A/HRC/21/59 21. Senegal, on behalf of the African Group, commented that the presentation did not offer any new analysis concerning the definition of xenophobia and hoped that the approach would have been more audacious so as to discern the meaning of xenophobia. The added value would be found in a legal definition or approach concerning access to justice for victims and remedies, and impunity. He suggested a discussion on the alleged authors and perpetrators of xenophobia, the trends, incidents and regions affected. He noted that autonomy and legal status for xenophobia were required. 22. Liechtenstein stated that Mr. Thornberry‘s analysis illustrated that a lack of definition did not hinder the Committee in carrying out its role as the monitoring body for the implementation of the ICERD. Austria agreed that the lack of definition was not always a problem, in that minority rights had not been defined in the Declaration on the rights belonging to persons of minorities either. He noted that it was not always a question of laws and regulations and that it was necessary to look at societal aspects too. 23. Mr. Thornberry stated that a proliferation of definitions was not necessarily a desirable outcome and that the question for the Committee was whether it was missing something in not having a definition. The CERD resolutely insisted that legislation countering hate speech be enacted and maintained that racial discrimination was ubiquitous, despite some States claiming no domestic racial discrimination at all. 24. South Africa queried what happened when States excluded non-nationals from a full spectrum of rights, and asked what protection was available for non-citizens where States had made a reservation under article 4. 25. The delegate of France spoke about multiple discrimination and the intersection of motives for discrimination, asking Mr. Thornberry to provide additional details. The delegate of the United States of America asked whether CERD had a list of best practices/standards or indices to be applied by States Parties. 26. The delegate of Senegal, on behalf of the African Group, emphasized the lack of legal definition deprived individuals of their rights and access to justice. He noted that there were optional protocols to ICCPR on capital punishment and to CRC on the sale of children and prostitution which allowed for greater definition in order to protect victims. The African Group was only partially satisfied in that there would be a thematic discussion on racist speech and a likely general recommendation on the issue, but he underscored that general recommendations were not legally binding. 27. Mr. Thornberry said that the Committee‘s main concern was the applicability of the ICERD at the national level, including the coverage of the national law and how this affected the proper implementation of the Convention. He replied that the Committee did not compile an archive of good practices as such, rather it tried to reflect its general comments in the recommendations to States. He added that CERD would like to be more systematic in its follow-up and that in a future paper it might try to note a few areas in which CERD had expressed particular satisfaction. He noted that CERD was becoming more attentive to intersectionality in its work. 28. Mr. Thornberry noted that if CERD were to receive the report of the fourth session of the Ad Hoc Committee, it might consider the issue of xenophobia and take some of these issues on board in case of a general recommendation on racist speech in August. In reply to a comment from Japan, he stated that it was unlikely that a separate general recommendation on xenophobia would be considered by the CERD. 29. At its 4th meeting, Mr. Orest Nowosad Chief, Civil and Political Rights Section of the Special Procedures Branch at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights gave an overview of the work of special procedures mandate holders in relation to the issue of xenophobia. 27