A/HRC/20/25 resources devoted to the progressive realization of the economic, social and cultural rights of the population. However, in some cases, the measures taken to address the crises have in fact further undermined the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights, where it might have been possible to consider less harmful alternatives. 112. The Special Rapporteur is hopeful that this assessment will assist the States in question to take additional steps necessary to ensure the protection and promotion of all human rights of persons living in poverty. She hopes that the present follow-up report will also benefit United Nations country teams and civil society organizations. The Special Rapporteur anticipates that this exercise will contribute to the next universal periodic review cycle and the ongoing efforts of the Human Rights Council and the special procedures to improve procedures for following up on recommendations of human rights mechanisms. 113. The preparation of the present report highlighted some key issues that the Human Rights Council should consider: (a) The need to establish an institutionalized follow-up procedure. While several special procedures have made systematic or sporadic efforts to follow up on recommendations, it is clear to the Special Rapporteur that several of the challenges and limitations confronted while preparing the present report would be better addressed through the adoption of an institutionalized follow-up procedure on country visits by all special procedures.34 Country visits are one of the most important and effective methods of work of special procedures, but their contribution and impact in the long term may be seriously hampered by the lack of a systematic followup mechanism. The Special Rapporteur encourages States and other stakeholders to adopt such a mechanism as a matter of priority; (b) Enhancing the constructive dialogue between States and special procedures. Although States have called for improved follow-up to country visits,35 follow-up efforts by mandate holders are often hampered by the lack of cooperation from States. Insufficient engagement by States also limits the possibility of an ongoing interactive dialogue between States and special procedures that may potentially contribute to the improvement of both the human rights situation in the country and the work of mandate holders. While acknowledging that States have multiple and sometimes coinciding reporting and follow-up demands from different human rights mechanisms (the universal periodic review, treaty bodies and other special procedures), the experience of preparing the present report suggests that even with limited resources, it is possible for States to respond in a timely and substantive fashion to an enquiry about developments relevant to recommendations; (c) Establishing a national mechanism to follow up recommendations. In addition to engaging in an external assessment of progress through special procedures, treaty bodies and the universal periodic review, States should internally review the progress made in the protection and promotion of human rights in the country through periodic national consultations with the active participation of national human rights institutions, civil society organizations, United Nations agencies and other relevant actors. 34 35 22 A call for a more systematic follow-up mechanism has been repeated by mandate holders at their annual meetings. See also Ted Piccone, Catalysts for Rights: The Unique Contribution of the UN’s Independent Experts on Human Rights (Washington, D.C., The Brookings Institution, October 2010). See, for example, the report on the eighteenth meeting of special procedures (A/HRC/18/41), para. 34.