A/HRC/10/12 page 22 105. During the interactive dialogue conducted in the Working Group, the Special Rapporteur encourages States to put pertinent, topical questions regarding the situation of human rights defenders in the State under review, and to provide concrete, actionable recommendations on them. Recommendations on human rights defenders should be specific and detailed, not only mere mission statements. The UPR should be an opportunity to distil best practices with respect to specific problems faced by human rights defenders and should recommend concrete and detailed policy outcomes. 106. The Special Rapporteur suggests that States allow in all cases, without the need for express consent, the possibility of side events/parallel events during UPR sessions, following the example of the lunchtime briefings of the treaty bodies. So far such parallel events have only been allowed if the State under review has agreed. 107. The Special Rapporteur considers that NGOs should be allowed to speak during the interactive dialogue at the Working Group stage of the UPR. An amendment to the institution-building provisions regarding participation by NGOs could be undertaken during the five-year review foreseen for 2011. 108. The scope for general comments before the adoption of the outcome by the plenary should be broadly interpreted. The raising of issues not discussed during the examination is important in showing whether the examination has been comprehensive and meaningful. 109. The Special Rapporteur calls on States to ensure effective follow-up on the national level by consulting civil society and human rights defenders about the problems identified and the recommendations put forward during the UPR process. The organization of the follow-up consultation process should be similarly inclusive and meaningful as the consultations prior to the finalization of the national report. An effective follow-up also requires inter alia, the wide dissemination of the report and outcomes of the UPR; the design of a national action plan on human rights defenders if it does not already exist; and the organization of annual meetings to assess the status of implementation. 110. Recommendations stemming from the UPR should be regarded holistically, together with the recommendations of other human rights mechanisms, namely the treaty bodies, special procedures and regional mechanisms. UPR recommendations should not be looked at in isolation, but as part of the broader assessment made by other human rights mechanisms. 111. The Special Rapporteur recommends that treaty bodies and special procedures mandate holders make use of the recommendations stemming from the UPR process with regard to human rights defenders, and raise them with countries concerned during country visits or examinations of reports. The Special Rapporteur further suggests that treaty bodies especially follow up on recommendations rejected by the State under review, in cases where such rejected recommendations run counter to previous recommendations issued by treaty bodies, or the treaty obligations of the State. 112. The outcome report could potentially include an analysis of the compilations of United Nations information and the summaries of stakeholder information. Without such content, valuable information goes completely unmentioned in the outcome of the review.