A/HRC/31/74 communication technologies (racial cybercrime). He supported the proposal by the African Group of the following topics: protection of migrants against racist, discriminatory and xenophobic practices; and protection of people under foreign occupation from racist and discriminatory practices. He stated that the Ad Hoc Committee was the best place to discuss those difficult issues and arrive at a conclusion. In view of the eighth session, the representative requested from the secretariat a compilation of the proposals that had been made by delegations. 64. The representative of Brazil looked forward to further discussions and noted that it was not the case that every issue needed to be dealt with by an optional protocol, for example, racism and sport. She added that, with respect to migrants, the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and their Families already existed, and that it was difficult to see the value of having another instrument in this regard. 65. The Chair-Rapporteur reiterated and quoted Human Rights Council resolution 6/21, in which the Council recalled the mandate of the Ad Hoc Committee to “elaborate, as a matter of priority and necessity, complementary standards in the form of either a convention or additional protocol(s) to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, filling the existing gaps in the Convention, and also providing new normative standards aimed at combating all forms of contemporary racism, including incitement to racial and religious hatred”. He also reiterated the voting list of those Members States that were in favour, those that had voted against and those that had abstained from the resolution. 66. He stated that consensus decisions were a hallmark of democratic processes and that those States that had voted against but were unsuccessful did not have a permanent veto on the work and progress of those States that had supported the mandate of the Ad Hoc Committee. He informed the Committee that he was prepared to return to the Council and report that countries were hampering the progress of the Committee and that, as ChairRapporteur, he was facing difficulties in implementing the decisions of the Council. He mentioned that there was a moral responsibility not to act against the mandate given by the Council. He stated that there was a possibility to request another mandate from the Council, which would likely result in another successful vote. He questioned how many years or decades would be needed before action was taken on the mandate of the Committee and invited a formula from delegations on how to proceed. 67. The representative of Tunisia aligned his delegation with the statements of Pakistan on behalf of OIC, and Algeria on behalf of the African Group, and stated that his delegation shared all the arguments put forward by the Chair-Rapporteur. He stated that the mandate of the Ad Hoc Committee was sufficiently clear and that it was not necessary to go back to the Council. He added that the need for consensus on every issue often led to deadlock. The Committee was duly mandated by the Council and only needed to fulfil its mandate. 68. The representative of Pakistan, on behalf of OIC, expressed her full endorsement of the statement made by the Chair-Rapporteur that the delay in the work of the Committee could no longer be ignored and that valuable resources had been spent on the seventh session. As regards the way forward, a new mandate could be required once the Committee reached the drafting stage; at the present time, no new Council mandate was needed. She requested that all views and positions expressed by delegations be included in the report of the seventh session. 69. The representative of South Africa recalled that no international convention had ever attained universal ratification, including the Convention the Rights of the Child. Even with respect to the rights of the child, there was no consensus. She stated that a need for 16