election administration officials and experts on 8 October in Warsaw provided another opportunity for a candid exchange of views and the emergence of some forward-looking ideas. The purview of the present report must be limited to the most salient and relevant issues. In reporting on the implementation of existing commitments (Chapter I), the ODIHR did not, and could not possibly, provide an account of all instances of implementation and nonimplementation of every commitment undertaken in the human dimension by the governments of the 56 participating States. I have also avoided substituting this exercise for any existing implementation mechanism, as this was clearly not the intention of the Ministerial Council in Ljubljana. Instead, this report seeks to identify a number of areas of concern for the entire OSCE region, areas where urgent action is possible and needed and results are within reach. This is certainly true for the new, additional commitments I propose in this report (Chapter II), which fall within the scope of what the OSCE community has been focusing on in recent years. The era of broad standard-setting may well be over; efforts are now required to make some of the commitments more specific and precise, thereby facilitating implementation and review. Also, new developments have opened up gaps and loopholes, which it is incumbent upon the OSCE community to fill with unambiguous language in line with its fundamental values. The focus on elections in Chapter III is only natural. Not only does it reflect what the ­ODIHR — as reflected in its original name, the Office for Free Elections — was originally called upon to do, it also mirrors what the ODIHR, and arguably the OSCE at large, has excelled in over the last decade: election observation and assistance in electoral reform as a key element of democratic governance. Following the debate on this topic over the past few years, I have sought to summarize contentious issues and offer concrete suggestions for improvements where these can strengthen the effectiveness of the ODIHR to support States in implementing their commitments. The final chapter of this report focuses on the question of how the effectiveness of the ­ODIHR’s assistance can be generally improved. Simply put, this question addresses both a political issue and one of the availability of technical expertise and resources. Only a commensurate level of political will to bring about implementation of OSCE commitments can ensure that assistance provided from outside, including from the ODIHR, can be effective. This means that, ultimately, the effectiveness of commitments on human rights and democracy depends on each State. Only governments, assisted by international institutions and civil society, can effectuate the credible and lasting implementation of the standards set in our collective forum. The commitment to implement the wide-ranging promises undertaken by OSCE States flows from an interpretation of sovereignty as responsibility and accountability, as foreseen in the first paragraphs of the 1999 Istanbul Document: a responsibility not only towards the international community, but, even more importantly, towards the citizens of the OSCE region as primary beneficiaries. Common Responsibility: Commitments and Implementation xi