A/HRC/26/41 human rights bodies. A more meaningful discussion on the role of regional human rights bodies and other entities should help to expand the vague definition of “stakeholder” in the review process; and cooperation with a broader variety of stakeholders will definitely enhance that process. 30. The universal periodic review clearly represents an opportunity to foster cooperation between Member States, United Nations mechanisms and civil society. The review process allows us to identify the areas of human rights that the State under review decides to strengthen. There is a lot of practical expertise on human rights in developing countries that have recently experienced massive and systematic violations of human rights, and which were able to recover quite well in terms of their practice of democratic governance and the strengthening of their public policies on human rights. The Council should develop a system of fostering cooperation among Member States in order to ensure that the recommendations accepted after the review are implemented. 31. Another issue that may have to be addressed in this connection is a rationalization, tightening and greater focusing of the large number of recommendations that flow from the review process so as to make them more manageable for the target States to grapple with. This will likely enhance their ability to cooperate as fully as possible in this regard. F. Improving the follow-up system 32. It is now widely recognized that the United Nations human rights system is beset with significant follow-up problems. There is therefore widespread agreement that, if the goals of international cooperation in the field of human rights are to be more rapidly and robustly realized, the system of follow-up to the recommendations emanating from, inter alia, the special procedures, the universal periodic review process and the treaty bodies requires great improvement. The lack of adequate resources for the special procedures to follow up on their recommendations has been identified as one major weakness in this regard.33 The provision of such resources to the special procedures and greater coordination of their followup efforts with the universal periodic review follow-up processes are among the suggested ameliorative measures.34 33. In the latter regard, it is particularly noteworthy that, in providing for specific amendments to the universal periodic review system to be implemented during its second cycle, the Human Rights Council, in resolution 16/21 and decision 17/119, stated that the second and subsequent review cycles should focus on follow-up to the accepted recommendations from the first cycle. However, despite that proposed emphasis on followup during the second and subsequent cycles, the follow-up phase is still viewed as the weakest phase of the review process, as there is little structure to guide States other than a suggestion that they provide a voluntary mid-term report to the Council. This lack of structure and the voluntary nature of the mid-term report might affect the effectiveness of international cooperation in the review process. It is therefore suggested that detailed guidelines and/or a model mid-term report be developed by OHCHR to assist States in the preparation of mid-term reports. In addition, rather than merely stating that the submission of mid-term reports by States is voluntary, the Council could attach an opt-out requirement to that process, which could encourage and foster a greater degree of responsiveness among States. States would then be asked to take active steps to opt out of the submission of midterm reports and States which did not do so by a set date would be taken to have voluntarily assumed an obligation to comply. 33 34 Surya P. Subedi, op.cit., p. 217. Ted Piccone, op.cit., p. 42. 13