A/HRC/7/28 page 13 which further information provided by the sources and the observations of the Special Representative can lead to follow-up communications and follow-up replies from Governments until a case can be considered closed. 38. While this is the ideal process that communications should follow until cases are solved, it happens more on an ad hoc basis than systematically. All actors in the process, Governments, sources and the Special Representative herself, need to strengthen their respective capacity to make full use of the potential of the communications procedure. The following sections will address achievements and gaps of each actor in this area. 39. Other stakeholders can play a positive role in this respect. These are national institutions, the United Nations system and in particular United Nations Country Teams (UNCTs), regional organizations and the diplomatic community. They can act as mobilizing agents and as a bridge between Governments and defenders as well as between the Special Representative and defenders, particularly those at the local level. 4. Governments’ responsiveness and fight against impunity 40. The first request to Governments in a communication of the Special Representative is always to verify the veracity and accuracy of the allegations reported. The role of Governments is then to report on the measures adopted to investigate the violations, prosecute perpetrators, compensate victims, protect defenders at risk, and prevent future human rights violations. 41. The degree of Governments’ responsiveness to these questions in the communications procedure determines the need for follow-up. When Governments report concrete and targeted measures taken to fight impunity of violations against defenders, communications can be considered closed. 42. The Special Representative regrets that this is not the case in most of her communications. A quantitative analysis of replies, with the achievements and weaknesses in this area, has been made above; the present section considers the quality of such replies. 43. When replies fail to address the specific queries of the mandate in relation to the treatment of human rights defenders, the dialogue that the communications procedure aims at building is of poor quality. 44. Although specific questions are asked in allegation letters or urgent appeals sent to Governments, the replies received seem to suffer from a lack of relevant information and structure. Often the questions that were asked are left unanswered, while other information that may not have been solicited is given instead. 45. In other cases, replies insist on the supposed illegal acts committed by the defenders involved, without any explanation of the action or omission of the Government which is the central concern of the communication. Governments have rarely acknowledged the human rights activities of defenders and their responses usually fail to address or meaningfully comment on the possible link between a human rights activity and reported violations. Replies that repeatedly and exclusively focus on the presumed illegality of the activities of defenders indicate alarming patterns of criminalization of defenders.