A/HRC/21/51 36. The attention of mandate holders was drawn to the tools to enhance informationsharing, including the upgraded Universal Human Rights Index database; the annual calendar of the human rights mechanisms, developed jointly by the Human Rights Treaty Division, the Special Procedures Branch and the Human Rights Council Branch, integrating information on activities relating to special procedures, the Human Rights Council, the treaty bodies and the universal periodic review; and the special procedures extranet. The point was made that basic documents were sometimes not translated into all languages of the United Nations, and that rules limiting the word count of documents might compromise the work of mandate holders. Suggestions for improvement were made, in particular in relation to the OHCHR website, and the development of further tools was recommended. 37. Some mandate holders reiterated serious concerns raised on previous occasions about United Nations editorial policies and practices, especially with regard to reports submitted to the General Assembly, which sometimes resulted in substantive changes to reports, especially in sensitive areas, without consultation with the relevant mandate holder. The point was also made that mandate holders who worked in more than one official language of the United Nations should have the possibility of giving input into the language versions of their reports, as problems similar to those relating to editing had arisen. Strategies to address these issues were proposed. VII. Consultations with stakeholders A. States 38. The Chairperson noted that mandate holders continuously sought to strengthen cooperation and dialogue with States, and that maintaining a constructive dialogue enhanced the common goal of improving human rights protection at the national level. States welcomed the opportunity for interaction and expressed support for the work and independence of human rights mandate holders. Several States recalled that it was important for special procedures to be guided by independence, non-selectivity and impartiality, and that they carry out their mandate in accordance with the Code of Conduct. Other States pointed to the crucial role of special procedures. Several States raised the issue of the funding of special procedures, while some suggested that this support should be provided solely through the regular budget of the United Nations or unearmarked contributions to OHCHR. Transparency in this area was essential to avoid any perception of lack of independence. 39. Several States enquired whether standing invitations were honoured in practice and whether information was available on the number of requests addressed to countries that had issued standing invitations yet denied access. States also raised the need to increase coordination among mandate holders prior to making visit requests. Several mandate holders pointed out that their requests for a visit frequently remain unanswered, and that this compromised their ability to coordinate and plan work, and use their limited resources effectively. It was also observed that, in recent instances, acceptance by the State of a visit had sometimes been received very late, which created significant obstacles to the conduct of the mission. 40. Several States expressed appreciation for the visits made by special procedures that they had recently hosted. Questions were raised about the consistency of working methods and methodology in the area of follow-up. The mandate holders pointed out that they wished to strengthen modalities to sustain follow-up after visits, and also raised the importance of internal coordination across Government entities, given that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs does not always adequately involve other relevant ministries and 12