A/HRC/21/59 30. Xenophobia had been addressed from various aspects by several mandate holders whether in the framework of their thematic and country visits reports, communications sent to Governments or conferences. He referred to the work of Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance; the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants; the Independent Expert on minority issues; the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief; the Special Rapporteur on the right to education; the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism; the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing; and, the Working Group on arbitrary detention. 31. In this context the mandate-holders have highlighted important concerns with regard to the manifestations of xenophobia, in particular on some specific groups of individuals. There appeared to be a convergence of views on these issues by the various mandateholders. 32. Mr. Nowosad concluded by illustrating a few of the key recommendations made by mandate holders, including that States, inter alia: firmly condemn any racist or xenophobic action or discourse, including by political parties; introduce in their criminal law a provision according to which committing an offence with racist or xenophobic motivations or aims constitutes an aggravating circumstance allowing for enhanced penalties; collect ethnically disaggregated data on racist and xenophobic crimes and improve the quality of such data-collection systems; and establish appropriate institutions and adopt legislation to punish those who discriminated, incited or perpetrated acts of violence against foreigners or members of minorities. 33. The overview of the work of special procedures mandates holders in relation to xenophobic acts demonstrated that there has yet to be a comprehensive, clear overview of that which had arisen in relation to xenophobia and also positive measures taken to combat it. 34. The European Union remarked that there was no definition of xenophobia in the overview of mandate-holders work, and queried why the mandate holders had focussed on prevention. 35. The delegate of Greece noted that each mandate holder had a different perspective and approach and that there appeared to be several overlapping concentric conceptual circles with regard to xenophobia including intolerance, hate speech, racism and racial discrimination. 36. Senegal, on behalf of the African Group, noted the variety of mandate-holders addressing xenophobia - albeit some of them doing so only tangentially - and queried why the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent was not included in the overview. With regard to mandate-holders recommendation on legislation addressing racist/xenophobic discourse, he questioned how this could be undertaken given that there was no definition of xenophobia. He also asked about any evaluation of the work and impact of the mandate-holders on issues of xenophobia and follow-up actions. Senegal added that it would be worthwhile to undertake an assessment of special procedures and treaty bodies with regard to xenophobia and how they might work together. 37. Mr Nowosad stated that the mandate-holders appeared to deal with issues of xenophobia in reference to violations of individual rights in international law. He noted the preventive focus of their work and asked whether norms and standards were sufficient. He noted the question on the protective gap and he highlighted the critical role played by national institutions in fighting xenophobia. 38. The delegate from the United States of America noted that focussing on violations of the rights of individuals avoided the difficult issue of proving psychological harm and 28