A/HRC/27/24 C. International initiatives 45. Several delegates emphasized that while the primary responsibility for the protection of its population lay with the State, the international community had a collective responsibility to respond if a crisis materialized. They considered that the international community should focus on providing comprehensive assistance to States to strengthen their capacity to protect their populations from crimes of genocide, and on preventive diplomacy. 46. In that context, some States considered that international cooperation should focus on the promotion and protection of human rights as a means to develop social resilience against massive human rights violations. Such cooperation should include: (a) initiatives to prevent hate speech and practices that incited racism, religious discrimination and xenophobia; (b) the empowerment of women, and promotion of the education of girls and women; (c) strengthening educational programmes on human rights, and the diffusion of a culture of peace; (d) the development of local political participation mechanisms by peaceful means; (e) the prevention of, and sanctions for, the practice of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment; and (f) the provision of material and symbolic reparation to victims of grave human rights violations that had been perpetrated, encouraged or tolerated by the State. Several delegates stressed that those actions would contribute to discouraging the escalating dehumanization and the increasing deprivation of rights that preceded crimes against humanity and genocide. 47. Mass atrocities, including genocide, were extreme forms of human rights violations. The protection of human rights, therefore, was an important prerequisite to preventing genocide and mass atrocities. In that context, several delegates welcomed the Rights up Front Action Plan, as it would help to translate into practice the foundational belief underlying the prevention efforts of the United Nations: a better interconnection between peace and security, human rights and development. They also noted that this new initiative would create substantial synergies and would add value to preventive efforts. 48. It was also noted that it was not the lack of mechanisms but rather the lack of international political will that was problematic, because countries tended to focus on selfinterest when they tackled crises. In that regard, some delegates stated that it was necessary to avoid double standards and selective approaches when dealing with different conflicts in the world, including situations of foreign occupation. They emphasized that wars, foreign interventions and unilateral coercive measures were not the best means of preventing genocide. 49. With regard to the emergence of new anti-Semitic forces in Europe, it was noted that verbal and physical violence against Jews, Roma and immigrants had been occurring in many parts of the continent. The swastika — the Nazi symbol — was still being used frequently around the world. States, and the Human Rights Council, were urged to declare that there would be no tolerance for genocidal acts or statements. States were also urged to include, in their reports for the universal periodic review, information on measures taken to combat genocide and other acts going against the spirit of the Genocide Convention. 50. With regard to the role of the Security Council, it was noted that the Council must exercise its responsibility to protect populations from atrocity crimes. This required a serious change in the way in which permanent members used their veto. States should not prevent the United Nations from taking meaningful action to protect civilian populations. It was emphasized that there must be an urgent review of United Nations mechanisms, particularly those of the Security Council. In that context, one delegate spoke of the advocacy initiative of France to implement a code of conduct that would prevent the use of the veto in serious situations. 12