A/HRC/7/37 page 9 2. Constructive engagement and awareness-raising 19. While upholding the legal framework and principles of the Genocide Convention of 1948, in order to facilitate constructive engagement with Member States and promote cooperation in early detection and prevention, the Special Adviser is committed to an approach that recognizes and respects the sovereignty of States and sees sovereignty as a positive concept of State responsibility to protect those under its jurisdiction, respect human rights and seek international support when needed. Constructive engagement, consensus-building and transparency are fundamental tools of the mandate of the Special Adviser in international efforts to support States in preventing large-scale violence and genocide. 20. Raising awareness of generic and specific situations is a preventive measure that could be taken in collaboration with academic and research institutions, human rights and humanitarian organizations and others concerned with the prevention of genocide and mass atrocities. Awareness-raising is conducted through a process of country and regional consultations, as well as discussions within the United Nations system. The Special Adviser sees his role as that of a catalyst in engaging Governments and other actors constructively to take preventive action. The Special Adviser also aims at exploring regional approaches that promote increased United Nations collaboration with regional actors to ensure prevention. 3. Prevention as a priority 21. Situations involving massive and serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law do not creep up unexpectedly, but are, in most cases, predicted and reported upon by Special Rapporteurs, non-governmental organizations, the media and sometimes Member States themselves. There has long been a problem, however, in collating this early-warning information, bringing it promptly to the attention of the United Nations and ensuring that it is given due attention by both the Secretariat and United Nations decision-making bodies. Perhaps the most severe challenge has been to ensure that a situation is given utmost priority. 22. The report of the Independent Inquiry into the actions of the United Nations during the 1994 genocide in Rwanda (S/1999/1257) indicated that political interests were given priority over the need to respond to genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. The report, as did the General Assembly and Security Council in subsequent resolutions, acknowledged that such behaviour was wrong and should never be repeated. Nevertheless, since 1994, in various situations stretching across all continents, millions of people have been killed, severely injured or forced from their homes under circumstances including war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity, as well as allegations of genocide. Indicators that these crimes or acts were imminent were ignored, or given inadequate or late responses. As in the case of Rwanda, prevention was not given sufficient priority. A strategic contribution by the Special Adviser could involve ensuring that risks of large-scale violence are understood and given due priority. 4. Opportunities and preparedness for prevention 23. Prevention can imply different things, depending on how a problem is analysed and at what stage it is addressed. Effective preventive responses to genocide, war crimes, ethnic