A/HRC/28/81 was its use by politicians. In quite a few countries such hate speech was punished by voters, but that was not always the case. Religion was not the mandate of CERD, but the Committee was alert to all injustices and would act when forms of discrimination intersected with ethnic discrimination. 141. The representative of Pakistan remarked that CERD had covered procedural gaps by drafting general comments. However, States did not regard general comments as legally binding. Consequently, the representative doubted how general comments could cover substantive gaps that had emerged. Mr. Kemal noted that it was a “question of degree”, as in fact, ICERD was not fully implemented, despite the fact that it was binding. As international law did not know enforcement machinery, it was impossible to force countries to respect some international frameworks. General comments were also not intended to punish countries, but assist them. 142. Egypt requested clarification on the gaps in ICERD and inquired if the Committee could tackle those procedural gaps by drafting a single optional protocol or several. The representative also asked if the Committee should address substantive gaps. Mr. Kemal underlined that ICERD was comprehensive enough and that during the last forty years CERD had taken an activist approach. The Convention, as a living document, was flexible and had covered all issues. One single protocol on country visits as suggested by the CERD, was enough to further the implementation of the Convention. 143. The Chairperson-Rapporteur recalled that during the World Conference against Racism in Durban there was a consensus that there were gaps in the ICERD. Some countries appeared to have subsequently moved away from that agreement. He added that ICERD was subject to many reservations. He stated that it could be argued that the bulk of these reservations constituted a gap. Important new phenomena such as the surge of racism in and around football pitches also needed to be addressed. The Chairperson-Rapporteur asked if CERD had addressed such issues. The expert noted that the application of peer pressure could help address the issue of reservations. It was also important to note that regarding ICERD, countries would also insist on securing freedom of expression and opinion despite the dangers of hate speech, in particular, which used by politicians remained. He noted that punishment, as had sometimes been the case, came via the voting process where voters rejected those politicians. In some other countries, such a reaction had not materialized and CERD noted those situations. 49