A/HRC/34/24 States. More generally, international peace, security and prosperity would only be strengthened if human rights are fully respected and protected. 56. A number of delegations highlighted the timeliness of the panel discussion, which took place against the background of the end of the second cycle of the universal periodic review and the recent adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. In relation to the first point, several delegations reiterated their full support for the universal periodic review mechanism, which they deemed a success story, as it has proven to be highly useful in assisting States in improving their human rights programmes. In this context, the importance of midterm review reports was also mentioned. As to the second point, the nexus between the sustainable development and the human rights agendas was emphasized several times, leading to the question as to whether a unified system for the implementation of the recommendations made by the human rights mechanisms and of the Sustainable Development Goals could be devised. B. Sharing of experiences and good practices in the establishment and strengthening of national human rights systems 57. Most delegations shared the various models that their governments had put in place to ensure effective follow-up to recommendations made by human rights mechanisms. It was pointed out on a number of occasions that there was no set standard of national human rights follow-up system or process and that any model should be tailored to the realities and needs on the ground. 58. Several features common to the models developed by States were identified in the course of the discussion. First, several States had adopted or were in the process of adopting national human rights action plans or national implementation plans on human rights that take into account the recommendations made by human rights mechanisms. These plans reportedly contain measurable goals, clustered by theme, with timed commitments. One delegation mentioned the specific action plans its Government had developed on the rights of the child and against racism and intolerance, which included related recommendations. Another delegation referred to the national legislation, policies and mechanisms put in place to combat domestic violence and forced labour, to protect human rights defenders, to protect the rights of persons with disabilities and to promote the right to truth and memory, which were supported by recommendations and decisions submitted to the country by regional and international human rights mechanisms. Yet another delegation stated that its Government had clustered recommendations around the following themes: women; children; detained persons; discrimination; memory, truth, justice and guarantees of nonrecurrence; and institutional strengthening. Another delegation mentioned the national human rights strategy, which had led to the approval of an action plan by the Government. One NGO stressed that States should be encouraged to adopt national implementation plans on United Nations human rights recommendations. 59. Secondly, many delegations mentioned the structures their Governments had established to ensure adequate follow-up to regional and United Nations human rights recommendations. These structures often involved the participation of several ministries and enjoyed the support of the highest levels of government. In one instance, the structure was chaired by the Prime Minister and involved the entire Cabinet. In a few instances, the permanent nature of the structure was highlighted as a best practice. In federal States, collaborative efforts between the federal, provincial and territorial authorities were highlighted. Some countries had reportedly developed a series of tools to meet their goals, such as implementation matrixes to structure all efforts made towards the implementation of the various recommendations received; an e-human rights reporting system in the form of a database of human rights improvements, which also aims at better mainstreaming 11