A/HRC/30/28 while others identified the rights of migrants and other non-nationals as requiring further attention. 44. With regard to the use of human rights indicators, it was noted that specific outcome indicators were needed alongside structural and process-oriented indicators. One participant also lamented the lack of inclusiveness and genuine participation in some instances when national plans had been developed. OHCHR was further encouraged to provide more assistance to States to strengthen the protection of human rights defenders. Special measures were needed to address instances of threats, attacks and reprisals against individuals who cooperated with international human rights institutions. National action plans on business and human rights also needed to include measures to protect human rights defenders. States were therefore encouraged to adopt guidelines for the protection of human rights defenders, along the lines of policies developed by Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway and Switzerland. 45. One national human rights institution underlined the importance of engaging a wide range of partners across government in drawing up and implementing national human rights action plans, and outlined its own experience of promoting access to justice and child rights through a national action plan. 46. The moderator then asked the panellists to respond to the comments and questions from the floor. Mr. Magazzeni agreed that human rights indicators were essential in the implementation of human rights standards and were key to transparent and effective policy development and impact assessment. He said that in response to the strong demand from States, OHCHR had developed a human rights indicator framework, which was available to all States as guidance on how to better monitor and implement their human rights obligations. 47. On the issue of alignment of human rights recommendations with national development priorities, Mr. Magazzeni referred to experiences that showed how national human rights action plans and national coordination mechanisms could support implementation, especially when they were designed and implemented in an inclusive and participatory manner. He said that it was also important to include regional standards and recommendations from regional human rights bodies as part of a coordinated and coherent policy framework for human rights implementation at the national level. 48. Mr. Cárdenas said that policy implementation through a human rights-based approach was the best way to ensure that all rights-holders could be part of the process and benefit from the outcomes. He underlined that it was the responsibility of the State, through all its organs—judicial, legislative and executive—to ensure that human rights were realized through public policies and action. People needed to be made aware of their rights and empowered to claim what they were entitled to. That required training of both dutybearers and rights-holders, especially the most vulnerable and marginalized groups such as indigenous communities or persons with disabilities. Government officials needed to be better equipped to work with these target groups. Non-governmental organizations also had a vital role in educating and empowering people to know and claim their rights. 49. Mr. Muñoz said that human rights had been introduced as a cross-cutting theme in Ecuador’s national development plan, and that all civil servants were being held accountable for their performance in implementing human rights in their respective fields. He fully agreed that coordination and participation were key to successful policy planning and implementation, and explained that Ecuador had taken decisive steps to address the lack of coherence and inclusiveness in its own implementation framework. 50. Ms. Aliane noted that setting up strong human rights institutions at the national level was a priority, adding that this had to be supported by adequate legislation to facilitate the implementation of decisions and recommendations. Such initiatives had to be based on 10