A/HRC/28/81 referred to his statement and noted that the lack of responses to CERD from countries was a major obstacle as was non-reporting by countries. Furthermore, countries did not respond to concluding observations. In addition, often implementation did not take place, and reservations weakened the treaty. 136. The representative of Ghana drew attention to the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM), and noted there might be gaps in the legal framework when it came to migrants. The expert thanked the representative on the information regarding this mechanism and noted that CERD was interested to hear about developments in various regions and would appreciate receiving more information. On migrant workers, the expert noted that it was essential that countries that had not yet done so, joined the treaty. Ghana asked about the role of genocide in CERD’s work, the expert stated that during the 1990s CERD became very mindful of genocide – because of massacres – and the Committee took action when a situation deteriorated. CERD had also become more sensitive to the problems of indigenous people and had taken those up in an early warning procedure. 137. Namibia noted that ICERD was not a stagnant instrument but should be subjected to constant evolution. Namibia had experienced drastic forms of racism, including hate speech which was particularly disturbing and the root causes of hate speech should be addressed. Data should be collected on the circumstances in which hate speech could arise. The representative also held that the importance of article 7 of ICERD had not diminished. An educational approach was essential to address indoctrination and inadequate education. 138. The Republic of South Africa, on behalf of the Africa Group, stated that when analysing the proposals for the future work of the Committee, one noticed that there were gaps in ICERD. The representative asked the expert about the key elements of an additional protocol. The delegate noted that ICERD was a living instrument as many forms of discrimination could not have been foreseen when it was created in the 1960s. Mr. Kemal suggested that an improved inquiry mechanism could rely on the existing procedures of other mechanisms. Country visits were needed because of the serious problems that existed when it came to implementing ICERD. 139. Italy remarked that the idea of country visits was interesting. Such visits could be important tools to increase the ICERD’s implementation. However, the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance had already undertaken 35 country visits. The added value of CERD visits was not clear, particularly since closer cooperation between CERD and the Rapporteur could result in an improved exchange of information. The proliferation of mechanisms and visits could in practice create problems. Italy also inquired about the level of cooperation between the Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide and CERD when it came to early warning. The expert noted that CERD and the special rapporteurs cooperated as closely as possible, reports and information were exchanged and improved cooperation would require additional resources. Regarding country visits, the expert noted that countries would have to consent to any visit. He agreed that they had to be planned well, and in advance. 140. Morocco noted that it had regularly called upon the various human rights mechanisms not to work in separate silos, but to cooperate closely. Cooperation, such as the cooperation between CERD and the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance should increasingly feed into the UPR process. The representative also asked if CERD planned a general comment on “Islamophobia”. Mr. Kemal agreed that the UPR played a crucial role and that all mechanisms would nurture each other. Regarding the recommendation to draft a general comment on “Islamophobia” Mr. Kemal noted that the topic and “phobias” relating to other religions were already referenced in CERD’s comment on hate speech. He underlined that CERD was concerned with vulnerable people regardless of which group or religion they belonged to. Action was taken in every regard. The most troubling aspect about hate speech 48