A/HRC/31/74 different typologies that had been established and had proven meeting the efficiency criteria. Those models foresee different coordination roles for the government ministries involved. 91. The representative of Tunisia said that it was currently setting up a permanent mechanism which could be linked to the office of the Prime Minister. The delegate sought Mr. David`s advice on this undertaking and wanted to know if OHCHR’s website featured the various responses from States to the relevant note verbale that had been sent to countries. Mr. David said that a few countries used interministerial platforms which were not placed under a specific ministry, which was slightly different than the Tunisian approach. He added however, that various models were possible. He agreed that OHCHR would follow up by placing the relevant information onto the OHCHR website. 92. The representative of Belgium added that Belgium had received assistance from the Office , in order to improve the performance of its mechanisms. The delegate asked whether the Office suggested particular follow-up methods to recommendations, such as a special software. Mr. David stated that there would be a capacity building webpage created on the website of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. The new capacity building team consisted of 16 people (10 placed in various regions) and the team in Geneva would indeed, develop a number of tools to assist States in implementing their treaty obligations. One good approach taken by a number of States was to cluster recommendations thematically, in order to manage the follow-up. He added that the use of deadlines was also recommended. A small number of countries had developed information technology IT tools, the Office could provide relevant information. E. Procedural gaps with regard to the ICERD 93. At its 7th meeting, on 16 July, the Committee considered the agenda item “Further elaboration of the views of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination on key elements with regard to procedural gaps and best ways to address them (follow-up to the 2007 study and the different presentations given and proposals made to the Ad Hoc Committee in accordance with its mandate)”. The Chair-Rapporteur gave an account of the work of the Ad Hoc Committee thus far, on the topic of procedural gaps. He also presented a draft compilation document of the 2007 CERD report, and various presentations by CERD members as well as Member States interventions on the topic of procedural gaps to ICERD as considered by the Ad Hoc Committee on the Elaboration of Complementary Standards from its 1st to 6th sessions. He pointed out that the excerpts in the document reflected the exact language used during the 1st through 6th sessions of the Ad Hoc Committee. This document was distributed to all participants. 94. He recalled that the 2007 “Study of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination on possible measures to strengthen implementation through optional recommendations or update of its monitoring procedures” (A/HRC/4/WG.3/7) focused on five issues. With regard to reporting and review procedures it was noted that noncompliance of States parties with their reporting obligations remained a major obstacle to the Committee’s work and the effective implementation of the Convention. Therefore, the Committee suggested the adoption of revised reporting guidelines. On the issue of followup procedures, CERD suggested that the practice of follow-up visits be further developed and that the framework for such visits should be explored, including through the adoption of an optional protocol to the Convention. With regard to the individual communication procedure, it was noted that the potential of the procedure had not been fully exploited, and that it was essential that more States parties make declarations under article 14 of the Convention. 37