A/HRC/18/2 (a) The national report submitted by Singapore in accordance with the annex to Council resolution 5/1, paragraph 15 (a) (A/HRC/WG.6/11/SGP/1); (b) The compilation prepared by OHCHR in accordance with paragraph 15 (b) (A/HRC/WG.6/11/SGP/2); (c) The summary prepared by OHCHR in accordance with paragraph 15 (c) (A/HRC/WG.6/11/SGP/3 and A/HRC/WG.6/11/SGP/3/Corr.1). 453. At its 21st meeting, on 22 September 2011, the Human Rights Council considered and adopted the outcome of the review of Singapore (see section C below). 454. The outcome of the review of Singapore comprises the report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review (A/HRC/18/11), the views of Singapore concerning the recommendations and/or conclusions, and its voluntary commitments and its replies presented before the adoption of the outcome by the plenary to questions or issues that were not sufficiently addressed during the interactive dialogue in the Working Group (see also A/HRC/18/11/Add.1). 1. Views expressed by the State under review on the recommendations and/or conclusions, its voluntary commitments and the outcome 455. The delegation of Singapore reaffirmed that the universal periodic review process had been a very instructive experience, in which all relevant Government ministries had met regularly for more than a year to evaluate the effectiveness of its domestic policies and to debate whether more could be done. Civil society had been regularly consulted. It emphasized that Singapore had entered the process with an open mind. 456. The delegation pointed out that, at the time of its review, Singapore had received 112 recommendations, of which it had accepted 52, rejected 21 and deferred 39. After careful consideration, Singapore had now decided to accept 23 of the pending recommendations in part and 9 in full; overall, Singapore supported, either fully or partially, 84 out of the 112 (i.e. 75 per cent) of the recommendations made. Most of the recommendations that Singapore was not ready to support related to crime and security issues, including with regard to the death penalty and corporal punishment, for reasons already explained. Another cluster of recommendations that Singapore was unable to support related to the establishment of a national human rights institution, as Singapore preferred a decentralized but mutually reinforcing system of human rights protection. Similarly, it believed that the best way to protect child rights was through an integrated system of legislation, policies and services. Concerning the treatment of women prisoners, Singapore acknowledged, in principle, the merits of the Bangkok Rules, but did not accept the recommendation to implement them as it believed that each country had to determine its own best approach, taking into consideration its specific domestic situation and other relevant factors. The delegation also underlined the fact that, in the report of the Working Group on Singapore, it had explained why Singapore did not see the need to establish an independent elections body as recommended. The delegation added that there were also a few recommendations that it was not able to support as they were based on incorrect assumptions or premises. 457. Singapore had also accepted in part many recommendations that it consider ratification of various international human rights instruments, in accordance with its policy to constantly review and consider accession to those instruments to which it is not yet a party. In June 2011, it had ratified the ILO Maritime Labour Convention, thus strengthening its commitment to decent work conditions for seafarers working on Singapore-flagged ships. In the same month, in accordance with its policy of constantly reviewing the declarations and reservations that it had filed upon ratification of human rights instruments, and following significant developments in the practice of sharia law in GE.12-17756 145