A/HRC/27/24 development of national policies and architectures to prevent atrocities. In particular, they had discussed the importance of creating a platform of exchange and support for States committed to, or willing to commit themselves to, the prevention of atrocity crimes. What united the participants in that effort was the conviction that the States themselves had the primary responsibility for preventing atrocity crimes within their own territorial borders. This was a strong signal of national ownership and political will, formulated in a spirit of complementarity with ongoing global initiatives at the international level. IV. Summary of the interactive discussion 30. Representatives of the following delegations spoke during the interactive discussion: Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica (on behalf of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States), Cuba (on behalf of the likeminded group), Egypt, Estonia, Ethiopia (on behalf of the African Group), the European Union, Hungary, Liechtenstein, Madagascar, Montenegro, Morocco, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Slovenia, Spain, Sudan, Turkey, the United States of America and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Owing to a lack of time, the statements of the delegations of Cyprus, Ecuador, Ireland and Italy were not delivered. 31. Delegates of the following non-government organizations also spoke: the European Union of Public Relations, the Indian Council of South America, the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists and the World Environment and Resources Council. A. National initiatives 32. During the interactive discussion, several delegates noted that States had the primary responsibility to protect their population from genocide and other atrocity crimes, and needed to take the necessary measures to sanction any human rights-related violations. It was also noted that the sixty-fifth anniversary of the Genocide Convention had given all States the opportunity to reflect on ways and means to avoid the recurrence of genocide. Several delegates considered that the most effective way of avoiding future cases of genocide was to prevent war and conflicts by tackling root causes at the national level. One of the key goals of the prevention of genocide agenda should be to acquire a full knowledge of the causes of genocide, of early warnings, and of the consequences of genocide. In that regard, several delegates highlighted the importance of promoting tolerance and respect for all groups, be they racial, religious, ethnic or any other kinds of groups. They recommended that cultural and religious tensions, which were often the root causes of conflicts, be adequately and carefully dealt with, in order to prevent their potential to flare up into conflicts and wars. 33. Several delegates emphasized that building protection capacities in countries at risk, before crises and conflicts broke out, could contribute to prevention efforts. In that regard, they mentioned the efforts made by some countries to generate opportunities for dialogue and exchanging best practices. For instance, prevention of genocide was part of the national policy of the Netherlands for protecting civilians in line with the principles of the responsibility to protect (R2P). The Government of the Netherlands had appointed a focal point on R2P and was working on putting that principle into practice. Similarly, Australia had had a national focal point for R2P since 2011 and had recently joined the Global Action Against Mass Atrocity Crimes initiative. It was recommended that all States consider appointing national focal points to coordinate and lead relevant activities. Furthermore, they should work collectively to prevent atrocity crimes such as genocide. 9