A/HRC/28/81 reservations, during discussions there had been criticism of States that had made reservations to the Convention, in particular to article 4. The representative noted that, according to the United Nations treaty collection website, about 20 States had made reservations to article 4. A wide spectrum of States had made reservations, including the United States. Where freedom of expression intersected with anti-discrimination laws there were some difficult issues; however, the United States would accept no obligation that would limit the fundamental freedoms protected in its Constitution. For example, the United States had allowed a controversial march by the Nazi party in a largely Jewish neighbourhood and had also protected the right of others to protest against the march. The representative emphasized that reservations to conventions were generally allowed. On the purpose of the Ad Hoc Committee, the representative emphasized that Human Rights Council decision 3/103, in which the Council had requested the Committee to develop a new treaty, had been adopted by a vote, not by consensus. Also, paragraph 199 of the Durban Programme of Action did not call for a new treaty; instead, the language was “prepare complementary international standards”, which did not prescribe the type of document. There was merit in the Ad Hoc Committee’s work to address any gaps, but the Committee was not asked by the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action for a new treaty or protocol, but rather complementary standards, which might take other forms. In its more recent consensus resolutions, such as 21/30, the Council referred to paragraph 199 of the Durban Programme of Action, underlining the need for complementary standards. The United States did not see the need for a new legally binding instrument; however, it did see the possible need for other complementary standards, and was ready to discuss forms of standards that could improve protection in those areas. 89. The representative of Brazil noted that, following the presentations during the session, the Committee had a lot of information with which to move forward. In his briefing on procedural gaps, Mr. Kemal had stressed the importance of strengthening the implementation of the Convention by addressing procedural gaps through, for example, an optional protocol to the Convention allowing for country visits. The representative emphasized that that issue had been raised with the Ad Hoc Committee on a number of occasions by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and that it was time for the Ad Hoc Committee to take action on the issue in order to have an impact. 90. The representative of Pakistan, on behalf of OIC, welcomed the suggestion that it was time for the Ad Hoc Committee to take the recommendation of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination forward and consider an optional protocol to the Convention on procedural gaps. She also welcomed the position of the representative of the United States that it was time to discuss forms of complementary standards. Pakistan underlined that the general recommendations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, in which the Committee considered substantive gaps, were not considered as legally binding but rather as guidance, and complementary standards could take the issues addressed in general recommendations and include them in an optional protocol. The representative recommended that, during its next session, the Ad Hoc Committee spend time exploring (a) forms of complementary standards; (b) an optional protocol to the Convention to address procedural gaps; and (c) an optional protocol to the Convention to address substantive gaps, following issues referred to in general recommendations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. 91. The representative of Chile said that Chile was in favour of any proposal to advance the work of the Ad Hoc Committee, and supported the earlier intervention of the representative of Brazil. 92. The representative of South Africa, on behalf of the African Group, reiterated the position that reservations to articles 2, 4 and 14 of the Convention created gaps and should be addressed. She proposed that the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination 17