become the single most important forum for the human dimension in the region, and is the main OSCE event in the human dimension each year.17 19. In recent years, specific bodies or procedures have been established in areas of particular interest to the OSCE. The OSCE action plans adopted by participating States since 2000 have included such elements. The 2003 Action Plan to Combat Trafficking in Human Beings18 created an Organization-wide mechanism to co-ordinate efforts and make assistance in this field most effective. The 2003 Action Plan on Improving the Situation of Roma and Sinti within the OSCE Area19 tasked the ODIHR Contact Point with paying specific attention to its implementation. The Action Plan for the Promotion of Gender Equality of 2004 20 foresees a particular reporting schedule and contains detailed provisions on implementation. All these action plans include tasks for the ODIHR itself, and vest it with implementation review functions. While action plans serve to focus attention and resources on particular problems of common concern, the mechanisms designed to ensure follow-up and their implementation have not been used to their full potential. More systematic periodic reviews of the action plans, as well as of the action undertaken, should be considered to strengthen their effectiveness. 20. Review mechanisms and procedures have also been developed in other areas of OSCE activity. Outside the human dimension, one such example is the mechanism associated with reviewing the Code of Conduct on Politico-Military Matters of 1994.21 Despite its name, the document also contains a number of significant human dimension commitments related to the armed forces. It is reviewed through a system of formal questionnaires, whereby answers are submitted by States and shared with partners. Given the sensitivity of this area, it is understandable that States could not agree on a more robust form of implementation review; current consultations on the way ahead should therefore be encouraged. 21. With all the mechanisms and procedures developed within the OSCE, the responsibility to implement commitments — but also to review and promote implementation across the region — remains fully with the States. Without firm political will from governments, even the most independent, well-resourced and strong-minded international body could not bring about effective implementation. The effectiveness of implementation is therefore a gauge for the political coherence of the OSCE community as a whole, and is a function of the political will mustered by its members to invest in the fulfilment of its collective promises. 22. In recent years, decisions adopted by ministers at the annual Ministerial Council meetings have tended to be less ambitious than the key documents adopted until 1999. Efforts to point to an “imbalance” in the allocation of resources and in the political attention given to the human dimension compared to politico-military and economic co-operation, as well 17  With the adoption of new modalities for the HDIM in 2002, the HDIM itself was shortened to two weeks, whereas three Supplementary Human Dimension Meetings are held throughout the year, each usually lasting 1 1/2 days. Again this year, the HDIM was able to attract a record number of participants from governments, OSCE field operations and institutions, international organizations, and civil society. See para. 176 of this report. 18  PC/DEC No. 557, adopted pursuant to Bucharest Ministerial Decision No. 6 of 2001 and Porto Ministerial Declaration of 2002. See Decision No. 2/03 of the 2003 Maastricht Ministerial Council. 19  Decision No. 3/03 (annex) of the 2003 Maastricht Ministerial Council. 20  Decision No. 14/04, 2004 Sofia Ministerial Council Document. 21  See esp. Decision IV (para. 38) of the 1994 Budapest Document.  Common Responsibility: Commitments and Implementation