A/HRC/28/81 44. He noted that CERD practice on special measures has primarily been focused on urging States parties to put such measures in place more frequently. Although the Committee’s Concluding Observations have at times expressed concern over special measures that have remained in place longer than necessary, or otherwise raise issues under article 1(4), it is much more common for the Committee to express concern about a State party’s failure to take special measures where they seem warranted. And the Committee’s Concluding Observations rarely express views about the appropriateness of particular types of special measures as compared to others. 45. Mr. Vazquez summarized the nature of States parties’ obligations under the Convention: Article 2(2), as the General Recommendation makes clear, means that it is mandatory – not discretionary – for States parties to employ special measures “when circumstances so warrant.” States parties must initially determine whether the circumstances warrant special measures, and this is to be done by assessing whether there is a disparate enjoyment of human rights by persons or groups within the State party on the basis of race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin, and an ensuing need to correct such imbalance. This assessment is to be made on the basis of disaggregated data. Once the need for special measures has been determined, the State party must choose among the various types of special measures that might conceivably be employed. This determination must, inevitably, be sensitive to the particular situation of the various racial and ethnic groups in the State party, and must be done in consultation with such groups and other “affected parties.” As the General Recommendation notes, the Convention must be interpreted in a context-sensitive manner, and “context-sensitive interpretation . . . includes taking into account the particular circumstances of States parties without prejudice to the universal quality of the norms of the Convention.” The Committee recognizes that “[t]he nature of the Convention and the broad scope of the Convention’s provisions imply that . . . the conscientious application of Convention principles will produce variations in outcome among States parties,” although it has also stressed that “such variations must be fully justifiable in light of the principles of the Convention.” In the end, the selection of special measures inevitably requires sensitive judgments by the State parties, but these judgments are to be exercised within the parameters and in compliance with the requirements of the Convention, as elaborated in General Recommendation 32. 46. Brazil speaking (on behalf of Argentina, Armenia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Switzerland and Uruguay) stated that special measures, including affirmative or positive action, can be an important tool to prevent and eliminate racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. The importance of special measures, and its framework, can be found in both the ICERD, in its articles 1(4) and 2, and in the DDPA and in the outcome of its Review Conference. The DDPA recognizes the necessity for special measures or positive actions for the victims of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance in order to promote their full integration into society. Those measures for effective action, including social measures, should aim at correcting the conditions that impair the enjoyment of rights and the introduction of special measures to encourage equal participation of all racial and cultural, linguistic and religious groups in all sectors of society and to bring all onto an equal footing. Therefore, special measures and affirmative action can not only have corrective functions, but also an important preventive role. The delegation asked Mr. Vazquez whether he considered that there are gaps in the international framework that would require additional international norms on special measures, and invited him to share good practices in the area. 47. Mr. Hidug, in his role as Chairperson-Rapporteur, asked for Mr. Vazquez’s views on why, given the mandatory nature of article 2(2) of the ICERD, it was only being implemented by some countries. 32