A/HRC/23/18 activities, contact details and public reports. They also agreed on the need of maximising sharing of information within the limits provided by the rules of procedure of each human rights body, bearing in mind that their common goal was the protection of victims. For example, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment proposed that States parties to the international and the regional conventions agree that Committee visit reports and their responses to such reports be systematically shared with the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture on a confidential basis. In a similar way, it was proposed the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture consider sharing systematically its reports with the Committee on a confidential basis. 48. Lack of capacity and differences between human rights mechanisms were also identified as challenges. It was proposed that universal and regional mechanisms regularly exchange standards, experiences and views, in particular for the benefit of emergent regional human rights mechanisms that can learn from more developed mechanisms. In that regard, it was suggested that thematic exchanges be held on such issues as prison overcrowding and non-refoulement. These exchanges were expected to allow human rights mechanisms to apply coherent standard methodology protocols, for example with regard to interviews with persons deprived of their liberty and criteria for visiting places of detention. 49. Trust between actors sharing information and the willingness to share it were identified as crucial factors. In that context, it was pointed out that the independence of national human rights institutions, national preventive mechanisms and non-governmental organizations was fundamental for enhanced cooperation, as they were important sources of information for United Nations and regional human rights mechanisms. They also played an important role in disseminating information and advocating against torture. It was noted that recommendations made by international and regional human rights mechanisms could be used by the said actors as a powerful advocacy tool. For instance, in Uganda, a coalition comprising the national human rights institution and non-governmental organizations allowed for the adoption of a law criminalizing torture in 2012. 2. Concrete proposals 50. Participants made proposals to enhance the sharing of information by United Nations and regional human rights mechanisms, by means of: • Existing and future focal points provided with the necessary means for carrying out their tasks effectively • Systematized exchange, through focal points, of calendars and activities, programmes of visits, list of secretariats and outcome reports • Desk-to-desk cooperation facilitated by focal points • The development of regular thematic exchanges of standards, jurisprudence, views and experiences • The development of a matrix containing recommendations by United Nations and regional human rights mechanisms, including information by country • Communication and exchanges between non-governmental organizations and human rights field presences, in particular with regard to urgent situations • The development of a database centralizing findings, decisions and recommendations by United Nations and regional human rights mechanisms, as well as information on their implementation, to be accessible to victims, States and other stakeholders (the Universal Human Rights Index was indicated as a first step in that direction, but needed to include the decisions and recommendations of regional mechanisms as well) 12