A/HRC/8/WG.2/TF/2 page 9 strengthened from a human rights perspective and the integration of sustainable development throughout its framework. Areas of weakness are access to information about its implementation, harmonization with other processes, such as Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs), and monitoring and enforcement of the implementation of the programmes of action. Proposed reforms of African Union structures would be an important opportunity to integrate more effectively the APRM work with other institutions of the African Union, in particular the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights. 31. The Executive Director of APRM Secretariat provided clarifications on APRM with respect to the comments in Ms. Manby’s study. He highlighted the voluntary nature and independence of the APRM process, underlined that a country review mission is conducted by African experts, while UNDP, ECA and the African Development Bank (ADB) contributed input as advisers. Even though it is not spelled out in the questionnaire, sustainability is one of the objectives of APRM. Furthermore, PRSPs are part of the review and marginalized groups are provided opportunities to voice their concerns. He explained reasons for not making a self-assessment report public, referred to APRM interactions with the Pan-African Parliament and pointed out the clear distribution of functions between the African Union, NEPAD, and APRM. B. The ECA/OECD-DAC Mutual Review of Development Effectiveness 32. Nico Schrijver, member of the task force, reported on the technical mission of the task force for the follow-up assessment of the Mutual Review, which was undertaken in two steps, on 13 and 14 September 2007 in Paris, and from 12 to 16 October 2007 in Addis Ababa. He noted the constructive engagement of OECD and ECA with the task force and their willingness to have their policies reviewed at an international level. Mr. Schrijver highlighted the concluding observations of the technical mission and presented the main follow-up actions for the task force. 33. Ms. Manby’s study also addressed the Mutual Review. She noted that a strength of the first 2005 review was that it reported both the compliance of developing countries and OECD members, with their commitments in the same report. However, it suffered from lack of specificity, and as a consequence had not been made use of by the NEPAD Secretariat. The study highlighted the benefit of better provision of public information in the process, a more detailed focus on African human rights instruments, increased participation and attention to developed countries’ compliance. 34. Noting that his views do not represent those of the OECD as a whole, the representative of OECD stressed that the work of the task force, including the right-to-development criteria was useful in OECD’s approach to the Mutual Review and characterized Ms. Manby’s report as a balanced and fair review which contained useful recommendations to be taken into account in the 2008 review process. A dialogue with the task force should be followed up and the mission and consultants’ studies should be circulated to OECD and ECA during the next meeting of the partners in Addis Ababa in February 2008. 35. The discussion that ensued touched upon the objectives of the task force’s assessment of selected partnerships in relation to the criteria; the nature of the criteria; the need to follow up