A/HRC/24/55 VI. Thematic issues and working methods A. Effectiveness of special procedures 29. Mr. Ted Piccone, Senior Fellow and Deputy Director for Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution, provided a briefing on his study entitled “The future of the United Nations special procedures”.4 A number of proposals aimed at ensuring that interventions by special procedures had maximum impact were put forward. For instance, it was suggested that the timing of country visits be determined in close coordination with other mechanisms, particularly the UPR. Similarly, identifying key partners at an early stage in the preparation of a country visit with a view to ensuring follow-up at the national level was considered a means of ensuring that a visit led to change on the ground. The role of the United Nations was regarded as critical, in particular at the national level, especially United Nations country teams (UNCTs). The study indicated that follow-up visits were effective in ensuring that recommendations were not overlooked. There was also a need for better follow-up to communications, with the States concerned and the sources. 30. Mandate holders asked whether there was increased impact when activities were joint; whether there were good practices of engaging with States and others in respect of follow-up to recommendations; how to address intimidation of those who provide information to mandate holders; whether there was a need to research the effectiveness of partnerships with regional mechanisms; and how to make the concept of a “standing invitation” more meaningful. Strong concern was expressed about ad hominem attacks against mandate holders, which constituted intimidation. Mandate holders reiterated their freedom to assess situations under their mandates and recalled the duty of States to cooperate with them. 31. Participants stressed that the credibility and integrity of the special procedures system were crucial in ensuring cooperation of the various stakeholders. They pointed to the impact that activities, such as focused expert meetings and regional consultations, have. Resources for special procedures were discussed, including the possibility of finding ways to influence budget discussions in New York. It was also suggested that positive examples of the impact of special procedures should be brought to the attention of member States and donors. 32. Discussions were also held on the conclusions of a workshop organized by Stanford University’s Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law, with the Brookings Institution’s Foreign Policy Studies Program and Google.org, to advance strategic thinking on how to use new technologies to strengthen United Nations human rights monitoring, held on 6-7 August 2012 with the participation of a number of mandate holders.5 33. Recommendations included the need to use new technologies more effectively; make processing of cases taken up by special procedures as communications more victimfriendly; ensure better follow-up; increase outreach beyond those who traditionally work with special procedures and enhance the visibility of the system. 4 5 Forthcoming article based on Ted Piccone, Catalysts for Change: How the UN’s Independent Experts Promote Human Rights (Brookings Institution Press, 2012). Report on the workshop on new technologies and human rights monitoring of 6-7 August 2012 available at http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/SP/AMeetings/20thsession/NewTechnologiesBriefing_it em5.pdf. 9