Monitoring implementation and compliance 25 on draft conclusions with both the focus State for the regime and any other States to be named in their reports, and allow sufficient time in reporting timelines for such States to forward additional information relevant to a particular conclusion. In the event the State concerned continues to dispute the conclusion, the State’s position should be included in the report itself. Such procedures would not only provide a form of “due process”, but have the potential to improve the quality of engagement by Member States in the process, including the quality of information provided. B. Sanctions committees Once an expert group has submitted its conclusions and recommendations to the relevant committee, the responsibility for taking action on the report, including any action to strengthen, facilitate or improve implementation by Member States, or in response to alleged non-compliance with the measures, rests with the sanctions committee. This transition from the expert group to the committee represents a transition from the technical (information gathering, investigation) to the political (engagement with Member States, action) dimension of implementation and compliance monitoring. There are indications that this transition does not always work as effectively as the system needs. The HLR heard of perceptions among some Member States that committees did not provide affected Member States with a sufficient hearing in relation to controversial findings in the reports. By not taking responsibility for engaging on the content of the report, the committees were effectively delegating their responsibility for implementation and compliance monitoring entirely to the expert groups. Interestingly, this perception was reflected among the expert groups themselves, who reported that, where the committee did not properly engage Member States who disputed the expert group’s conclusions, the Member States instead sought redress directly from the expert group, usually in correspondence addressed to the Council. The experts highlighted the need for the committees they supported to provide political support in turn to the expert groups by taking responsibility for reconciling the affected State’s political issues with the report. Without this political support, the experts are left in a difficult position: having a clear resolution mandate to produce detailed reports on implementation and compliance issues, to which Council members appeared to give no political weight.