A/HRC/19/15 domestic institutional framework, Lithuania had decided to optimize the activities of existing institutions and to preserve the advantages of the existing system. 16. Lithuania had chosen a combined approach where human rights were not an isolated issue but they were seen as an issue to be dealt with in the work of every Ministry, integrated into all its policies, and constantly assessed against the yardstick of Lithuania’s international commitments. 17. Trying to ensure better coordination while not diminishing the role of specialized bodies in the protection of human rights, it has been proposed to set up a coordinating Human Rights Council of Lithuania as part of the Ombudspersons’ institution to perform systematic monitoring of human rights and implementation of relevant recommendations, and to examine human rights issues. This initiative had already been discussed by the Parliamentary Human Rights Committee at a hearing on 8 June 2011, and at a round-table discussion with international experts hosted by the President of the Republic on 12 July 2011. On 21 September 2011 the Board of the Parliament set up a working group, chaired by the chairman of the Parliamentary Human Rights Committee and composed of representatives from the Parliament, NGOs, academia as well as the Government, to draft the necessary legal acts to ensure compliance of the Parliamentary Ombudspersons’ Institution with the Paris Principles, by 30 March, 2012. 18. Human rights formed an important part of activities of other organizations of which Lithuania was a member. Within the European Union, it participated in developing human rights protection and promotion procedures. Membership of the Council of Europe gave Lithuania access to comprehensive legal framework and elaborate complaint examination system of the European Court of Human Rights. In 2011, Lithuania chaired the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which had strong human dimension activities. Participation in all of these structures created additional possibilities for advancement of human rights nationally, as well as internationally. 19. Lithuania stressed the importance of the universal periodic review maintaining its momentum and countries participating in it actively. Lithuania also expressed great hopes for subsequent cycles of the review, which are to focus both on the implementation of previous recommendations and on new issues that will arise. B. Interactive dialogue and responses by the State under review 20. During the interactive dialogue, 39 delegations made statements. Recommendations made during the dialogue are to be found in section II of the present report. 21. The Russian Federation noted that Lithuania had undertaken measures to protect human rights, in particular through the adoption of the law on equal opportunities, the amendments to the criminal code and the establishment of a special department at the Prosecutor General Office to fight manifestations of racism. However, Russia considered that the work done so far was obviously not sufficient: in Lithuania there were still many stateless persons, a law rate of naturalization, discrimination on the basis of language and nationality, manifestations of xenophobia, racism and attempts to falsify history. Russia made recommendations. 22. France asked whether there were obstacles preventing Lithuania from ratifying the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance and noted that Lithuania did not sign the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. France noted that the United Nations compilation referred to the persistence of xenophobic and racist behaviors and acts. France asked which measures had been taken to avoid committal of persons with mental disabilities. France made recommendations. 5