A/HRC/18/36 Discrimination in order for it to be complementary. In A/HRC/13/CRP.1,1 paragraph 159 (a) and (b) referred to gaps which existed and which must be addressed. 41. Cuba stated that, as xenophobia was a new phenomenon of the past 20 years, it was clearly the duty of the Ad Hoc Committee to address it. There were clearly gaps with respect to its treatment in the Convention. The general comments of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination could be valuable, but were not legally binding and the comments of a group of experts were without legal status. Any definition of xenophobia should be as broad as possible and the work of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance should be studied. 42. In response to an earlier intervention, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland noted that, while the serious issues being considered were very emotive, interventions should focus on the substance of the discussions. It underlined the multicultural and diverse society of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. 43. The European Union recalled that, although xenophobia had been considered by the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance in 2001 and the Review Conference in 2009, no standard definition, besides very broad dictionary terms, had ever been established. As a result, xenophobia could be understood through other grounds of discrimination and in connection with racism and racial discrimination, and could be a compounding or additional ground for discrimination. Manifestations of xenophobia rather than xenophobia itself should be addressed, for example, discrimination or violence based on xenophobia. In that respect, the approach of the delegate of Liechtenstein concerning accumulated grounds in article 1 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination was interesting. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of article 1 of the Convention allowed for distinction and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination was perhaps already equipped to deal with the issue of xenophobia. The European Union recalled the need for more expertise and research on the issue and noted that it would be very important to hear directly from the Committee concerning its competence in the area and as to whether additional provisions or protocols were required. 44. The European Union also noted that its regional initiatives were mentioned in the preliminary discussion note, expressing appreciation for the acknowledgment that measures had already been taken to address xenophobia at the regional level. 45. France supported the position of the European Union and the approach suggested by Liechtenstein. Speaking on the etymology of xenophobia, France noted that xenophobia was essentially about treating those of another nationality differently. It added that, although not mentioned explicitly, the scourge of xenophobia was addressed by the definition in article 1 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The question had been raised as to whether a definition of xenophobia was necessary to change the situation with respect to victims on the ground. Therefore, it was also important to assess whether the content of the definition in that Convention was transposed to domestic legislation, thereby making provision for issues of xenophobia. 46. Algeria emphasized that it was not possible to equate racial discrimination – referred to in the Convention – with xenophobia, which was not. It noted that the Additional 1 Report of the second session of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Elaboration of Complementary Standards as approved ad referendum on 30 October 2009 with amendments and proposals received within the following two weeks to statements delivered during the session. 9