A/HRC/22/34/ national human rights institutions. In that context, he recalled the deep emotion and indignation among mandate holders when certain cases were discussed. These cases were known and had been reported on in the reports of special procedures mandate holders, the report of the Secretary-General and communications from non-governmental organizations. Special procedures mandate holders noted that it was primarily the responsibility of States to respond to allegations of threats and to take steps to protect witnesses. On too many cases, the impression was that the States concerned did not take any real action. The decisive role of national human rights institutions, including in the physical protection of witnesses, was recalled. With the President of the Council, the idea of having an annual dedicated session of the Council on the issue of reprisals was discussed. Mr. Forst expressed the hope that such an idea would be supported during the panel discussion. 22. Mr. Forst shared some of the existing measures developed by special procedures, individually and jointly, to address reprisals. Some of them had devoted an annual report to this issue. Others had decided to systematically include information on reprisals in their reports. Others still collected information and reacted appropriately to individual cases. Mr. Forst also informed participants that, in the light of the greater number and severity of cases documented, special procedures were currently considering various measures; for example, the manual of operations of the special procedures could be revised to include a specific chapter on the question of reprisals as well as practical recommendations addressed to all mandate holders. The training of new mandate holders on this matter should also continue. 23. With regard to recommendations, Mr. Forst shared some personal ideas for further discussion. In his views, any reprisal against a witness cooperating with a mandate holder should be treated as an attempt to undermine the mandate holder himself or herself, and consequently called for a rapid and systematic response from States Members of the Human Rights Council. Furthermore, the Chairperson of the Coordination Committee should be able to intervene immediately and publicly in cases of intimidation or reprisal brought to his or her attention by a mandate holder. Benefits could be gained from sharing the experience of other institutions that have developed expertise or programmes to protect witnesses, in particular the International Criminal Court. 24. Given that reprisals were often reported during country visits, Mr. Forst presented several ideas to be considered in that context, such as treating information relating to the agenda of the visit and the list of civil society contacts with the appropriate confidentiality in order to minimize the risk of reprisal, or sharing meeting plans with local human rights experts to assess beforehand the risk of witnesses being targeted. When facing allegations of reprisal, States concerned should be reminded of their obligations with regard to protection. The information could also be shared with the United Nations field presence, national human rights institution and diplomatic missions as appropriate; when possible, regional intergovernmental organizations could also be involved. 25. Mr. Forst also called for more systematic follow-up on cases raised in the communications and reports of special procedures, including through contact with the relevant missions. He concluded by proposing that a cross-regional group of States could decide to work together and act in the face of reprisals. They could take joint initiatives for witness protection by means of, inter alia, concrete asylum measures, temporary shelter or shelter in diplomatic missions. G. Chairperson of the Committee against Torture 26. The Chairperson of the Committee against Torture, Claudio Grossman, stated that the legitimate ambition that all had was not only to refrain from being silent with regard to reprisals, but to be far more ambitious and far-reaching in our aims, and create a positive environment to ensure that human rights policies were developed. The first step was to 7