A/HRC/22/34/ raised questions in relation to the selective list of States mentioned in the report. Concern was expressed at the tendency to manipulate human rights mechanisms for political purposes. 59. A proposal was made that the review of all policies and practices of the United Nations and mechanisms with regard to reprisals should be done in an objective and impartial manner and in consultation with States. 60. It was also suggested that the United Nations should train both its own staff and special procedures mandate holders in fact-finding methods that avoid unnecessary risks for witnesses, given the fact that unskilled fact-finding techniques might exacerbate the dangers posed to witnesses. 61. Many delegations referred to human rights mechanisms. Appreciation was expressed for the work done by special procedures in relation to reprisals. Joint actions and statements of special procedures, including with regional bodies, were encouraged. It was also stressed that information on visits of the human rights mechanisms should be widely promoted and distributed to ensure that all sectors of society were informed about visits. It was also proposed that special procedures mandate holders receive training on dealing with issues relating to reprisals. 62. Delegations also referred to the universal periodic review as a useful means to address allegations of reprisal in a robust and consistent manner. It could play a role in monitoring allegations of reprisal. 63. With regard to treaty bodies, some of the specific measures that they had developed to address cases of reprisal or intimidation were mentioned, in particular the creation by the Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of a specific working group to examine this issue and joint statements with other human rights bodies. 64. Participants stressed the view that treaty bodies should address acts of reprisal in a systematic and consistent manner, including by considering acting through other relevant bodies and mechanisms, such the special procedures or OHCHR. This issue could be further discussed in the context of the treaty body strengthening process. 65. Reference to regional bodies was also made. Some delegations believed that cooperation with regional bodies was important, given that they also had developed specific measures and mechanisms to address reprisals; they should therefore be involved when appropriate. 66. Many delegations emphasized the crucial role played by civil society and the fact the United Nations could not function properly without them. A few other delegations, while acknowledging the important role of civil society and human rights defenders in raising awareness about human rights, stressed that cooperating with the United Nations did not give additional rights and that equality before the law should be guaranteed. 67. Delegations underlined the essential role of non-governmental organizations in drawing attention to the report of the Secretary-General and the e-mail address on which allegations of reprisal could be reported to OHCHR, as well as in reaching out to human rights defenders to submit information with their informed consent. It was noted that nongovernmental organizations should continue to raise the issue of reprisals and demand more effective responses. 68. With regard to the participation of civil society representatives, support was expressed for the position of the Secretary-General that the criteria for consultative status for non-governmental organizations must be applied in a “transparent and fair manner”. 13