A/HRC/21/8 Introduction 1. The Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review (UPR), established in accordance with Human Rights Council resolution 5/1 of 18 June 2007, held its thirteenth session from 21 May to 4 June 2012. The review of Finland was held at the 6th meeting on 23 May 2012. The delegation of Finland was headed by the Minister for International Development, Heidi Hautala. At its 10th meeting held on 25 May 2012, the Working Group adopted the report on Finland. 2. On 3 May 2012, the Human Rights Council selected the following group of rapporteurs (troika) to facilitate the review of Finland: Djibouti, Jordan and Peru. 3. In accordance with paragraph 15 of the annex to Council resolution 5/1 and paragraph 5 of the annex to resolution 16/21, the following documents were issued for the review of Finland: (a) A national report submitted/written presentation made in accordance with paragraph 15 (a) (A/HRC/WG.6/13/FIN/1); (b) A compilation prepared by OHCHR in accordance with paragraph 15 (b) (A/HRC/WG.6/13/FIN/2), A/HRC/WG.6/13/FIN/2/Corr.1 and A/HRC/WG.6/13/FIN/2/Corr.2; (c) A summary prepared by OHCHR in accordance with paragraph 15 (c) (A/HRC/WG.6/13/FIN/3) and A/HRC/WG.6/13/FIN/3/Corr.1. 4. A list of questions prepared in advance by the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, Norway, Slovenia, Sweden and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was transmitted to Finland through the troika. These questions are available on the extranet of the UPR. I. Summary of the proceedings of the review process A. Presentation by the State under review 5. In its introductory statement, the delegation mentioned that it was a privilege and at the same time it was a challenge to be among the first countries being reviewed in the second round of the universal periodic review (UPR). It reiterated the importance of UPR with its universal character to address human rights challenges at the international and national level. 6. The delegation highlighted some key lessons that it documented during preparation of its second review. First, the Government maintained a transparent approach in the preparation of the national report. Authorities and civil society organizations had the possibility to comment on the strengths and weaknesses of the human rights situation and to submit their views on a draft version of the report. Individual citizens had a possibility to present views on the Finnish human rights situation via an Internet forum. Secondly, the UPR work, before and after the review, should be founded on a real dialogue between the Government and the civil society. The third lesson is that the UPR is a continuous process and the implementation of recommendations is the most important phase. A voluntary midterm review helps in keeping the implementation process on track. 7. The focus of the national report was on the implementation of recommendations made during the first review and also depicted the development of human rights since 2008. It also referred to the implementation of two voluntary commitments made by Finland 3