A/HRC/18/41 of cooperation, transparency and accountability are integral to ensuring a robust system to enhance the capacity of the Council to address human rights situations on the ground. The national human rights institution of the country concerned would be entitled to intervene immediately after that country during the interactive dialogue following a mandate holder’s presentation of a country mission report. OHCHR will continue to maintain information on special procedures in a comprehensive and easily accessible manner and any act of intimidation or reprisal against individuals and groups who cooperate with the United Nations, its representatives and mechanisms in the field of human rights was strongly rejected. 16. More transparency in special procedures resources and funding was a recurring theme throughout the review, and the outcome highlights the need for full transparency in this context, while recognizing the importance of ensuring the provision of adequate and equitable funding to the special procedures according to their specific needs through the regular budget. The Human Rights Council recognized the continued need for extrabudgetary funding and welcomed further voluntary contributions, which should be, to the extent possible, unearmarked. 17. Participants agreed with the principle of transparency, and emphasized the importance of greater interaction to address misconceptions. Cooperation by States, through timely responses to requests for visits, including when a standing invitation has been issued, and communications were considered essential, and it was suggested that assessment of cooperation might be useful. Feedback was requested on the expectations of States in relation to constructive dialogue. It was suggested that outgoing mandate holders might provide a list of qualities required for incoming mandate holders to assist in selection. The modalities of how the comments of the State concerned would be included as an addendum to the country mission reports of mandate holders as required by the review outcome were raised. Concern was expressed that Council decision 17/119 on the follow-up to resolution 16/21 with regard to the universal periodic review, which emphasized that the second and subsequent cycles of the review should focus on, inter alia, the implementation of accepted recommendations and the development of human rights situations in the State under review, could result in the weakening of special procedures recommendations that had not been accepted by the State under review. The point was made that these recommendations and any follow-up, such as communications or recent country visits, should be included under the rubric of the development of human rights situations in the State under review. Follow-up to special procedures recommendations was raised, as was the role of special procedures in following up on universal periodic recommendations and those of the treaty bodies, particularly in the light of the plethora of recommendations directed at States. VI. A. Thematic issues and working methods Strengthening follow-up, working with external support and enhancing information-sharing 18. Strengthening mechanisms and structures for follow-up and implementation of recommendations, working with external support, enhancing information-sharing among mandate holders, with OHCHR, and other stakeholders, and common issues relating to the five special procedures working groups were discussed by mandate holders and OHCHR. 1. Strengthening mechanisms and structures for follow-up to and implementation of recommendations 19. Participants noted that the primary responsibility for implementation rested with States. Mandate holders and United Nations entities had a strong interest and responsibility 7