A/HRC/21/59 motivation. He added that in December 2011 in Washington had been a follow-up meeting to Human Rights Council resolution 16/18 and that the issue of training exercises for law enforcement officials, including in the context of combating terrorism had been addressed. He noted that good law enforcement and good human rights were not mutually exclusive. 39. The delegate from Egypt stated that the current legal regime was not sufficient for contemporary challenges such as xenophobia. He underlined that the phenomena still persisted despite the comprehensive overview regarding mandate-holders actions regarding xenophobia highlighted by Mr. Nowosad. He stated that the mandate-holders recommendation on national laws implied the need for a protocol or complementary international standard. 40. Pakistan, on behalf of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, questioned how a mapping exercise by special procedures and mandate-holder would be of assistance if there was no definition of xenophobia and why other mandates including especially the Intergovernmental Working Group on the Effective Implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action was not reflected in the presentation. South Africa agreed that information on the work of the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent was relevant for consideration, especially with regard to inter-sectionality of people of African descent and xenophobic violence. 41. Mr. Nowosad replied that the concentric or overlapping nature of the issues might signify that greater follow-up work and coordination amongst mandates was required. He agreed that his paper and presentation were not exhaustive with respect to all the mandates and that a future version could certainly be made so. He noted that the question of gaps was an intergovernmental issue; but that as practitioners the mandates appeared to be doing well with what they had at their disposal. He agreed that a proper ―mapping‖ on all the mandate-holders and xenophobia could be brought into one updated document. 42. At the 5th meeting, on 12 April, Mr. Duncan Breen, Senior Associate at the nongovernmental organization Human Rights First, gave a presentation entitled ―Combating Xenophobic Violence‖. He stated that violence that specifically targets people in whole or part because of their actual or perceived ―foreign-ness‖ is commonly referred to as xenophobic violence. Although xenophobic violence most commonly targets refugees, stateless persons and migrants, it can also target citizens who are seen as being ―foreign‖ to the area or are perceived to be from another country. 43. Xenophobic violence is one common form of bias-motivated violence, also known as a ―hate crime‖ that could be difficult to distinguish from, and sometimes overlaps with, other forms. For example, some cases of xenophobic violence may also be related to other forms of discrimination such as racism, religious intolerance or persecution on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. 44. Mr. Breen highlighted that the causes of xenophobic violence could be complex in that they could often be closely related to other social, economic and political challenges within a country. For example, xenophobic violence is likely to take place in a context where there is a general negative attitude towards foreign nationals, but it should be noted that negative attitudes towards foreign nationals do not always result in violence. 45. With regard to shortcomings in State responses he noted that xenophobic violence, like other forms of bias-motivated violence, tended to be under-reported as very often victims were afraid or unwilling to approach police or other government officials for help. Lengthy and costly procedures also contributed to under-reporting and as a result, perpetrators developed a sense of impunity. Most States had yet to develop monitoring mechanisms. Non-governmental organizations and NHRIs could also play an important role in data collection. 29