A/HRC/28/81 48. Mr. Vazquez expressed his agreement at the preventative, as well as corrective, function of special measures. He explained that the Committee considers that CERD is flexible enough to address any gaps in the international framework, and therefore a new instrument on standard on special measures, was not really needed. The Convention was detailed enough in its provisions for special measures and the Committee has developed further guidance through General Recommendation 32, which is sufficient. Special measures are context specific and it is difficult to provide more detailed guidance than that provided in General Recommendation 32. The CERD could, if required, revisit the recommendation to add further details in the future. 49. In his personal view, a survey of the special measures undertaken by states around the world could be interesting. He stated that a significant number of States had taken special measures in different contexts such as in the area of employment, election to political office etc., adding that it was inaccurate to state that few States had implemented them. Although States report to CERD on special measures, due to word limit of the periodic report it was not possible to provide a lot of detail on special measures taken. Information about the type, context and nature of measures, would allow the Committee to analyse and compile best practices and provide States with further guidance on what available options and novel approaches which had not occurred to them. 50. The delegate of Mexico recalled that legislative measures were undertaken as part of national reforms in June 2014, including exclusion, inclusion and positive measures. The measures addressed physical access and communication barriers, and awareness-raising activities and training. Mexico is also taking steps to remove barriers through the distribution of documents in indigenous languages, and there is a policy to combat discrimination such as in the area of homophobia. Special temporary measures have been introduced for groups that face discrimination, particularly people of African descent and indigenous peoples. National councils to prevent discrimination are tasked with gathering information about the work of different institutions in this area. 51. The European Union underlined that ICERD is an important instrument and it reiterated its concern at delays in reporting under the Convention. The delegate inquired about how many states have recognized the communications procedure of CERD under article 14, and inquired whether any new General Recommendations were planned by CERD. 52. Mr. Vazquez appreciated the information provided about the new legislation in Mexico and the areas where action was being taken to ensure disadvantaged communities are not left behind. With regard to inclusion measures, he distinguished between permanent rights held by groups and special temporary measures. He added that special measures are dealt with by other committees and other conventions, and in those contexts special measures may take different forms. 53. In response to the EU, he noted that reporting in some cases is delayed and measures are being taken to address this. Regarding the number of States which have opted into the communications procedure there are approximately 55 states, which is a third of States parties and he encouraged more States to join. General Recommendation 35 on combatting racial hate speech was adopted and released in August 2013. During the April session in 2015, CERD will consider new topics for General Recommendations. CERD is in the process of looking at working methods with an aim to harmonize these with those of other treaty bodies and one of the areas to be harmonized concerns the adoption of General Recommendations. 54. Mexico provided clarification on its previous intervention regarding law reform and special measures. Only the last measure mentioned in her intervention is a temporary special measure. 33