A/HRC/21/59 88. Austria also supported this example of collaboration between UN partners and inquired about links to the Universal Periodic Review and asked whether there was any evaluation of the toolkit and feedback as of yet, as to how it could be improved. 89. Mr. Ismalebbe replied that regional trainings were being carried out with UNDP and OHCHR staff with an outcome to strengthening support to national human rights institutions so that they can more effectively participate in the Universal Periodic Review process. He stated that little feedback had been received so far signifying the effectiveness of the toolkit. There were on-going discussions to provide trainings to UN staff on the toolkit itself. 90. On behalf of the African Group, Senegal asked two questions: (i) whether national institutions took up cases on their own or whether there was a referral process, and (ii) what was the added value and competence of national institutions compared to a traditional court. Mr. Ismalebbe explained that the competency of the national institution with respect to cases depended on the nature of the initial mandate granted to it. 91. Mr. Stefanov gave a presentation on the nature, mandate, and functions of national human rights institutions, as governed by the Paris Principles. 92. In response to a competence question asked by Senegal on behalf of the African Group, he explained that using a national institution could be more beneficial than a domestic court in the sense that to the victim they were likely more accessible, less costly and time-consuming. The national institutions process was faster and a remedy could be received sooner. There was often a complementarity and not a contradiction in the processes. 93. The delegate of the European Union referred to the 2007 CERD study as a starting point and asked whether separate entities and mechanisms, different from or within existing national human rights institutions were required to cover the issues of non-discrimination. There was a question about how national institutions could assist in implementing recommendations and how they handled complaints. 94. France supported the statement of the European Union and recalled that the DDPA specifically mentioned in paragraphs 90 and 91 that all States are called upon to strengthen national institutions with regard to racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. The delegate also recalled that the CERD in its General Observation 17 spoke of national institutions as mechanisms which could assist ICERD implementation. The delegate asked whether there were specific guidelines to national institutions of how to fight discrimination and establish specialized bodies. 95. Mr. Stefanov stated that specialized bodies and national human rights institutions were not incompatible and could be very complementary. He added that there was no one template and that the decision to have a general or specialized body on discrimination was a reflection of the priorities and needs of a country. He explained that national institutions have quite great access in international fora and are heard by treaty bodies such as the CERD. They could submit reports which could affect the concluding observations. He added that complaints handing was an important source of information. 96. South Africa questioned the level of effectiveness of national human rights institutions especially regarding remedial action to victims. Mr. Stefanov noted that some national institutions such as the South African Human Rights Commission were quite active in this area. 97. The Chairperson-Rapporteur echoed the earlier inquiry of the European Union about the global coverage of national institutions, adding that it would be informative to receive a listing or matrix of institutions referenced with their accreditation criteria, type and number 36