A/HRC/30/28 models for the implementation of human rights through public policies and programmes. National policies and programmes formed a vital bridge between norms and concrete State action on the ground. 38. Most delegations highlighted the value of the recommendations from international human rights mechanisms as a basis and guidance for national policymaking, in line with the fundamental principles of non-discrimination, impartiality, non-selectivity, accountability, transparency and the rule of law. Panellists were asked to elaborate on how international human rights mechanisms could contribute to implementation at the national level. Some delegations noted that States implemented their human rights obligations in line with their national constitutional structure and cultural dynamics. They stressed that human rights-based programmes were most effective when they took into account such special national circumstances and were aligned with national development priorities. 39. Note was also taken of the role of national human rights institutions in monitoring and supporting the implementation of human rights-based policies and programmes at the national level. Participants shared their experiences of developing and implementing national human rights action plans, and there was general agreement that such plans were vital to the effective implementation of human rights as they ensured that all public policies were in line with a country’s international human rights obligations. Participants underlined the importance of developing such plans in a participatory manner that allowed wide segments of the population to contribute. Many delegations emphasized the invaluable contribution of civil society in the protection and promotion of human rights in their countries. 40. Most delegations agreed that coordination and coherence were key to successful policymaking and implementation, and many gave examples of various standing committees and other institutions they had established in order to support the effective protection and promotion of human rights. The availability of sufficient resources, both monetary and human, was referred to by many participants as a common obstacle to progress in this field. The need for further capacity development on human rights mainstreaming and implementation among key State officials and institutions was also emphasized by many participants. Additional international cooperation and support at the request of States was needed to address these gaps. 41. Delegations appreciated the fact that the format and arrangements of the panel discussion had been adapted to accommodate persons with disabilities, including through captioning and other special measures. Many expressed the hope that in the future all sessions of the Human Rights Council could follow the same adapted format. 42. Several delegations emphasized the importance of using well-crafted human rights indicators as an analytical tool that allowed policymakers to identify social and economic disparities that affected specific locations or particularly marginalized or vulnerable groups. They further recognized that precise indicator frameworks were needed in order to measure impact and progress in the implementation of public policies and programmes. The panellists were asked to share ideas of how such indicators could be further developed and better used in improving rights-based policies at the national level. 43. Non-governmental organizations strongly supported human rights-based approaches to policy development and implementation at the national level, and urged States to renew their efforts to ensure broad-based participation of all segments of society in such processes. Whereas there was strong support for national human rights action plans, some organizations observed that not all plans were fully inclusive and participatory in their approach, thus limiting their impact and effectiveness. Some organizations also called for more effective and consistent follow-up to international human rights recommendations, 9