A/HRC/34/24 49. Mr. Kothari flagged the strong advocacy and research work undertaken by civil society organizations. He mentioned as examples the monitoring tool developed by the Working Group on Human Rights in India and the United Nations, a coalition of civil society organizations and individual human rights experts, and the fact sheets developed by UPR Info and the Centre for Economic and Social Rights, which are currently available for six countries. These are comprehensive, thematically-targeted tools which can help bring precision to the implementation of recommendations and contribute to the preparation for a forthcoming universal periodic review. 50. Mr. Kothari raised the issue of support for civil society organizations. He welcomed the Voluntary Fund for Financial and Technical Assistance put in place for Member States in the framework of the universal periodic review, but found it regrettable that no such fund exists for civil society organizations. He felt that political support was needed to address this issue, which could ultimately undermine the efficiency and legitimacy of the universal periodic review. 51. Mr. Kothari also noted the tremendous ongoing efforts by many countries to ensure follow-up to the recommendations from the universal periodic review, but warned that the concluding observations of treaty bodies and the recommendations made by special procedure mandate holders should not be left out. Finally, he stressed that the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development should not be seen as a parallel process, but should be included in the ongoing follow-up work. IV. Summary of the interactive discussion 52. During the interactive discussion, contributions were made by representatives of the following States, in order of appearance: Pakistan (on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation), Germany, Greece, Paraguay, Uruguay, Montenegro, Kenya, Thailand, the United States of America, Tunisia, Georgia, Canada, Australia, Brazil, Republic of Korea, Egypt, Libya, Portugal, Belarus, Indonesia, Haiti, Norway, South Africa and Chile. 53. Contributions were also made by representatives of the NGOs International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (joined by ARC International and the International Bar Association) and the International Service for Human Rights. A. General observations 54. Most delegations expressed support for Council resolution 30/25 and commended Brazil and Paraguay, as the main sponsors, as well as OHCHR for convening the panel discussion. The delegations also thanked the Deputy High Commissioner and the panellists for their presentations, which they found practical and informative. They welcomed the panel discussion as an important peer-to-peer learning opportunity on how to establish and strengthen effective national human rights systems and processes tasked with following up human rights recommendations. 55. During the discussion, several delegations stressed the great importance of implementing the recommendations made by the human rights mechanisms for a tangible impact on the ground. They recalled that States had the primary obligation to promote and protect human rights and, as such, a strong political will to implement and follow up their human rights obligations was paramount to achieving the desired outcome. In addition, States would only benefit from their engagement with regional and international human rights systems if they put in place appropriate follow-up, monitoring and accountability systems at the national level. The setting up of such systems should be the prerogative of 10