A/HRC/11/2 page 8 mandates have similarly sought explanations and assurances from Governments - whether orally, in letters, or through their reports - upon receiving credible allegations of such reprisals.9 23. At the end of the day, however, there will be situations in which Governments fail to respond meaningfully and the reprisals continue. In those situations, it is essential that the Council itself have a mechanism for seeking explanations from the Governments concerned and, where appropriate, expressing public concern when a Government’s response is inadequate. While the Secretary-General and other actors have an important role to play in this regard, it is ultimately the responsibility of the Council, whose “eyes and ears” the special procedures are often said to be. 24. Under current arrangements, the Council receives once a year a report addressing acts of intimidation or reprisal against four categories of individuals: those cooperating with representatives of United Nations human rights bodies; those who have cooperated with United Nations human rights procedures; those who have submitted communications under established procedures; and the relatives of human rights victims. The net thus appears to be cast broadly. In his report for 2009 (A/HRC/10/36), the Secretary-General provides details of, inter alia, the killing of the spouse of a witness who testified under the universal periodic review process (para. 8), the incarceration of a human rights defender who had written to the United Nations (paras. 9 and 10), and soldiers threatening the staff of a non-governmental organization (paras. 11 and 12). 25. The above-mentioned report is far from comprehensive, indeed it presents only an extremely limited picture of the real situation. First, it relies almost entirely on cases publicized by mandate holders in their reports, and especially on those mentioned by the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders. Second, cases are not reported if there are “security concerns” or the individuals concerned have opted not to have their cases made public. In instances involving threats of serious reprisals, this will often be the case. Third, reprisals against individuals for cooperating with other United Nations bodies, such as OHCHR field presences and peacekeeping operations, are not covered by the report. And finally, in the report itself, the Secretary-General acknowledges that reprisals against individuals cooperating with United Nations human rights bodies are often unreported owing to a lack of access to appropriate means of communication or fear of further reprisals (para. 7). The coverage of the report is thus very limited and its reporting seems perfunctory. well planned”, press release, 25 February 2009) an urgent appeal I sent jointly with three other special procedures mandate holders on 13 March 2009 (which regrettably remained without a response from the Government as of one month later; see A/HRC/11/2/Add.1) and in two press releases (“UN expert on extrajudicial executions calls upon Kenyan Government to establish an independent investigation into the assassination of two prominent Kenyan human rights defenders” and “UN expert on extrajudicial executions calls on Kenya to stop the systematic intimidation of human rights defenders”). 9 See A/HRC/7/28/Add.2, paras. 72-74.