A/HRC/18/36 response to xenophobia – rather than prevention and other implementation measures – was really required. 52. Nigeria, speaking on behalf of the African Group, recalled that the issue of xenophobia was a very real phenomenon happening to real people and that certain views in the Ad Hoc Committee might appear to negate the reality of the victims. It agreed that there was a need to work on a definition agreeable to all prior to looking at possible solutions. It reiterated that article 1 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination did not refer to xenophobia or religion. Article 2 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights was read out by the delegate and the delegate suggested that the article was more inclusive than article 1 of the Convention and could prove useful to the work of the Ad Hoc Committee. 53. Speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, the delegate from Pakistan stated that xenophobia could not be equated with the concept of non-citizens. There was a need to study the issue of xenophobia in greater detail and the delegate looked forward to new documentation informing the discussions at the following session of the Ad Hoc Committee. 54. Italy expressed its support for the statement of the European Union and its interest in the interventions by Switzerland and Brazil. It looked forward to further documentation and expert presentations at the next session of the Ad Hoc Committee. In support of a victimoriented approach, Italy posited that, taking into account the original meaning of xenophobia, i.e., fear of whomever was “foreign, alien, strange and/or different”, xenophobia could affect citizens and non-citizens alike. Similarly, fear could result in paralysis and inaction as well as acts of violence, incitement and intolerance, for instance. With regard to the possible manifestations of xenophobia, it would be important to look at the comprehensive provisions of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. 55. France reiterated that it saw xenophobia as a scourge that it had acknowledged nationally and, in that light, was taking measures domestically to combat it. Its interpretation was that, under article 1, paragraph 1, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination was in a position to look into difficult situations, including xenophobia, as witnessed by the various national reports received by the Committee. It was just as pertinent to consider whether the absence of a definition prevented the Committee from addressing xenophobia. 56. South Africa highlighted the parallel issue of political will, asking whether apartheid would have ended if it was solely a matter of an implementation issue in respect of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. It would be instructive to the Ad Hoc Committee to study the general comments of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination with respect to the South African apartheid era to see how they were used in practice, looking at the general comments and implementation gaps. The delegate acknowledged the very good elements being raised in the current, first discussion including issues of definitions, measures and policy steps to be taken. 57. Turkey recalled the responsibility of States to combat xenophobia, adding that xenophobia could prove an obstacle to the exercise of rights. What was required was political will to eradicate the phenomenon as well as increased tolerance and understanding of others. In that regard, education was very important. Turkey also underlined the importance of civil society networks and constructive dialogue with actors on the ground. 58. The European Union identified some elements common to the participants that had arisen from the current discussion. While there was no true definition of xenophobia, there was agreement that the phenomenon should be of direct concern to the Ad Hoc Committee and should be dealt with by means of policies and legislators. The European Union was 11