A/HRC/21/59 He stated that he defined xenophobia as a societal cancer that emanates from the core of the individual being (mind and emotions) which was fed in the families, manifested in societal relations, cultural views, economic policies and political power relations. He also noted that xenophobia concerned conscious and subconscious attitudes and rejection of ―the other‖ that perpetuates all types of violence, inequality, exclusion and poverty. He stressed that the sociological reality of xenophobia warranted the need to have a mechanism towards preventing, protecting and eliminating it from the core, which would take a long transformational process. 75. With regard to the effects and implications of xenophobia in Latin America, Mr. Hilario-Manënima pointed out that there was a lack of political will to thoroughly count indigenous and Afro-descendants in statistics or measurements of social development. There was very little disaggregated information on their socio-economic conditions and official statistics make them invisible. 76. He emphasized that xenophobia affected social, economic issues and policies. Policy makers locally, regionally and nationally, in many cases, based on their dislike of the ―other‖ ignored them in budget allocations, the most vulnerable coincidently—were persons of colour. It was argued that multicultural and inter-cultural transformation must be carried out through the whole educational process. There was also a need for leadership development opportunities for indigenous and Afro descendent communities at both professional and educational levels. He pointed out that no international or national law would eliminate xenophobia since it was ingrained in the being. Change began inside of people by unmasking their fears and talking about them, in the families where new values and appreciation of the other are instilled, and in communities where collectively people embrace and celebrate cultural differences. This process would complement legislation and mechanisms established to prevent and protect people from xenophobia. 77. The representative of the EU pointed out that there was no reference to the issue of nationality in Mr. Hilario-Manënima‘s presentation and that his approach was based on the ―foreignness‖ and ―otherness‖. The delegate noted that his emphasis on elements that would promote tolerance, social inclusion, more understanding was consistent with the comprehensive approach of the EU. She asked how he viewed the respective role of legislation and public policies for the promotion of social inclusion. 78. The delegate of Liechtenstein asked if it could be helpful to have specialized mechanisms at national and regional levels to initiate the work on education and data collection, and whether there was a need to improve the international framework in respect of protecting children from xenophobia, for example through the Convention on the Rights of the Child. 79. With regard to Mr. Hilario-Manënima‘s point that xenophobia spreads like an epidemic, the representative of Pakistan, on behalf of the OIC, asked how this epidemic could be addressed by governments and the civil society. He noted that nationals of their own countries were targeted and the psychological targeting resulted in exclusion. The delegate asked how the issue of xenophobia was addressed in international law and if there were gaps, how they should be addressed. 80. In his reply, Mr. Hilario-Manënima stated that legislation alone would not eliminate and curb xenophobia. He noted that having an international framework was the first step to bridge the gap; there was a need to strengthen the international law and complement it with national mechanisms. Implementation at local, national level and regional level was also important. With regard to education and data gathering he pointed out that there was a need for legal framework and mechanisms, such as national statistical centres in order to understand groups of people and their numbers, in order to design public policies. 34