A/HRC/34/24 up their own national systems to follow-up human rights recommendations, using the SIMORE experience as good practice. Successful cooperation has so far been achieved with Uruguay, Chile and Honduras, and requests for technical assistance have been received from countries in Central America, the Caribbean, Eastern Europe and Central Asia. 29. Mr. Bibolini concluded by reaffirming the commitment of Paraguay to its human rights obligations. SIMORE, as an innovative and participatory system, has allowed Paraguay to improve its follow-up of recommendations received, as well as its capacity to comply with these recommendations and adopt a more effective implementation strategy. It has also contributed to strengthening the human rights mechanisms at the global level, in particular the follow-up to recommendations made by the universal periodic review. C. Intervention by Véronique Joosten, Head of Section, Human Rights Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation, Belgium 30. Ms. Joosten welcomed the opportunity to share experiences on the follow-up to human rights recommendations, which she considered a global challenge. 31. She noted that the adoption of General Assembly resolution 68/268 on the treaty bodies strengthening process and the subsequent capacity-building work, as well as related OHCHR publications, inspired the Government of Belgium to explore ways to improve its national human rights follow-up process. 32. Ms. Joosten stated that the federal structure of Belgium — in which the relationship between the federal State and the federated entities is not one of subordination, but rather of equality — requires a lot of coordination and consultation when preparing human rights reports and ensuring follow-up to human rights recommendations. A practical consequence was the setting up of a permanent coordination and consultation structure for multilateral issues within the Directorate-General for Multilateral Affairs of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 33. Ms. Joosten shared the main lesson learned by Belgium in relation to the topic, which is that, “one size does not fit all”. A choice must be made as to the follow-up system or process that best addresses a country’s needs in order to ensure efficiency and effectiveness in the follow-up to human rights recommendations. Belgium therefore decided not to establish a new national human rights follow-up system, but to build on the existing structure that was already being used extensively by the Human Rights Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to prepare human rights reports, interactive dialogues with and country visits of international and regional human rights mechanisms. 34. In addition to organizing ad hoc meetings in preparation for a particular report or presentation to or visit of a given human rights mechanism, the Human Rights Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has, since January 2015, instituted the practice of organizing six-monthly meetings, which allows it to, inter alia, provide information about the reporting calendar, address horizontal issues — such as translation of documents, dissemination of reports and data collection — and follow-up on recommendations. 35. These meetings are attended by the human rights focal points in the relevant departments of both federal and federated entities. The human rights focal points gather all relevant input within their respective departments to draft the reports and provide this information and data in a consolidated document to the drafter. They are also responsible for providing in a consolidated manner all the information on the implementation of recommendations under the responsibility of their department. 7