A/HRC/40/44 in the Symposium reflected an interest in guidance and the relevance of the emerging standards in the context of faith and human rights. As human rights are by definition a multi-stakeholder exercise, the Faith for Rights framework is a good example of States, State religious authorities, faith-based and civil society organizations, national human rights institutions and individuals working together in the collaborative networks called for in the action plan. IV. Observations and views on potential follow-up measures for further improvement of the implementation of the action plan 81. Following on from resolution 16/18, the action plan adopted by the Human Rights Council in its resolution 37/38 and related General Assembly consensus resolutions provide a guiding tool for collective action to counter religious discrimination and intolerance. Greater efforts are required to foster its practical implementation. In the light of resolution 37/38, in which the Council asked for views on potential follow-up measures for further implementation of the action plan, the High Commissioner provides the suggestions below. 82. As stressed in several prior reports of the High Commissioner to the Human Rights Council and the reports of the Secretary-General to the General Assembly, there is a need to improve the reporting profile, in terms of the overall number of contributions received from States and of geographic participation (see, for example, A/HRC/34/35, para. 116). The High Commissioner also notes that the receipt of submissions from States has been decreasing. 83. As there are two separate annual reports on the same action plan, one to the Human Rights Council and one to the General Assembly, States should seriously consider streamlining these parallel reporting processes either in terms of content or focus, or by adjusting the reporting time frames to a biannual period in order to give a more meaningful update of how the action plan is being implemented worldwide. 84. As provided in resolution 37/38, there is an urgent need to implement all parts of the action plan outlined in paragraphs 7 and 8 with equal focus and attention in order to address the complex issues of religious intolerance. The submissions of some States for the present report continue to reflect an emphasis on some paragraphs or elements of the action plan, but little or none on the others. 85. It would be useful to strengthen communication with the public on the elements of the action plan and resources could be devoted to awareness-raising campaigns or communications initiatives, including those aimed at simplifying the language and disseminating a concise separate publication in all regions and in all United Nations languages, and at a later point in other local languages. Member States could also consider holding general public briefings on the Istanbul Process for Combating Intolerance, Discrimination and Incitement to Hatred and/or Violence on the Basis of Religion or Belief. 86. As specified in resolution 37/38, Member States are encouraged to consider providing updates on efforts made in this regard as part of their ongoing reporting to OHCHR. They are further encouraged to utilize the universal periodic review to fully address freedom of religion or belief and related issues. The use of that mechanism, including through information from national human rights institutions and civil society organizations, has great potential to improve the implementation of the action plan. 87. The submissions received from States continue to reflect the fact that government actions to combat intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against, persons based on religion and belief are still largely constitutional and legislative in focus and nature. The High Commissioner wishes to emphasize the responsibility of States to investigate and prosecute crimes and violations, hold perpetrators accountable and provide 15