Thank you for the question.
Two examples come to my mind. The first one is Brazil. Brazil has a continuous process, where institutions as well as civil society representatives are involved all the time. So there isn't this big rush six months before producing any report whatsoever, either dedicated to an expert committee, or now in the case of the Human Rights Council procedure. There's the idea that there is a continuous discussion and we're always ready for conclusions; it doesn't mean we never have anything to celebrate. Brazil is not a small country, and it is a federation, so it's interesting in that regard.
The other example is South Africa. It has a mixture of human rights institutions and civil society networks that work on a permanent basis, which means that at the end of the road, representatives of both parties agree to agree, and agree to disagree. You don't need to be in Geneva to have this “confrontational moment” and then come back home to move to another set of human rights. The idea of permanency and continuity is closely linked to the real meaning of consultation and accountability.
I think the Canadian government has always promoted the idea that at the moment a report is transmitted to civil society, it has been consulted. Consultation means that you have to be informed of what's at stake and aware of the facts, and can come together on conclusions. Parliamentary accountability also means accountability to civil society, and there are existing and working examples that are not very expensive. The idea is to open the institution and get the process.