A/HRC/25/69 manifestations of racism had been observed worldwide and there were limitations to the International Convention, especially as those incidents became more frequent. As existing international norms such as Convention had gaps, it was essential to confront such racism with complementary standards. The questionnaire had gathered some information that could assist with defining the content of these standards and Senegal supported the earlier statements made by Gabon, on behalf of the African Group, and Pakistan, on behalf of OIC, in that regard. 36. At the 4th meeting, Daniela Gomes, a civil society activist and journalist from Brazil, gave a presentation on the issues of racial discrimination and xenophobia in the region of Latin America. She highlighted the perspective of victims of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. Owing to the word limit for the present report, the summary of her presentation and the discussion which followed it are reflected in annex I to the present report. Following her presentation, the Chairperson-Rapporteur reiterated that the response rate of the questionnaire being fairly low, it gave only an impression of the situation. He asked the Committee to consider how to garner more information and responses. IV. Discussion on the topic of “Xenophobia” 37. From 24 to 25 July, the Ad Hoc heard presentations from several experts on the topic of “Xenophobia”. The 5th meeting on 24 July considered issues of xenophobia related to the media. Milicia Pesic, Executive Director of the Media Diversity Institute, gave a presentation entitled “Xenophobia and (Racial) Discrimination: The Role of Media”. Also at that meeting, Edmundo Bracho, journalist and consultant also with the Media Diversity Institute, gave a presentation on “Diversity and discrimination in news media practice: views from Latin America”. Piara Powar, Executive Director of Football Against Racism in Europe, delivered a presentation on “Racism in Sport” at the 7th meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee. 38. For the second part of the 7th meeting, the Chairperson-Rapporteur invited the participants to commence a general discussion on xenophobia. 39. Japan, speaking on behalf of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Switzerland and Uruguay, expressed its appreciation for the inputs from the experts on issues related to xenophobia, and acknowledged the view that it was a multi-faceted, worldwide issue that required attention and action. There was no general normative definition of xenophobia in the principal international human rights instruments, which was also the case for other terms such as “minority”, “indigenous people” and “racism”. It was therefore appropriate to first examine whether the lack of such a definition had in fact hindered international human rights mechanisms in adequately addressing issues related to xenophobia. Japan also recalled contributions made by members of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in previous sessions of the Ad Hoc Committee. It was not possible to conclude that there was an explicit need for complementary standards at the international level in the field of xenophobia. States might consider including the concept of xenophobia in their domestic legislation to combat violence and discrimination in their national contexts. Japan reiterated its suggestion made during the fourth session of the Committee that the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination issue a possible official opinion aiming to clarify how provisions in the relevant Convention could be applied to issues related to xenophobia and how they had been addressed in practice, and that it report back to the Committee at its future sessions. 40. The European Union outlined its policies to combat xenophobia as part of its general policy to fight against different forms and manifestations of racism and xenophobia, including by monitoring the implementation of relevant European Union law, providing financial support to stakeholders’ activities and through various activities related to 10