A/HRC/31/74 expressed support for further research on these cases. He also questioned whether the results were really so “dismal”, perhaps more so in relation to the approximately 60,000 cases considered by the European Court of Human Rights. He explained that of only a small percentage of cases were deemed admissible, and even a smaller percentage constituted a finding of a violation, that some of those cases, might in fact be very instructive to States to rectify potential problems in advance. The table in the Annex of his presentation was valuable as it at least provided an overview of individual communications under Article 14 of ICERD dealt with by CERD. 18. Regarding gaps in ICERD, Mr. Bossuyt noted the existence of gaps in institutional coverage and protections, as different bodies and institutions could arrive at different conclusions. Procedures, such as the reporting procedure could use further improvement. 19. The representative of Ghana inquired about the attempt of CERD to redefine “race”, the views of the expert with regard to the definition and content of “ethnic cleansing”; and the fact that national institutions were often taking on individual complaints. He asked if the Committee had adopted general comments to address such issues, which were also of importance in relation to the right to protect, suggesting the need for a supplementary protocol. The expert noted that CERD had done so, and had adopted a number of general comments; CERD however, had not as yet issued a comment on ethnic cleansing. But CERD had issued general comments on discrimination against noncitizens, in particular migrants; on indigenous populations, on Roma people; on people of African descent, etc. This approach showed that CERD had no narrow view on race. He added that “race” as a biological concept did not exist, but that racists did exist. He continued that he was not convinced that there was a need for an additional protocol. It would, however, be welcomed if the “machinery” could be strengthened. Such approach would be more useful than enlarging the field of application. 20. The representative of South Africa asked whether there was a gap concerning issues of religion and about the process leading to the drafting of general recommendations, as these soft laws, including the United Nations Declaration on religion were not enforceable documents. Mr. Bossuyt stated that CERD considered at times the issue of religion in its work. Some States parties noted that CERD’s mandate was racial discrimination and not discrimination based on religion or belief. That objection could ostensibly be overcome by a separate instrument, but the practical challenge of drafting it would be enormous. B. Issues, challenges and best practices pertaining to reporting under the ICERD Convention 21. At the 3rd meeting, on 14 July, the Chair-Rapporteur recalled that the outcome of the 6th session of the Ad Hoc Committee in paragraph 97 (a)(iii) provided for a discussion on “issues, challenges and best practices pertaining to reporting under the Convention”, and as had been agreed by the Coordinators of the Regional Groups, all States were invited to volunteer to brief the Ad Hoc Committee on their individual experiences in this regard under this agenda item during the 7th session. 22. At this meeting, Norway recognizing the continued need to fight all forms of ethnic, racial and religious discrimination, hate crimes and xenophobia, gave an overview of Norwegian issues, challenges and best practices pertaining to reporting under the ICERD Convention, touching upon some of the issues and challenges facing the country, as well as some practices it considered successful. In order to combat discrimination effectively, Norwegian authorities believed it is important to have reliable and updated information about the extent of discrimination against different groups. In February 2015, The Norwegian Institute for Social Research published a report, which reviews existing research 24