A/HRC/25/12 54. Concerning what might appear to be discrimination in the workplace, he explained that the protection instituted for Monegasque nationals was justified by the unique nature of the Principality. The Constitution afforded priority to Monegasque citizens in access to public and private employment if they possessed the necessary aptitudes: when aptitudes were equal, then priority came into play. No preference was given on grounds of race, gender, colour, public opinions or social origin. The system made it possible to promote full employment of nationals without depriving non-nationals of the possibility of being hired. 55. Social protection was based on the notion of workplace, and there was no discrimination. Monegasque wage earners and foreign wage earners who were regularly accorded work in the Principality enjoyed the same level of protection, irrespective of their nationality. 56. The possibility of joining the International Labour Organization (ILO) had not been ruled out. The analysis in which Monaco was engaging was justified by the question of how the ILO principles could be reconciled with the Monegasque system of priority in employment and trade union rights. The same reasons had led the Government of the Principality to continue its study of the possibility of ratifying ILO Convention No. 11 (1958) concerning Discrimination in Respect of Employment and Occupation. 57. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland recognized that human rights were enshrined in the Constitution and noted the fair treatment of prisoners, which was monitored by independent observers. It welcomed the religious freedom that was enjoyed in Monaco and the country’s efforts to eradicate child abuse. It was concerned that there was no law against sexual or gender discrimination in employment and no independent procedure to monitor complaints of human rights violations by the police. It made recommendations. 58. The United States of America commended Monaco for its long-standing exemplary human rights record, its contributions to attaining the Millennium Development Goals and its support to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and other foreign aid and development assistance. It noted that Monaco had cooperated with legal experts from the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) on the formulation of an opinion on the Constitution of Monaco. It made recommendations. 59. Uruguay highlighted the signature and ratification by Monaco of international human rights instruments, its policies to promote and protect the rights of the elderly, its penitentiary administration reforms and its work in the fields of persons with disabilities and workplace violence. Uruguay made recommendations. 60. Thanking Monaco for its succinct national report, Viet Nam welcomed its achievements in the promotion and protection of human rights and its active contribution to international cooperation. Viet Nam encouraged Monaco to share its experiences and good practices with other countries. Recognizing that no country could claim to be a perfect example of human rights, Viet Nam made recommendations. 61. Albania commended Monaco for its commitment to human rights through effective measures and an extensive legal and administrative human rights framework, notably regarding the rights of vulnerable people. Albania looked forward to the adoption of the bill on the protection, autonomy and promotion of the rights and freedoms of persons with disabilities and the ratification by Monaco of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The establishment of the office of Minister for Appeals and Mediation would promote fairness and transparency. Albania made recommendations. 62. Commending Monaco for its efforts to promote human rights, Algeria noted its amendments to several laws, especially on the right to nationality and on eradicating crimes against children. It welcomed the signature and ratification of several international GE.14-10028 9