A/HRC/28/81 had become clear that there were substantive gaps when it came to transboundary incitement to hatred based on religion. 73. The representative of Morocco said that there was a clear reason for the existence of the Ad Hoc Committee, and that the relevant resolutions and decisions and the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action provided a firm legal basis. The discussion of whether the Committee should exist should not proceed. The Durban Declaration and Programme of Action had been adopted in 2001 and now, after 13 years, racism was still alive, as many presentations had underlined. The Committee was not only compelled to restrict racism but to eradicate it, and it could not stand idle. The Committee had held six sessions and it was clear that large tasks lay before it. It needed to strengthen international legislation, and the consensus was not to rewrite, but to refine, the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action. In the view of Morocco, inaction meant that the Committee was not fulfilling its mandate and was committing an “offence”. The Committee’s work was necessary and could take several forms; it was up to the Committee to decide which one would prevail. 74. The representative of Tunisia expressed support for the statements made by the representative of South Africa on behalf of the African Group and by the representative of Pakistan on behalf of OIC. The current international framework was inadequate because there were new forms of racism, and political movements that ran on platforms that profited from hatred against foreigners could be observed. No act of racism could be left unpunished, and the international community needed to complete the legal arsenal. Victims were often unwilling to report incidents or file charges, as the Committee had heard in the presentations. Since the adoption of the Convention, racism had changed, surfacing regularly in combination with discrimination on economic and religious grounds. Ongoing economic crises exacerbated racial discrimination. Many other factors, such as religion, were not addressed by the Convention. As noted by the representative of South Africa, the Committee was not in a position to reinvent the legal norms, but needed to address racism as it appeared today. In addition, the communication revolution had added a new factor. 75. The representative of Pakistan clarified that OIC did not suggest that the drafting of an optional protocol meant redrafting the Convention. However, a number of human rights conventions had optional protocols. Consequently, he proposed that a substantive discussion be held at the Ad Hoc Committee’s next session to consider actual substantive gaps to be filled. The Committee had enough raw material from which to draw. 76. The representative of Germany noted that, indeed, nothing prohibited countries from taking action to fight racism. Once more, the central questions were whether the Convention was being implemented and whether national instruments were being adapted in accordance with international human rights norms. 77. The representative of Switzerland reiterated that the Committee had been engaged in debate for six sessions and had not yet identified any substantial gaps that were so urgent that the Committee should elaborate complementary standards. However, in the view of Switzerland, the Committee had one clear message: countries had to fight the phenomena of racism. Switzerland doubted that any complementary standards would lead to any further action. In addition, it had to be noted that most optional protocols concerned communications and addressed clearly identified needs. 78. The representative of Algeria stated that there was a clear need for standards and that it was necessary to fill gaps that had been identified during prior sessions. The Committee had heard repeated calls to improve implementation but there were clear limits to the implementation of existing instruments. In the view of Algeria, it had emerged from the general discussions that current instruments were not sufficient to address all forms of discrimination. 15