A/HRC/18/18 Introduction 1. The Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review, established in accordance with Human Rights Council resolution 5/1 of 18 June 2007, held its eleventh session from 2 to 13 May 2011. The review of Papua New Guinea was held at the 16th meeting on 11 May 2011. The delegation of Papua New Guinea was headed by Robert G. Aisi, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Papua New Guinea at the United Nations. At its 17th meeting, held on 13 May 2011, the Working Group adopted the report of Papua New Guinea. 2. On 21 June 2010, the Human Rights Council selected the following group of rapporteurs (troika) to facilitate the review of Papua New Guinea: Cameroon, Maldives and Switzerland. 3. In accordance with paragraph 15 of the annex to resolution 5/1, the following documents were issued for the review of Papua New Guinea: (a) A national report submitted and a written presentation made in accordance with paragraph 15 (a) (A/HRC/WG.6/11/PNG/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.6/11/PNG/2); (c) A summary prepared by OHCHR in accordance with paragraph 15 (c) (A/HRC/WG.6/11/PNG/3). 4. A list of questions prepared in advance by the Czech Republic, Ireland, Latvia, Norway, Slovenia, Switzerland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was transmitted to Papua New Guinea through the troika. These questions are available on the extranet of the universal periodic review (UPR). I. Summary of the proceedings of the review process A. Presentation by the State under review 5. Papua New Guinea stated that its UPR report was part of its obligations under General Assembly resolution 60/251 and Human Rights Council resolution 5/1. The report, it added, outlined the human rights situation in the country in a frank manner, described how the various human rights treaties to which it was party were being implemented, noted achievements and best practices, and highlighted challenges and constraints that Papua New Guinea faced. 6. Papua New Guinea then described the consultative process engaged in the preparation of the report. It was highlighted that an inter-agency committee had been formed, which included: the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Department of Community Development (co-Chairs), the Department of Justice and Attorney General, the Department of National Planning and Rural Development, the Department of Finance, the Department of Labour and Industrial Relations, the Ombudsman Commission, the Correctional Services, the Constitutional and Law Reform Commission, the Supreme Court, the University of Papua New Guinea and other stakeholders. 7. Papua New Guinea added that a smaller subgroup from the inter-agency committee, the National UPR Taskforce, had been tasked to compile inputs from stakeholders and prepare the UPR report. 3