A/HRC/25/69 Article 6 of the Constitution enshrined equality before the law and equal rights of citizens. Discrimination was an offence under the Criminal Code of Morocco, punishable by imprisonment and a fine, and was also prohibited in the Labour Code. The Press Code provided for the punishment of incitement to racial discrimination. 52. The United States stated that the important topic of national mechanisms was a very practical and useful one, and that it would be worthwhile to compare practices across countries. 53. Spain noted the importance of full implementation of existing instruments. Unfortunately, Spain had not sent a reply to the questionnaire. In 2003, Spain established a council for the promotion of equal treatment of all persons without discrimination on the grounds of racial or ethnic origin. In 2010, the Council had established a network of NGOs to enhance support to victims throughout the country, including awareness-raising, psychological support and legal aid. That network mitigated the fear of victims had of going to police stations. It expressed regret about the lack of information about the situation in other regions, noting that the sharing of practices could only enrich the discussion. 54. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela noted that there was a failure with regard to the implementation of international instruments, as well as the Durban-related documents. It had established an institute to eradicate discrimination in public spheres and workshops had been organized in various parts of the country to increase awareness of the issue. It highlighted the work of the Ombudsman, which had an “A” ranking, the importance of investigating cases of discrimination and the provision of assistance to victims. Shared experiences with regard to national human rights institutions could be helpful for the elaboration of complementary standards, in order to fulfil the mandate of the Committee. 55. The African Union noted that there were also worse forms of fascist crimes, which had not been taken into account. It expressed its support for the work of the Committee. VI. Discussion on the topic of “Procedural gaps with regard to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination” 56. At the 10th meeting on 29 July, Fatimata-Binta Dah, member of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, presented updates of that Committee’s activities, including the August 2012 discussion on hate speech. She mentioned that the Committee had identified a number of practices, which, if codified into an optional protocol to the International Convention, would improve the Committee’s existing procedures of the Committee. That conclusion was based on the analysis of its 40 years of operations and on the level of implementation of the Convention by States parties. While the Committee had been able to adapt and innovate, including through its general recommendations, urgent action, and the early warning/early action procedures, the Committee would be better served if additional monitoring procedures were in place. In particular, a gap was identified in the capacity to conduct assessment visits to countries, which were available to the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the possibility of which had also been raised in the context of a harmonized approach for the treaty bodies and its strengthening process. 57. She stated that the Committee’s discussion in August 2012 had focused on the concept of racist hate speech and its evolution, as well as hate speech in the political sphere and the media, including the Internet. The Committee wished to define and outline a concept of hate speech and then assess the capacity of the Convention in terms of interpretation. The thematic discussion had raised the unanimous view that there existed no definition of hate speech under international law and the concept evolved over time, varying in its intensity. While the Committee regularly asked States to adopt legislation to 13