A/HRC/33/25 was a vibrant concept and required a framework that allowed flexibility in order to capture different modalities on the ground. 12. In the second part of her presentation, Ms. Hadzi-Miceva Evans focused on the Council of Europe guidelines on participation and how they could inform future discussions on the topic. She described the rationale and process behind the guidelines, noting that the drafters had identified a need for guidance with regard to the scope of the right, the meaning of participation in policymaking, and related issues. She emphasized that the question concerned not only the rights to participate, to be consulted or to have access to information, but also direct participation in the drafting of laws and policies. The drafters of the guidelines were also looking into the impact of the overall enabling environment for civil society and individuals and how it contributed to participation, and into the different rights that constituted preconditions for participation. Ms. Hadzi-Miceva Evans noted that the drafters had also tried to identify the tools and processes that could enhance the right to participate in public affairs. 13. In the discussion that followed the panellists’ presentations, questions were raised regarding the sources of State obligations with regard to the right to participate in public affairs, other than the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and about how to assess the quality of elections. Questions were also raised about how to effectively foster real and meaningful participation by civil society, not only within the framework of elections but also outside electoral processes. A delegate from one Member State noted that the expert workshop provided a conceptual basis for future Human Rights Council resolutions on the right to participate in public affairs as well as on other rights. A number of delegates spoke about whether the effective implementation of article 25 of the Covenant could benefit from the development of additional guidance. Mr. de Frouville suggested a number of options to that end: (a) collecting good practices, which would be a useful basis for considering any possible revision of general comment No. 25 in the future; (b) drawing on the work carried out by other treaty bodies, particularly by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women and the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities; and (c) developing guidance through the Human Rights Council, particularly on issues of participative and deliberative democracy, and on norms relevant to those forms of democracy, and on issues of citizenship, including on citizens’ involvement with decisionmaking processes at the international level. The possibility for treaty bodies to adopt a joint general recommendation on the right to participate in public affairs was also raised. 14. A delegate from one Member State referred to that State’s draft law on participation in public affairs, explaining that it contained a binding set of requirements, such as the obligatory nature of public consultations; direct forms of consultation, including through workshops and seminars; and the obligation to provide a justification when consultations were not held. Questions were asked about how to distinguish between lobbyists’ and citizens’ participation, and whether it was obligatory to publicize the outcome of consultations. A delegate from another Member State asked questions about the links that existed between different types of democracy, about how civil society could be encouraged to use the existing legal framework to its advantage and about how the quality of the legal framework and its implementation could be assessed. A representative of an NGO referred to the potential benefit of using the universal periodic review to monitor how States implemented the right to participate. 6