A/HRC/15/56 NGOs shared their experiences regarding interaction with international and regional human rights mechanisms and set out ways in which they could contribute to improving this cooperation. Concrete proposals of cooperation on information sharing, possible joint activities and follow-up to decisions and recommendations of regional and international human rights mechanisms were thoroughly discussed. 12. The workshop highlighted the importance of enhancing existing cooperation in order to reinforce the principles of universality, indivisibility and interdependence of human rights and to avoid duplication, while contributing to the harmonization of international human rights standards and case law. 13. It was agreed that the ultimate aim of such cooperation was to make a positive difference for individuals at the national level. Such cooperation will contribute to the strengthening of the national human rights protection system, including domestic courts, NHRIs and civil society organizations, to ensure the realization of all human rights. A broad range of national stakeholders should actively participate in the cooperation process. 14. It was also noted that cooperation between human rights mechanisms should take into account the realities and priorities at the international, regional, subregional and national levels, in order to better address a broader array of possibilities of cooperation at every level, and to avoid delivering contradictory messages. A. Cooperation between human rights mechanisms with similar functions 15. Participants noted that cooperation between international, regional and subregional human rights mechanisms with similar functions or competences should be improved. 16. International and regional judicial and quasi-judicial human rights bodies have much in common. They hear complaints brought against their member States and in many cases issue decisions containing recommendations which indicate steps and measures that States should take in order to fulfil their international human rights obligations. The jurisprudence they have developed could be a means to various kinds of cooperation. For example, jurisprudence sharing mechanisms can be established between the United Nations human rights treaty bodies and the ACHPR, the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, the IACHR, the Inter-American Court on Human Rights, and the European Court of Human Rights. This cooperation could be expanded to also involve quasi-judicial United Nations special procedures mechanisms (i.e the Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances and the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention). The ongoing process of harmonization of reporting procedures of the United Nations treaty bodies4 should be taken into account. 17. The principle of cooperation between human rights mechanisms with similar functions could also be applied to consulting, promotional and monitoring functions. Joint awareness-raising activities could be conducted, for instance, by the European Committee of Social Rights and the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. 18. Exchanges could also be established between the universal periodic review (UPR) and the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM), considering the similarity between their mandates. 19. In terms of follow-up to decisions and recommendations of international and regional bodies, collaboration could be established between expert mechanisms on the one hand, and inter-State mechanisms on the other hand, i.e. the recommendations of treaty bodies and special procedures could be followed up by the UPR and the APRM. 4 6 See http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/treaty/CCD.htm.