A/HRC/18/12 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 Suriname was held at the 10th meeting on 6 May 2011. The delegation of Suriname was headed by Martin P. Misiedjan. At its 14th meeting held on 10 May 2011, the Working Group adopted the report on Suriname. 2. On 21 June 2010, the Human Rights Council selected the following group of rapporteurs (troika) to facilitate the review of Suriname: Mauritania, Qatar and Uruguay. 3. In accordance with paragraph 15 of the annex to resolution 5/1, the following documents were issued for the review of Suriname: (a) A national report submitted/written presentation made in accordance with paragraph 15 (a) (A/HRC/WG.6/11/SUR/1); (b) A compilation prepared by OHCHR in accordance with paragraph 15 (b) (A/HRC/WG.6/11/SUR/2); (c) A summary prepared by OHCHR in accordance with paragraph 15 (c) (A/HRC/WG.6/11/SUR/3). 4. A list of questions prepared in advance by Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Latvia, Netherlands, Norway, Slovenia ad the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was transmitted to Suriname through the troika. These questions are available on the extranet of UPR. I. Summary of the proceedings of the review process A. Presentation by the State under review 5. The delegation stated that the Government of Suriname had undertaken many efforts to improve human rights standards in Suriname and appreciated the support it had received from national and international organizations as well as various United Nations treaty bodies. Suriname attached great importance to the universal periodic review mechanism. It valued the opportunity to assess its achievements and address challenges and constraints in the promotion and protection of human rights. In the preparation of its national report, an inter-ministerial commission was established in May 2010 and consultations were held with various relevant stakeholders. 6. Suriname thanked the Human Rights Council for the opportunity presented. It was convinced that this interaction and exchange of views would enable it to deal more capably and effectively with any shortcomings that might have still existed with regard to the full implementation on human rights conventions. The delegation stated that Suriname was determined to promote and guarantee all fundamental rights and freedoms to its people. It acknowledged the importance of the various reporting requirements as a means of monitoring the implementation of instruments that embodied universal human rights and fundamental freedoms and stated that its national report illustrated the progress that had been made in the past five years. 7. The human rights infrastructure of Suriname had both legal and institutional components, and Suriname was continuously working on improving them. In particular, the legislative bodies, Parliament and the State Council, were highly involved in the process of preparation and approval of legislative products. The delegation stated that specific issues 3