Representative, who is mandated to report annually to the Human Dimension Implementation Meeting (HDIM) or to the OSCE Review Meeting.12 15. Together with the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, whose role in assisting participating States is dealt with extensively in Chapter IV of this report, those two institutions form the institutional backbone for assisting States in implementing their commitments in the human dimension. The Summit of OSCE Heads of State in Istanbul in 1999 declared that the ODIHR, the HCNM, and the RFoM are essential instruments in ensuring respect for human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. 16. OSCE field operations, which were originally designed as fact-finding teams with primarily reporting and early-warning functions, have, over the years, developed into additional tools for States to promote implementation of OSCE commitments, and to channel technical support to States in difficulty to meet their commitments out of their own resources. Ad hoc missions, deployed by either the CiO or the OSCE’s institutions, can also play a role in assessing the level of implementation and offering advice in this regard. D. Implementation review 17. The OSCE has not developed any specifically regulated, formalistic implementation review mechanisms and procedures. For various reasons, the so-called Human Dimension Mechanisms (Vienna and Moscow Mechanisms)13 have not been activated in recent years. Nevertheless, they remain available and may, under certain circumstances, be useful to bring about more effective implementation of OSCE commitments in the human dimension. It is worth noting that these tools were always considered subsidiary to the concept of peer review.14 At recent Supplementary Human Dimension Meetings (SHDMs), some participants have called on the OSCE to invoke the Moscow Mechanism in relation to a number of participating States that have been falling short of implementing their commitments. Also, suggestions have been made to undertake a study on the effectiveness of these mechanisms in order to identify steps that could be taken by OSCE participating States in order to boost the effectiveness of these mechanisms. 18. States have agreed that periodic reviews of implementation of commitments are critical in the human dimension.15 The annual Human Dimension Implementation Meeting (HDIM), the three SHDMs, and the Human Dimension Seminar constitute the most extensive and visible standard form of reviewing progress and highlighting shortfalls in the implementation of human dimension commitments by governments and civil society representatives.16 Developed as a supplementary tool to regular peer review and the more crisis-oriented ad hoc and field operations, as well as to the Vienna and Moscow Mechanisms, the HDIM has 12  Cf. para. 7 of Permanent Council Decision No. 193 (Mandate of the OSCE Representative on the Freedom of the Media), 5 November 1997 (Annex to the Copenhagen Document (Sixth Meeting of the Ministerial Council, MC/DOC/1/97, Copenhagen, 18-19 December 1997)). 13  See www.osce.org/odihr/13483.html for an overview, as well as the complete texts establishing the mechanisms. 14  In para. 15 of the 1991 Document of the Moscow Meeting, States agreed that nothing in the Vienna or Moscow Mechanisms would in any way affect the right of participating States to raise any issue pertaining to the implementation of any CSCE commitment. 15  Cf. paras. 9-16 of the 1992 Helsinki Document (The Challenges of Change, CSCE Summit Document, 9-10 July 1992), as well as para. 14 of the 1994 Budapest Summit Declaration. 16  A list of human dimension meetings is annexed to this report. Common Responsibility: Commitments and Implementation