A/HRC/25/7 65. Mauritius commended the manner in which Mexico was dealing with issues relating to justice, human rights and elimination of discrimination. 66. Montenegro asked Mexico to elaborate on the constitutional changes relating to human rights, on the effectiveness of the National Human Rights Commission and on the role of autonomous public human rights institutions. 67. Nicaragua expressed concern about crime against migrants, a complicated issue aggravated by transnational crimes such as trafficking of persons. 68. The Netherlands expressed concern about violence against journalists, human rights defenders and women, and stated that access to safe abortion was still insufficient. 69. Paraguay welcomed the granting of constitutional status to human rights treaties, as well as the national human rights programme. 70. Morocco commended the constitutional amendments, and welcomed the reform of the mandate of the National Human Rights Commission. 71. Nigeria commended the participatory approach adopted in preparing the UPR report and progress made in promoting and protecting human rights. 72. Norway noted the persistence of violence against journalists and human rights defenders and expressed concern about serious human rights violations against undocumented migrants. 73. Oman recognized the efforts made by Mexico to include human rights in its Constitution, as well as initiatives aimed at eradicating hunger and poverty and ensuring equality between men and women. 74. Pakistan welcomed the strengthening of the National Human Rights Commission and commended the process of broad consultations. 75. New Zealand welcomed the General Persons with Disabilities Inclusion Act and the establishment of the National Council for the Development and Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities. 76. The Plurinational State of Bolivia welcomed the National Development Plan 2013– 2018, which incorporated lines of action in accordance with international human rights standards. 77. The Philippines commended the constitutional amendments and expressed its appreciation of the partnership with Mexico in pursuing initiatives to advance the rights of migrants. 78. Responding to observations, the representative of the Ministry of Defence stated that military justice was established in the Constitution as a specialized jurisdiction. He indicated that the goal of military justice was to preserve military discipline; it was not a privilege, and its existence should not provide impunity for members of the Armed Forces. 79. During the first review, recommendations were made to ensure that violations by members of the Armed Forces were always investigated and pursued within the civilian justice system. 80. Currently the situation was different. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights had issued various resolutions in which it had determined that article 57, II, a) of the Code of Military Justice contravened the American Convention on Human Rights, by granting the competency of military jurisdiction over crimes committed by military personnel against civilians, which must be dealt with in line with international standards. 8