A/HRC/26/41 D. Improving coordination with and among regional bodies 27. As the Advisory Committee observed in its first report on international cooperation in the field of human rights, an aspect of international cooperation that is still all too often neglected is the role of regional systems (A/HRC/19/74, para. 43). Two main dimensions of this aspect of international cooperation may be emphasized: (a) cooperation among regional bodies, including greater interaction among those of a similar socioeconomic and political background, and (b) coordination between regional bodies on the one hand and the United Nations human rights system on the other. In both cases, the main goals are to share best practices among the relevant bodies in as deep and widespread a manner as possible, and to create operational efficiencies. 28. To that effect, both dimensions seem to require similar kinds of measures to broaden and strengthen them. Chief among such measures are the expansion and deepening of exchanges of staff, information, knowledge and technology among the relevant bodies, and the institutionalization of programmes of joint country visits and other joint activities among those bodies. However, such improvements in international cooperation cannot yield an optimal harvest unless certain operational steps are taken or enhanced. In this regard, it is suggested that each regional body and the Human Rights Council/OHCHR should establish a high-level focal point (which can either be a person or an office) to provide leadership, impetus and visibility in this crucial area of achieving greater coordination and cooperation with and among regional human rights bodies. Second, the greater use of technology is recommended to overcome distance, eliminate a significant amount of travel time and greatly reduce costs. E. Strengthening the universal periodic review system 29. Although the universal periodic review process has now entered its second cycle, and the participation of civil society organizations was generally embraced and seen as a positive contribution during the first cycle, cooperation with civil society stakeholders, including non-governmental organizations, continues to be a point of disagreement among States.28 For one thing, while recognizing the multiple opportunities which already exist for stakeholder involvement in the review process, States have found the push for enhanced stakeholder involvement in the process to be a difficult topic to agree upon.29 One suggestion for enhancing the involvement of civil society organizations in the review process was that the Troika should arrange an informal meeting with the relevant national civil society organizations and national human rights institutions immediately before hearings in the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review in order to become better informed about recent developments in the countries at issue and to hear critical evaluations of the country reports under review.30 However, such requests for greater cooperation with stakeholders were not fulfilled for the second review cycle.31 Second, neither in General Assembly resolution 60/251 nor in Human Rights Council resolution 5/1 is the term “stakeholders” defined.32 In practice, though, the inclusion of stakeholders in the universal periodic review process is generally associated with non-governmental organizations. This association could be carefully expanded to include other stakeholders, such as the regional 28 29 30 31 32 12 Allehone Mulugeta Abebe, op.cit., p, 26. Ibid. Theodor Rathgeber, “New prospects for human rights? The Human Rights Council between the review process and the Arab Spring”, German Institute for Human Rights (2012), p. 5. Ibid. Ibid.