considered in this context. In conclusion, I would recall that paragraph 10 of Chapter IV of the 1992 Helsinki Document, "Challenges of Change", provides that "the implementation meeting may draw to the attention of the CSO measures to improve implementation which it deems necessary". I would recommend to this meeting that it accordingly decide to draw the attention of the CSO to this report, and the report of my colleague rapporteur, and the informal recommendations which these reports contain. Vinca Showalter, U.S. Delegation SUBSIDIARY WORKING BODY 2 Review of the Human Dimension of the CSCE with a special focus on the evaluation of the procedures for monitoring compliance and on the need for streamlining existing mechanisms. CLUSTER I The first cluster addressed the following: - Review of the Human Dimension Mechanism; - Role, support and follow-up of the CSCE Missions in fulfilling tasks within the Human Dimension; and - Review of the activities of the CSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities; possible recommendations for further strengthening of his role. Throughout discussion of the means available for monitoring compliance with Human Dimension commitments, participants emphasised the need to integrate the Human Dimension into the overall political work of the CSCE, particularly since the observance of Human Dimension commitments represented a basic element in early warning and conflict prevention and could not be separated from other aspects of the CSCE's work. Another recurrent theme was the need for effective co-ordination within the CSCE, and between the CSCE and relevant international organisations. Participants noted that the Human Dimension Mechanism had not been much used; it was suggested that this could be a result of its complexity and/or the financial burden placed on a state requesting a mission; it also reflected a lack of political will on the part of participating States to use the Mechanism. It was also noted that other CSCE activities such as the long-term missions, may have served to replace some elements of implementation observance foreseen in the Moscow Mechanism. It was suggested that states could usefully request missions under paragraph 4, particularly in view of the positive experience of the two participating States which had followed this course. There was discussion of ideas to simplify and accelerate the procedures: to expand the list of experts: to allow the CSO Vienna Group and the ODIHR a greater role in the Mechanism; to reduce the number of states needed to sponsor initiation of the Mechanism; and to allow NGOs or individuals to prompt consideration of activation of the mechanism. Certain delegations circulated detailed proposals for the revision of aspects of the Moscow Mechanism. In view of the above discussion, the following are informal recommendations concerning the review of the Moscow Mechanism: - that, in accordance with the Moscow Document, the experts nominated to the resource list by a participating state comprise eminent persons and include where possible, experts with experience related to minorities issues, and that the number nominated be expanded to a maximum of 6; - that the time for a requesting state to comment on the report of a mission under paragraph 7 be reduced from three weeks to two; -that the time-frame be reduced for a state which has received a mission under paragraphs 9-11 of the Mechanism to forward its response to the mission's report; CSCE ODIHR BULLETIN Vol. 2, No. 1 45