A/HRC/8/52 page 183 552. The Netherlands pointed out that it should be kept in mind, however, that the universal periodic review was an additional tool for human rights monitoring, intended to complement and not duplicate the work of the treaty bodies and the special procedures. Furthermore, the review should not detract from the mandate of the Council to act upon gross human rights violations in specific countries. 553. The Netherlands was also of the view that it was crucial to have an open dialogue in the Council and at home; an open dialogue between States, but also between Governments and civil society. The Netherlands reported that, in its preparations for the universal periodic review, it had organized three consultative meetings with a total number of 24 Dutch human rights non-governmental organizations and other representatives of civil society. The last meeting had been held when its response to the 31 recommendations received was discussed. The Netherlands also stated that, directly following that review, the head of the Dutch delegation, State Secretary of Justice Nebahat Albayrak, had participated in a very useful side event for non-governmental organizations on the outcome of the Dutch review. The Netherlands expressed the view that policies designed through dialogue are more workable and effective than those conceived on the Government’s drawing board alone. 554. While the Netherlands noted that several countries had followed a similar procedure, it strongly encouraged others to opt for and stimulate a more active involvement of civil society in preparations for the review, the review itself, the concluding outcome meeting and the follow-up of non-governmental organizations, and to participate in country-based side events on the premises of the United Nations Office in Geneva. 555. The Netherlands stated that it was essential for a productive universal periodic review outcome that the voice of civil society be sufficiently heard by the Council. 2. Views expressed by member and observer States of the Council on the review outcome 556. No views were expressed by States members and observers of the Council. 3. General comments made by other relevant stakeholders 557. The International Commission of Jurists welcomed the delegation’s interaction with the universal periodic review mechanism and drew attention to recommendations Nos. 1, 9, 23 and 29 and paragraph 26 of the summary of the debate. It was recommended, inter alia, to ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and review the legislation in order to protect fundamental rights of all persons independently of their migrant status. The International Commission of Jurists noted that the ratification and the implementation of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture would help improve the conditions of detention in the Netherlands, in particular in detention centres for immigrants. As regards counter-terrorism measures, it stated that the law expanding the powers to investigate and prosecute terrorist acts came into effect in the Netherlands in February 2007 and that the Netherlands must respect human rights obligations when implementing anti-terrorism measures and bring all anti-terrorism legislation in line with human rights standards. The Netherlands is late in submitting its reports to the treaty bodies, and often reports only on the European part of the State; recalling that the