A/HRC/42/30 International Service for Human Rights, with Amnesty International and the NGO network on United Nations treaty bodies, organized a workshop in December 2018 in Geneva. In April 2019, the treaty bodies launched a common web page on reprisals12 and, in June 2019, the Chairs took stock of good practices in a dialogue with the Assistant SecretaryGeneral.13 13. The special procedures of the Human Rights Council addressed reprisals in a range of communications, public statements, press releases, reports and meetings.14 They stressed the need to secure a complete record of cases for a comprehensive assessment of trends, and appointed a new focal point on reprisals.15 III. Policy developments and good practices 14. During the interactive dialogue on the 2018 report (A/HRC/39/41), some Member States and civil society organizations suggested that the United Nations collect information on good practices to address and prevent reprisals. In February 2019, OHCHR issued a questionnaire16 and compiled submissions. 15. At the international level, States17 highlighted support for the work of the Human Rights Council, including the universal periodic review, and for the Assistant SecretaryGeneral to facilitate the participation of civil society. Several current members had committed to firmly oppose reprisals, strengthen the protection of civil society and promote its participation in the Council.18 16. Regarding the safety and security of individuals, States referred to financial support to NGO funds, guidelines for the protection of defenders, and diplomatic interventions. Examples included the European Union Guidelines on Human Rights Defenders and emergency aid for those at risk.19 17. At the national level, States highlighted strong legal frameworks that made the participation of civil society a national priority, along with the examination of reported incidents, as good practices. Members of civil society pointed to normative frameworks that were explicit about the right to access, communicate and cooperate with regional and international bodies. Some States had included provisions or enacted specific laws guaranteeing recourse to international forums.20 18. For example, in Ethiopia, recent legislative developments have been reported related to reforms which could enable civil society engagement with the United Nations on human rights. On 17 August 2018, the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association noted the nascent reforms of legislation on freedom of 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 4 https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/Pages/Reprisal.aspx. HRI/MC/2019/2 and https://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/AnnualMeeting/Pages/ MeetingChairpersons.aspx. https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/SP/HRC40_ChairItem5_13_March2019.docx; see also A/73/215, paras. 54–58; A/HRC/40/60, paras. 48–51 and 109 (b); and A/HRC/38/34, para. 51. Mr. José Guevara Bermúdez, Chair-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (see A/HRC/40/38, sects. IV and V.B.2). https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Reprisals/Pages/GoodPractices.aspx. Responses within the deadline were received from the following States: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Hungary, Ireland, Mauritius, Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia, Switzerland, Thailand, Tunisia, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of America. Afghanistan (see A/72/377, annex, para. 20 (i)); Angola (see A/72/79, annex, para. 10 (b)); Argentina (see A/73/387, annex, para. 34); Australia (see A/72/212, annex, para. 15); Austria (see A/73/339, annex, para. 8); Czechia (see A/73/82, annex, p. 2); Denmark (see A/73/130, annex, para. 8); Iceland (see A/72/923, annex, para. 18); United Kingdom (see A/71/572, annex, para. 14); and Uruguay (see A/73/318, annex, para. 4). https://eeas.europa.eu/headquarters/headquarters-homepage_en/3958/EU%20Guidelines% 20on%20Human%20Rights%20Defenders. https://www.ishr.ch/sites/default/files/files/final_good_practice_reprisals_submission_ to_2019_sg_report_rev.pdf.