A/HRC/21/59 and Programme of Action and the outcome document of the Durban Review Conference did not limit the issue to procedural or substantive gaps. The importance of strengthening treaty bodies was noted and it appreciated the proposals put forward by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination to address procedural gaps. VI. Adoption of the report 78. The Chairperson-Rapporteur opened the 15th meeting, on 20 April, and announced that the draft of the report of the session had been circulated to participants. He invited them to consider the draft with a view to ensuring the accuracy of the session report and to make solely factual or technical revisions to it. 79. He also informed the meeting that, under his own responsibility, he had undertaken to prepare a Chair‘s conclusions and recommendations, which he had shared with regional coordinators the evening before and which he would introduce to the Committee as a whole. After this oral intervention on the document, copies would be made available to the meeting. The meeting was adjourned by the Chair, further to the request of delegations, to allow for continued consultations amongst them on an agreed concluding document for the session. 80. At the resumption of the 15th meeting, the Chairperson-Rapporteur read out his Chair‘s conclusions and recommendations, entitled ―Summary by the ChairpersonRapporteur: H.E. Mr. Minty, Permanent Representative of the Republic of South Africa‖ (see annex I of this report). 81. Liechtenstein pointed out that the Chairperson-Rapporteur‘s summary of the session was his responsibility and at his prerogative. The delegate stated that his understanding of the summary of the debates differed. He formally expressed his disagreement with paragraph 15 of the Chairperson-Rapporteur‘s summary, pointing out that the statement contained therein undermined the protection provided for victims of xenophobia under the framework of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. 82. The European Union also reiterated that the summary was that of the ChairpersonRapporteur and not that of the Ad Hoc Committee. The European Union disagreed with some of the Chairperson-Rapporteur‘s summary, particularly with regard to the existence of gaps. It emphasized that it had not been established in the session that there were substantive gaps in the Convention, in particular in relation to xenophobia, which required filling. It understood that the Chairperson-Rapporteur‘s document would be annexed to the report of the fourth session. 83. Senegal, on behalf of the African Group, took the floor and suggested a number of precisions and redrafting proposals to for the Chairperson-Rapporteur‘s summary. Pakistan, on behalf of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, supported the intervention of the Africa Group and expressed appreciation to the Chairperson-Rapporteur for sharing his thoughts, noting that the summary required further study. 84. The United States of America did not make detailed comments on the ChairpersonRapporteur‘s summary but stated that it understood that the document contained the personal observations of the Chairperson-Rapporteur. The delegate then made some general observations, reiterating that efforts or proposals to arrive at new definitions to replace or supplement those in the Convention were not only unnecessary, but dangerous. He recalled that with regard to violence and discrimination based on religion or belief, the United States had proposed international action in previous Ad Hoc Committee sessions and was supportive of moving ahead with the implementation of Human Rights Council resolution 14