A/HRC/21/59 elaboration of complementary standards, in accordance with Human Rights Council decision 3/103. 24. The European Union pointed out that the various presentations illustrated that xenophobia was multifaceted and must accordingly be dealt with through various means – legislation, mechanisms and other means. It was stated that none of the presenters had stated that there were obvious gaps and none had been able to suggest a legal definition. The definition of IOM was not necessarily helpful or operational with respect to the work of the Ad Hoc Committee. The representative also highlighted that, throughout the presentations, it was noted that xenophobia was a multifaceted phenomenon. The delegate stated that xenophobia can be combated through different anti-discrimination measures with regard to various grounds. 25. The delegate of Norway stated that the session had provided her delegation an opportunity for reflection on what had been transpiring in the national context. She expressed concern with regard to working on a definition because it would likely be too broad or too narrow. The delegate emphasized that xenophobia was a danger to individuals and a challenge to democracy, in grave cases leading to racial discrimination, crimes against humanity and genocide, etc. The attacks in Norway in 2011 were traumatic for the whole Norwegian population. She noted that the attacks were politically fuelled by hate and highlighted the importance of intensifying efforts for more openness, democracy, and inclusiveness. Norway was committed to unconditional respect for human dignity for everyone at all times. With regard to practical issues, she noted that legal protection was not always enough to ensure equality and that combined efforts were required. Norway considered that there was a solid legal basis to fight racism and xenophobia but it was open to take the debate further. The approach should be factual, consensual, and based on real needs and clear manifestations, and demonstrate that progress has been hindered or slowed down by gaps in the legal regime. 26. Japan, on behalf of Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Republic of Korea, Switzerland and Uruguay, stated that the experts‘ presentations were useful and informative, providing a clearer and more accurate overview. They highlighted the multifaceted dimension and cross-cutting nature of xenophobia and the presentations showed a practical approach to the issue. The delegate noted that it could not be concluded that there was an explicit need for complementary standards at the international level in the field of xenophobia. Pointing out that the work of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination did not appear handicapped by the lack of a definition, Japan recommended that the Committee be invited to present an official opinion on the issue, with the aim of clarifying how provisions in the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination could be interpreted in relation to xenophobia. 27. The delegate of China noted that xenophobia and economic and cultural conflicts had been increasing. It was emphasized that the current international instruments were somewhat behind the times. Some measures had been undertaken, but they were not sufficient and more international cooperation was needed. The issue of xenophobia needed to be discussed from the international legal perspective with the purpose of eliminating xenophobia and protecting people‘s rights. She highlighted that what had taken place was only the initial step towards the issue. 28. The United States of America pointed out that while there were many different views expressed by the multiple experts, there was a fair amount of coherence in the concrete policy recommendations made by them. It would be useful if the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) could go through the experts‘ presentations and compile a simple matrix, containing recommendations on data disaggregation, educational campaigns and other policy recommendations. 6