A/HRC/25/12 had become a signatory to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Togo welcomed the measures Monaco had taken to protect children, to protect women from violence, and to improve the situation of persons with disabilities, and the specific campaigns and school programmes it had launched to combat discrimination. Togo praised the legislative amendment allowing women to transmit their nationality to their spouses and children. Togo made recommendations. 45. Tunisia noted the progress Monaco had made in human rights since its 2009 UPR cycle, particularly the ratification of regional and international human rights instruments and the revision of laws on nationality and police custody. It also noted the commitment of Monaco to international development and encouraged it to increase development aid to 0.7 per cent of its GDP. Tunisia made recommendations. 46. With regard to international cooperation, the Minister for Foreign Affairs noted that the Government of Monaco sought to maintain its commitment to international solidarity with the most disadvantaged groups and those severely affected by conflict. Monegasque development cooperation activities, which were primarily targeted at the eradication of poverty, had been refocused in some 20 partner countries, most of them least developed countries. 47. Aid from Monaco provided support for some 120 development cooperation projects every year. Assistance was also allocated to international organizations (health, protection of children, human rights, environmental protection and humanitarian emergency assistance). 48. Concerning the criminalization of racist acts, he said that under Act No. 1.299 of 15 July 2005 on freedom of public expression, any racially motivated provocation, irrespective of the means used, was a criminal offence. The Government of the Principality had not ruled out the possibility of amending the Criminal Code to make racist motivation an aggravating circumstance. 49. As to the ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, the Principality of Monaco had already identified several structural problems, mostly constitutional. However, it had already responded favourably to requests from the Court for judicial assistance and cooperation. 50. Responding to the question on defamation, he said that although it was specifically criminalized, that was not an obstacle to freedom of expression. The very purpose of its criminalization was to protect persons against defamation on account of membership in any given group. Freedom of expression had limits, and a balance must be found between freedom of expression and repression of clearly defamatory remarks. 51. On the questions regarding persons with disabilities, Monaco stressed the importance of the policy designed to give priority to the autonomy and normal social integration of persons with disabilities. It shared its good practices regarding access to transport, public facilities, apartments, work and education. 52. As regards the development of legislation, the delegation stated that Bill No. 893, mentioned earlier, was a priority for the National Council and the Government and had been submitted to the National Council. 53. On the subject of torture, he said that a variety of provisions in Monegasque domestic law covered acts of torture. The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment was among the legal provisions that judges could cite directly. No reports of acts of torture had been received recently in Monaco. 8 GE.14-10028