REPORTING TO THE UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS TREATY BODIES TRAINING GUIDE: Part I — Manual 2. National Mechanisms for Reporting and Follow-up This Chapter provides an overview of the governmental structures States have put in place to engage with the United Nations human rights mechanisms and to address the ever-growing, multiple and varied reporting and implementation requirements adequately. It discusses how national mechanisms for reporting and follow-up (NMRF) have proved very useful in coordinating reporting to Treaty Bodies by many State parties. Based on the experience of these State parties, the section describes NMRF’s main functions, types and capacities, in respect of engagement, coordination, consultation and information management. It explains the benefits of NMRFs and provides some concrete, country-specific examples of these mechanisms. 2.1. Introduction The developments in the UN human rights system, including the ongoing increase in ratifications, with the consequent rise in the numbers of both State reports and individual complaints, as well as the growing number of Human Rights Council Special Procedure mandates and related country invitations, is a positive development for human rights protection but it also has led to increasingly competing requirements for States. Basically States have to implement their treaty obligations, they need to cooperate with and periodically report to the UN human rights mechanisms (and also, when applicable, regional mechanisms) on related implementation, and track and follow-up on the many recommendations made by these mechanisms designed to facilitate such implementation. To address these requirements a rapidly increasing number of States have adopted a comprehensive, efficient approach to reporting and follow-up, by setting up a national mechanism for reporting and follow-up, referred to by the abbreviation “NMRF”.22 Although such national mechanisms are not entirely new, both States and the United Nations have in recent years put more focus on establishing and reinforcing such mechanisms, especially following the High Commissioner’s 2012 report on strengthening the United Nations human rights Treaty Body system (A/66/860), in which their establishment was recommended. Moreover, the General Assembly, in its Resolution 68/268 on strengthening and enhancing the effective functioning of the human rights Treaty Body system, recognizes that some State parties consider that they would benefit from improved coordination of reporting at national level. Treaty Bodies regularly emphasize that regular and timely reporting by State parties is crucial and routinely highlight the lack of coordination and collaboration among government agencies in data collection and their inadequate technical capabilities for data collection, analysis and reporting.23 They also recommend that State parties ensure that an efficient division of responsibilities and reporting is guaranteed through the establishment of effective coordination and reporting mechanisms.24 States have also repeatedly committed themselves to establishing such mechanisms in the context of the Human Rights Council’s UPR. In June 2016 OHCHR launched a Practical Guide and accompanying Study on State Engagement with International Human Rights Mechanisms, seeking to identify key ingredients for a well22 It was also previously called standing national reporting and coordination mechanisms or Inter-ministerial Committees/Mechanisms on Human Rights. 18 23 See, for instance, CRC/C/HUN/CO/2, para. 68, CRC/C/15/Add.246, para. 75, and CRC/C/BGD/CO/4, para. 24. 24 See, for instance, CEDAW/C/DEN/CO/7, para. 15.