A/HRC/13/58 • Human Rights Council decision 3/103 establishing the mandate of the Ad Hoc Committee • Human Rights Council resolution 10/30 which endorsed the road map • Core international human rights treaties 9. The Chairperson underlined that he had taken the comments formulated during the informal meeting of 10 July 2009 into account in the elaboration of the outcome document under the road map. He noted, however, that some contributions received did not fall under the mandate of the Ad Hoc Committee, interfered with mandates of other mechanisms, or pertained to process, thematic issues or principled positions. In order to enhance transparency, a section summarizing the views and comments of Member States had nevertheless also been included in the outcome document. The Chairperson requested that discussions focus on the main sections of the outcome document under the road map. Given the nature of the substantive issues included in the outcome document, a victim-oriented approach was imperative. He welcomed the opportunity for the Ad Hoc Committee to advance its endeavours and expressed his wishes for a fruitful, effective and substantive session. D. Adoption of the agenda and organization of work 10. The Chairperson invited comments on the agenda contained in document A/HRC/AC.1/2/1. In the course of discussion, statements on the agenda were frequently intertwined with statements on the organization and draft programme of work contained in document A/HRC/AC.1/2/CRP.1. Both items are therefore addressed under the same heading. 11. Nigeria, on behalf of the African Group, indicated it could not accept the agenda and programme of work as structured and requested that the Chairperson elaborate a new agenda and a new programme of work that would allow the Committee to start the process of developing a new international instrument. 12. Sweden, on behalf of the European Union (EU), stated that, while the EU was not against the principle of adopting complementary standards, it felt the decision to do so should be consensual. Sweden also underlined that any identification of gaps needed to be based on empirical data and not simply views, and stressed that the need to adopt standards was to be rationally justifiable and evidence-based. Any complementary standards should not undermine or duplicate existing standards, and all relevant stakeholders should be associated to the process, including members of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. Sweden also stated that agreement on these principles was necessary before it could endorse the proposed agenda. Azerbaijan supported the elaboration of complementary standards since some challenges are not covered by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and emphasized that consensus should not be a precondition for the work of the Ad Hoc Committee. 13. On behalf of Brazil, Chile, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Japan, Mexico, the Republic of Korea, Switzerland and Uruguay, Argentina stated that due consideration was to be given to the study of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, contained in document A/HRC/4/WG.3/7, and the study by the five experts, contained in document A/HRC/4/WG.3/6. Argentina added that a discussion on the identification of procedural and substantive gaps should precede any discussion on themes and should be conducted in a spirit of consensus, a view supported by Norway. 14. The United States of America did not believe new norms were necessary or useful. The problem was not one of gaps in the existing international legal framework, but rather 4 GE.10-10366