the implementation of OSCE commitments. This reflects the political character of the OSCE and the intention not to duplicate existing mechanisms. Instead, there are a number of other ways in which individual cases may be dealt with directly or brought to the attention of the institutions or political bodies of the OSCE. These mechanisms are, of course, not limited to usage only by field operations but apply equally to all participating States. 1.2 POLITICAL INSTRUMENTS The human dimension is fully integrated in the OSCE political consultation process and in the work of the decision-making bodies and the OSCE field missions. Since 1994, representatives of the participating States have conducted a regular dialogue on the human dimension – including cases of non-implementation of human dimension commitments – within the Permanent Council. The OSCE Chairman-in-Office may inform the Permanent Council of cases of alleged non-implementation on the basis of information received by OSCE bodies such as the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) and the field missions. Any participating State may also raise in the Permanent Council general concerns or specific cases of human rights violations. The heads of OSCE institutions and field operations report regularly to the Permanent Council and often include human rights issues and individual cases in their reports. The annual Human Dimension Implementation Meetings, Supplementary Human Dimension Meetings, and Human Dimension Seminars provide additional venues in which participating States, non-governmental organizations, and OSCE bodies can raise human rights concerns and individual cases in any of the 55 participating States. Beyond formal meetings, the Chairman-in-Office can, and does, also make direct interventions in individual cases and situations. In some instances, these are private diplomatic appeals to governments, but, in particularly serious instances, they may be public statements. Heads of institutions and field operations also frequently intervene privately or publicly in particular cases. The OSCE has also created a number of special procedures, such as the Moscow Mechanism7 and new measures adopted at the Istanbul Summit,8 under which participating States can take action in response to serious human rights violations, but these have rarely been put to use. A more detailed description of how various OSCE human rights bodies can assist field operations in following up on individual complaints of human rights violations is included in Part III. 7 8 The Moscow Mechanism, set forth in the Document of the Moscow Meeting of the Conference of the Human Dimension of the CSCE of 4 October 1991, and later streamlined through the Document of the Fourth Meeting of the CSCE Council (Rome) on 1 December 1993, establishes a formal mechanism for sending missions of experts and rappoteurs to participating States in response to human rights violations. For more, see http://www.osce.org/odihr/human_rights/moscow_mechanism/. Paragraph 36 of the Charter for European Security adopted in Istanbul in 1999 includes a number of procedures to ensure compliance with commitments, including dispatching delegations to provide advice or representatives for fact-finding missions, or convening reinforced Permanent Council Meetings. 21 1