A/HRC/33/26 22. Mr. Phuangketkeow recalled the challenges during the review of the Human Rights Council in 2010-2011 over which he presided. At first there had been no agreement on the scope of the review, until it was decided that everything would remain on the table and nothing would be agreed until everything was agreed. The outcome document represented the limited areas of agreement that States had been ready to reach. The success of the Council should not be measured by the number of resolutions, but by the impact it made on the ground and to what degree it addressed the lives of people. A key question during the review process was how to do better in addressing urgent situations and which tools, in addition to special sessions, it could use to engage the concerned country early on, voluntarily and constructively. The Council had considered voluntary briefings by the country concerned, closed-door sessions and informal dialogue with the country concerned. However, those formats could not be agreed upon because one side wanted to require the consent of the country concerned, while the other wanted not to have that requirement and have an automatic trigger mechanism. The conversation on how to deal with urgent situations was important to the credibility of the Council and should continue between now and the next review of the Council. B. Interactive discussion 23. During the plenary discussion, the following States and other stakeholders delivered statements: (a) Representatives of States members of the Human Rights Council: Bangladesh, China (on behalf of a group of countries), Cuba (on behalf of a like-minded group of countries), Ecuador, Morocco (on behalf of International Organization of la Francophonie), Portugal, Qatar (on behalf of the Arab Group), Saudi Arabia, South Africa (on behalf of the African Group), Switzerland (on behalf of a group of countries), the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (on behalf of a group of countries) and Viet Nam (on behalf of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations); (b) Representatives of observer States: Brazil (on behalf of the Community of Portuguese Language-speaking Countries), Costa Rica (on behalf of a group of countries), the Dominican Republic (on behalf of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States), Egypt (on behalf of a group of countries), Honduras, Iceland (on behalf of the Group of Nordic Countries), Ireland (on behalf of a group of countries), Pakistan (on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation) and Rwanda (on behalf of a group of countries); (c) Representatives of intergovernmental organizations: the European Union; (d) Representatives of national human rights institutions: the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions; (e) Representatives of non-governmental organizations: the Arab Commission for Human Rights, CIVICUS – World Alliance for Citizen Participation (on behalf of a group of non-governmental organizations), the International Service for Human Rights (on behalf of a group of non-governmental organizations) and Rencontre Africaine pour la défense des droits de l’homme; (f) Cross. 6 Representatives of other entities: the International Committee of the Red