A/HRC/25/22 albeit sparingly, especially for States with long-overdue reports. The real issue was lack of compliance by States parties, although cooperation was often forthcoming when the States were informed that they would be reviewed regardless of the submission of a report. 31. On 21 May 2013, the chairpersons held an informal consultation with States. In his opening statement, the Chair of the annual meeting stated that the success of the treaty body strengthening process would be measured by its ability to offer more protection to rights holders than was currently the case. He gave an overview of the unprecedented challenges confronting the treaty body system, such as the considerable backlog in reviewing States parties’ reports and communications, and the high degree of non-compliance by States parties with their reporting obligations, which constituted a threat to the integrity, coherence and effectiveness of the system, as did the significant delay between the submission of reports and their review. The Chair criticized the severe underresourcing of the system, which forced it to rely to an unsafe degree on extra-budgetary resources and conveyed the deep concern of the chairpersons over cases of reprisals, including against human rights defenders who provided information to the treaty bodies. He called for greater access for civil society organizations from all States parties to the treaty bodies. 32. The Chair enumerated the principles and benchmarks that the chairpersons considered to be fundamental for the success of the treaty body strengthening process. As the principles are rooted in human rights treaty law, as developed and ratified by States, the chairpersons expect them to be faithfully reflected in both the process and outcome of the treaty body strengthening process. 33. Regarding the principles, the Chair stated that any outcome of the intergovernmental process should strengthen the human rights protection that the treaty body system offered, and ensure the independence and impartiality of the treaty bodies and their members. 34. At their twenty-fourth annual meeting in 2012, the chairpersons had endorsed the guidelines on the independence and impartiality of treaty body members (Addis Ababa guidelines),2 which interpreted the concepts of independence and impartiality for treaty body members. These guidelines are based on pre-existing guidelines of the Human Rights Committee, relevant rules of procedure and decisions of other treaty bodies relating to independence. The Addis Ababa guidelines have since been incorporated, in one way or another, in the rules of procedure and practices of most committees, as documented in the report on the implementation by the treaty bodies of the recommendations contained in the report of the High Commissioner (HRI/MC/2013/4). That had given the Addis Ababa guidelines considerable weight. 35. The Chair further stated that any outcome of the intergovernmental process should be comprehensive and sustainable, and the treaty bodies should be equipped with the proper material and human resources from the regular budget to adequately carry out their responsibilities under the respective treaties. 36. The fourth principle raised was efficiency, which would be tested in the light of the goal of the treaty body system to respect, protect and promote human rights. In this context, all cost-saving measures should be fully reinvested in the system which has suffered dramatically from a lack of resources. As such, valuable capacity-building initiatives should not be undertaken at the expense of the already scarce resources of the treaty bodies, but rather additional resources should be made available for that purpose. 37. The intergovernmental process provided Member States and treaty bodies with a unique opportunity to bring the work of the treaty bodies up to date by allowing them to 2 8 A/67/222, annex, and Corr.1.