A/HRC/7/28 page 17 in which progress had been more prominent, and others which stagnated more. On this basis, new recommendations were made, which are contained in her report on this mission (A/HRC/7/23/Add.4). 59. The example given below illustrates the methodology used. While this methodology provides a sound basis to assess the situation of human rights defenders in light of a first report, it is nevertheless important to make follow-up visits flexible enough to allow capturing new developments or concerns that go beyond the coverage of the first report but which should be considered in order to make a fair and accurate assessment of the situation of human rights defenders. Issues and recommendations of the first report Developments between first and second mission No independent oversight mechanism to investigate violations committed by the police Establishment of an oversight mechanism Relevant stakeholders: (1) in a position to provide information; and (2) responsible for implementation Ministry of Interior (responsible for the implementation) Defenders (provide information on the effectiveness of the mechanism) Information gathered during the follow-up visit Findings and recommendations Information on how to access the mechanism is not available in minority languages. The mechanism is not used by defenders and groups belonging to minorities The Special Representative welcomes the recently established oversight mechanism. She has however reported that the mechanism is not being used by defenders and groups belonging to minorities. This is because information on the mechanism has not been made available in minority languages. The Special Representative recommends ensuring that information on the mechanism is made available and disseminated in minority languages. Note: The present example has been made to illustrate the methodology used and does not refer to any country.