A/HRC/28/8 including trans-border impacts of climate change, asylum policies and consequences of free trade agreements on social and economic rights. 9. In response to questions on the ratification of international human rights instruments from Belgium, Mexico and the United Kingdom, Fiji confirmed that it was not a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, or the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Nonetheless, the robust Bill of Rights in the Constitution went beyond obligations under those instruments and placed an obligation on the State to promote and protect those rights for all Fijians. Those rights were applied directly by the Fijian judiciary. Approval of the ratification of those international instruments was the prerogative of Parliament. 10. Fiji remained amenable to inviting special procedures mandate holders to visit the country. However, it was operating in an entirely new political, social and legislative environment. Fiji wanted to be in a position to ratify those instruments and have the resources to host and meet the standards of the mandate holders before inviting them. 11. Women’s rights in Fiji were in line with the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), which Fiji had ratified in 1995. In response to questions from ten countries on steps taken to end discrimination and violence against women, Fiji acknowledged the challenges posed by those issues. New initiatives included updated provisions in the Crimes Decree for the offences of rape and sexual assault, the passing and application of the Domestic Violence Decree, judicial training, a new National Gender Policy and gender training for civil servants. Fiji corrected the claim made by the Netherlands that the Constitution did not protect women by listing the newly protected grounds, in addition to sex and gender, in the Bill of Rights, which included gender identity and expression, pregnancy and marital status, and constituted broad protection from discrimination against women, allowing for the legal expression of intersectional discrimination. It was also clarified that the higher levels of reported cases of domestic violence, about which concern had been raised, in fact reflected higher reporting by victims owing to their confidence in the above-mentioned initiatives. 12. Those measures would only be meaningful if all stakeholders played their part in shaping society’s attitudes towards zero tolerance of discrimination and violence against women. Training and participation by the police, civil society, the judiciary and prosecutors was also required. It was important for civil society organizations to familiarize themselves with those laws and initiatives because they were empowered to represent women in the legal system under the Domestic Violence Decree. 13. The Domestic Violence Decree did not establish domestic violence as an offence; the charge would remain one of assault under the Crimes Decree. However, there were important provisions in the Domestic Violence Decree that could be used to protect women. 14. Responding to questions from Belgium and Estonia on the International Criminal Court, the delegation said that Fiji had been one of the first States to ratify the Rome Statute and it remained steadfastly committed to the International Criminal Court. The country’s domestic legislation is in full complementarity with the provisions of the Rome Statute and domestic legislation through the Crimes Decree. 15. Responding to questions from Ethiopia and Switzerland on rights vis-à-vis limitations in the Fijian Constitution, Fiji explained that the burden was on the State to prove that the limitations were necessary. The law must always promote the values that underlay a democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom. In addition, section 7 of the Bill of Rights, underpinning those democratic principles, guided the courts’ interpretations and allowed them to consider international law in their decisions. 4