A/HRC/12/46 page 12 2. Universal periodic review 34. The establishment of the universal periodic review (UPR) has reinforced cooperation between States, the Human Rights Council and the United Nations human rights mechanisms. The UPR process is particularly interesting for countries that have not ratified some of the international human rights treaties, including CEDAW. In fact, many States are now facing questions they would not otherwise address in any other forum, including the former Commission on Human Rights, and stakeholders hope that the universal periodic review can be used to explore human rights issues that tend to receive little attention. 35. Human Rights Council resolution 5/1 recognizes the importance of gender integration and specifically mandates the principle that UPR must “fully integrate a gender perspective” into all aspects of the review (annex, para. 3 (k)). Furthermore, resolution 6/30 urges all stakeholders to take into full account the human rights of women and a gender perspective and encourages States to prepare information through broad consultation at the national level with all relevant stakeholders, including non-governmental organizations active in addressing gender issues and the human rights of women and girls. 36. As the experience of the first three sessions of UPR in April, May and December 2008 have shown, most States take their responsibility seriously, fully engaging in the preparation of national reports through consultation with relevant stakeholders and actively participating in the actual review at all levels. It should be noted that in the course of the review several States have made commitments to remove far-reaching and long-standing reservations to CEDAW. 37. However, the earliest outcomes of the first reviews with respect to women’s rights also suggest that there are challenges to integrating a gender perspective, and it should be noted that there is some discrepancy between what is raised during the review dialogue and the issues addressed in the final recommendations. Issues of women’s rights raised during the dialogue are mainly limited to general references to gender equality, education and domestic violence. In some instances intersectional or multiple forms of discrimination have been cited, but the final recommendations do not address these linked forms of discrimination. Other key issues that underpin the full enjoyment of women’s rights have generally not been addressed during the dialogue, such as access to adequate housing, land and political representation and the right to reproductive choice and family planning. There have been few or no recommendations on indigenous women, older women, women of the lower castes, women living in poverty or in slums or other forms of inadequate housing, gender budgeting, women’s right to education, and the right to development. During the plenary sessions of UPR, there was almost no discussion on the right to reproductive choice and family planning, although this trend seems to have been reversed during the fourth UPR round. 38. While the process is still developing its best practices, and it is arguably too early to make a full assessment of its effectiveness in integrating the human rights of women and a gender perspective, a practical approach would be to address and prioritize the full range of women’s rights issues; this necessarily would include the reproductive and sexual rights of women. As noted above, one challenge seems to be a lack of understanding of or consistency with respect to what “integrating a gender perspective” or “gender mainstreaming” means in practice. In addition, discussions of women’s rights issues have generally been limited to the context of