A/HRC/21/59 and CONAPRED‘s very broad mandate and geographic coverage which involved a tremendous amount of work. 126. Greece asked about the methodology employed to decide which vulnerable groups would be involved in the CONAPRED survey/study. The delegate of the European Union inquired about how complementarity between the CONAPRED and the National Commission on Human Rights was ensured. She was also interested in more details concerning the individual cases and the ―defence model.‖ 127. Ukraine asked about best practices and interesting examples of legislation and policies with regard to preventing discrimination and also requested further details about the ―defence model‖ and its efficiency. 128. Mr. Bucio-Mujica replied that population groups were included in the study based on a previous study commissioned in 2002 with regard to discrimination in Mexico including women, migrants, disabled, elderly, young boys and girls, domestic workers, sexual orientation, religion and others. From 2005 when the CONAPRED‘s study was issued to 2011, when the second study of the Council was finalized, the study was referred to on a daily basis in the media. In fact, CERD had called for the development of a national policy based on this very study. 129. He elaborated on the ―defence model‖ explaining that anyone anywhere in Mexico had access by phone, internet or in person directly at their offices to get advice and initiate a formal proceeding. There was a clear mechanism in place: catalogue, inventory of the different ways to file complaints of different cases of discrimination; however, greater clarity was needed about what constituted discriminatory behaviour. There was a need to be clear about discrimination and non-discriminatory practices. In this context it would be advantageous to broaden the ICERD definition to include xenophobia. The defence model also involved a conciliation procedure, remedies were considered and measures were suggested in order to avoid the recurrence of the discriminatory practices. He highlighted two cases concerning de facto discrimination in schools in Chiapas region and discrimination against female domestic workers. 130. Mexico pointed out the need to share information between authorities and to have principles and standards. Delegates asked for more information about the mentioned interAmerican network and specialized bodies. 131. Austria emphasized that anti-discrimination laws were important but not sufficient to promote cultural change noting that awareness-raising might be a more practical way. He noted with interest the prizes established for intercultural reporting by journalists since a similar award was offered in Austria. 132. The United States of America raised a question with regard to the suggested broadening of the definition of ICERD in order to include xenophobia. In this regard he asked whether a complaint of xenophobia had been brought to CONAPRED and it was unable to assist or was constrained due to the fact that there was no ICERD definition. Mr. Bucio Mujica emphasized that ICERD is much more limited than the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities which had a broader scope, details are greater, yet there are much more direct references to rights of people and it contains references to direct mechanisms. ICERD had a general definition; it was not detailed, making it difficult to prove cases of xenophobia and racism. 133. Mr. Bucio-Mujica also pointed out that the majority of rulings on the individual cases were not binding therefore requiring acceptance on behalf of the person responsible for the act and very often the person did not accept a commission of an act of xenophobia. Moreover, in Mexican law there were many distinctions between citizens: being naturalized Mexicans or Mexican by birth. According to CONAPRED some of these distinctions were 41