A/HRC/6/10 page 11 39. Another expert referred to the current work by the Organization of American States on the draft convention against racism and all forms of discrimination and intolerance as evidence that substantive gaps existed with regard to the protection of vulnerable groups. One expert considered vital the need to direct particular attention to the issue of multiple or aggravated forms of discrimination. The view that only a cross-cutting approach would provide for an effective system of protection was also expressed. The need to clarify and reach a better understanding of the contents of article 4 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination was highlighted. 40. Views were expressed on how to strike a fair balance between freedom of religion and of expression. One delegate stressed the need to preserve the fundamental right to freedom of expression. On the issue of religious intolerance, one expert stated that increasing trends of incitement to religious hatred and defamation of religions showed how religious intolerance as a whole had become one of the most dangerous threats to international peace and security. Another representative considered erroneous the opinion that defaming a religion per se was different from inciting hatred against people who identify themselves on the basis of a particular religion. Another stated that criminalizing defamation of religions would be inconsistent with the fundamental principle that human rights reside in the individual rather than in group association, race, culture or religion. It was also suggested that the Working Group should avoid theoretical discussions and rather focus on practical issues. The view that the Working Group should take into consideration the recent reports of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief was also submitted. 41. One participant emphasized that the interest of the victims should guide the examination being undertaken by the experts. The participant also recommended that the experts should consult with members of the former Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights as well as with relevant non-State actors. 42. Throughout the discussions, the experts considered that, while they remained cognizant of the increase in ethnic and/or religious tensions globally, they believed that the following areas would benefit from their examination: the concept of responsibility to protect; the identification of protection gaps in situations involving natural disasters; discrimination in the private sphere; and different protection options offered by soft law mechanisms. 43. Several of the participants underscored the main gap as the discrepancy between the existing obligations and their effective implementation and follow-up. Reference was made to the lack of implementation of the right to individual petition under various international human rights instruments. 44. Some delegates stated that, as a matter of ensuring the coherence and effectiveness of the current system of protection, the process of exploring new standards should be conducted with a holistic approach. The process should take into consideration all currently existing mechanisms in order to avoid possible duplications with provisions already set forth in other international instruments. Specific references were made to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families.