The second stage is the so-called “interactive dialogue” of the UPR Working Group. While NPMs are not permitted to make statements during this stage of the UPR, if they are able to attend they can nevertheless have an impact by meeting bilaterally with the different state delegations, holding side events and advocating for the inclusion of their recommendations in the UPR report. The third stage is the UPR report and recommendations. The report includes: a summary of the proceedings, conclusions, recommendations made by individual States in the interactive dialogue, and voluntary commitments made by the State under review.3 Because many states would like to make recommendations that are then included in this report, but lack detailed, expert knowledge of the country situation, they often rely on outside expertise when formulating their recommendations. NPMs can thus have a useful impact by providing states with high quality information and suggested recommendations – which are then often included in the UPR report. The fourth stage is the HRC plenary debate and adoption of the report. NPMs that are also “A status” NHRIs are given a particular slot to speak, immediately after the state under review. Other institutions can also intervene at the end of the session, although they share a timeslot with NGOs and other NHRIs, so may not always be guaranteed time to speak, depending on the timing and how many others have signed up. Finally, as with many other international and regional processes, NPMs may find the UPR follow-up phase useful in achieving the change they wish to see in detention. This might involve publicising recommendations that relate to detention or their thematic priorities, monitoring steps that the state takes towards implementation, and referencing UPR recommendations in their own reports and advocacy or communications. 3. HRC Resolution 5/1; Part I.E.; para. 26. 44 NPM Toolkit for Asia Pacific NPM-NHRIs