A/HRC/10/12 page 19 made by the State under review.16 The report of the Council contains not only the summary of views expressed by the State under review, but also the views expressed on the outcome by member States and Observers of the Council, and the summary of general comments made by other relevant stakeholders. (a) Analysis of references to human rights defenders 87. References to human rights defenders that were made during the interactive dialogue in the Working Group session, as well as in questions submitted to the troika in advance, were generally faithfully reflected in the report of the Working Group and the outcome of the review. As the outcome of the review mirrors the discussion in the Working Group, and the recommendations put forward there, the Special Rapporteur observes that in about 30 per cent of the outcome reports, there was no reference at all to the situation of human rights defenders in the State under review. 88. For States during whose review references and recommendations were made concerning human rights defenders, these references and recommendations were generally well reflected in the outcome document. (b) Content of recommendations 89. As mentioned above, the overview of the three UPR sessions shows that the situation of human rights defenders is not adequately addressed at all stages of the review. References to defenders were lacking in some instances, even in States where their situation is far from ideal. And in many cases where recommendations were made, they proved to be rather general in nature and difficult to apply in practice, both for the Government of the State under review, and for civil society in general in that country. 90. Since the compilation of United Nations information and the summary of stakeholder information is not reflected or analysed in the outcome report in any form, the information contained in them will be lost in the outcome document unless another State participating in the interactive dialogue decides to refer to them and formulate recommendations with regard to them. 91. The interactive dialogue proved to be quite useful in drawing attention to the recommendations of the special procedures, encouraging States to meet their obligations, inter alia, regarding unimplemented recommendations by mandate holders and outstanding visit requests. 92. Another issue that needs to be considered is the status of those recommendations that the State under review decides to reject. While the rejected recommendations are also noted in the report of the Council, they may pose a problem in cases where the same or similar recommendations were previously made by treaty bodies or special procedures mandate holders. 16 Ibid, para. 27.