A/HRC/4/43 page 13 formulation of general comments/recommendations by treaty bodies were reported. The importance of building on each other’s recommendations was stressed by many participants. The possibility for special procedures mandate-holders of submitting written information and proposing issues for consideration to treaty bodies prior to their sessions was flagged by one mandate-holder. 56. Participants emphasized how the creation of the Human Rights Council called for even increased complementarity of the work of the two mechanisms. The need to ensure increased personal interaction was stressed, including by providing for relevant mandate-holders to address the treaty bodies directly on the occasion of the review of reports of States in which they have a specific interest. The role of the Secretariat in ensuring exchange of information between treaty bodies and special procedures was highlighted. In this regard, it was suggested that a compilation of good practices be prepared annually. 57. Concerning the proposal for a unified standing treaty body, some participants expressed concerns that this might dilute the specificities of the work of the individual committees. However, other participants saw the creation of a unified standing treaty body as a positive step towards the creation of a world court of human rights. Other participants expressed the view that, while continuing to take measures to harmonize and streamline treaty bodies’ procedures, such as the common guidelines for the submission of reports, there was a need to maintain substantive specificities. One proposal in this sense was to have a unified standing body to deal with individual complaints, so as to reduce delays in consideration of complaints and ensure a consistent jurisprudence, while maintaining the existing committees to review reports and to undertake inquiries. 58. It was repeatedly stressed that one of the main shortcomings of both the special procedures and the treaty bodies’ systems was the lack of follow-up to their findings and recommendations, especially by the main political bodies of the United Nations. The Human Rights Council was seen as a window of opportunity to remedy this shortcoming. In this connection several participants stressed that the Universal Periodic Review should be understood not as States assessing the human rights situation in other States, but rather as States assessing the degree to which other States implement the decisions and recommendations of independent expert bodies. The Council should count on existing human rights mechanisms to perform fact-finding and normative assessment functions, while focusing on implementation. This would address the issues of possible duplication of UPR with the work of treaty bodies and also prevent UPR from becoming an appeals body for those States whose compliance with human rights treaties has already been reviewed by relevant treaty bodies. The role of the High Commissioner in promoting UPR as a forum for follow-up was emphasized. 59. It was recommended that a joint letter be prepared calling upon the Human Rights Council to ensure that UPR has as at least one of its core sources of information the findings and recommendations of treaty bodies and special procedures, and to develop a review system that strengthens the implementation of those recommendations.