A/HRC/23/18 • Participants agreed that there is information that is public and can be easily shared. For instance, methods of work, contact details of interlocutors, criteria to interview detainees, criteria to visit detention places, etc. However, it was agreed that not all kind of information should be shared and confidentiality should still be respected, especially for the sake of protection of victims. At the same time, confidentiality should not hamper the implementation and follow up of recommendations. Thus, participants agreed that different institutional channels should be established in order to share information while respecting its different nature. • It was suggested that mechanisms on torture should consult each other and share information at different stages in conformity with its working methods: strategic planning, planning of activities, implementation of activities and follow up. • It was proposed that United Nations and African mechanisms on torture share strategy plans, plans of work, contact details, calendars, urgent appeals sent to the country where the activity is going to take place, i.e. visits, relevant mechanisms’ decisions, reports and recommendations, i.e., UPR, CAT, CRPD, ACPHR, the African Court on Peoples and Human Rights, reports from NHRIs and NGOs, etc. • The importance of designating focal points in each mechanism aimed at enhancing cooperation, in particular information sharing, was underscored. It was proposed that focal points are designated as soon as possible. OHCHR should follow up on this issue. • United Nations and African mechanisms on torture should ensure that their reports, decisions and recommendations are easily accessible by other mechanisms. This could be facilitated by focal points and by technological means, i.e., websites, mailing lists etc. OHCHR’s potential role in facilitating exchanges between mechanisms was highlighted. • It was suggested to incorporate to this outcome document the recommendations made during the dialogue between United Nations and African Special Procedures Mandate Holders, held in January 2012. For instance, the exchange of the lists of Secretariat staffs responsible for supporting the thematic and geographic mandateholders or the creation of an email list and other information material to facilitate desk-to-desk exchanges and coordination. • The role of NGOs with regard to information sharing was highlighted. NGOs ensure that United Nations and African mechanisms on torture have access to good quality information, including information concerning persons with psycho-social disabilities. However, NGOs should not be seen and used only as service providers. Some participants mentioned the challenge of having different NGOs speaking different voices. • Thematic meetings could be organized between United Nations and African mechanisms so as to make progress in both the standard setting and to discuss substantial topics, including for instance, monitoring psychiatric and social care institutions and CRPD standards. In this connection, it was suggested that for example the CPTA who will start undertaking studies on substantive issues, builds on those developed by United Nations mechanisms. 2. Possible joint activities • Arrangements of cooperation could be established between United Nations and African mechanisms on torture, for example joint missions, joint press releases, joint urgent appeals, joint seminars and joint capacity building activities. However, some 41