A/HRC/14/37 human rights, and of legislation on citizenship and naturalization. Regarding the latter issue, a draft law would be submitted to the Parliament in 2010. 437. The delegation of San Marino thanked all those who had taken the floor for their recommendations and comments, including those that would be made thereafter and would be reported to the authorities. 2. Views expressed by Member and observer States of the Council on the review outcome 438. The United States of America commended San Marino for the conscientious manner with which it had addressed the 56 recommendations made during the Working Group session and for the detailed explanation provided on them, all of which were the reflection of the Government’s commitment to human rights. It especially appreciated the response of San Marino to the recommendations that the country should strengthen its protection for persons with disabilities, and increase efforts to combat violence against women. 439. Algeria commended San Marino for its commitment to the universal periodic review. It appreciated the fact that San Marino, in spite of the lack of human resources, had endorsed the recommendations by Algeria relating to the issue of overdue reports, which reflected its willingness to collaborate with human rights monitoring bodies. While noting the rejection of the recommendation to ratify the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, Algeria encouraged San Marino to ensure full protection to migrant workers by complying with recommendation 1737 of 2007 adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Algeria stated that it would have appreciated it if San Marino had accepted its recommendation on a national human rights institution. 440. Italy noted that San Marino’s commitment to the universal periodic review was further proof that the review was a fundamental instrument of the Council, since it provided a framework in which all States, large and small, could establish a dialogue with their peers. Italy noted with appreciation that San Marino had accepted many of the recommendations made during the review in the Working Group and that detailed explanation had been provided regarding all recommendations. Italy looked forward to the implementation of the accepted recommendations. 3. General comments made by other relevant stakeholders 441. Federatie van Nederlandse Verenigingen tot Integratie Van Homoseksualiteit noted that San Marino was not able to accept recommendations 20 and 21, and called on San Marino to ensure equal rights and access to the same level of protection to people belonging to sexual minorities. It referred to the contradicting statements made by San Marino with regard to whether sexual orientation and gender identity were grounds of discrimination in domestic law. It asked San Marino to clarify whether and how discrimination against LGBT people was explicitly reflected in existing awareness-raising activities, education and training programmes. It recommended that the Yogyakarta Principles on the Application of International Human Rights Law in relation to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity be applied as a guide to assist in policymaking. 4. Concluding remarks of the State under review 442. The delegation of San Marino recalled that it would report to the Government on the debate. The universal periodic review was an occasion for a comprehensive assessment of the human rights protection and promotion, as (a) the State under review was called to critically consider the progress made, (b) Members and observer States of the Council mutually examined what had been done and what still needed to be done to improve the 114 GE.12-17781