A/HRC/15/44 21. State representatives and mandate holders agreed that the Human Rights Council review process afforded an opportunity for greater cooperation and collaboration among special procedures and States, and the creation of a working group of special procedures to interact with the Council in the review process was suggested. D. Review of the Human Rights Council 22. Participants discussed the role and approach of special procedures to the review of the Council. In its resolution 60/251 on the Human Rights Council, the General Assembly decided to review the status of the Council within five years, and that the Council would review its work and functioning five years after its establishment and report to the General Assembly. 23. Participants were briefed on the developments relating to ongoing formal and informal discussions on the review. They were informed that the General Assembly had appointed Mr. Christian Wenaweser, Permanent Representative of Liechtenstein, and Mr. Mohammed Loulichki, Permanent Representative of Morocco, to serve as co-facilitators for the consultations on the Council’s status review in New York. In its resolution 12/1, the Human Rights Council had created an open-ended intergovernmental working group on the review of the work and functioning of the Council to facilitate the process in the Council. It was noted that the modalities and schedule for the review were being discussed by States; the first session of the open-ended working group was scheduled for October 2010. Issues which had been raised in relation to special procedures included cooperation by States, enhancement of working methods, ensuring compliance with the Code of Conduct, and financial and other support for special procedures. 24. Mandate holders were informed that the former President of the Human Rights Council had initiated consultations with States and presented a proposal for a road map and schedule for the review of the Council. The development of the road map was now in the hands of the incoming President. Some States had suggested the review follow the logic and order of resolution 5/1 of the Human Rights Council, including all mechanisms of the Council; others had suggested that the review consider and evaluate the scope of protection of human rights accorded to the Council at present under General Assembly resolution 60/251. 25. Participants discussed the need for States and special procedures to take a more active role on the follow-up to recommendations. They stressed that the review of the Council relate to the work and functioning of the Council itself and that discussions should focus on how the Council could strengthen the system and enhance its most flexible and independent tools. The Council review should unequivocally support the independence of the special procedures, including by ensuring mandates’ independent determination of workplans and activities. In particular, participants called for enhanced use by the Council of the work of the special procedures, in particular in relation to early warning about emerging or particularly serious situations. The need for greater independence and transparency of the appointment procedure was stressed. A better distribution of work during Council sessions, enhanced interactive dialogues and space for special procedures in the universal periodic review were also recommended. Greater cooperation of States with special procedures was encouraged, with emphasis placed on the Coordination Committee and steps that could be taken to strengthen it. It was also suggested that the Council and States should prevent reprisals against individuals or groups that cooperated with special procedures. Participants agreed that discussions on the review of the Council would be proactively contributed to by the special procedures, and a position paper would be prepared, guided by the Coordination Committee, and in consultation with all mandate holders. 8