A/HRC/10/12 page 20 An example in this regard is Sri Lanka, which rejected, without explanation, recommendations referring to the need to avoid unduly constraining civil society, including through registering human rights defenders.17 6. Follow-up: instances of impact on the ground 93. The Special Rapporteur considers that, after only three rounds of the UPR process, it is probably too early to draw conclusions about its impact and the follow-up to the review, given the limited number of States that have undergone the process, and also the short time that has elapsed since they were examined. 94. The follow-up to the UPR is crucially important for several reasons. Ideally, the outcome of the UPR process should generate a policy debate at the national level, involving human rights defenders. After the conclusion of the UPR process, follow-up consultations should be organized with a view to identifying appropriate policy measures in order to comply with recommendations. This is all the more important, given that the subsequent review should focus, inter alia, on the implementation of the preceding outcome. 95. The outcome of the UPR, as a cooperative mechanism, should be implemented primarily by the State concerned and, as appropriate, by other relevant stakeholders.18 Civil society should see it as an ongoing opportunity to highlight aspects of human rights advocacy. Additionally, recommendations which enjoy the support of the State concerned are important tools for prompting change in national legislation and practices, as well as a useful benchmark to measure developments against. 96. One good example for follow-up is Colombia, where national NGOs have used the UPR process as an opportunity to engage in various forms of human rights advocacy, including by obtaining media attention and sending out e-mail bulletins. III. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 97. The Special Rapporteur is convinced that the UPR process has the potential to provide an important tool for civil society, and human rights defenders in particular, to trigger a genuine dialogue with their respective Governments before, throughout and after the review. The UPR can generate a genuine platform to enhance the protection of human rights defenders, and to strengthen the cooperation between national stakeholders. The UPR is also a challenge for civil society stakeholders to appreciate and fully use this opportunity for human rights defenders on the ground. 17 A/HRC/8/46, para. 26 and para. 32. 18 Human Rights Council resolution 5/1, annex, para. 36.