A/HRC/19/15 Lithuania to pursue its legislative reforms relating discrimination and all forms of intolerance. 78. Uruguay welcomed Lithuania’s efforts in combating discrimination but noted the persistence of xenophobic acts and practices of racial segregation, mainly against the Roma community. It recognized Lithuania’s efforts in bringing its policies in line with the Convention on the Rights of the Child but noted the discrimination against children from vulnerable families, children with disabilities, Roma children, refugee or asylum-seeking children and children living in rural areas. Uruguay made recommendations. 79. Afghanistan noted the continuous cooperation of Lithuania with special procedures, indicating its commitment towards the promotion and protection of human rights in the country. It welcomed the Law on Equal Opportunities, the National Strategy for Combating Violence against Women, the Law on the Protection from Domestic Violence as well as the establishment of the Ombudsman for children’s rights. Afghanistan made recommendations. 80. Malaysia commended Lithuania for its inclusive approach towards the universal periodic review and noted the democratization and economic liberalization agenda on which Lithuania had embarked since it recovered its independence, with impressive gains in the field of human rights. Malaysia noted that Lithuania was affected by the recent global economic crises which negatively impacted on human rights but it was confident that Lithuania remained committed to continue human rights protection. Malaysia made recommendations. 81. The delegation of Lithuania stated that the protection of human rights was a complex process, where every achievement brought new challenges and dilemmas. Roughly 20 years ago Lithuania faced the challenge of creating an essentially new legal system, introducing human rights in all law and in daily life. Lithuania’s international partners agreed that it had managed to accomplish this first task. 82. Lithuania said that the comments and a recommendation made by the Russian Federation were based on not-so-well established facts. Lithuania recalled the three steps of its occupation from 1940 until its independence and that all occupying powers denied human rights. Lithuania would definitely prosecute all criminals who committed crimes against humanity under whatever ideology and asked the Russian Federation for more collaboration in finding those alleged criminals. 83. Lithuania underlined that a major conceptual challenge was to ensure that all human rights were protected and not only the most popular of them. For example, the Law on the Protection of Minors against the Detrimental Effect of Public Information was just one example of how to reconcile competing claims relating to the protection of human rights. Lithuania was open to critical remarks with regard to the choices it made to address difficult questions. 84. Lithuania stated that the implementation of human rights was primarily the task of specialized ministries. However, the possibilities for civil society to get involved in law and policy making significantly increased recently with the inclusion of the principle of transparency in the legislative process. 85. Overall, Lithuania thought that it would be a fair assessment to say that it achieved significant progress in ensuring human rights, notably in civil and political rights, which were adequately guaranteed. 86. On freedom of peaceful assembly, Lithuania indicated that it was guaranteed by law and the only restriction was related to the necessity of ensuring public safety. Lithuanian courts ensured that public safety was not used as a mean of unreasonable restriction of that freedom. Lithuania provided examples to back its statement, namely the 2010 Baltic gay 13