A/HRC/34/53 8. The mandate holders also sent 41 communications concerning the situation of Roma around the world. Eight communications raised concerns about draft or existing pieces of legislation, while four communications concerned the rights of indigenous peoples (who sometimes also qualified as ethnic or religious minorities). 9. The mandate holder has acted on a wide variety of information originating from various sources. While data are not available for the entirety of the communications sent during the period under review (information regarding the source of the communication in 31 cases is missing from the database of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights), it is still evident that the largest group by far that sent information was international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) (102 cases, 44 per cent), the second being domestic NGOs (44 cases, 18 per cent). Next were international organizations (26 cases, 10 per cent), regional NGOs (12 cases, 5 per cent); the Special Rapporteur herself (7 cases, 3 per cent) and individuals (6 cases, 2.5 per cent). Information was also received from academia, political parties, government agencies, the media, law firms, religious organizations and other institutions. 10. From among the international NGO sources, Amnesty International stands out as having provided the information most often used in communications sent (44 out of 99, 44.4 per cent), with the Baha’i International Community in second place (10 out of 99, 10 per cent). Other international NGO sources whose information was frequently used included Front Line (5 out of 99), the European Roma Rights Centre (5 out of 99), Minority Rights Group International (2) and the Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (2). Therefore, international NGOs specialized in minority protection issues accounted for only a small fraction of source information acted on by the Special Rapporteur: 9 cases out of 99, or 9 per cent).a 11. There were also a relatively small number of cases originating from academia and, in the case of religious minorities, from religious organizations or churches. National human rights institutions were completely absent from among the sources whose information the mandate holders could have acted upon. 12. In terms of the different types of replies, out of the 239 communications sent by the two mandate holders, 109 were not answered before the cut-off date. There were 118 substantive replies from Governments, varying in their content but addressing the human rights violations brought to their attention. Some included a very detailed description of the broader domestic legal environment and the laws relevant to the case, while others provided only technical details of the case without describing the broader context. Some were more substantive legally, while others provided more in terms of the technical, practical details of the case. 13. In 12 cases, the Special Rapporteur received only an acknowledgement of receipt, and in some cases reassurances that the concerns would be brought to the attention of relevant authorities of the country concerned. What is particularly worrying in these cases is that none of them were followed up by a substantive answer later on. a In the case of the mandate on Minority Issues, these included the European Roma Rights Centre; the Roma Virtual Network; Minority Rights Group International; and the International Dalit Solidarity Network (IDSN). 24