A/HRC/32/27 established in New York and the fact that the permanent missions were following up on human rights matter, no briefings were held in Brussels in 2015. 18. In the same vein as the seminars for small island developing States and least developed countries organized in July 2013 in Port-Louis and in December 2014 in Casablanca (Morocco), three seminars were organized in 2015. In July 2015, two seminars were organized: the first, for English-speaking Caribbean States and Suriname, was held in Bridgetown; the second, for Portuguese-speaking States, was held in Brasilia. In November, a third seminar, for Pacific island States, was held in Suva. Three to four participants were invited from each State. The Office encouraged the participation of officials who were active members of the inter-institutional structure for reporting and follow-up, should such a structure exist. In the case that the structure did not exist, States were encouraged to nominate officials who could take the lead or contribute to setting one up. National human rights institutions were also invited. In addition, and given that the implementation of a number of human rights recommendations often require either the direct or indirect involvement of parliamentarians, the participation of a member of parliament was also envisaged. 19. The Fund funded the participation of four representatives from 23 States, three representatives from seven States and a representative from three resource countries for each seminar. A total of 122 participants, including national human rights institutions, were funded and participated in the seminars. 20. In the light of the growing interest among States in hearing and learning directly from each other’s experience, Costa Rica and Paraguay were invited as resource countries for the seminar in Barbados. Costa Rica shared its experience in the establishment of an inter-institutional commission on follow-up to and implementation of international human rights obligations, its consultative process for the preparation of human rights reports and the implementation of recommendations. Costa Rica reported on how those structures, of a standing and inter-institutional nature, had been helpful in the preparation for the universal periodic review. Paraguay provided details with regard to its database (SIMORE), developed with the support of OHCHR, that compiles all universal periodic review recommendations and identifies the ministries and entities responsible for follow-up. The system, which allows the entities concerned to indicate the steps taken to implement the recommendations, is accessible for consultation by the public and includes an active tracking system. Costa Rica and Paraguay also attended the seminar organized in Brazil to share their experience. At the seminar held in Fiji, Paraguay shared information on its database. The Bahamas was invited as a resource country to inform participants on the details and functioning of the standing interministerial structure established to prepare the national report and for the review of the State during the session of the Working Group. 21. The seminars gave States an opportunity to share their experience in the preparation for their second review in the light of information on the implementation of recommendations made at the first cycle of the universal periodic review. In addition to allowing States to discuss the usefulness of inter-institutional structures for reporting on and implementing recommendations, and the requirements for developing national human rights plans of action, the seminars also permitted the collection and compilation of national practices and experiences described by small States with limited resources in complying with their reporting requirements and the implementation of recommendations. Participants acknowledged that the cyclical and public nature of the universal periodic review should trigger internal adjustments to the methods of work adopted by ministries and government institutions. 22. At the three seminars, and on the basis of the experience shared by some of the participating States or resource countries, participants recognized the need to regard and approach the universal periodic review as a process. Such a premise would then gain from 6