Decriminalizing Abortion, Gender in Education, and “Anti-Discrimination” Laws: UN Member States’ Recommendations for Paraguay

Paraguay’s review: the basic facts

Paraguay was reviewed during the 52nd session of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) at the UN Human Rights Council. The country’s delegation was headed by its Minister of Justice, Rodrigo Nicora. In the interactive dialogue, 85 state delegations took the floor and formulated a combined total of 266 recommendations, compiled in the Working Group’s report bearing the symbol A/HRC/63/8 and dated June 26, 2026. That report will be formally adopted by the plenary of the Human Rights Council during its 63rd session, running from September 7 to October 9, 2026.

In presenting its own report, the Paraguayan delegation highlighted, among other things, poverty reduction, the free school-meals program “Hambre Cero en las Escuelas” (Zero Hunger in Schools), reform of the prison system, and the adoption of the National Sexual and Reproductive Health Plan for 2024–2030, as well as the introduction, as of 2026, of compulsory sex education based on an “affective” approach. Many delegations praised Paraguay for reducing poverty and for its social programs. Others, including Germany, Canada, and Russia, voiced concern over restrictions on civic space, corruption, and prison conditions.

Recommendations on abortion

Of the 266 recommendations, two refer directly and unambiguously to the decriminalization of abortion. France recommended that Paraguay guarantee access to sexual and reproductive health and rights, including through the decriminalization of abortion (recommendation 109.145).

Iceland went further, putting forward the most far-reaching recommendation in the entire document. It calls for the decriminalization of abortion in all circumstances and the removal of legal, administrative, and practical barriers hindering access to safe abortion services (recommendation 109.152).

At present, abortion in Paraguay is punishable in every case except where the pregnant woman’s life is directly endangered—no exception is provided even for a pregnancy resulting from rape or incest. Iceland’s recommendation, if accepted, would mean the complete abolition of criminal liability for abortion, with no time limits or qualifying conditions—an approach more far-reaching than even the so-called three-grounds model debated in many other countries of the region.

Beyond these two direct recommendations, a further dozen or so concerned the more broadly understood category of “sexual and reproductive health and rights” (SRHR), without an explicit mention of abortion but within the same conceptual family. Estonia recommended strengthening universal access to sexual and reproductive health services and to modern contraception (109.142). Iceland separately called for protecting and promoting sexual and reproductive health and rights and ensuring universal access to related services and information (109.143); Australia recommended adopting legislative and policy measures that strengthen sexual and reproductive health and rights (109.144). Similar recommendations, though somewhat more mildly worded, were also put forward by Ireland, Croatia, Portugal, Slovenia, Thailand, and Spain.

Particularly telling is a passage from Ireland’s statement during the interactive dialogue itself (thus not merely a recommendation, but an assessment expressed outright): Ireland expressed regret, among other things, at the ban on the dissemination of age-appropriate information on sexual and reproductive health—which reveals that Paraguay maintains certain restrictions in this area that are the subject of international criticism. Australia, likewise, voiced concern in its statement over the limited progress on sexual and reproductive rights.

The dispute over the word “gender” in education

One of the more significant recommendations, from the standpoint of the dispute over states’ sovereignty in shaping education policy, came from Canada. It advised reviewing and repealing regulation No. 1803/2025 of the Ministry of Education and Sciences, which prohibits any use of the term ‘gender’ in educational materials, in order to ensure inclusive and evidence-based education (recommendation 109.180).

That regulation—not described at any length in the Working Group’s report itself—is an example of a sovereign decision by a UN member state limiting the presence of terminology associated with gender ideology in the public education system. Canada’s recommendation, calling for its repeal, aptly illustrates a mechanism the Ordo Iuris Institute has described in earlier analyses: international forums are used to exert pressure on states that adopt regulations protecting their education systems from the imposition of contested ideological terminology.

Recommendations on “sexual orientation and gender identity”

The largest group of recommendations by number consists of calls to adopt comprehensive anti-discrimination laws expressly covering the categories of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.” Such recommendations were put forward by, among others, Colombia (109.17), Mexico (109.21), Iceland (109.22), Slovenia (109.23), Venezuela (109.24), Chile (109.25), Australia (109.26), Uruguay (109.27), Montenegro (109.28), Spain (109.29), and France (109.31). Cuba separately recommended taking effective action against structural discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity and against hate speech targeting LGBTI persons (109.34). Iceland was the only state in the entire document to recommend outright ensuring the legal recognition of same-sex unions (109.96). Colombia additionally recommended guaranteeing freedom of association for non-governmental organizations, including LGBTIQ+ organizations (109.87).

