A/HRC/21/59 68. The delegate of the United States of America added that the Committee had yet to hear a concrete case or situation where the lack of a definition limited the capacity response of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination to consider the issue or where a national mechanism had been unable to address an issue due to a substantive gap in international law. 69. South Africa stressed that the topic of national mechanisms was cross-cutting and noted their importance in enforcing implementation at the national level. The delegate recalled that while these mechanisms were national, the Paris Principles had been elaborated and endorsed at the level of the General Assembly. With regard to the ―narrow‖ and ―wide‖ interpretations of xenophobia, there was indeed an inconsistency which suggested that methodologically it would be important to rule out what xenophobia was not. 70. Tunisia underscored the importance of political leaders and highlighted a role to be played by the International Parliamentary Union (IPU). The delegate noted that the great number of States‘ reservations to article 4 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination was a significant obstacle to effective implementation. 71. During this meeting, there was also a general discussion and exchange of views on the topic of ―Procedural Gaps with regard to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.‖ 72. The delegate of Switzerland (on behalf of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Japan, Mexico, Republic of Korea and Uruguay) underscored the continued relevance of the Convention and its monitoring procedures, adding that Mr. Avtonomov had demonstrated the concrete impact of addressing its procedural gaps. With respect to the topic of xenophobia, it stated that further discussion and consideration were required. 73. Liechtenstein commented on the proposal to establish an inquiry and an on-site evaluation procedure, emphasizing that they were purely intended as procedural instruments and that no new substantive ground or rights would be created. It was worthwhile considering an evaluation procedure which allowed the Committee‘s expert to look at the national situation. 74. Senegal, on behalf of the African Group, stated that with regard to the evaluation (submission of reports) procedure, it would be useful to consider the reason for the delay in the submission of States reports and the value-added of the follow-up visits would also have to be considered given that there were other relevant missions, including those of mandate-holders. 75. Cuba stated that the mandate of the Committee was to elaborate complementary standards, not procedures. It stated that the Committee‘s mechanisms and procedures were sufficient and that the Committee had difficulty managing its current workload. 76. South Africa disagreed with the argument of some delegations that focusing on a narrow or wide interpretation of xenophobia was counterproductive and with the contention that such a consideration might undermine the Committee‘s decisions and gains already made. A new definition did not pose a risk, since it was counterintuitive for Member States to agree to a standard which would undermine previous decisions or standards. Egypt agreed with South Africa and with the intervention of Senegal on behalf of the African Group, that the Committee was tasked to look at substantive gaps and stated that a discussion of procedural gaps was out of context. 77. France stated that the topic of national mechanisms should still be on the table for future discussion, acknowledging that there were different interpretations amongst Committee members. The delegate recalled that paragraph 199 of the Durban Declaration 13