A/HRC/11/L.10 page 68 recommendations and/or conclusions, and its voluntary commitments and replies presented before the adoption of the outcome by the plenary to questions or issues that were not sufficiently addressed during the interactive dialogue in the Working Group (see also A/HRC/11/18/Add.1). 1. Views expressed by the State under review on the recommendations and/or conclusions as well as on its voluntary commitments and the outcome 276. The Chargé d’affaires of the Permanent Mission of Bangladesh to the United Nations Office at Geneva indicated that the fact that the Minister for Foreign Affairs, on her first visit since the new Government took office, had headed the Bangladesh delegation during its review held on 3 February 2009 reflected the importance that the Government attached to this new human rights mechanism. The conduct of the review had been a productive and rewarding experience for Bangladesh, obliging it to have a deeper look into its human rights situation and to identify possible areas requiring more attention. It had offered an opportunity to engage all relevant Government agencies and civil society in the human rights discourse within the country. 277. The interactive dialogue in the Working Group had been very productive. Bangladesh had learned how its situation and efforts had been perceived by the international community. It noted with great satisfaction that there had been positive recognition of the efforts made, with some accomplishments regarded as examples of best practice. Despite its many achievements, Bangladesh was aware that there were a number of shortcomings and room for improvement. Several delegates referred to Bangladesh’s deficits. Most of the questions and recommendations presented were challenging, yet constructive. Bangladesh considered them carefully and consulted with Government departments before finalizing its response to the recommendations, which was available as a public document. 278. Bangladesh had accepted almost all recommendations, with action already initiated to implement some of them. One or two could not be accepted as they were in conflict with Bangladesh’s Constitution, legal provisions or deeply-held social values. In a few cases, explanations had also been provided to better understand the context of human rights protection and Bangladesh hoped the Council would understand and appreciate this approach. Bangladesh stated that its commitment to the promotion of human rights was not limited to these recommendations. It was convinced that it needed to continuously pursue higher norms and