A/HRC/22/47 C. Interaction with international and regional mechanisms 95. The advocacy activities of national institutions are not limited to the national level. These institutions have also participated actively in international forums such as the Human Rights Council, treaty bodies and the Universal Periodic Review. The Special Rapporteur notes with appreciation that, for example, in the preparation of submission to the Universal Periodic Review, many national institutions have consulted and cooperated closely with human rights defenders. Among recent examples, the National Human Rights Commission of India closely consulted civil society in the preparation of its report for the review of India in 2012 (A/HRC/WG.6/13/IND/1, also confirmed by reports from civil society), and the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice in Ghana (see A/HRC/WG.6/14/GHA/3) prepared a joint submission with a prominent network of human rights organizations for the review of the country in the same year. The Special Rapporteur believes such cooperation strengthens the visibility and credibility of human rights defenders, thereby contributing to their protection. 96. The Special Rapporteur has found few examples of national institutions including information on the situation of human rights defenders in their reports under the Universal Periodic Review. She recommends institutions strengthen this aspect in their reports. 97. The Special Rapporteur also observes that few national institutions provide information to her mandate or regional mechanisms authorized to monitor the situation of human rights defenders, even though a number of cases raised in their annual reports relate to defenders. The Special Rapporteur recommends national institutions make use of such international mechanisms when they deem it appropriate. D. Public support in cases of violations against human rights defenders 98. When violations are perpetrated against defenders, in the form of threats, harassment, attacks and others, it is commonplace for human rights associations to make public statements condemning such acts. The Paris Principles stipulate that national human rights institutions should be in a position to address public opinion directly or through the press in order to convey to the public its opinions and recommendations (para. 3(c)). In the Special Rapporteur’s view, this should include denouncing violations suffered by individuals and associations acting to defend human rights as a result of their work, as well as voicing public support for this. 99. Examples reported to the Special Rapporteur include the Institution of the Human Rights Defender of Armenia, which issued statements on the occasion of attacks against a human rights defender in April 2012 and called for prompt and impartial investigation of the case by the Government. 100. A great number of national institutions have established forums to facilitate dialogue and cooperation with civil society, for example through advisory councils and working groups on various themes. The Office of the Ombudsman in El Salvador reports that such coordination has led to joint action on various human rights issues in the country, including joint public statements. The Special Rapporteur observes that such joint actions should also be taken in response to violations perpetrated against human rights defenders. 101. A less immediate measure applied by several national institutions is reporting on the situation of human rights defenders as part of their annual report. The national institutions in India and Uganda reported that this is done on a systematic basis, and the Special Rapporteur considers this a good practice in terms of creating public awareness around the situation of defenders and the challenges they face in their work. 17