A/HRC/36/37 59. The Working Group is working on addressing the large number of submissions received, including through its regular communications procedure. To that end, the adoption of opinions has been marked as a priority, and the Working Group is considering other options in order to address its backlog. As such, the Working Group strives to uphold the trust of victims, who continue to seek its assistance to remedy violations of their right to liberty. 60. At its seventy-sixth session, held in August 2016, the Working Group developed a new follow-up procedure intended to ensure that it is able to track the implementation of recommendations made in its opinions and inform the Human Rights Council of the progress made by Governments in addressing cases involving the arbitrary deprivation of liberty. The Working Group will continue to refine that procedure and other aspects of its ability to follow up on the recommendations made in its opinions, during country visits and in its reports following such visits. Throughout 2016, and in accordance with paragraph 33 of its methods of work, the Working Group has also considered its procedures on how to cooperate with other special procedure mandate holders when issues concerning their work are raised in the opinions of the Working Group and during its country visits. 61. In that context, it is unfortunate that such positive developments are met with a less than enthusiastic response from various Member States. For example, States did not reply to the Working Group’s communications and requests for information in 63 per cent of the cases in which the Working Group adopted an opinion in 2016. Recent reports of the special procedure mandate holders reveal a similar rate of response to urgent appeals sent by the Working Group alone or with other special procedure mandate holders. 62. The Working Group notes that such a lack of responsiveness raises a question about the aim of the Member States in creating the mechanism. Given that the Working Group was created to serve the needs of victims of arbitrary arrests and detention worldwide and for Member States to hold each other accountable, Member States must have intended for the mechanism to resolve the disputes brought by the victims. Thus, the opinions of the Working Group should be enforced in that same spirit, which is the expectation of victims when they approach the Working Group for assistance. That is also the motivation of the Human Rights Council when it reminds States to cooperate fully with the Working Group, as it did most recently in its resolution 33/30. It is therefore fair to conclude the present report with the expectation that the next report of the Working Group will reflect further cooperation by the States, both during the communications procedure, in terms of providing timely responses that speak meaningfully to the allegations made, and in the enforcement of the opinions of the Working Group. VI. Recommendations 63. The Working Group reiterates the recommendations made in its previous reports. 64. The Working Group recommends that Member States increase their cooperation, especially through country visits, in their responses to urgent appeals and communications and by enforcing its opinions, with the view of preventing and/or ending arbitrary detention. The Working Group urges States to engage actively with its follow-up procedure with regard to the implementation of the recommendations made in its opinions. 21