A/HRC/25/22 III. Twenty-fifth meeting of chairpersons of the human rights treaty bodies 23. At the suggestion of the co-facilitators, the annual meeting1 of chairpersons of the human rights treaty bodies was held in New York from 20 to 24 May 2013, with a view to enhancing synergies with the intergovernmental process on treaty body strengthening. The chairpersons met with the co-facilitators, consulted with States and exchanged views with groups of Member States and civil society. 24. The chairpersons welcomed the opportunity to exchange views with the cofacilitators, with the common goal of strengthening human rights protection worldwide by strengthening the treaty bodies, and reviewed the co-facilitators’ paper on the way forward and made comments. 25. The co-facilitators’ proposal on webcasting and captioning was generally welcomed by the chairpersons as it would ensure the integration of evolving technologies and contribute to increasing participation, including by persons with disabilities. The chairpersons noted that webcasting could contribute to formalizing the ad hoc arrangements currently in place, and suggested that digital recording, for example, could reduce the need for summary records. The chairpersons also welcomed the proposal for videoconferencing and highlighted the precedent set by the Committee on the Rights of the Child. 26. The co-facilitators noted that the adoption of the simplified reporting procedure (issuance of a list of issues prior to reporting) could become an important cost-saving measure, and updating the common core documents by way of an addendum should be considered. The chairpersons welcomed the proposal to strictly limit the number of pages of the reports and noted that addressing the backlog and coordinated requests for additional meeting time might create competition among the committees. The co-facilitators, however, stressed the need to avoid future ad hoc requests for additional resources. 27. Regarding an aligned methodology for the constructive dialogue between States parties and treaty bodies, the chairpersons highlighted that a uniform allocation (two meetings) for the interactive dialogue with a State party might not be meaningful in all cases, given the specificities of the States parties, and called for a degree of flexibility in that regard. They also asked for flexibility on other proposals, such as the issue of task forces, and the various methods of work that had been developed by each committee on the basis of its experience, composition and precedents. 28. With respect to reprisals, the chairpersons stated that there was a need for a collective response that would include measures of reparation. They suggested that each committee designate a focal point and that the creation of a joint body to address reprisals be explored. 29. Regarding the advantages and disadvantages of dual chambers, the chairpersons noted that, while there were clear benefits in terms of saving time and money, dual chambers would be difficult for smaller committees — such as the Committee against Torture, which has only 10 members — for which it could be difficult, if not impossible, to find a balanced composition for each chamber. The question was also raised as to how treaty body members who did not participate in the interactive dialogue could properly participate in adopting concluding observations. 30. The chairpersons recalled that consideration of States parties in the absence of a report was already provided for in a number of treaties and carried out by committees, 1 See A/68/334. 7