A/HRC/2/2 A/HRC/Sub.1/58/36 page 88 (b) The expert UPR body 54. It would appear that UPR will have to consider about 60 cases a year. This represents a considerable caseload. An expert UPR body would need to be large enough to handle this workload and would need to meet sufficiently frequently, and for sessions of sufficient length, to have a realistic chance of discharging its responsibilities. It would be important for the expert body to be of sufficient size as to ensure the representation of views within, as well as between, different regions. 55. Members of the expert UPR body would need to be independent and to have recognized expertise in human rights law, as part of international law. There is consensus in the Sub-Commission that members of an expert UPR body should be subject to election. In that regard, the Sub-Commission refers to paragraphs 26-32 above. 56. There would appear to be at least two possibilities with regard to the UPR expert body. First, it could be completely separate from HRCC. A second possibility would be to find a way for HRCC, or some of its members, to discharge both responsibilities. 57. There are two different views among members of the Sub-Commission with regard to the desirability of the involvement of a successor body to the Sub-Commission in the UPR process itself. In view of the current uncertainty with regard to what UPR will involve and the form it will take, some experts do not consider it advisable that the future expert mechanism should be involved in the process. Should, however, the Council consider it appropriate, the expert advice mechanism should make itself available to consider whether such a collegial standing body could be involved in UPR, its modalities, and the implications for the rest of the work of such a body. 58. Other members of the Sub-Commission are in favour of involving members of HRCC in the UPR process. They think that this would be to the benefit of the coherence of the system as a whole and would avoid a disjuncture between country-related and thematic work, which would be to the detriment of both. They suggest that HRCC be increased in size, as compared to the Sub-Commission, to 28 members and that four chambers, each consisting of 7 members, with interregional representation in each chamber, would undertake those parts of the UPR process which would require the input of independent experts.19 59. All 28 members would come together for the plenary, thematic sessions of the body.20 60. If HRCC were also to have some responsibility in relation to the UPR process in addition to its thematic responsibilities, that would have significant implications for the time during which members would need to be available. It is not possible to be more specific until more is known of the different options for the UPR process being considered. 19 It is suggested that the two additional independent experts could come from the Asian and Eastern European groups; see above. 20 See paragraph 33 above.