A/HRC/31/55 104. Participation in international mechanisms can, however, place defenders at increased risk of reprisal (see A/HRC/30/29). The Human Rights Council, in its resolution 22/6, reaffirmed the right of everyone to unhindered access to and communication with international bodies. The President of the Council, its special procedures and the treaty bodies have paid more focused attention in considering complaints received from defenders who have been subjected to reprisal for their cooperation with those entities. During regional consultations held with the Special Rapporteur, defenders underscored the need to reach out to new communities of defenders about the protection role of the United Nations and regional mechanisms. 105. States have also supported defenders in practical ways. Besides visits and meetings with defenders, officials can also raise cases of defenders during high-level visits and in dialogues with political leaders. In some cases, diplomatic missions have formally advocated the cases of defenders with Governments in host countries through démarches sometimes undertaken jointly with other States. Public statements and private meetings are also ways of signalling support for defenders. High-level interventions on behalf of defenders have been effective in pressuring Governments to take appropriate action for defenders. Diplomatic missions should, however, have direct contact with defenders and consult them (and, if necessary, their relatives or designated contact persons) on the appropriateness of actions. C. Providing resources for the protection of defenders 106. Certain international actors directly support defenders at risk by providing funding for protection programmes. Such funding supports both preventative action and responses to immediate threats. This assistance is consistent with the right to solicit, receive and utilize resources articulated in the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders. Unfortunately, the ability of defenders at risk to benefit from such international support is often limited by restrictive State policies, which further exacerbate their vulnerability, and the restrictive policies of funders. 107. The vast majority of defenders have expressed the need for long-term, flexible funding arrangements that can sustain their programmatic work and accommodate local contexts, and dynamic changes in their environment. They have also expressed the hope that donors will pay particular attention to preparedness and prevention and strengthen their efforts to provide rest, respite and rehabilitation opportunities for defenders. 24 108. Flexibility in the organizational structure to receive funding is also important, in that it allows defenders choose to organize their associations in a number of different ways, taking into account restrictive State policies. In ensuring accountability for the use of funding, reporting should be streamlined and based on evolving good practices. International actors should be sensitive to the local situation of defenders and respect the local knowledge of defenders to ensure that the provision of resources or conditions linked to the receipt of funding do not increase further the risks that defenders face. 109. The delayed disbursement of funds by donors can have a negative impact on defenders’ operations, especially on their capacity to pay their staff on time. Many civil society organizations have limited, if any, cash reserves and credit lines with banks. 24 20 See Borislav Petranov and Monette Zard, Keeping Defenders Safe: A Call for Donor Action (New York, International Human Rights Funders Group, 2014).