interpretation of the obligations of States to prevent and eliminate harmful practices done to women and girls. General Recommendation No. 32 (2014) discusses "gender-related dimensions of refugee status, asylum, nationality and statelessness of women." Currently the committee is working on the General Recommendation Trafficking in women and girls in the context of global migration. Changes in the committee For the first ten years the committee operated significantly differently from now. The only form of censure given to the committee by the CEDAW was their general recommendations and concluding comments following a report. Due to the emergence of the Global Campaign for Women's Human Rights in 1991 more attention was given to the CEDAW, reviving the committee. The committee made changes to the CEDAW that allowed it to meet more than once a year, and have taken advantage of this by meeting at least twice a year since 1997. The committee originally only met for two weeks in its annual sessions, but that has now been changed to meeting multiple times a year in eighteen-day sessions. CEDAW also gained new complaint and inquiry proceedings allowing the committee to initiate inquiry proceedings if it believes a state is in severe violation of the articles of the CEDAW. Recommendations for improvement Despite evolving since the committee was first formed, members believe there are ways in which the committee can better meet the goals outlined in the CEDAW. One of the committee's main goals moving forward is expanding its information base, allowing it to more effectively deal with issues that arise concerning the CEDAW. The committee is authorized in Article 22 of the CEDAW to invite specialized UN agencies such as the United Nations Development Programme to deliver reports discussing women's rights issues in the state under discussion. Another method for gathering information is requesting reports from non-governmental organizations dealing with discrimination against women that are operating in the country under discussion. This is recommended to insure that the committee is receiving the full, unbiased picture of affairs within the reporting state. Another recommendation for improvement involves interpreting and clarifying the language used in the CEDAW in order to make the document as useful as it can be. A third improvement that has been suggested is improving the efficiency of the committee. Due to the backlog in reports faced by the committee it has been suggested that the government officials who prepare reports presented