A/HRC/2/2 A/HRC/Sub.1/58/36 page 92 12. Other intersessional working groups could be proposed by the future expert advice mechanism, but the establishment of such working groups would require the authorization of the Human Rights Council. 13. Those working groups and the Social Forum could engage in studies and standard-setting and should report to the plenary body, so as to ensure a systematic and coherent approach. 14. The future expert advice mechanism may create sessional working groups where necessary for the better handling of its work, provided that this is not to the detriment of the holding of plenary sessions of the body. Protection of human rights 15. Universal periodic review. The Sub-Commission is of the view, first, that the Human Rights Council will require input from an independent expert body as part of the universal periodic review process and, second, that if a successor body to the Sub-Commission were to be involved in the universal periodic review process, it should not be at the expense of the other functions, set out here, of a standing, collegial body of independent experts. 16. 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 process itself. In view of the current uncertainty with regard to what universal periodic review will involve and the form it will take, some experts do not consider it advisable that the future expert advice mechanism should be involved in the UPR process. Should, however, the Human Rights Council consider it appropriate, the future expert advice mechanism should make itself available to consider whether such a collegial standing body could be involved in universal periodic review, its modalities, and the implications for the rest of the work of such a body. 17. Others are of the view that involvement in the universal periodic review process would assist the thematic work of the independent expert body and that both functions should be performed by the same body. They consider that the initial evaluation of the material compiled would need to be undertaken by independent experts. They suggest that the future expert advice mechanism be increased in size (see further below) to 28 members and that four chambers with 7 members in each chamber, with interregional representation in each chamber, undertake those parts of the UPR process which require the input of independent experts. The meeting time necessary to discharge any responsibilities in relation to universal periodic review should not be to the detriment of the time required for thematic discussions within the body as a whole. All 28 members would come together for the plenary, annual thematic sessions of the body.