A/HRC/21/59 such procedures in place. This proposal was also in line with the ongoing process for harmonization of treaty monitoring bodies. 45. Mr. Avtonomov stated that a second procedure called evaluation visits/follow-up visits would be very helpful both with regard to concluding observations that had already been made but also in a case where a periodic report was lacking. An expert from the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, who would be the country rapporteur for the State in question, could be charged with carrying out the suggested follow-up visit, which would also be helpful to the preparation of periodic reports. 46. The delegate of Senegal, on behalf of the African group, said that Mr. Thornberry had also stated that there were no shortcomings in the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which was contrary to the opinion of the African Group. He emphasized again the issue of legal insecurity and the fact that xenophobia was not within the Convention, and suggested that perhaps the phenomenon of migration of people was not well known at the time of the adoption of the Convention. He emphasized that many years had passed since the adoption of the Convention and it was worth reconsidering. The phenomenon of xenophobia was much more visible today. He asked for a more substantive explanation of the suggested inquiry procedure, stating that early warning and urgent procedures already existed. He noted the role of the Security Council with regard to peacekeeping and security and also highlighted the competencies of the International Criminal Court. In this regard he queried whether there was a possible duplication of efforts. 47. The representative of the United States of America highlighted that it was not only unnecessary to change the definition of racial discrimination in the Convention but it was also dangerous to do so, as understood from Mr. Avtonomov‘s presentation. He pointed out that it had been said several times that xenophobia was a new phenomenon, which was not correct – xenophobia might be a new word to describe an old problem, but it had been present for a long time. With regard to the suggested new procedures he asked how the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination would avoid duplication of activities carried out by the Human Rights Council or OHCHR. He also asked about the costs associated with the proposed new procedures. 48. The delegate of the European Union emphasized that it was extremely important to implement the existing standards and procedures. With regard to procedures, the delegate highlighted the need to make optimal use of those existing, in terms of compliance with reporting procedures and follow-up to the concluding observations/recommendations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. The delegate asked for Mr. Avtonomov‘s view on how this could be done. The delegate also asked about what criteria could trigger the suggested evaluation visit: would this be decided by the Committee or carried out at the request of the country? 49. With regard to the value added of the proposed inquiry procedure, Mr. Avtonomov noted that in this way the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination would be able to make preventive recommendations. The country visits were to collect information. The fact that an enquiry was taking place meant that there was a possibility for violation. There was no duplication with the work of the Security Council or the International Criminal Court. He explained that there were a limited number of individual complaints submitted to the Committee. He suggested that more awareness-raising on this proposal was needed. 50. Brazil asked how gaps could be addressed in the context of the ongoing process for enhancement of treaty monitoring bodies. 51. The delegate of Cuba emphasized that his Government could not agree with the suggested procedures and comments made, noting that many of these proposals were not 10