A/HRC/12/50 Monaco considered that this convention was not applicable to the situation in the country, the mere fact that Monaco may consider its ratification at a later stage could serve as an incentive for other countries. 3. General comments made by other relevant stakeholders 258. In a joint statement, the International Lesbian and Gay Association (ILGA-Europe), the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network and Federatie van Nederlandse Verenigingen tot Integratie von Homoseksualiteit – COC Nederland commended Monaco for accepting the working group recommendation to use public awareness-raising campaigns to prevent discrimination, including on the grounds of sexual orientation. While developing such campaigns, which could support the 2005 law which punishes incitement to hatred and violence, they urged the Government to (a) take into account specific issues that related to each type of discrimination, and specifically on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity; (b) identify the means by which such campaigns would be developed; and (c) include civil society stakeholders. In developing such campaigns, they suggested that Monaco use the Yogyakarta Principles, and encouraged it to endorse the joint statement on human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity, delivered to the General Assembly on 18 December 2008. 4. Concluding remarks of the State under review 259. Monaco reiterated its commitment to reach its objectives regarding public aid devoted to the most vulnerable persons in the poorest countries. Regarding the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, Monaco recalled that there were discrepancies between this convention and the national law, noting that the measures adopted by Monaco for migrant workers were more protective than in the convention insofar as labour law, social security and health were concerned. In its conclusion, the head of delegation recalled that the review of the human rights situation in Monaco should be done through a legal and pragmatic approach. In order to better assess the situation, Monaco extended a standing invitation to all special procedures and recommended a generalized acceptance of such invitations. Belize 260. The review of Belize was held on 5 May 2009 in conformity with all the relevant provisions contained in Council resolution 5/1, and was based on the national report submitted by Belize in accordance with the annex to Council resolution 5/1, paragraph 15 (a) (A/HRC/WG.6/5/BLZ/1); the compilation prepared by OHCHR in accordance with paragraph 15 (b) (A/HRC/WG.6/5/BLZ/2); and the summary prepared by OHCHR in accordance with paragraph 15 (c) (A/HRC/WG.6/5/BLZ/3). 261. At its 14th meeting, on 23 September 2009, the Council considered and adopted the outcome of the review on Belize (see section C below). 262. The outcome of the review on Belize comprises the report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review (A/HRC/12/4), the views of Belize concerning the recommendations and/or conclusions, and its voluntary commitments and replies presented before the adoption of the outcome by the plenary to questions or issues that were not sufficiently addressed during the interactive dialogue in the Working Group (see also A/HRC/12/4/Add.1/). 101