144. The Co-operation Agreement has thus served its purpose in shaping the de facto institutional co-operation between the ODIHR and the OSCE PA and other parliamentary bodies. This agreement works well, given goodwill on all sides. As the ODIHR values the wide array of experiences of parliamentarians, and with a view to further improving the implementation of the 1997 agreement, an expert consultation mechanism was recently initiated by President Lennmarker of the OSCE PA and the ODIHR Director. Beyond the improvement of co-operation on the ground, the ODIHR also believes that parliamentary bodies have a significant long-term role to play, as they, in many cases, monitor and report on developments through committee or working-group structures. I. Follow-up and post-election dialogue 145. The participating States of the OSCE have committed themselves to follow up on recommendations made in ODIHR election observation reports. The term “follow-up on [election] recommendations” was for the first time underlined in an official OSCE document at the Ministerial Meeting in Oslo in 199893 and reiterated at the Istanbul Summit of November 1999.94 The 2002 Ministerial Meeting held in Porto also called upon OSCE States to strengthen their response to the ODIHR’s recommendations following election observation.95 The collective message from these decisions is that once ODIHR recommendations have been provided, ignoring such recommendations would run counter to these political commitments. Ignoring or rejecting such recommendations would call into question the political will of a participating State to fulfill its commitments on genuine democratic elections. Effective follow-up aimed at tackling shortcomings identified during an election maximizes the value of election observation, and could prevent the same problems from recurring repeatedly in successive elections. 146. The 2003 Ministerial Council in Maastricht tasked the ODIHR with considering ways of improving the effectiveness of its assistance to participating States in following up recommendations made in ODIHR election observation reports and of informing the Permanent Council on progress made in fulfilling this task. In a similar vein, the Panel of Eminent Persons reported in 2005 that “ODIHR should be encouraged to pay more attention to post election follow-up through dialogue and practical cooperative support. In addition, after consultation with the states concerned, ODIHR should report to the Permanent Council on election follow-up.”96 At a 2005 meeting on elections, some States called for a more conscientious and systematic approach to ensuring follow-up.97 Specific ideas included requiring States to report to the PC six to nine months after an election on how they plan to implement recommendations and to outline a strategic plan with the PC and the ODIHR. Thus far, such designs for systematic and consistent follow-up have not been further elaborated in detail. 147. The ODIHR is currently reviewing ways to incorporate consistent follow-up efforts in its methodology. However, in order to encourage participating States to follow up on the ODIHR’s recommendations, the political body of the OSCE, the Permanent Council, is to 93  CiO’s Progress Report (Annex 2, VI(4)) to the Oslo Ministerial Declaration 1998. 94  Chapter III, Common Response, para. 25, note 61 of this report. 95  Decision No. 7, Election Commitments, p. 47. 96  Para 24.d, Common Purpose, note 61 of this report. 97  Cf. Final Report of the Supplementary Human Dimension Meeting on Challenges of Election Technologies and Procedures (Vienna, 21-22 April 2005), 12 July 1995, p. 64. Common Responsibility: Commitments and Implementation 47