is not an easy task to think about the effectiveness of these structures, democratic contexts certainly favor the commitment of States. The greatest difficulty occurs in authoritarian contexts, considering that protection systems are thought of as complementary institutions to the functionality of the State and are part of the commitment of national institutions. These bodies start from the assumption that the States do indeed intend to advance in the promotion and protection of Human Rights and that in those cases in which a violation may occur, they are willing and have the instruments to recognize and repair the victims.

 

In addition to this, most of these protection mechanisms previously require the acceptance of their competence by the State. This is precisely one of the great difficulties in the case of Cuba, even more so when internationally many States have not yet established a clear position regarding the type of regime and what are the actions that should be taken in the face of the violation not only of the democratic institutions of the State of law but of the systematic and massive violation of Human Rights.

 

What can we do in authoritarian contexts?

 

Despite the aforementioned limitations, there are very important mechanisms to make contexts such as Cuba visible, being an advantage that some do not require additional ratifications for their operation and pronouncement on the situation of the State, it is only required to be a member of the System of United Nations. Such is the case of the Human Rights Council, which although it is a body highly criticized for being a government entity where, within its 47 members, we frequently find non-democratic States, it is an essential space for making crises visible.

 

This body, together with the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Conventional Bodies and the Special Procedures, make up the Universal Human Rights System. Having the majority of these bodies (except conventional bodies) the competence to act without the ratification of any other additional instrument beyond the United Nations charter.

 

Although certain spheres of the Universal System have been monopolized by the Cuban regime, making use of official civil society organizations to bring their reports and invalidate any dissident voice. It is necessary, knowing the limitations of their powers, to retake these spaces. Thus, the next Universal Periodic Review (UPR) that Cuba will take in 2023 in the 44th cycle (October - November) is presented as a great opportunity. In this sense, the call is made to independent civil society organizations, from diversity and plurality, to deliver contributions that contrast with the reality that the regime in power wants to sell and thereby demonstrate the lack of commitment to the 2018 UPR results and recommendations.

 

What is it and what to expect from the Universal Periodic Review?

 

For the development of its activities, the Human Rights Council, in addition to having the power to designate investigative missions and field visits, has four subsidiary bodies: the Special Procedures, the Advisory Committee, the Complaint Procedure and the Mechanism of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR). It is about the latter that they want to make a special appeal.

 

Currently there is no other universal mechanism of the same nature as the Universal Periodic Review. This is a process that is presented as a way to examine in depth, every 4.5 years, the human rights situation in all the countries that make up the United Nations and compliance with instruments such as the United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the human rights instruments to which the State is a party, the  commitments assumed by the State and applicable international humanitarian law.

 

This examination is based on three sources: first, the information provided by the State generally known as the “national report”; the second, the information contained in the reports of the Special Procedures, human rights treaty bodies and other UN entities; and third, information from other interested parties, including non-governmental organizations.

 

After several stages of the examination, in a plenary session of the Working Group, the final document on the result of said examination and the position of the State regarding the recommendations made is adopted. In this adoption, the following participate: the State under review, the other States and other interested actors that include national Human Rights institutions and NGO representatives. All States have the responsibility to implement the agreed recommendations in the final outcome and in those cases in which the State does not cooperate, the Human Rights Council may decide the measures that can be taken.

 

In view of the above, although it is clear that this does not produce structural changes immediately, this is an important measure of pressure and visibility. For this reason, it is necessary that, in the case of Cuba, independent civil society organizations participate in a coordinated and massive manner, having clear expectations regarding the Council's capacity for action. Perhaps the most important thing in the next UPR is to demonstrate that the pro-government voice that the regime has managed to position as the truth is nothing more than a distorted reality and that it seeks to exempt Cuba from responsibility.