A/HRC/21/59 new and had not been formulated by Member States, but by academic experts, investigators etc. Cuba could not agree with proposals intended to increase the monitoring of States and also questioned the availability of resources for such new procedures. 52. The delegate of the Russian Federation asked what kind of stakeholders would be involved in the proposed evaluation visits: would they be limited to State authorities or would there be interaction with other stakeholders such as NGOs and victims? The same question was raised about the proposed follow-up visits. He asked if this would change the procedure whereby States were required to answer requests within one year. 53. With regard to country visits, Mr. Avtonomov stated that they could not be similar to the individual complaints procedure as they were different in nature. The country visits might be akin to fact-finding missions to collect information and for this purpose the meetings should be held with a variety of stakeholders including State authorities, NGOs and victims. The follow-up visits would be based on the recommendations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and therefore the focus would be on State institutions, as they were charged with implementation. However, there might also be the possibility of meetings with some NGOs. 54. Pakistan, on behalf of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, emphasized the need for a definition of xenophobia, as State parties had a series of interpretations. The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination would also have a problem taking a universal and consistent approach as it might take into consideration xenophobia for one periodic report but not for another one. 55. The delegate of South Africa inquired about how the suggested follow-up visits might build the capacities of States to produce periodic reports. She asked whether the proposed inquiry procedure would replace the reporting obligation, about complementarity with special procedures, and about the criteria for such visits. 56. Italy said that the implementation of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination was extremely important. He questioned the envisaged six-month time period and also asked for clarification on whether the summary account from the State Party would be included in the report to the General Assembly. 57. In response to a question from Pakistan on behalf of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, Mr. Avtonomov said that the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination had been addressing the issues of profiling and stereotyping – often condemning both of these in the concluding observations. If the definitions of xenophobia, profiling, stereotyping were included in the Convention, the Committee would work with these definitions and respond to new challenges. In his opinion, the members of the Committee were not absolutely against the introduction of a new definition; but rather, considered that the focus should be on procedural gaps to strengthen their work. He added that he could not recall a case of xenophobia which had not been addressed by the Committee, as it always included one or more grounds under article 1 of the Convention. 58. At the 14th meeting, on 18 April, the Chairperson-Rapporteur invited the participants to commence a general discussion and exchange of views on the topic of ―Establishment, designation or maintaining of national mechanisms with competences to protect against and prevent all forms and manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance‖. 59. The European Union stated that national mechanisms were important in ensuring a victim-centred approach and in focusing on remedies as well as on prevention of discrimination. National mechanisms could help ensure effective protection and remedies to victims of discrimination by providing legal assistance to victims during judicial proceedings, and where they were vested with quasi-judicial functions they could 11