A/HRC/28/81 discrimination) could result in disaster. The representative urged the Committee to take the side of the victims and recalled that during the morning’s session, five additional protocols were discussed. The UNESCO expert was asked if Mr. Fracapane would be able to make any recommendations regarding the gaps in anti-racism law that could be addressed by the Committee. 33. The representative of the United States of America added that he would appreciate recommendations from the expert but did not agree with the South African position that there were gaps in the law. The UNESCO expert replied that, in his view, there was no need for new laws; as such laws were already in place. Countries were asked to report on the implementation of existing laws and it had become clear that there was a gap between the legal framework and the actual practice on the ground. The expert recommended that countries and stakeholders engage with UN system and agencies more intensively in order to develop programmes and ensure the implementation of the legal framework at all levels. 34. In response to the question of South Africa, Mr. Fracapane noted that discrimination resulted from a variety of factors. There was; however, a real gap between the legal framework and its implementation. One of the reasons was a lack of capacity and capacitybuilding measures, and a lack of focus by the international community. Regional and local communities, needed to participate in capacity-building – in particular when it came to human rights education. An important factor for future success would be to address informal education. B. Summary of the expert presentations and initial discussions on the topic of “Special measures, including affirmative or positive measures, strategies or actions, to prevent, combat and eradicate all forms and manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance” 35. In the afternoon of 9 October, the Ad Hoc Committee commenced a discussion on the topic of “Special measures, including affirmative or positive measures, strategies or actions, to prevent, combat and eradicate all forms and manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance”. This 6th meeting was chaired, exceptionally, by Mr. Ephrem B. Hidug of the Permanent Mission of Ethiopia to the United Nations Office at Geneva. 36. The presentation by the expert, Mr. Carlos Vazquez, a member of the CERD, was focused on the treatment of “special measures” in the Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, as well as in the practice of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. The Committee’s practice is reflected in its Concluding Observations and in its General Recommendation No. 32, on “The meaning and scope of special measures in the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.” In theory, the Committee might also have occasion to address special measures in individual communications against States parties that have opted into this procedure under article 14 of the Convention. However, to date the Committee has not addressed, in its decisions on individual communications, whether a State’s decision to employ special measures, or its failure to do so, amounts to a breach of the Convention. 37. He clarified that the Convention uses the term “special measures” to describe a concept that is sometimes referred to by other terms, such as “affirmative action,” “affirmative measures,” or “positive measures,” however, the meaning of these terms in certain legal systems can be different from the meaning in the Convention. “Special measures” is a broader term that includes, for example, programmes that draw distinctions along racial or ethnic grounds in order to benefit disadvantaged groups, and also 29