A/HRC/28/41 mechanism, there was no regular budget allocated to support the system as a whole, including the activities of the Coordination Committee, the organization of the annual induction session for newly appointed mandate holders, the annual meeting of mandate holders and all information and other tools and services provided by the Special Procedures Branch to the system. 53. The limited and/or lack of regular budget allocations was compensated by voluntary contributions received by OHCHR from Member States. A number of mandates also occasionally received earmarked contributions from Member States. Overall voluntary contributions were, however, insufficient to meet all needs of the special procedures. 54. Mandate holders reiterated their concerns with regard to the inadequate resouces put at their disposal under each mandate to fulfil their tasks adequately. They also discussed fundraising issues and the possibility of approaching private institutions and foundations in that regard. It was suggested that OHCHR be regularly informed of fundraising activities by the special procedures. 55. Participants reiterated the need for Member States, the General Assembly and United Nations budgetary bodies to allocate the corresponding budget when a mandate is established. The establishment of a new mandate must be accompanied by the timely provision of necessary resources through the regular budget, which must also provide existing mandates with a reasonable minimum level of resources to allow the activities of mandates to be conducted. 2. Reprisals 56. Mandate holders discussed the issue of intimidation and reprisals against persons cooperating with the United Nations and its representatives and mechanisms in the field of human rights. Several reported on cases of intimidation and reprisals against witnesses and other interlocutors willing to engage with them before, during and after country visits. One mandate holder gave a specific example from his own experience following a recent country visit. Civil society representatives had been harassed and intimidated, some put under de facto house arrest to prevent them from meeting with him; meeting places were barricaded, and activities were monitored. The mandate holder had had to suspend the factfinding part of his mission. He provided insights into the reactions of the Government and United Nations field presences and proposed a discussion on reacting to a crisis situation and providing persons in need with protection, including when reprisals are committed after the visit. There was thus a need to develop a systematic approach to the issue and to protect sources, who were now even more vulnerable because of the new electronic ways by which they could be exposed. 57. Mandate holders agreed on the need to find ways to respond to acts of intimidation, harrassment and reprisal faced by individuals trying to contact them, including by identifying more effective and rapid mechanisms in situations where protection gaps exist and when dealing with States that deny or trivialize protection concerns. They expressed the need for a high-level mechanism to respond to States that engage in reprisals. 58. Mandate holders also referred to defamatory, ad hominem attacks by States and nongovernmental organizations on mandate holders, and stressed that the Council should be more active in responding to such attacks. 59. Mandate holders reiterated their concerns during their exchange with the President of the Council, who noted that reprisals were a hindrance to the protection and promotion of human rights. He acknowledged the difficulties in addressing this issue and agreed on the need to continue to denounce cases of reprisal, to raise awareness and to protect actively those at risk. The mandate holders also raised the issues with the Deputy Secretary-General, with a focus on the response given by the Secretary-General to the increasing number of 12