A/HRC/21/59 way to modify the role of migrants in public discussions; giving a voice to migrants to learn from their perspective so that they are not just the subject of debate but active participants in the debate. IOM cooperated with UN Alliance of Civilizations (UNAOC) on a yearly award, Plural +, given to young migrants who produce videos sharing their integration and identity experiences as migrants in their host societies. 67. Senegal on behalf of the African Group asked for more information on migrant contributions to host societies. The delegate noted that the concept and definition of xenophobia needed further refining and that the IOM version had no legal weight. He agreed that the Migrant Workers Convention should be ratified and questioned the added value of the MWC in the context of fighting xenophobia. He asked how IOM was coordinating its activities with other international organizations, such as OHCHR. 68. Pakistan on behalf of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, agreed with Senegal‘s intervention that the IOM definition had no legal effect and queried how it was used for practical purposes. He asked about a monitoring mechanism to monitor xenophobia and whether IOM had any evidence concerning which part of world the situation of migrants was more serious. 69. Egypt questioned whether attitude was the crime or problem or whether it was acts of xenophobia as noted by previous speakers. He asked whether through their work xenophobia affected the human rights of refugees and asylum seekers. 70. Ms. Dufvenmark agreed that the IOM definition was a working definition which offered more of a guidance tool in order to understand what was being encountered and how it could be separated from discrimination and racism. It was not prescriptive and more of a legal definition was required. She agreed with an earlier EU intervention that at issue was not only the protection of migrants from State and nationals but between groups of migrants as well. She reiterated the human rights based approach and noted the apparent effects of xenophobia on migrants in respect of access to services such as housing and health care in that it had a limiting effect on migrants even where it was not an open, hostile, or direct case of xenophobia. 71. Ms. Aghazarm noted the economic and development features of migration and the significant remittances transferred to home countries. She indicated that IOM worked with HCR, OHCHR, UNAOC and NGOs on the many issues affecting migrants and as to measuring impact, she noted that the replication of IOM projects in other contexts illustrated their relevance. She stated that there was no global monitoring mechanism on the issue of xenophobia and migrants. 72. The United States of America welcomed the rights based approach to migrant issues taken by the presenters; noted that media and political leadership were absolutely vital players; and, that speaking out to counter xenophobia was useful. He asked whether IOM found their work hampered by any perceived gaps in the legal framework. 73. Ms. Dufvenmark stated that with respect to gaps, it was difficult to attribute the problem to a lack of instruments or to a lack of implementation; however, IOM was working within the present framework available. With respect to the question from the United States of America concerning whether more speech and advertising the benefits of migration was preferable to definitions or a code of conduct, she explained that IOM had no particular view on this but that it sought a more balanced view of migration. The issues should not be about scapegoating migrants but about the economy, health care, housing or whatever the real domestic issue or problem might be. 74. Mr. Miguel Hilario-Manënima of the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) gave a presentation at the 7th meeting of the session on 13 April entitled ―Going beyond window dressing – Xenophobia in Latin America: It‘s time to count the people of colour‖. 33