A/HRC/25/69 responses to the questionnaire had come from European countries. It requested more information in order to exchange good practice and draw inspiration from across the regions. It stated that the summary in places was categorical, probably attributed to the limited number of responses received, adding that this should be taken into consideration with respect to recommendations on the topics of the questionnaire. 22. Pakistan reported that it had submitted a written response to the questionnaire. It stated that various political strategies and preventive measures were being undertaken by the Government of Pakistan in countering racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. It also pointed out that its Constitution established criminal liabilities for racial discrimination and explained that the constitutional provisions were consistent with the opinions of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. 23. The United States of America stated that the Constitution and laws of the country prohibited discrimination motivated by xenophobia and that was adequately addressed by domestic and international law. It emphasized that the implementation of existing international law instruments was important in terms of obligations to fight against discrimination, adding that practical action was required to continue to combat racism and discrimination. 24. The Chairperson-Rapporteur stated that, while equality before the law might be provided in jurisdictions, it was those very mechanisms that could have certain weaknesses in them; such as access to and the receipt of remedies through those mechanisms. The situation differed from country to country. He also stated that the role of national human rights institutions would have to be considered, as they provided another layer in terms of mechanisms for advancing grievances. He stated that there was benefit in pooling regional and national expertise and best practices and looking at the advantages and shortcomings of existing mechanisms. The Chairperson-Rapporteur stated that, while some Member States were able to deal with racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance through existing measures, others had pointed out that xenophobia in particular was a vicious phenomenon requiring special machinery. It was therefore important to define xenophobia, and identify the motivation behind it, including attitudes, actions and consequences. 25. Mexico, noting the general nature of the questionnaire, proposed posing specific questions to Member States and possibly considering case studies. 26. The Chairperson-Rapporteur proposed to briefly adjourn the 2nd meeting in order to meet with the Regional Coordinators on the topic of the questionnaire. Following the meeting with Coordinators, the meeting was briefly reconvened later that afternoon, during which meeting the Chairperson-Rapporteur reported that he had decided to close the 2nd meeting and that the 3rd meeting would be held in the afternoon of 23 July. He urged delegations to provide additional information and updates to the questionnaire and a summary of responses received and he also noted that he would invite delegations to make general statements on the topics and work of the session at that time. 27. The Ad Hoc Committee held its 3rd meeting the following afternoon. Pakistan, speaking on behalf of OIC, stated that the Committee should build on the work of the DDPA and the Outcome Document of the Durban Review Conference. While national mechanisms had been addressed in article 6 of the International Convention, new gaps required the elaboration of new standards. OIC strongly believed that it was not possible to move forward only by strengthening national mechanisms to address xenophobia without elaborating norms and standards, and suggested a two-track approach. It highlighted new trends and manifestations of contemporary forms of racism in a number of societies, and expressed its concern over discrimination against Muslims in socioeconomic spheres. It stated that the alarming increase in incidents of Islamophobia was the manifestation of religious hatred and intolerance and served as an impediment to the attainment of a culture of cooperation and peaceful coexistence. Such incidents reflected legislative gaps that 7