c) Consultations with Civil Society Organizations Civil Society Organizations working on civil and political rights, child rights, rights of persons with disabilities, women’s rights, health sector, environment and climate change and media outlets including print and broadcasting media were consulted to obtain a better understanding of the human rights situation of the country from 2015 and verify the information provided by the state authorities on an annual basis (document in Annex 5). d) Consultations with state authorities A stakeholder questionnaire was developed to compile information for the 15 thematic areas. It is significant to note that the issues identified from the field visit, information obtained from consultations with civil society organizations, annual UPR follow-up document (see annex 3) and existing in-house monitoring data were considered in the formulation of the stakeholder questionnaire. The in-house monitoring data encompasses various internal reports (annual reports, assessment of compliance of national legislations with international human rights law, report to UN treaty bodies), and implementation status of concluding observations by treaty bodies (ICCPR, ICERD, CRC and CEDAW) and findings from field monitoring visits conducted from 2015 to 2019. Evaluation of the responses shared by the relevant state authorities were reviewed to outline a set of questions for the series of meetings planned with state authorities. Series of meetings conducted with state authorities facilitated a meaningful dialogue on the implementations of the UPR recommendations. e) Validation of the information The report was shared with executive, parliament and judiciary, and members of civil society to ensure participation. A time frame was given to 40 stakeholders to comment and HRCM incorporated all relevant comments. 4. Advantages The process assisted in identifying the most concerning human rights issues in the country from 2015 to 2019 and track the political will and strategic direction of the government in the implementation of the accepted recommendations of the state. The workshop on UPR conducted by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in collaboration with the UN Maldives Resident Coordinator’s Office and Attorney General’s Office contributed to the knowledge of the UPR process among monitoring staff and Vice President of HRCM. 5. Setbacks Following HRCM’s stakeholder submission to UPR in 2014, the Supreme Court of the Maldives initiated a suo-moto case against HRCM, with the allegation of providing false information on the conduct of Maldives judiciary. The Supreme Court of the Maldives declared the Commission’s submission unlawful and declared that HRCM must abide a 11-point guideline.