A/HRC/25/69 penalize incitement to racial, ethnic, national and religious hatred, it was also evident that there were a number of reservations expressed by States on article 4 of the Convention which was a cornerstone of the Convention, and the conflict between tackling hate speech and the upholding freedom of expression remained challenges. She outlined the importance of reflecting on complementary standards as a supportive measure to the Committee’s work. 58. Ghana inquired whether that Committee had paid attention to the ongoing discussion on the responsibility to protect, given that incitement to hate speech and genocide were related. The European Union inquired about the main obstacles to the effective implementation of the existing procedures under the Convention, and on concrete ways to improve the use of various procedures, including concluding observations. It also asked whether introducing new procedures would create a possible risk of overlap with the activities of the Human Rights Council and OHCHR. It shared information on the fight against hate speech through criminal law in the European Union and noted that the lack of an international legal definition on hate speech had not prevented action against it. 59. Pakistan on behalf of OIC, inquired if there was a threshold that could be identified between hate speech and freedom of expression. Brazil, speaking on behalf of Argentina, Chile, Japan, Mexico, Switzerland and Uruguay, shared its view that the main way to combat racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance was to make the best use of the existing international instruments and to enhance its implementation at the national level. Ms. Dah recalled that there were procedural gaps with regard to the Convention in areas such as evaluation and follow-up procedures. By dealing with those gaps, improving both the implementation and monitoring of the Convention would be possible. It would also have positive impacts on other the topics that had been discussed by the Ad Hoc Committee, such as xenophobia and national mechanisms. The topic of procedural gaps in the Convention should be further discussed at future sessions of the Ad Hoc Committee, so that an exchange of views on how to better and concretely deal with those gaps could take place. 60. Ms. Dah noted that the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination had discussed the responsibility to protect and had built upon the position of the SecretaryGeneral when he had started the initiative on the issue. She stated that the Committee had adopted about 15 indicators, along with 4 other elements, to refine the analysis of genocide and a quick link had been established between the Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide and the Committee. She also responded about the number of the Committee’s mechanisms already available, but pointed out that the Committee’s inability to carry out country visits was an obstacle. On the issue of threshold, she replied that the international community as a whole had recognized that there were limits to the exercise of rights, and while some States had set thresholds, the Committee dealt with the issue of hate speech cautiously. She explained further that article 4 of the Convention criminalized hate speech and that the Committee was taking all necessary steps to confront hate speech. The Committee dealt with issues pertaining to xenophobia under article 14, but new procedures would help in investigation and follow-up. 61. On a follow-up question from Switzerland on the level of cooperation between the Committee and the special procedures mandate holders, she responded that there was close cooperation with the relevant mandate holders on various issues related to racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. 62. Ecuador requested the floor to make a general statement and share best practices from the country. It reported that a compendium had been published consisting of case studies and preventive courses for public officials and the military. The Constitution of Ecuador prohibited racial hatred and there existed other provisions in the law governing the conduct of public officials in addressing acts of racial discrimination. 14