A/HRC/21/65 D. Comments from States and non-governmental organizations on good practices and challenges 31. During the subsequent dialogue, statements from the floor were made by State representatives as well as by representatives from non-governmental organizations and United Nations entities. Speakers acknowledged the work carried out by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, including her 2011 report to the Human Rights Council, which focused on the situation of women human rights defenders (A/HRC/16/44 and Corr.1). The majority of speakers acknowledged, with sympathy and concern, the gender-specific nature of human rights violations against women human rights defenders and applauded the courage shown by those women. The need for gender-specific protection mechanisms was widely agreed as needed in the context of existing inequality and discrimination against women. It was further emphasized that the responsibility for developing those mechanisms and the protection of women human rights defenders lay with States. In meeting that obligation, it was agreed that it was critical for States to cooperate and exchange good practices at the international, regional and national levels, as well as to actively engage with women human rights defenders. 32. Several State representatives proposed in their interventions that, as agents of social transition and due to the specific violations targeted towards them, women human rights defenders should be engaged both in the development of those protection mechanisms and in the decision-making process of such programmes. Furthermore, States stressed the detrimental effect that impunity had on society, and noted the importance of punishing perpetrators of attacks against women human rights defenders, whether carried out by States or non-State actors in the private or in the public sphere. 33. Speakers made several recommendations as to how States and the United Nations system could build on and strengthen current efforts. Among the initiatives mentioned were: increased representation of women in decision-making positions; funding and grants for women rights defenders; enactment of laws enforcing a legal prohibition of attacks on women who are merely claiming or defending their rights or the rights of others; and ensuring the independence of judges and lawyers in the administration of justice. Regarding challenges and obstacles faced by women human rights defenders, speakers mentioned, among others, cultural, societal and religious barriers; a lack of adequate sex-disaggregated data to guide protection mechanisms; the reactive nature of many current systems; a lack of protection for family members; and the particular impact on women journalists acting as women human rights defenders. E. Conclusions 34. The panel offered recommendations for helping women human rights defenders. Ms. Sekaggya pointed out that the intersectional and multiple forms of discrimination faced by women human rights defenders needed to be addressed so as to foster the empowerment of those women. She called for gender-specific protection mechanisms for women, noting that the threats that they faced often exceeded those experienced by their male counterparts. Ms. Sekaggya stressed that States should recognize good practices and examples from programmes implemented at the domestic level to avoid duplication, and should work in closer cooperation and consultation with human rights defenders themselves in the design of policies. 35. Ms. Abeysekera suggested that the fight against impunity was critical in combating violence against women and protecting women human rights defenders. Regarding existing protection mechanisms, she noted that those mechanisms required more constructive engagement with women human rights defenders and a shift away 10