A/HRC/21/59 of interpretations were being used. He stated that there was a need to have a common understanding of xenophobia, in accordance with the grounds in the Convention, the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action and the outcome document of the Durban Review Conference. He stressed that nationality should not be confused with xenophobia since even nationals of the same country were attacked. The delegate noted the need to address negative stereotyping and xenophobic speech. He emphasized the need to elaborate complementary standards on xenophobia. 35. The delegate of South Africa stated that there was a need for legal measures to address behaviour and protect victims. It was clear and known from the very beginning that there was no definition of xenophobia but that it was practised. She noted the positive role of the media and suggested that the role of the media be explored, perhaps in collaboration with the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations. She noted that the adopted optional protocols to some of the United Nations instruments, introducing complaints mechanisms, did not serve to undermine the mechanism or the protection offered. 36. The delegate of France stated that paragraph 199 of the Durban Programme of Action, which recommended that the former Commission on Human Rights prepare complementary international standards to strengthen and update international instruments against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance in all their aspects was the ground for engagement by his Government. He stated that France had adopted a narrow definition of fear or hatred against non-citizens and non-nationals, which was used in order to have a stronger criminal law. This approach complied perfectly with the provisions of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. He pointed out that in some cases the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination had used both the narrow and wide definitions. He questioned the need for such a definition, if articles 2, 4 and 6 of the Convention stated that victims were protected by law. He reiterated that none of the experts had stated that there was a gap in the international framework, but that improved implementation was needed. 37. The delegate of Switzerland pointed out the need to consider whether a definition would be useful or counterproductive for the victims. She said that the matrix on experts‘ definitions suggested by the delegate of Egypt might be useful, but it would only prove how difficult it was to find a definition. 38. The Chairperson-Rapporteur noted that there was a difference of opinion on the issues of gaps and definitions and he highlighted the need to look empirically into information, and to examine objectively the various issues involved. He noted that even after that was done, differing views could still remain. IV. Discussion on the topic of “Establishment, designation or maintaining of national mechanisms with competences to protect against and prevent all forms and manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance” 39. On 16 and 17 April, in accordance with its programme of work, the Ad Hoc Committee on the elaboration of complementary standards heard presentations from experts on the topic of ―Establishment, designation or maintaining of national mechanisms with competences to protect against and prevent all forms and manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance‖. At its 8th meeting, on 13 April, the Ad Hoc Committee heard two presentations on the topic of ―Establishment, designation or maintaining of national mechanisms with competences to protect against and prevent all 8