A/HRC/21/59 46. He noted that although holistic efforts were necessary to address xenophobia more broadly, there are a number of specific steps that States can take to tackle xenophobic violence. In this regard, Human Rights First has developed the Ten-Point Plan for Combating Hate Crimes which includes the following: 1) senior leaders should speak out against xenophobic violence and should condemn xenophobic attacks; 2) Governments should consider developing domestic laws that either establish offences or provide enhanced penalties for xenophobic and other forms of bias-motivated crimes; 3) Governments should strengthen police and justice responses to xenophobic violence; 4) States should develop effective mechanisms to monitor and report on xenophobic violence; and, 5) Government should reach out and build links with communities affected by xenophobic violence. 47. The delegate of Greece stated that in the additional background paper of Human Rights First entitled ―Combating Xenophobic Violence: a Framework for Action‖ there appeared to be a ―creeping tendency‖ to categorize States as ―xenophobic‖ on the basis of general comments, individual cases and incidents. It was a worrisome trend to profile countries as xenophobic and that there is xenophobic violence there, especially since Mr. Breen stated that it was difficult to disentangle xenophobia from other biases. He noted that the term ―bias-motivated‖ violence was not used at the international level. 48. The European Union noted the emphasis on the issue of monitoring mechanisms and data collection, emphasizing that a country with the very existence of a monitoring system or an improved monitoring system would appear more xenophobic compared to those which did not have such a system, making it difficult to assess country situations objectively. She asked whether existing laws were sufficient to combat xenophobia. 49. Senegal on behalf of the African Group stressed that the framework for action paper included references to concepts which are not defined and agreed to at the international level, raising controversy. A great number of paragraphs in the document were not linked to the issue of xenophobia and that the focus should remain on xenophobia as mandated to the Ad Hoc Committee in Human Rights Council decision 3/103. 50. In his replies, Mr. Breen explained that the information about countries included in Appendix I of the Framework for Action paper provided examples and was not intended to be an exhaustive list. With regard to legislation, he noted that it was better to use the existing legal standards and focus efforts on implementation; however, he recommended a more holistic approach. 51. Ireland stated that it concurred with the comprehensive approach suggested by Mr. Breen, adding that police training could positively impact xenophobic violence. He asked how such practices could be shared, in particular with regard to police trainings. 52. Egypt stated that both the presentation and the framework for action background paper were not in accordance with the mandate of the Ad Hoc Committee and what had been agreed at the third session. He noted that new terms had been included and there was no reference to international standards, emphasizing that good practices were not substitutes for the lack of legal standards. He pointed out the selectivity and accuracy of country examples in Appendix I of the Framework for Action paper. He underlined that the statement that Egypt does not have official data collection on several issues, was incorrect. He pointed out that there was strong cooperation with the UN Special Rapporteur on trafficking, in particular with regard to data collection. 53. The delegate from Italy said that the divergence of opinion in the room signified the complex nature of xenophobia. With regard to the Framework for Action paper, he urged caution with respect to the annex of countries as there was a risk of oversimplifying the situation. It was also very important to include information on responses by political leadership which should come at the highest political level. He added that generally, a 30