A/HRC/25/69 discrimination on a number of enumerated grounds and/or in a number of sectors. Additionally, racial discrimination and other forms of discrimination were directly prohibited by those legal frameworks and elements of such discrimination were often criminalized under criminal law. On the ratification of regional and international legal instruments, with particular reference to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, most responses highlighted their importance to addressing issues of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance at the national level. Interestingly, only a few responses indicated that existing legal frameworks also addressed issues related to xenophobia domestically. The questionnaire had also invited respondents to indicate any possible recommendations or additional comments or information related to xenophobia, national mechanisms and procedural gaps. The least number of responses had been received to that general question. In that light, the Chairperson invited all Member States to consider the responses to the questionnaire as summarized, with a view to implementing the mandate of the Ad Hoc Committee as outlined in the Council decision 3/103, in which the Council stated that the Committee should elaborate, as a matter of priority and necessity, complementary standards in the form of either a convention or additional protocol(s) to the Convention. 19. The Chairperson-Rapporteur also referred to the importance of the need to elaborate, as a matter of priority, complementary standards in the form of a convention or an additional protocol to the International Convention. The Chairperson-Rapporteur raised several questions and issues and invited Member States to consider them: (a) the role and impact of constitutions, as to whether constitutions or legislation were adequate in terms of moving from constitutional protection (at law) to protection and assistance to victims on the ground; (b) information about positive measures and affirmative action in countries; (c) national experiences of xenophobia, including details about the phenomenon in the various countries in order to compare and contrast experiences — distinction/differences between xenophobia and racial discrimination and other types of discrimination, and as to whether it was a security issue, and whether there were differences between hate crimes and xenophobia and other crimes. He also requested Member States to provide related information on data collection as to how it was done, including on: disaggregated data; national mechanisms — the issue of assistance to victims, especially with respect to xenophobia; and procedural gaps, as to whether the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination was effective or whether those issues were too new for that Committee to consider. The Chairperson-Rapporteur also invited information on the implementation of recommendations and asked whether reservations entered to the Convention had proven to be obstacles for the implementation thereof. 20. The European Union expressed disappointment that States had not shown more interest in responding, that the number of responses to the questionnaire remained very low and that some regions were underrepresented in the responses. Pointing to the importance of the Convention, it reiterated that States that had not yet ratified or acceded to the Convention should do so. It maintained that it was extremely important to fully implement existing standards and procedures, and had taken note of the fact that only one respondent had expressed the view that there should be complementary standards. It maintained its longstanding position that the full implementation of the existing standards was key. 21. It reported that data collection was a work in progress within the European Union, and that, while official data was available, full quantification of the prevalence of racist crime in the European Union, or comparing trends over time was difficult since data collection mechanisms across Member States was not systematic. It reported that its Agency for Fundamental Rights regularly published new documents on issues of racism, highlighting some recent publications: “Tackling racism and discrimination in sport – guide of promising practices, initiatives and activities” (May 2013); “Inequalities and multiple discrimination in access and quality of healthcare” (March 2013); and a brief on “Crimes motivated by hatred and prejudice in the EU” (March 2013). On national mechanisms, a comprehensive global picture still remained to be drawn on the issue, as 12 of the 30 6