used to pay (Western) experts, travel expenses and administrative costs”.113 The ODIHR reacted to this in different ways: (i) increased use of consultancy that utilizes relevant reform experiences from countries in democratic transition; (ii) increased use of in-house expertise relevant to an OSCE context; and (iii) assistance to field operations and other partners for carrying out project activities on the spot. 195. Planning and programming of all activities now includes an enhanced element of gender mainstreaming, following the guidance provided by participating States in the Action Plan for the Promotion of Gender Equality, adopted by the 2004 Ministerial Council in Sofia. Promoting gender equality clearly cuts across all programmes in the ODIHR’s work. 196. Within the area of technical assistance, the ODIHR has, of course, also developed significant expertise in providing assistance to OSCE States in order to follow up on ODIHR recommendations on elections, to improve their election processes, and to comply with their commitments by responding to precise technical-assistance requests. Each request is thoroughly reviewed to assess whether a project is feasible; whether resources, financial and human, are available; whether the ODIHR has the in-house expertise or should bring in external expertise; whether the time frame for implementation is adequate to avoid conflict of interest and collision with the deployment of an election observation mission; and whether the project overlaps with existing programmes of other organizations; and whether co-operation with partners could reinforce the ODIHR’s assistance. E. The ODIHR within the wider OSCE framework 197. The ODIHR is embedded in a network of structures and procedures based on rules laid down by the participating States. The ODIHR is an integral, yet distinct, part of the intergovernmental arrangement that emerged from the CSCE’s transformation into the OSCE in the early 1990s. It is the responsibility of all parts of this system to maximize the effectiveness of the OSCE as a whole and to co-operate within the system in search of the common good of effective implementation of OSCE commitments undertaken by States. The ODIHR’s effectiveness therefore also depends on the smooth operation of the OSCE system. The relationship with the other institutions, the Chairmanship and the Permanent Council, the field operations, and the Secretariat are therefore of utmost relevance for any discussion of the effectiveness of the ODIHR’s assistance. 198. Internal relationships are best structured by assigning roles and responsibilities in an unambiguous fashion that guarantees transparency. The ODIHR has therefore worked to further clarify and improve its existing relations of a political, operational, technical, and bureaucratic nature in the past few years. This is a process familiar to all international structures. It needs to be maintained and serviced, just as is the case with any complex international machinery. Participating States saw early on that the ODIHR’s effectiveness could only be assured if it were involved actively in the activities of the Permanent Council and the field operations. Far from being a quasi-academic institute on the sidelines, States wanted the ODIHR to be fully part of the day-to-day work of the OSCE’s main bodies. 113  Randolf Oberschmidt, “Ten Years of the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights — An Interim Assessment”, in OSCE Yearbook 2001 (Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy at the University of Hamburg/IFSH (ed.), Nomos 2002), at 390. Common Responsibility: Commitments and Implementation 67