A/HRC/21/59 size fits all‖ as the standards, practices and functions have very specific cultural and historical context. In response to questions: How fast should we respond? What tools do we have? How independent should we be? Each mechanism or body must learn from the standards to set their very own. 120. Greece asked whether the structure or type of institution impacted on the outcomes. The EU asked what in his view worked in terms of standards and referred to the usefulness of regional networking. 121. Mr. DeWitte replied to questions that there were many different names, structures and types of equality bodies and explained that States should take into account what existed in the their local context. The Paris Principles gave some indications as to independence and the issue of checks and balances. With respect to a question from Senegal about when negotiation was feasible or advisable, he identified five elements which must be satisfied: (i) the facts must be acknowledged; (ii) the blame or responsibility must be accepted; (iii) an apology must be given; (iv) a future occurrence must be precluded; and, (v) the appropriate redress must be given. 122. The 11th meeting was opened on 17 April by the Chairperson- Rapporteur who offered his apologies and announced that he would not be able to chair that morning‘s session due to pressing commitments. Following his welcome and introduction of Mr. Bucio-Mujicia, President of the Mexican National Council for Prevention of Discrimination (CONAPRED), he informed that Mr. Yannick Minsier of the Permanent Mission of Belgium had kindly agreed to chair the meeting in his absence. Mr. Minsier then invited Mr. Bucio-Mujica to make his presentation on national mechanisms against discrimination, with particular emphasis on his organization CONAPRED. 123. Mr. Bucio-Mujica stated that, established in 2003, CONAPRED was a specialized agency pursuant to the federal law on the prevention and elimination of discrimination and it was mandated to combat and prevent any distinction or exclusion based on ethnic or national origin, sex, age, disability and a wide range of other grounds, and to ensure to equal opportunities for people. He noted that there was also a National Commission on Human Rights which had been created prior to CONAPRED, which was also an autonomous commission. 124. He elaborated on CONAPRED‘s eight principal functions: (1) to design tools and prepare studies in order to measure discrimination, understand its characteristics and impact; (2) to measure and suggest programmes and activities for the prevention of discrimination in public and private institutions; (3) to undertake legal studies at the national level to promote the adoption or harmonization of legislation, in accordance with international treaties; (4) to disseminate content to prevent discrimination in the media; (5) to defend individual cases of discrimination committed by individuals or federal authorities (the defence model); (6) to work in coordination with public, federal, local and municipal institutions, as well as with social and private individuals and organizations; (7) to disseminate the commitments undertaken by the Mexican government at the international level and promote compliance with them; and (8) to promote international cooperation in the fight against discrimination, including through networks and international coordination mechanisms. 125. He then outlined some of the advantages of institutions like CONAPRED including: the fact that its coverage of multi-dimensional issues strengthened its capacity to act in terms of its broader approach and the interdependence of rights. There was also a better capacity to defend individual cases of discrimination and there was more credibility and public legitimacy attached to its work. Some disadvantages included the fact that the institutions could not impose public sanctions and provide redress, budgetary restrictions, 40