A/HRC/18/36 difference of opinion, the regional groups had come together in a spirit of compromise to arrive at a consensus regarding the topics to be discussed. 35. The regional coordinators had agreed that the Chairperson should propose to the Ad Hoc Committee that the topics for discussion in plenary would be topic 1 on “Xenophobia” and Topic 6 “Establishment, designation, or maintaining of national mechanisms with competences to protect against and prevent all forms and manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance” (as amended). 36. The Chairperson explained that the next two meetings would be dedicated to preliminary discussion of those two topics, including input on how those topics may be tackled more thoroughly at the forthcoming session. 37. VI. The revised programme of work was adopted, as amended. Discussion on the topic of “Xenophobia” 38. At its seventh meeting, the Chair introduced a preliminary discussion note on xenophobia prepared by the Secretariat and invited comments on the topic from the Ad Hoc Committee. 39. Liechtenstein noted the issue of working methods and underlined the need to consider how the discussion on xenophobia would be taken forwards to the next session of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Elaboration of Complementary Standards. It was proposed that the working definition for xenophobia should be “discrimination against non-citizens”, and the assessment for whether a complementary standard was required should be whether or not discrimination against “non-citizens” was covered by the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. It was important to assess how that Committee employed general comment No. 30 (2004) on discrimination against noncitizens in practice. It would be useful to look at how the Convention was being interpreted by the Committee in its 33 detailed general comments and its concluding observations made to many States over the years; while these documents were not legally binding, their implementation was important and analysing concluding observations to see how xenophobia was considered by the Committee could prove instructive. In line with paragraph 119 of the Durban Review Conference Outcome document, it would also be beneficial to consider how xenophobia was being addressed at the regional level around the world, as well as at the national level. Lastly, it would be interesting to determine how the Committee was addressing the issue of non-citizens in the wider sense. 40. Speaking on behalf of the African Group, the delegate from Nigeria stated that article 1 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination made no mention of xenophobia in its definition of racial discrimination. He referred to the theory concerning the deconstruction of racism and xenophobia by the former Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, Doudou Diène. The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination monitored States parties on the basis of law, including domestic legislation, not general comments. A victim-centred approach must focus on victim’s rights and due process clearly defined in law. Given the existence of that Convention, elaboration of a new instrument was not necessarily foreseen; however an additional protocol would likely be required to strengthen it. In defining xenophobia, a clear linkage must be made to the existing International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial 8