A/HRC/18/36 75. The United States of America supported the position of the European Union, stating that there was an assumption that there were large gaps in the normative standards and that it would be very useful to hear of a situation or case not covered by the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. It was noted that mechanisms were also part of Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and that the problem was really implementation. 76. Brazil stated that the 2001 World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance had been a turning point for the country and had ushered in a period of reflection regarding racial equality domestically. National contexts differed. Brazil perceived no gaps which required filling and was not in a position to tell other Member States what action to take concerning their respective national circumstances. 77. Egypt stated that gaps in protection and promotion must be addressed, but that progress in that regard had been blocked by the issue of topic identification. The Durban Declaration and Programme of Action cited the contemporary forms of racism, and discussion on national mechanisms must take place with that in mind. It must be asked whether a new cycle of victimization was created by contemporary forms of racism or whether the current framework was inadequate to address the contemporary forms. It was added that the issue of national mechanisms was cross-cutting and should be discussed under each identified topic. 78. Nigeria, speaking on behalf of the African Group, stated that the mandate of the Ad Hoc Committee made clear that complementary standards should be elaborated. It recalled a paper prepared by the African Group in 2009 and noted that it could be submitted to the next session of the Ad Hoc Committee. 79. Algeria further stated that, while the Ad Hoc Committee should not be working exclusively on best practices, the essence of those practices could be transposed to normsetting, if appropriate. It would be useful to identify a practice which could be set as a norm. In reference to the “road map” document in the report of the Ad Hoc Committee in its second session, it was recalled that States had already been asked to identity gaps and areas in writing. 80. Switzerland noted that mechanisms evolved over time and in so doing could also respond to changes. It was not necessary that standard-setting always take place first, as there were some practices which could prove useful outside of a lengthy norm-setting process. States enjoyed a degree of latitude in implementing their human rights obligations and could even go beyond them if they so wished. Switzerland indicated that it had not yet been proven that complementary standards were necessary. 81. The African Union asserted its commitment to standard-setting and stated that it had been prevented from presenting the African Group document of 2009. It underscored the need to present information and positions with regard to gaps, adding that the rights of victims and individuals could only be based on a legal framework. 82. Morocco stated that the debate was essentially the same exchange of views from the previous session of the Ad Hoc Committee and that participant and regional groups appeared to be hearing without listening. Recalling Human Rights Council decision 3/103, it asked why the meeting was being held if there were no gaps and added that there was indeed a void which needed to be bridged. It suggested that the Committee leave aside questions of format for the time being and focus on matters of substance. It further suggested that delegations respond to the request of the European Union to submit specific proposal about gaps and suggestions for drafting, which could be compiled in a document for the forthcoming session. The earlier exchanges on best practices were appreciated, but those practices were particular to a given State. 15