A/HRC/21/59 and chances); and it also allowed for the production of opinions and recommendations in respect of its own opinions, domestic laws and legalisation and general comments opinions and issues. 104. The delegate of the European Union stated that it would be very useful to have a map of listing of Status A accredited national human rights commissions as well as specialized bodies or mechanisms and inquired whether there was a list of specific recommendations which allowed for the tackling issues at hand. She asked about a regional review of actions undertaken by specialized bodies in respect of racial discrimination and asked whether the pursuit of international networking by these mechanisms would be useful in order to ensure coverage and exchange best practices. 105. Senegal on behalf of the African Group asked about the effectiveness of these bodies and whether procedures were in place to ensure that cases were in fact taken up and followed through since it was results that counted. He asked about the timeframe for these cases and whether there was limitation on timeframes. He also questioned the legal status of these institutions and how they maintained their legal integrity and independence from the Government and the court system. 106. Mr. Charlier replied that it was not a simple task to suggest basic guidelines for all countries in the world. Regarding evaluation, this depended to a great extent on to whom the body is ultimately accountable. In principle, these bodies should be answerable to parliaments and their committees and not a government or executive branch. Thus far, most evaluation had been rather informal and the test was the level of credibility of the mechanism, in the eyes of the special procedures, the international coordinating committee for national institutions, regional bodies and the general population. 107. Denmark stated that according to a study by the European Fundamental Human Rights Agency, national legislation and procedures to address and combat discrimination are not adequately known by members of racial minorities. The delegate how best to ensure that information about these mechanisms were disseminated to the whole society including to minorities, groups etc. 108. The delegate from Cuba agreed that there was no single model to address racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance since these must be based on national characteristics, culture and the values of the given country. While generally in support of guidelines, it is the country which must select the model most appropriate to its national context. 109. Pakistan on behalf of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation asked how national mechanisms could support victims who may be temporarily in a region and fall victim to racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. 110. South Africa inquired about how mechanisms could practically ensure access and remedies to victims and asked what happened in a case where the national mechanism is found in a State which is not a party to the ICERD or has made reservations to the ICERD and does recognize its competency, especially in light of practicalities on the ground. 111. The United States of America asked Mr. Charlier if he was aware of an evaluation or study on which mechanisms or combination of mechanisms were performing well. In reference to the comment about ICERD not covering gaps, the delegate inquired whether he had encountered any practical gaps in his work. 112. China asked how it was possible to guarantee the impartiality of national mechanisms. In addition, from a legal point of view, how could migrants from other countries be protected in the host country? Due to economic regions and discrimination, how could mechanisms entirely comprised of the local population be free from the political atmosphere in a country and provide protection to foreigners or ―aliens‖? 38