A/HRC/24/29 6. The role of the President of the Human Rights Council is described as ensuring that the Council proceeds with the appropriate level of dignity and respect in its work to promote and protect human rights, which implies that Members of the Council and all observers, including non-governmental organizations, must be able to contribute freely to the Council’s work. When incidents of harassment of civil society representatives are raised, the President reacts, including through public statements, meetings and exchanges of letters, with the delegations of the States concerned. Such actions are consistent with the outcome of the review of the Council2 and necessary to preserve its credibility. At the above-mentioned panel discussion, the former President expressed her satisfaction at the fact that the Council had reacted to unacceptable acts of reprisal or intimidation. In the view of the President, the Council should remain a place where all voices, even dissenting ones, may be heard, and it is the Council’s responsibility to ensure that all individuals participating in its meetings and cooperating with it are safe from intimidation and reprisals.3 At the end of the twenty-third session, the President emphasized that, as stressed by many delegations, any acts of intimidation or reprisal against individuals and groups who cooperate or have cooperated with the United Nations and its representatives were unacceptable and must end. Referring to the outcome of the review of the Council in 2011, he urged States to prevent and ensure adequate protection against such acts. 7. Special procedures have raised reprisals-related issues in many of their reports submitted to, and during interactive dialogues with, the Human Rights Council. During the above-mentioned panel discussion, the Chairman of the Coordination Committee of Special Procedures described some measures developed by special procedures, individually and jointly, to address reprisals. He suggested that any reprisal against a witness cooperating with a mandate holder should be treated as an attempt to undermine the mandate itself, and consequently called for a rapid and systematic response from States Members of the Council. The Chairman also stated that the Chairperson of the Coordination Committee should be able to intervene immediately and publicly in cases of intimidation or reprisal brought to his or her attention by a mandate holder. He also called for more systematic follow-up on cases raised in the communications and reports of special procedures. 8. With regard to action by human rights treaty bodies, in November 2012, the Committee against Torture designated two rapporteurs on reprisals. The Subcommittee on the Prevention of Torture continues to pay attention to the question of reprisals, in particular in the context of its field visits, and the prohibition of reprisals is systematically raised by the Subcommittee with relevant authorities (prior to and during visits, and as a follow-up to visits). At its sixteenth session, in February 2012, the Subcommittee decided to establish an ad hoc working group on the issue of reprisals, which is currently drafting a policy paper on the issue that will be published shortly. During the above-mentioned panel discussion , the Chairperson of the Committee against Torture emphasized the importance of preventing reprisals and of creating an environment in which everybody was able to enjoy and uphold human rights. 9. During the general debate under agenda item 5 (“Human rights bodies and mechanisms”) at the twenty-second session of the Human Rights Council, a group of 56 States, led by Hungary, issued a statement expressing appreciation for the strong stance against reprisals taken by the Secretary-General, the High Commissioner, successive Presidents of the Council and by human rights mechanisms. In the statement, the States highlighted the recommendations made during the above-mentioned panel discussion, and 2 3 4 See General Assembly resolution 65/281, annex. Ibid., paras 11-12.