A/HRC/20/25 organizations that, despite their limited capacity and resources, actively engaged in the process. 14. The work under the mandate has always benefited from cross-fertilization among several human rights monitoring mechanisms. In preparing the present report, the Special Rapporteur consulted the information submitted to, and the findings of, the universal periodic review process and treaty bodies, as well as reports of special rapporteurs who visited the respective countries after her country missions. While Ecuador, Bangladesh, Zambia and Viet Nam were reviewed under the universal periodic review mechanism before the visits of the Special Rapporteur,6 in the case of Ireland the review took place after the visit of the Special Rapporteur; therefore, the State’s submission (A/HRC/WG.6/12/IRL/1) and the findings of the mechanism (A/HRC/19/9) were taken into account in the present report. 15. In addition, the present report takes into account the recommendations and constructive dialogue between the Government of Ecuador and the Human Rights Committee7 and the Committee on the Rights of the Child;8 Bangladesh and the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women;9 Zambia and the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women;10 Viet Nam and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination;11 and Ireland and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.12 The report also benefits from the conclusions and recommendations made by special rapporteurs who undertook subsequent missions to the countries concerned.13 16. Ideally any follow-up report should include a detailed assessment of developments relevant to recommendations in a systematized and chronological manner. The lack of information from some States, combined with the restricted capacity of special procedures as a result of limited human and financial resources, constrained the Special Rapporteur’s review of the impact of recommendations. Moreover, addressing the root causes of extreme poverty and social exclusion often necessitates long-term structural changes; thus, there are inherent difficulties when assessing follow-up across a comparatively short time frame. In addition, a major challenge in assessing progress is that in many countries official data regarding poverty and social exclusion is not collected at regular intervals. Given those limitations, and also constrained by strict limits on the length of special procedures’ reports, the present report does not cover the whole range of recommendations made to the countries concerned but assesses those recommendations where sufficient information was received from reliable sources. 17. Given the relatively short period of time that has elapsed since the completion of some of the visits, the Special Rapporteur has included initial steps taken by Governments that are in line with her recommendations. Particular attention is paid to practical steps 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 See A/HRC/8/20 and Corr. 1 (Ecuador), A/HRC/11/18 (Bangladesh), A/HRC/8/43 (Zambia) and A/HRC/12/11 (Viet Nam). CCPR/C/ECU/CO/5. CRC/C/ECU/CO/4. CEDAW/C/BGD/CO/7. CEDAW/C/ZMB/CO/5-6. CERD/C/VNM/CO/10-14. CERD/C/IRL/CO/3-4. For example, Ecuador: report of the Independent Expert on the effects of foreign debt and other related international financial obligations of States on the full enjoyment of all human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights (A/HRC/14/21/Add.1) and of the Working Group of experts on people of African descent (A/HRC/13/59); Zambia: report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences (A/HRC/17/26/Add.4). 5