A/HRC/32/26 studies had helped to clarify the scope and content of the Declaration and had had a positive impact on the work of the Human Rights Council on indigenous peoples. It was noted that the studies offered the opportunity to report on how indigenous peoples understood various concepts related to their rights and to record how the provisions of the Declaration were supported by other instruments of international law, which in turn strengthened the interpretation and correct implementation of the Declaration. 12. As regards the limitations of the Expert Mechanism, a number of participants argued that its mandate was not as strong as that of the other two United Nations indigenousspecific mechanisms, and that there was a clear need to bolster it. It was also noted that the annual sessions attracted fewer participants than the sessions of the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and that there was a need for an increase in States’ contributions to the annual questionnaires and studies. 13. Some participants stated that the focus on thematic studies was not sufficient and that the Expert Mechanism should enhance its focus on the implementation of rights, including the Declaration, at the country level. It was also mentioned that a clear reference to the Declaration was missing from the Expert Mechanism’s mandate. Some delegates said that, other than at the sessions of the Expert Mechanism and of the Human Rights Council, there was very limited focus on facilitating dialogue between States and indigenous peoples in the current work of the Expert Mechanism. Concern was expressed about limited coordination between the Expert Mechanism and other United Nations mechanisms. 14. One participant expressed concern about the fact that, under the current mandate, the Expert Mechanism could not address the serious situations faced by indigenous peoples, including gross human rights violations. In relation to the thematic studies, several participants said that it was difficult to determine their impact at the country level because there was no follow-up to the studies. The fact that the themes of the studies were chosen by the Human Rights Council, not by the Expert Mechanism, was highlighted as a limitation by several State and indigenous peoples’ representatives. 15. Many State and indigenous peoples’ representatives and several members of the Expert Mechanism highlighted that the Expert Mechanism lacked financial and human resources and had only limited secretariat staff support. The absence of funding for holding intersessional meetings, for participating in relevant international meetings and processes on issues such as climate change and the Sustainable Development Goals and for translating draft studies into all the official languages of the United Nations so that they could be considered by the Expert Mechanism at its sessions was also mentioned. IV. Strengthening interaction with other indigenous-specific mandates and the United Nations human rights system in general 16. Several State and indigenous peoples’ representatives highlighted the importance of interaction between the three indigenous-specific mandates, namely the Expert Mechanism, the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues and the Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples. It was highlighted that coordination was already taking place, but there were also several calls for increasing cooperation with a view to avoiding unnecessary duplication on thematic and other work and maximizing the combined impact of the mandates. One delegate expressed understanding for a certain degree of overlap between the three mechanisms while at the same time underlining the importance of having complementarity. Several participants highlighted that the current level of overlap between the three mandates was insignificant and could be positive in the right circumstances considering the serious human rights situation of indigenous peoples. 4