A/HRC/11/L.10 page 44 human rights in Germany. As was already the case with the national report, the answers to the recommendations had been the subject of consultations with civil society organizations and the national human rights institution of Germany. The delegate thanked them for their engagement, constructive criticism and devotion to human rights. He underlined that throughout the review process, from the summary of the stakeholder’s input to the current consultations, it had again been demonstrated how essential the free participation of active, lively and varied civil society organizations was to the functioning of a human rights culture. Germany owed them its respect and full support, both at home and in the Council. 178. Turning to the substance of its answers to the recommendations, Germany noted that many recommendations referred to the specific areas of human rights of migrants, questions of racism, xenophobia and related intolerance, as well as minority issues. Almost all related recommendations had been accepted. Germany remained fully committed to effectively combating all instances of racism, racial discrimination and related phenomena. In this context, Germany looked forward to the visit in the country of the Special Rapporteur, Githu Muigai. 179. Although Germany was currently not in a position to accept the call for the creation of a centralized statistic database on racist and xenophobic incidents as contained in recommendation 16, it looked forward to pursuing an open dialogue on the need and feasibility of such a mechanism. The Permanent Representative added that, despite its decision not to participate in the recent Durban Review Conference, Germany would continue to engage itself fully in the international fight against racism and all forms of discrimination. Germany also remained committed to protecting the human rights of all migrants, minorities and religious groups. Germany saw no contradiction between this commitment and its well-known stand on the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, and existing limitations to the open display of religious beliefs by teachers and civil servants while on duty. The first instance was due to the full protection of the relevant rights in other conventions, while the second was rooted in nothing else but the need to weigh the positive and negative freedom of belief against each other and to retain the State’s neutrality in matters of belief.