A/HRC/25/69 terms, for the purposes of transparency and consistency, was essential. Having a definition would also be beneficial from the victims’ perspective and South Africa expressed its concern over the lack of progress in that regard. It was essential that discussions be held on the various issues raised in paragraph 199 of the DDPA so that the Committee fulfilled its mandate. V. Discussion on the topic of “Establishment, designation or maintaining of national mechanisms with competences to protect against and prevent all forms and manifestation of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance” 46. During its 8th meeting, on 26 July, Michel Forst, Secretary General of the French National Consultative Commission on Human Rights, and Valeriya Lutkovska, Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights, gave presentations on their respective national mechanisms. At the 9th meeting on 29 July, Eva Sobotka, Programme Manager at the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights gave a presentation entitled “Developments and trends on racism, racial discrimination, Roma, and crimes motivated by racism, xenophobia and related intolerance in the European Union”. 47. For the second part of the 9th meeting, the Chairperson-Rapporteur invited the participants to commence a general discussion on national mechanisms under item 6 of the programme of work. 48. Mexico informed the participants that article 1 of its Constitution had been amended in 2001 to prohibit all types of discrimination. That important change had facilitated the adoption of the federal law on the prevention and elimination of discrimination in 2003, which also created the National Council for the Prevention of Discrimination (CONAPRED). In April 2012, the Federal Penal Code had been amended, including a chapter titled “Discrimination”, and in 2010 CONAPRED had developed a national survey on discrimination. In 2012, a national forum on people of African descent had been organized. 49. Lithuania, on behalf of the European Union, stated that the establishment of national mechanisms to promote equality and combat racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance was of the utmost importance. There was a need to further explore the potential of national mechanisms to improve the implementation of existing international standards — thereby ensuring their effectiveness. A comprehensive global picture still remained to be drawn, since 12 of the 30 responses to the questionnaire had been submitted by European countries. More information from other regions would be appreciated in order to exchange good practices and draw inspiration from across the regions. The Ad Hoc Committee could be entrusted with the drafting of a set of guidelines, which would cover both the criteria and the functions to be performed by such national mechanisms. The merits of that proposal were that it was both victim-oriented and action-oriented, as well as being in line with proposals made by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in its report to the Intergovernmental Working Group on the Effective Implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (A/HRC/4/WG.3/7). 50. The Czech Republic stated that a strategy had been developed combat extremism domestically and was revised annually. The Government had also been developing a campaign against racial discrimination. With regard to methods for the prevention of racism, it highlighted the role of education and awareness-raising. 51. Morocco noted that it had adopted specific measures to combat racial discrimination, including ratification of international instruments, with the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination at the forefront. 12