Who actually formulates the recommendations—the role of the OHCHR and the UN Secretariat

It is worth emphasizing a distinction that is often blurred in public discussion of UN mechanisms: within the UPR, all recommendations without exception come from member or observer states, never from the UN Secretariat itself or the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). The OHCHR’s role is limited to preparing what is known as the compilation—a synthesis of information drawn from other, already existing human rights mechanisms (treaty bodies, UN special rapporteurs)—and a summary of submissions from non-governmental organizations and national institutions. In doing so, the OHCHR does not formulate its own, new recommendations addressed to the state; it merely supplies the material on the basis of which states formulate theirs.

What happens next with the recommendations addressed to Paraguay?

Under the procedure, Paraguay has until the 63rd session of the Human Rights Council to present its position on each of the 266 recommendations—it may accept each of them (which does not amount to a legal obligation but is a declaration of political will) or merely note it, without any commitment to implementation. Practice shows that recommendations concerning the decriminalization of abortion—as in Paraguay’s previous review cycles in 2011, 2016, and 2021—are consistently noted, rather than accepted, by that state, owing to the constitutional protection of life from conception provided for in Article 4 of Paraguay’s Constitution. Implementation of the accepted recommendations is then monitored in the cycle of the next review, which falls 4.5 years later.

What the Universal Periodic Review is

The Universal Periodic Review (UPR) is a mechanism of the UN Human Rights Council established by General Assembly resolution 60/251 of March 2006. Its essence is a periodic, mutual assessment—a peer review—of the human rights record of all 193 UN member states, without exception, on the same terms. Since 2008, every state has already gone through three full review cycles; the current, fourth cycle (2022–2027) is drawing to a close, and within it Paraguay is undergoing its review for the fourth time in its history (earlier editions: 2011, 2016, 2021).

The review of each state is conducted on the basis of three documents: a national report prepared by the state itself; a compilation of UN information prepared by the OHCHR (drawing together the observations to date of treaty bodies and special rapporteurs); and a summary of stakeholder submissions—from non-governmental organizations, human rights institutions, and other entities. The review procedure itself is conducted by the UPR Working Group, composed of the 47 member states of the Human Rights Council, although any interested UN state—observer or member—may take the floor in the interactive dialogue. The course of each state’s review is coordinated by what is known as the troika, that is, three rapporteurs drawn by lot from among the Council’s members. In Paraguay’s case, these were Ecuador, Kuwait, and Slovenia.

The interactive dialogue itself lasts a maximum of three and a half hours. The state under review first presents its own achievements, after which the remaining delegations take the floor in turn, praising particular measures, voicing concern over particular developments, or formulating specific recommendations. The recommendations then go into the Working Group’s final report, and the state under review has time—usually until the next session of the Human Rights Council—to indicate which of them it accepts and which it merely notes, without committing to their implementation. No UPR recommendation is legally binding; these are political recommendations, not treaty norms.

Poland under scrutiny a year from now

Poland will undergo its review under the fifth UPR cycle most likely in 2027. The official calendar for that cycle has not yet been published by the OHCHR; according to preliminary, not-yet-final estimates by UPR Info, the Working Group session concerning Poland may take place in April–May or in November 2027. Poland has already been reviewed four times under this mechanism (2008, 2012, 2017, and 2022), and issues relating to abortion law, the situation of people who identify with the LGBT movement, and the independence of the judiciary appeared regularly in the recommendations addressed to Poland in previous cycles.

Paraguay’s example clearly shows how the Universal Periodic Review mechanism works in practice when it touches on the protection of life. It is worth remembering that none of the 266 recommendations put to Paraguay—including those calling for the decriminalization of abortion in all circumstances—is legally binding. The UPR is a political mechanism, based on mutual pressure among states, not on binding norms of international law. This is an important distinction, because in public debate UPR recommendations are sometimes presented as “UN recommendations,” suggesting an institutional authority they do not in fact possess—they come solely from individual states pursuing their own foreign policy, and not from the Secretariat or any expert body.

Julia Książek – analyst at the Ordo Iuris Center for International Law

See also:

• A Step Toward a Ban on Surrogacy. An International Coalition Calls for a Moratorium
• Sex as a Criterion for Selecting the UN Secretary-General. The General Assembly President Declares a “Credibility Test” for the Organization
• Criticism of “Gender Self-Identification” and Euthanasia — The UN Special Rapporteur’s Report on Violence Against Older Women
• Surrogacy Is the Sale of Children: Ordo Iuris Joins an International Coalition Appealing to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child
• “Sexual and Reproductive Rights” in a Treaty on Older Persons? Work Continues at the UN

Source of cover photo: iStock