A/HRC/31/74 whether those States inputs were reflected in the final General Recommendations, noting that the General Recommendations were neither binding on States nor a legal commitment as they were not the outcome of an intergovernmental process. She added that States parties’ views were sought but normally not reflected. She stated that issues such as xenophobia, hate speech, and the intersectionality of racial and religious discrimination as highlighted by the Special Rapporteur on Minorities and the Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Racial Discrimination were emerging issues and were resonant in the ICERD. She also asked whether the Convention is able to address these new dynamics, context and contemporary challenges including those highlighted in the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action and the Review Conference which reflected realities considerably changed since its adoption in 1965, and whether another legally binding instrument was required. Similarly, the representative of South Africa asked about the impact of the engagement between Ad Hoc Committee and ICERD in addressing the gaps which need to be filled. 70. The representative of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland asked about the criteria and considerations used in deciding whether or not to proceed with a general recommendation following a thematic discussion by the CERD. 71. Ms. Crickley in response stated that the CERD Committee adopted flexibility in terms of taking on board the different views and that there have been times when the decision has been made not to proceed with any general recommendation after a thematic discussion, if many Member States would not find it helpful or if the timing did not appear conducive. She informed the participants that CERD would be bringing its comments procedure in line with the other treaty bodies in that Member States will be invited to comment prior to finalization, adding that indeed Committee does take notice of States comments although it was duty bound as a body to make independent expert decisions about the ICERD. In response to the issue of substantive gaps in ICERD, Ms. Crickley stated that the issue of gaps was dependent upon the political will and/or capacity of States Parties being able to fulfil their obligations under ICERD and address other challenges posed by contemporary forms of racism. While admitting that the context in which the ICERD was drafted had changed, she stated that definition of article 1 of the Convention can be interpreted in a way as fully cognizant in the current environment and indicated that CERD had produced three general recommendations on the subjects of non-citizens, hate speech and with regard to People of African descent to elaborate and shift language on issues which could be implied in the ICERD. 72. The Chair-Rapporteur asked Ms. Crickley whether all general recommendations are adopted by consensus and whether this had any bearing on the very long time it took to adopt the general recommendations on hate speech. Ms. Crickley replied that general recommendations are normally adopted by consensus; in the case of the hate speech general recommendation it was adopted related to the timeliness of the subject and was developed in a sensitive and informed manner. The Chair-Rapporteur asked about the issue of political will and what happened to victims in the meantime, and whether the Committee considered the impact on victims. Ms. Crickley stated that the Committee is very cognizant of victims and that general recommendations are always aimed at reflecting the ongoing and timely issues affecting the rights of people. The Chair-Rapporteur also mentioned the voluntary nature of general recommendations and asked how adequate remedies could be ensured given legal costs and access, to which Ms. Crickley stated that while legally-binding States’ Parties are influenced by them and they are used as a guide to implementation and for future responses to the Committee. 73. The Chair-Rapporteur inquired as to whether CERD could conduct a quantitative analysis of the status of implementation of its general recommendations identifying satisfaction and weaknesses in order for the Ad Hoc Committee to provide a response as at 33