A/HRC/10/24 page 11 mandate-holders to act in conformity with the code of conduct or the recommendations of the manual were addressed at the earliest stage possible. The meeting decided to adopt the internal advisory procedure by consensus. C. Strengthening the effectiveness of special procedures: communications and follow-up 34. The outgoing Chairperson introduced a paper on communications prepared by the Secretariat, noting that communications constituted a fundamental part of the regular dialogue of special procedures with Governments. Most mandate-holders respond to human rights violations by either sending urgent appeals or letters of allegations to Governments, depending on the degree of urgency of the case brought to their attention. Depending on the characteristics of their mandate, some experts address more general concerns, whether on structural or legislative issues. The outgoing Chairperson pointed out that, even though the system of communications had greatly evolved over the years with a higher percentage of joint communications along with streamlined working procedures within the Secretariat, some issues deserved further reflection. They included the relatively low rate of responses from Governments, the protection of witnesses, feedback to sources and the issuance of a periodic common report on communications. 35. The proposal that a common report on communications collated on a country-by-country basis be issued was supported, as it would prevent inconsistencies between mandate-holders reporting on the same communications to the Council; avoid unnecessary duplication of work and reduce mandate-holders’ workload and rationalize their documents; allow the examination of cross-cutting human rights issues; and ensure that the content of communications and any follow-up given to them would feed into the universal periodic review process more effectively. 36. Participants also discussed the impact of special procedures communications. It was noted that Government responses to communications were not the only indicator for assessing the effectiveness of the work of special procedures. The desirability of further reflecting on criteria to assess the impact of the work of special procedures and on improving the cooperation of States in the communications procedures was flagged. The question of joint communications between country and thematic rapporteurs was also discussed. While the usefulness of comparing approaches and developing common strategies was noted, it was stressed that any decision to take action on a case or situation remained at the discretion of the mandate-holder in the light of his or her mandate and of the criteria laid out in the code of conduct. 37. The Secretariat briefed participants on follow-up practices that had been developed and streamlined over the years by many mandate-holders. They encompassed the variety of measures taken to encourage, facilitate and monitor the implementation of recommendations by any of the special procedures. The different procedures involved diverse methods of work; appropriate methods of follow-up varied according to factors such as whether the mandate was thematic or geographic; the potential contribution of technical cooperation to addressing the issue raised by the communication; and the cooperation and goodwill of the Government(s) concerned. As follow-up activities are essential to assess the effectiveness of special procedures, it was recommended that mandate-holders should continue enlarging their range to techniques to ensure adequate follow-up and share their experiences with other mandate-holders.