A/HRC/34/10 Introduction 1. The Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review, established in accordance with Human Rights Council resolution 5/1, held its twenty-sixth session from 31 October to 11 November 2016. The review of Uganda was held at the 7th meeting, on 3 November 2016. The delegation of Uganda was headed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Sam K. Kutesa. At its 13th meeting, held on 8 November 2016, the Working Group adopted the report on Uganda. 2. On 12 January 2016, the Human Rights Council selected the following group of rapporteurs (troika) to facilitate the review of Uganda: Mongolia, Morocco and Portugal. 3. In accordance with paragraph 15 of the annex to Human Rights Council resolution 5/1 and paragraph 5 of the annex to Council resolution 16/21, the following documents were issued for the review of Uganda: (a) A national report submitted/written presentation made in accordance with paragraph 15 (a) (A/HRC/WG.6/26/UGA/1); (b) A compilation prepared by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in accordance with paragraph 15 (b) (A/HRC/WG.6/26/UGA/2); (c) A summary prepared by OHCHR in accordance with paragraph 15 (c) (A/HRC/WG.6/26/UGA/3). 4. A list of questions prepared in advance by Belgium, Czechia, Germany, Ireland, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was transmitted to Uganda through the troika. These questions are available on the extranet of the universal periodic review. I. Summary of the proceedings of the review process A. Presentation by the State under review 5. The head of the delegation of Uganda, Sam K. Kutesa, Minister for Foreign Affairs, stated that the universal periodic review, as a mechanism driven by States, was unique in that it offered the country under review the opportunity to state what it had done to improve its human rights situation, share experiences and lessons with other States and identify challenges that must be addressed so that its people could fully enjoy their human rights. 6. Uganda supported the peer review process out of a commitment to the promotion and protection of human rights, a commitment informed by the country’s experience and lessons from its history of dictatorship. 7. While the process was a welcome development, the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review should also continue to explore ways of becoming more participatory, transparent, consultative and accountable, including in respect of reporting. Under the current procedure, the Working Group received and considered simultaneously three reports submitted separately by the country under review, OHCHR and civil society organizations. However, while the latter two reports also addressed issues concerning the country under review, there was no clear mechanism or procedure of consultation with the country reported on before those reports were submitted to the Working Group. It was essential for such a mechanism be put in place so that many of the issues that would otherwise be submitted to the Working Group were addressed at the national level. That 3