A/HRC/26/41 adopted by the International Labour Organization (ILO) may be instructive. At ILO, all the key stakeholders in the labour relations field (States, employers’ groups and labour unions) are significantly accommodated and afforded a meaningful standing and voice within the main organs of the organization. 8. Second, local civil society organizations, especially those in the developing world, tend to be underrepresented among the groups that actually participate directly, actively and meaningfully in the human rights work of the United Nations. This raises important issues regarding the global inclusiveness, accountability and legitimacy of the cohort of such organizations which tends to dominate the space reserved for “other stakeholders” within the United Nations human rights system.4 Clearly, there is thus a need to find ways and means of at least reducing this apparent inclusion-deficit in the representation of civil society organizations within that system. One suggestion is to reform the way in which access to United Nations debates is afforded to them. For example, rather than requiring all such organizations that wish to participate in the human rights work of the United Nations to first obtain consultative status, a second path to access could be created which would allow local civil society organizations in developing countries that have been granted similar recognition and status by their regional and/or national human rights bodies to gain, in consequence, automatic access to United Nations human rights institutions. IV. Enhancing the involvement of national human rights institutions 9. The focus here is on how the contributions of national human rights institutions to the human rights work of the United Nations can be optimally enhanced. It should be noted at the outset that formal and informal global or regional-level cooperation among such institutions is now the norm rather than the exception. Within the framework and the structure of the International Coordinating Committee of National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, which is registered and based in Geneva, and at the continental and other levels, national human rights institutions the world over have met regularly to share experiences and best practices, and to advocate new themes enhancing the cause of human rights.5 There is significant evidence, for instance from the International Coordinating Committee’s engagement with the Nigerian national human rights institution, that this way of interaction and cooperation among institutions, and especially their mechanisms for classifying and sanctioning those institutions which do not meet their laid down standards, can produce important dividends for the effort to realize human rights. However, if the full potential of the national human rights institutions to contribute to the realization of human rights is to be harnessed by the United Nations system, the involvement of those bodies and their various global and regional associations in United Nations human rights work must be deepened. This can be done, for example, by finding ways to resource them more adequately, including through lending more support staff, and information exchanges between similarly situated institutions. Responses received to the questionnaires distributed by the Advisory Committee suggest a widespread awareness among States of the need to strengthen these bodies. They also tend to 4 5 K. Anderson, “The Ottawa convention banning landmines, the role of international non-governmental organizations and the idea of international civil society” in European Journal of International Law, vol. 11, No. 1 (2000), p. 92; and D.B. Reiser and C.R. Kelly, “Linking NGO accountability and the legitimacy of global governance” in Brooklyn Journal of International Law, vol. 36, No. 3 (2011), p. 1020. D. Seetulsingh, presentation at the Seminar on the Enhancement of International Cooperation in the Field of Human Rights, Geneva, 15 February 2012. 5