178. The regular participation of staff from other OSCE institutions and structures, and practically all OSCE field operations is also of great value for these discussions. Almost all participating States attended, many of them represented by larger delegations, including experts from capitals who are essential for a focused debate.107 It is therefore clear that the OSCE’s human dimension events continue to be relevant and pertinent. Complementing the HDIM in Warsaw, the three SHDMs, and the more technical, forward-looking Human Dimension Seminars represent excellent opportunities for politicians and diplomats, experts and field workers, academics and civil society activists to engage in constructive and resultoriented debate. Enhanced focus on follow-up to the recommendations gathered at these meetings is, however, still necessary. 179. The shortening from three to two weeks in the 2002 modalities has led to stringent limitations on speaking time in order to give everyone a chance to contribute; parallel side events have proven to be a valuable tool to deepen informal discussions on specific issues and situations, and their number has increased significantly over recent years. If the HDIM is to play a more visible role in discussing implementation of election commitments, as well as in following up on ODIHR observation reports, it is essential to allow more than the existing limited time slot for such a discussion. At present, the subject of elections and democratic institutions is awarded only three hours out of 10 working days. 180. In order to further increase the output of human dimension meetings, the ODIHR suggests a more intense focus on reviewing compliance across the range of the human dimension in the entire region. The question of whether focused and selective questionnaires could contribute to such a goal should be further investigated and discussed.108 Any further shortening of the HDIM may mean that States would only focus on the more egregious cases, thereby transforming the HDIM into an occasion for “naming and shaming” a few, while being silent on less attention-grabbing shortcomings in other States. Rather, consideration should be given to not only a more thorough drawing-up of conclusions but, even more importantly, to a methodological follow-up to the HDIM, especially to the recommendations made. For example, the choice of the subjects for the three special days could be more directly linked to subsequent decisions by the Ministerial and Permanent Councils. For its part, the ODIHR will strive to process recommendations and take them up more systematically in its work with, and assistance to, OSCE States. 181. The suggestion, made by the Panel of Eminent Persons, to hold the HDIM “outside Warsaw every second year in order to raise its profile and increase the sense of ownership among participating States”109 merits serious consideration. The benefits of ownership are, however, clearly outweighed by the increased costs involved in the logistical and technical preparation. Considerable effort would have to go into these aspects at the expense of preparing thorough substantive input; this would neither raise the profile nor heighten the effectiveness of the meeting. The ODIHR also has to maintain its day-to-day operational capacity 107  Four hundred sixty-five representatives of 53 OSCE participating States (no representative of Moldova, Monaco, or Turkmenistan) were in attendance, as well as five Partners for Co-operation (Afghanistan, Japan, Republic of Korea, Mongolia, and Thailand) and four Mediterranean Partners for Co-operation (Algeria, Egypt, Israel, and Morocco). In addition, 29 representatives of six OSCE institutions and 63 representatives of all 18 OSCE field operations participated in the meeting. 108  See the discussion paper by the Centre for OSCE Research, Options for a General OSCE Human Dimension Monitoring Instrument, p. 30. 109  Common Purpose, para. 25, note 61 of this report. Common Responsibility: Commitments and Implementation 63