A/HRC/18/36 83. The Chairperson welcomed this timely intervention and agreed that it was counterproductive to talk at cross-purposes. He agreed to the suggestion that concrete proposals be submitted in order that they could be discussed at the following session of the Ad Hoc Committee. 84. Switzerland expressed its openness to the proposal from Morocco and stated that it was amenable to drawing up standards if it ultimately proved necessary to do so. The United States of America clarified that the 2009 exercise was in fact different and that the current proposal was an invitation to bring forth situations of contemporary cases not covered by the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The proposal from Morocco was appreciated, since it was an opportunity to consider what was covered by the norms and why; however, to state that there were in fact gaps was a conclusion at which it had not been arrived. 85. The European Union stated that the Ad Hoc Committee appeared to be at a standstill again and noted that the problem of methodology remained with regard to the existence of a gap, or lack thereof, and that the situation was impeding progress. There was a clear need to identify the lacunae first. Concerning methodology: first, the phenomenon must be identified; second, whether gaps existed or not should be considered; third, whether standards were necessary should be determined; and fourth, what type of standard should be elaborated should be determined. The European Union expressed its appreciation of the suggestion of Morocco and added that the Committee was not starting from point zero, as there were previous submissions, including the report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights from 2003 which listed all the relevant existing international standards, as well as the report by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (A/HRC/4/WG.3/7) from 2007 and report on the study by the five experts on the content and scope of substantive gaps in the existing international instruments to combat racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance (A/HRC/4/WG.3/6). 86. The Chairperson stated that it had never been the intention that the Ad Hoc Committee enter into profound discussions on substance during the current session, but that such discussions would take place at the following session. He noted with satisfaction that participants were looking forward to the following session of the Ad Hoc Committee. 87. Algeria stated that, while it agreed with the logic underlying the suggestion of Morocco that proposals be placed on the table, it expressed concern at the fact that such a proposal posed a risk of duplicating and delaying the process. Algeria recalled in that regard that contributions and concrete proposals had already been made in the past. Algeria recalled further that delegations’ positions on methodology, substance and themes had already been expressed and conveyed through written submissions. 88. In reference to the methodology issue, South Africa recalled that the Chairperson had the prerogative to undertake his own initiatives in his role guiding the work of the Ad Hoc Committee. 89. Morocco explained that its suggestion was not that delegations should come back to the Ad Hoc Committee with specific answers concerning gaps, but rather a proposal to answer the request of the European Union delegation to identify concrete proposals with regard to gaps. It stated that if the response was to revert to what had already been done, that would also be fine. 90. CRED commented on the methodology issue, reminding participants not to concentrate solely on existing instruments such as the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, since other declarations and documents existed and could prove instructive. The Association of the World Citizens also commented on the existence of gaps in the system. 16