A/HRC/28/8 international community to support national efforts for issues identified as priorities. It made a recommendation. 34. Denmark welcomed the new Government’s undertaking to ratify all core human rights instruments. Noting that steps to ratify the Convention against Torture (CAT) were already under way, it encouraged the Government to seek the assistance of the Convention against Torture Initiative. Denmark made recommendations. 35. Estonia noted that the drafting of the Constitution had not been all-inclusive. It urged Fiji to abolish decrees restricting media freedom, put a stop to the intimidation and harassment of persons who criticized the State, and ensure zero tolerance of violence against women. It made recommendations. 36. Ethiopia enquired about the impact of legal restrictions applicable to certain constitutional rights on individuals’ enjoyment of the rights concerned. It noted the existence of restrictions on the capacity of law enforcement bodies to interpret the country’s human rights obligations. It made a recommendation. 37. France welcomed the restoration of parliamentary democracy and the adoption of the new Constitution, which had put an end to major discrimination on ethnic grounds. France made recommendations. 38. Germany welcomed the Bill of Rights contained in the new Constitution. It commended the abolitionist approach taken towards the death penalty for over two decades. Germany made recommendations. 39. Fiji indicated that the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Commission would now serve as the predominant enforcement body for the Bill of Rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The Constitution provided for the independence of the Commission in its functions and in the exercise of its authority and powers, including administrative autonomy and control over its own budget and finances. In order to fulfil its mandate, which included enforcing and monitoring compliance with the human rights instruments ratified by the Government, including by bringing proceedings before the courts, Parliament had to provide adequate funding and resources for the Commission. OHCHR and development partners were invited to work with the Government to strengthen the capacity of the Commission and ensure compliance with the principles relating to the status of national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights (Paris Principles). 40. The meritocracy approach to the Fijian public service had done away with discriminatory policies that had promoted an elite agenda and clique rather than addressing the inequalities they had claimed to address. 41. The Chief Justice refuted any insinuations that the Fijian judiciary was not independent and that it was subject to the direction and control of the Government. The appointment of judicial officers was handled by the Judicial Services Commission, and consultation with, not concurrence or approval of, the Attorney-General was required. In the case of disagreement, it was ultimately the Commission’s final decision. Comments to the effect that the Government controlled the judiciary were therefore erroneous. Representation on the Commission of members and non-members of the Bar, and video recording of its proceedings, were a noticeable improvement from the situation under the 1997 Constitution. The appointment process of members to the Commission was considerably less subject to political influence and control. Furthermore, new protections had been introduced into the 2013 Constitution providing for the independence and autonomy of the judiciary, in section 97. 42. The only two judicial appointments controlled by the Government were those of the Chief Justice and the President of the Court of Appeal, under procedures that were the same as those contained in the 1997 Constitution, and similar to other jurisdictions. The 7