A/HRC/25/69 D. Summary of the presentations and initial discussions on the updates on relevant global and regional developments 64. At the 11th meeting, on 30 July, Ms. Joy-Dee Davis Lake, Chair of the Organisation of American States (OAS) Working Group to Prepare an Inter- American Convention on Racism, Racial Discrimination and Related Forms of Intolerance and an Inter -American Convention against All Forms of Discrimination and Intolerance gave a presentation on the recently adopted Inter-American Convention against Racism, Racial Discrimination, and Related Forms of Intolerance as well as the Inter-American Convention against All Forms of Discrimination and Intolerance. 65. She noted that since 2000, the OAS General Assembly and successive Summits of the Americas, the highest policy-making bodies of the Inter-American system, have repeatedly raised concerns and reiterated a determination to combat the phenomena of racism, discrimination and intolerance. She said that it was felt that a convention such as this would reflect and project concrete steps, legally enforceable, that would contribute to Member States collaborating to give effect to the principle of equality among human beings. 66. She stated that in addition to the migratory phenomena of the present time, there are new forms of intolerance, no longer only concerning race and ethnicity, but involving much other human diversity. Intolerance had moved beyond an individual’s phenotypical characteristics to encompass other characteristics such as social condition, health, gender identity, national identity and religion. Therefore, the purpose of the Inter-American Convention was to improve, strengthen, and enlarge the margins of protection already offered by the ICERD. 67. She said that after a thorough examination of how the Inter American Convention would look, a Working Group was installed in 2005, by General Assembly Resolution AG Res 2126 and negotiations began on the Draft Inter American Convention against Racism, Racial Discrimination and All Forms of Intolerance. The negotiations took eight years, and on many an occasion the process was beset with acrimony and stagnation. She noted that there were two notable impediments to the process: the non-participation of the US and the withdrawal of Canada, and the ideological difference that led to the split of the draft into two draft conventions. 68. With regard to substantive outcomes, she highlighted that the two conventions together represent the most ambitious catalogue of prohibited bases of discrimination under international law, including a binding definition of racism, a requirement that States Parties undertake affirmative measures, and for the first time, in the hemisphere there will be legal reprieve for groups that continue to experience multiple or extreme forms of racism, discrimination and intolerance that are driven by a combination of factors. These Conventions have expressly bound States Parties to ensure that security measures do not discriminate directly or indirectly against any person or group of persons, based, among other factors, on their race, ethnicity, culture or religion. For the first time, the categories of sexual orientation and gender identity and expression are included in a binding international instrument for the protection of human rights. 69. The delegate of Brazil noted that the OAS could serve as an example for this Committee, and how it developed complementary norms. Although negotiations took 8 years, it managed to fulfil the commitment made in 2000. Morocco noted the need of the OAS to adopt new complementary standards, which is echoed by practices in other regions, and presents additional proof for the need for such norms and standards at the international level. Uruguay stated that the OAS experience provided a good example about how sensitive issues could find consensus. He noted that any form of discrimination should be considered equally. 32