A/HRC/10/84 Page 11 investigate ways that the United Kingdom could support the work of UNICEF and Tuvalu to fully implement the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The United Kingdom noted the qualifications concerning customary law and limitations under the Bill of Rights aimed at limiting practice which are “divisive, unsettling or offensive to the people”, or directly threaten “Tuvaluan values and culture”. While the limitations are further clarified by the Constitution, actions must be “reasonable and justifiable within a democratic society”; there are still forms of discrimination against women in family law and restrictions on freedom of religion, belief and expression in Tuvalu. It welcomed the explanation of the work under way to review the law in this area and encouraged Tuvalu in its efforts to correct this. The United Kingdom recommended that Tuvalu prioritize reforms to modernize legislation and eliminate all forms of discrimination. 44. France congratulated Tuvalu on the human rights situation, which it considered basically satisfactory. It expressed concern at the number of cases of discrimination against women, particularly based on certain traditions. It noted that domestic violence is often neglected, particularly owing to the lack of evidence, and asked how information on domestic violence is collected. France recommended that Tuvalu establish equality between the sexes in the Constitution and take all necessary measures to counter gender-based discrimination. It noted that, even if rape is criminalized, domestic violence is not included in the definition. France recommended that Tuvalu penalize rape, whoever is responsible, including marital rape. In noting that Tuvalu is not State party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and while aware of the material difficulties faced, France recommended that the Government sign and ratify these two major instruments as soon as possible. It noted the lack of a specific mechanism for the promotion and protection of human rights because of a lack of financial and technical resources, and hoped that Tuvalu would give priority consideration to these problems. France recommended that Tuvalu establish a national human rights institution in accordance with the Paris Principles. 45. Zambia expressed its support and encouragement while noting that Tuvalu has a long way to go before it meets some of its national and international obligations in the area of human rights. It noted that Tuvalu is not a party to the two major treaties, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The two treaties that have been ratified, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, had not yet been domesticated into national law. It noted with interest and as remarkable achievements the life expectancy at birth of 67 years, the adult literacy rate of 95 per cent and that there are free health services and compulsory free education for children from 7 to 14 years. Zambia recommended that the State call on the international community to offer very much needed technical assistance to Tuvalu as stipulated and outlined in paragraph 77 of the national report and that the international community address the call by Tuvalu for technical assistance in the establishment of a human rights institution. 46. Latvia referred to the United Nations Development Assistance Framework report for 2003-2007, which noted that Tuvalu had an excellent record of meeting its people’s basic needs since its independence in 1978, with nearly universal access to basic health services and formal education. It appreciated in particular the response given regarding the issue of standing invitations to the special procedures. Latvia believed that accommodation of special procedures mandate-holders does not place a significant burden on a country, even a small one, as exemplified by a number of small States that have issued standing invitations. Latvia believed that the special procedures mandate-holders are sensitive to the resource constraints of smaller