A/HRC/18/36 67. The United States of America stated that norms, and mechanisms to implement those norms, were necessary elements which must go together. It expressed the need for practical discussions that focused on better implementation of existing norms, as the problem was not that there were gaps in the existing international legal framework, but rather that there were gaps in practical implementation of existing standards. The United States of America shared an overview of interventions taken following 9 September 2001 to deal with “discriminatory backlash” at the national level, noting the success of these measures and mechanisms. It was also suggested that all States undertake a critical assessment to ascertain which types of mechanisms were in place and submit those assessments to the Ad Hoc Committee or OHCHR. It was important to identify what national mechanisms were in place, what they covered, and how well they functioned before the existence of gaps could be determined. 68. The African Union supported the idea that both norms and mechanisms were needed, but noted that sequencing was at issue. Institutions and mechanisms must operate in a logical legal framework. Thus, substance and procedure were required first; only then could implementation mechanisms be established on that basis. Establishing strict criteria regarding mechanisms might curtail the diversity and sovereignty of States. 69. The delegate from Greece noted the importance of a multi-stakeholder approach. 70. Algeria agreed that national mechanisms had a major role to play, but also that sequencing was very important, since mechanisms from 1965 might be limited in their ability to deal with contemporary forms of racial discrimination. It was asked whether the mechanisms were intended to replace courts and whether they would constitute an appropriate response to new manifestations of racism. The sharing of best practices was appreciated, but that was not the mandate of the Ad Hoc Committee. Best practices would be considered during the upcoming seventeenth session of the Human Rights Council. It was not advisable to limit the scope of the Ad Hoc Committee, as the Intergovernmental Working Group on the effective implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action was the mechanism charged with implementation. 71. Pakistan, on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, stated that national mechanisms were sufficiently addressed by article 6 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. It also understood that new gaps required the elaboration of new standards and only then could mechanisms be considered. 72. Nigeria, on behalf of the African Group, supported the position of Algeria and reiterated that, while expressing its appreciation for sharing best practices, the Ad Hoc Committee was not the appropriate forum to do so. National mechanisms alone could not fill gaps and it was only logical to set norms first – national mechanisms to implement those norms would follow. 73. The Chairperson reiterated the fundamental questions being raised by participants. Were there indeed gaps or not? The issue of sequencing: did norms precede the identification of gaps or could gaps be addressed before or without the elaboration of norms? It was noted that emergency situations might call for a simultaneous consideration of gaps and norms. 74. The European Union regretted that, although the proposed topic had been amended twice – first by Pakistan, then by Nigeria, on behalf of the African Group – other Regional Groups or participants were not ready to engage substantively on the issue of national mechanisms, and that the discussion seemed to focus on gaps and norms to apply, rather than on the substance of the proposed topic of mechanisms. The European Union rejected the notion that there was a legal vacuum to be filled and invited delegations to state which gap had been identified and what methods had been used to identify these necessary complementary standards. 14