A/HRC/28/30 territorial integrity of all States Members of the United Nations, while one delegation stated that all non-national attempts to be prescriptive in relation to managing human rights should be avoided. Other delegations stated that the responsibility to prevent did not constitute a threat to States’ sovereignty. Several stressed that the responsibility to prevent was closely linked to the responsibility to protect and that the international community should encourage States to meet their responsibility to prevent human rights violations and to protect their populations, and help them in these efforts. Others considered the concept of responsibility to protect to be controversial, and should be decoupled from the responsibility to prevent. One delegation suggested that the human rights situation in a country was more likely to be improved by actions taken by the State and its citizens rather than through an external intervention. This was especially true in the long run, given that external actors could only provide support for a limited period. The answer thus lay in providing State institutions with adequate resources, sensitizing them and making them aware of the language of human rights. 34. Mr. Thomson agreed that national responsibility was a key factor in prevention. He emphasized, however, that a preventive framework very useful for States could be developed internationally. National preventive mechanisms that function under the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture respected State sovereignty, while other mechanisms whose purpose would be to assist States parties in implementing their obligation to prevent human rights violations could follow the same model. While it was possible to emphasize national responsibility, it made sense to do this through the lens of international human rights law. The Special Rapporteur added that, whereas most States had ratified relevant human rights instruments, implementation was often lacking. Ms. Samar reaffirmed that it was the State’s responsibility to prevent, emphasizing at the same time that the universality of human rights could not be negotiated on the pretext of a country’s sovereignty or other local factors. She also underlined the necessity of political commitment of the State’s leaders to the promotion and protection of human rights to make those values a reality. C. Early warning 35. Both delegations and panellists stressed the importance of early warning in prevention efforts. Some stressed that human rights violations were important early indicators of a potential for atrocity crimes. Several delegations welcomed the SecretaryGeneral’s Human Rights Up Front initiative aimed at strengthening the early warning capacity of the whole United Nations system as an important contribution to the prevention of human rights violations. Some emphasized in this regard that States should be in charge of the implementation of the initiative, and cautioned that prevention work had to be carried out without undermining the fundamental principles of the United Nations and that the promotion and protection of human rights should not focus on imposing unilateral coercive measures or condemning States. One delegation urged all States to internalize the initiative. The Special Rapporteur emphasized the importance of the initiative, early warning mechanisms and the political will to act upon the early warning signs. She stressed the need for cooperation between the United Nations offices in Geneva and New York in this regard, and cautioned that problems observed during visits to countries by special procedures mandate holders should be reported immediately so that early action could be taken promptly. 36. One delegation stated that comprehensive early warning capacities and the full use of existing international instruments, mechanisms and procedures were required to translate prevention into practice. Another delegation encouraged States and other stakeholders to strengthen their efforts to identify warning signs. Another pointed out that attention to 11