A/HRC/21/59 of complaints, cases settled remedies, timeframes, and cooperation with UN etc. He stated that this idea could be followed up at some point. 98. At the 9th meeting, on 16 April, the Secretariat announced that Mr. Michel Forst of the French National Consultative Commission had informed that he would not be able to attend the meeting as planned, due to unforeseen circumstances. Mr. Patrick Charlier, of the Belgian Centre for Equal Opportunities and the Fight against Racism gave a presentation in which he discussed how to choose a mechanism, the status of mechanisms and the remit of mechanisms. 99. National mechanisms are independent bodies to promote human rights established by the State. Mechanisms could focus on combating discrimination or have a wider mandate. He noted that the outcome of the mechanism rather that its structure should guide decision-makers, adding that each country should make its own choice based on domestic particularities and local specificities such as language, culture, federal structure, and legal tradition. There was an on-going debate between broad thematic mechanisms versus specialized mechanisms. The more general structures had mandates to protect, promote and monitor. This could be advantageous because that one body had a greater capacity to address a broad spectrum of issues and allowed for cross-fertilization with other bodies and structures in government. As a reporting body, this national body could also prove more effective. There were also budgetary issues and economies of scale. 100. Specialized bodies allowed for greater attention to the needs of a specific category or group with specific needs, be they migrants, refugees, etc. A specialized mechanism should ensure diversity in its membership, reflecting the ethnic, linguistic and cultural facets of the country. These types of mechanisms also have a specific expertise and focus and are perhaps more inclined to follow the relevant legislation or process such as the ICERD, UPR and DDPA. Mr. Charlier noted that the CERD, European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI), Council of Europe and the DDPA specifically call for this type of mechanism. 101. The status of the mechanism was another consideration. It was advisable that mechanisms have so-called ―360 degree‖ independence in that they are able to make recommendations regarding the rules and regulations of the State. It must also be independent from civil society since the mechanism is not a super-NGO either. It was imperative that the organ had its own right to speak. It must be accessible physically and in terms of lodging complaints and it should also have symbolic and cultural proximity to the population. 102. A third consideration was the mandate and the body or mechanism. Both groups and victims of discrimination as well as phenomena should fall under the mandate of the body. He noted that it was very important to publicize the competence and the authority of the body or mechanism to all sectors and all areas of activity where the body might act. A broad mandate was recommended in that the mechanism should have the capacity to protect, promote and monitor. The promotional activities should be taken in the media, through public relations and on international days. Its protection mandate should be complementary to that of national courts. The mechanisms should publicly disseminate its finding, conclusions, studies etc as well as all its annual activities especially in the form of an official annual report. The mechanism can submit amicus curiae briefs, should it wish and take part in strategic litigation and class action lawsuits, where possible. A broad protection mandate would allow the mechanism to follow the situation of certain groups and also receive individual complaints. 103. The monitoring function of the mechanism ensured conformity with international regulations and obligations; allowed for an assessment of the real state of affairs of minorities and groups in the country and their ability to take part in society (opportunities 37