A/HRC/8/26 Page 9 disaggregated data on caste-based discrimination so as to allow for targeted planning to improve the situation of the Dalits. 37. Considering the prohibition of child labour, the Netherlands recommended that India review its reservation to article 32 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and ratify ILO Conventions No. 138 and 182. It also sought additional details on how the recommendations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination on scheduled classes were being implemented. As a member of the troika it assured the Council and the State under Review that it would do its utmost to obtain a meaningful outcome of the exercise. 38. Saudi Arabia stated that India is known as a country of tolerance and pluralism and that the Constitution of India is a comprehensive document which provides for the promotion and protection of civil and political rights as well as economic social and cultural rights. Saudi Arabia took note of the activities reflected in India’s report and mentioned the work of the National Human Rights Commission in preparing a national plan for human rights and of India’s commitment to ensuring the independence of all bodies working in the area of human rights and to promoting human rights on the basis of effective dialogue and cooperation. In January 2006 a new Ministry for minorities was created to take account of these problems and this programme has 15 points and asked how this programme contributed to improving the situation of minorities, and of the role played by civil society. 39. While congratulating India for the important constitutional and legislative measures taken to combat discrimination, Luxembourg endorsed Belgium’s recommendation on disaggregated data. It asked for additional information on (a) statistics on jurisprudence related to discriminatory acts, (b) how recommendations from treaty bodies on scheduled castes and tribes were being implemented, (c) measures being taking to tackle discriminatory treatment in favour of males, including foeticide, and (d) right to food of the peasant population. 40. Germany asked India to provide complementary information on (a) how recommendations made by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and CEDAW on Dalits and scheduled castes were being followed up on, (b) what the position of the Government was regarding the recommendation of several treaty bodies to repeal the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act of 1958, and (c) what concrete steps were being taken to implement national laws abolishing child labour. 41. The United States of America expressed its satisfaction to see a nation as diverse as India engaged in the UPR process. It asked for further details on (a) freedom of religion and expression and on the promulgation of state anti-conversion laws, (b) actions being undertaken to combat police and government corruption, (c) implementation of child labour laws, (d) crimes against women, including domestic violence, dowry-related deaths, honour crimes and sex-selective abortion of unborn girls, and (e) the social acceptance of caste-based discrimination. 42. Algeria congratulated India for the participatory approach adopted in the preparation of the national report. While noting that the economic growth being experienced by India has led to a widening of the gap between rich and poor, it asked whether any innovative approaches were being taken to ensure that this economic development was not detrimental to the enjoyment of human rights by all sections of the population. Algeria stated that it is aware of the fact that the high growth rate of India over recent years has not trickled down sufficiently to the poor, thus increasing social stratification between the richer segments of society and the destitute. Algeria recommended that India review new ways of reversing this worrying trend undermining the fundamental economic rights of vulnerable groups and that it share its findings with us in Africa where poverty is rife.