A/HRC/40/33 matter who was responsible and who the victim was, to act firmly against hate speech, to reject discrimination and to promote human rights education. If he was present today, as 70 years ago, Lemkin would ask if the right people were in the room to do the right thing at the right time. The Special Rapporteur stressed, therefore, that the best way to commemorate the anniversary was for each individual present to use human rights as a tool daily, in words and deeds, to achieve a response that matched the challenge. IV. Interactive dialogue 50. During the interactive dialogue, delegations from Australia, Brazil, Costa Rica, speaking on behalf of a group of countries, 2 Cuba, Czechia, Ecuador, the European Union, Greece, Iraq, Italy, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, speaking on behalf of a group of Baltic and Nordic countries, Montenegro, the Netherlands, speaking on behalf of members of the Group of Friends on the Responsibility to Protect, the Russian Federation, Rwanda, Senegal, Slovenia, Switzerland, speaking on behalf of a group of countries, 3 member nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and academic institutions of the steering group of Global Action against Mass Atrocity Crimes, Togo, speaking on behalf of the African Group, Tunisia, speaking on behalf of the Group of Arab States, Turkey and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela took the floor. 51. Delegates of the following NGOs also took the floor: the Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (Forum-Asia), the Center for Global Nonkilling, Human Rights Watch, Rencontre africaine pour la défense des droits de l’homme, Südwind – Association for Educational and Advocacy Activities Related to Development Policy and the World Jewish Congress. 52. Several representatives called for universal ratification of the Convention, and for those members of the United Nations that had not yet done so to ratify it. Some also expressed their support for the International Criminal Court or called upon States to ratify the Rome Statute. Multiple delegations emphasized that the primary responsibility in relation to accountability and prevention lay with States, and referred to the implementation of the Convention and other human rights instruments or the Rome Statute through national legislation. 53. An NGO representative pointed at alarming cases of mass atrocity crimes and allegations of genocide, including in Myanmar. A. Prevention of the crime of genocide through addressing underlying causes 54. Among the delegations there was consensus that human rights violations provided the backdrop to the crime of genocide, which did not happen overnight and in a vacuum. Some speakers pointed out that genocide was the result of a pattern of human rights violations, such as repression, discrimination and hate speech, committed over a prolonged period. One delegation underlined that it was critical not to forget that the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide had been adopted after the horrific crimes committed during the Second World War and the targeted destruction of specific groups in various countries, and that those crimes had been the results of inhumane ideologies. It emphasized the importance of addressing contemporaneous manifestations of fascism and neo-Nazism. One delegation condemned acts of war and military intervention, which contributed to poverty and prevented the development and self-determination of peoples, against the spirit of the Convention. Accordingly, delegations agreed that the full respect of human rights was at the heart of any prevention effort. It was essential to foster fundamental rights, including civil, political, social, economic and cultural rights, and the enjoyment of such rights at both the national and international levels. 2 3 10 Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico, Peru and Uruguay. Argentina, Costa Rica, Denmark, Switzerland and Tanzania.