A/HRC/18/36 VII. Discussion on the topic of “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” 63. On 20 April 2011, the Chair opened the eighth meeting and briefly spoke about the preliminary discussion note entitled “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”. He remarked that the note prepared by the Secretariat had merely placed some thoughts on paper and that the paper was neither restrictive nor exhaustive. He stated that the meeting was intended to be a listening exercise in order to prepare for the fourth session, where the topic would be discussed in greater depth and at greater length. 64. The European Union stated that, while it had proposed the current topic, it did not claim any exclusive ownership thereto. Expressing appreciation for the preliminary discussion note, it stated that the merits of the topic concerning national mechanisms rested with the fact that it was both victim-oriented and action-oriented, since it ensured that existing international instruments were properly implemented by States parties. Discussions in the Ad Hoc Committee could focus on two aspects. The first aspect concerned good or best practices and the functions of such mechanisms, which would provide information on occurrences and trends gained through the collection and analysis of data; provide recommendations to policymakers; help States meet with their United Nations reporting obligations; contribute to awareness-raising and therefore to prevention through campaigns; and provide assistance to victims (either through legal assistance or the possibility of receiving complaints directly). The second aspect pertained to the criteria applied to such mechanisms and necessary to ensure their effectiveness, such as the principles relating to the status of national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights (Paris Principles). In any case, it was imperative that the bodies be independent and their membership be representative. 65. Nigeria, speaking on behalf of the African Group, reiterated the need to address the gaps which had existed since the adoption of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. It was premature to speak of questions of accountability without first identifying a legal basis or framework and it was not possible to speak of mechanisms when gaps had yet to be addressed. Nigeria queried why the Council of Europe had elaborated the Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime, concerning the criminalisation of acts of a racist and xenophobic nature committed through computer systems, if it had not perceived a gap. It was advisable to look at mechanisms after the establishment of complementary standards elaborated to address gaps. 66. France associated itself with the statement made by the European Union and presented the function and competences of the Haute Autorité de Lutte contre les Discriminations et pour L’Égalité. That institution addressed several kinds of discrimination, through awareness-raising campaigns and intervention in discrimination cases, particularly in the employment sector. Civil society featured prominently in its work. France was only one example of a best practice and other examples from around the world could be used to draw up guidelines. It would also be useful to conduct an assessment of how States parties to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination had applied article 6 concerning “effective protection and remedies through the competent national tribunals and other State institutions against any act of racial discrimination”. 13