Regarding examples of where the WHC has ignored recommendations of the Advisory Body. I knew I had seen it somewhere!
If you look at WHC-08/32.COM/9 ("Discussion of Outstanding Universal Value") at this linkhttp://whc.unesco.org/en/sessions/32COM/documents/
and then scroll through to Annex 2 which starts on the PDF page 37. There you will find a list of every inscription up to 2007 showing (where known/recorded) 3 columns
a. Criteria asked for by the State Party ("SP")
b. Criteria Recommended by the Advisory body ("AB")
c. Criteria inscribed (by the WHC)
Obviously any differences between the second and third columns highlight where the WHC didn't follow the Advisory Body recommendations.
Although it lists all inscriptions the Annex is in the ICOMOS part of the document and ICOMOS comments
"The criteria that ICOMOS has indicated in its written evaluation have been adopted by
the Committee in 96% of the cases. In 6% of the cases when ICOMOS had proposed nominations for deferral or referral back to State Party, the Committee has nevertheless decided to inscribe the property."
If you scroll on to the IUCN part of the document - Section 4.3 on page 75 lists all the occasions in the last 10 years where IUCN believe that the WHC didn't follow its recommendations. Look also at para 4.4 where IUCN says "I told you so..!!" re the Oryx Sanctuary.