A/HRC/7/29 page 12 same issues were rarely, if ever, approached from the same perspective by two different mandates. In addition, there was considerable complementarity and reinforcement when it proved possible for two mandates to address issues related to one another. In conclusion, the authors suggested that it would be productive to focus on the procedure to be adopted in future in responding to specific suggestions about protection gaps. 54. Participants stressed that Council resolution 5/1 contained an indication of criteria which would guide any future review.3 In view of that fact, several participants expressed the opinion that the paper should represent the basis for an in-depth discussion and wide consultations and be revised, taking into account the suggestions made by several mandate-holders in their reports, issues raised during the discussions, comments received by other stakeholders, and existing practices whereby several mandates already covered, to a varying extent, issues identified as gaps or emerging issues. A common position on the future process of the review of mandates was also needed. This should include a discussion on how to address egregious violations of human rights in a specific country. A reflection on whether to favour a holistic approach when addressing related issues was considered desirable. The Coordination Committee would take the process forward and revise the paper. VII. EXCHANGE OF EXPERIENCE A. Country and thematic approaches 55. Several issues concerning country and thematic approaches were mentioned by participants as deserving particular attention and reflection. There was a need to strengthen coordination between geographic and thematic mandates. In particular, the role of thematic mandate-holders was of crucial importance in cases where the specific country mandate was not allowed to visit the country for an extended period of time or where a country mandate had been discontinued. It was reiterated that no initiatives by thematic mandate-holders in a country covered by a country mandate-holder should be undertaken without consultation with the latter, in accordance with existing practice. 56. When devising strategies to address the human rights situation in countries that did not cooperate with special procedures, the need to look at complementarities with the entire system, including treaty bodies and United Nations country presences, as well as OHCHR country engagement strategies, was mentioned. 57. The need for thematic mandate-holders and geographic mandate-holders to mutually consult so as to ensure consistency in strategies and approaches was emphasized. In general, some participants called for a mechanism or practice to ensure that outgoing mandate-holders would have an opportunity to brief incoming ones on their country and thematic approaches. 58. The need to think as a group about how best to address country situations in which there were gross and systematic violations of human rights was indicated. One participant referred to 3 Report to the General Assembly on the fifth session of the Human Rights Council (A/HRC/5/21), para. 58.