A/HRC/18/2 Latvia 394. The review of Latvia was held on 5 May 2011, in conformity with all the relevant provisions contained in Human Rights Council resolution 5/1, and was based on the following documents: (a) The national report submitted by Latvia in accordance with the annex to Council resolution 5/1, paragraph 15 (a) (A/HRC/WG.6/11/LVA/1); (b) The compilation prepared by OHCHR in accordance with paragraph 15 (b) (A/HRC/WG.6/11/LVA/2); (c) The summary prepared by OHCHR in accordance with paragraph 15 (c) (A/HRC/WG.6/11/LVA/3). 395. At its 21st meeting, on 22 September 2011, the Human Rights Council considered and adopted the outcome of the review of Latvia (see section C below). 396. The outcome of the review of Latvia comprises the report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review (A/HRC/18/9), the views of Latvia concerning the recommendations and/or conclusions, and its voluntary commitments and replies presented before the adoption of the outcome by the plenary to questions or issues that were not sufficiently addressed during the interactive dialogue in the Working Group (see also A/HRC/18/9/Add.1). 1. Views expressed by the State under review on the recommendations and/or conclusions, its voluntary commitments and the outcome 397. The delegation of Latvia stated that the universal periodic review had been an excellent occasion for the State to review its human rights record through an open and frank dialogue. The preparation process had been followed with relevant Government institutions and the Ombudsman’s office, and with the participation of non-governmental organizations. 398. Latvia had received 122 recommendations, of which 71 enjoyed its immediate support, 7 were rejected and 44 were left for further examination. Many of the recommendations that Latvia had accepted had already been implemented or were in the process of implementation. While other countries had welcomed several steps taken by Latvia to further the promotion and protection of human rights, Latvia appreciated the fact that the peer review had indicated areas where improvement were needed. 399. The views on outstanding recommendations and the explanation of position on the recommendations already rejected could be found in the addendum to the report of the Working Group. Latvia was a committed member of the international community and had become a party to the core human rights instruments. The possibility of ratifying the Optional Protocols to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance would be considered in due course. 400. With regard to the ratification of the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, Latvia referred to its domestic legislation, which was based on adherence to and the implementation of the requirements of universal human rights instruments, as well as respective European Union regulations. Therefore, Latvia did not intend to sign and ratify this convention in the foreseeable future. 136 GE.12-17756