A/HRC/21/51 departments. States raised questions about the utility of questionnaires. The mandate holders responded that questionnaires gave them important information on follow-up, and encouraged States to respond in order to ensure that global perspectives are given on thematic studies. States encouraged mandate holders to assist in the identification of best practices in order to assist in the development of legislation in specific thematic areas, such as freedom of expression. Some States asked about the criteria used to decide whether a communication would be sent and the verification process. In response, the mandate holders indicated that they seek to verify through other sources. They also called on States to be more responsive to communications, as currently only 35 per cent received responses, with many of these being limited to narrow legal issues. It was noted that, in some cases, communications concerned life and death situations, the resolution of which depended on the reaction of the State. 41. Several States noted the recently enhanced cooperation with the African human rights system as a positive development. A representative of the Council of Europe expressed keen interest in strengthening regional collaboration, indicating that coordination and information-sharing between special procedures and the human rights mechanisms of the Council, notably the Commissioner for Human Rights, would be beneficial for the planning and conduct of country visits in Europe, as well as normative thematic work, for example with regard to business and human rights and the rights of elderly. 42. The mandate holders underlined the obligation of States to protect sources and witnesses who had interacted with them against reprisal and intimidation. Instances where States had sought access to confidential information about the identity of persons who had met with mandate holders during country visits were noted. While the mandate holders welcomed the political support of States, reflected in the increase of mandates, they also called on States to ensure that additional financial resources were made available to provide adequate support for the special procedures. B. Regional human rights mechanisms 43. The exchange of views between the special procedures mandate holders and representatives of the special procedures of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights provided an overview of the progress made in the implementation of the road map agreed upon at the dialogue held between the special procedures of the Human Rights Council and those of the African Commission on 17 and 18 January 2012 in Addis Ababa. The representatives the joint working group established to advance and monitor the implementation of the Addis Ababa road map briefed the meeting on its highlights and provided information on the action taken after the dialogue between the two mechanisms, including the appointment of focal points within the respective secretariats and an increase in regular exchanges of information, such as notes forecasting the relevant activities of both systems; regular mailing of the special procedures bulletin to the African Commission; participation in each other’s sessions or annual meetings; the preparation of a comparative note between the two special procedures systems; reciprocal follow-up to the recommendations of each mechanism; and peer-to-peer learning. 44. The mandate holders from both systems stressed the importance and relevance of the road map, which provides a structured framework for further cooperation, and expressed strong support for it, particularly as they considered that, by acting together, their impact was stronger. They highlighted past instances of successful cooperation, in particular the joint visit of the special rapporteurs on the situation of human rights defenders to Togo in 2007; the joint statements of the special rapporteurs on freedom of expression; and the common activities of the mandates on torture and on internally displaced persons. Some 13