A/HRC/23/10 without security nor security without development, and that respect for human rights and the upholding of the rule of law were essential. 8. For its international commitment to be credible, Luxembourg was aware that its actions at the national level must demonstrate the same commitment to promoting and protecting human rights and the rule of law. 9. It was in that spirit that Luxembourg had prepared for its universal periodic review. The national report was the result of widespread consultation with both the relevant authorities and civil society. To that end, in May 2012 Luxembourg had organized two consultation meetings on the second cycle of the universal periodic review. The first meeting had been aimed at non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and civil society, while the second had addressed independent institutions with competence in the area of human rights. The Government had paid particular attention to their views in its report. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs was available to continue that dialogue. The Ministry encouraged the participants to submit their comments on the implementation of the recommendations made during the current universal periodic review. 10. Luxembourg planned to submit a midterm report during the current cycle. The comments received from civil society and independent institutions would be useful in the preparation of that report. 11. The national report of Luxembourg described in detail the progress made on the basis of the recommendations issued in 2008. Luxembourg noted the quality of the questions submitted in advance by a number of Member States and thanked them for their commitment to the work of the Human Rights Council. 12. In response to the question on avoiding the risk of sexual exploitation of refugee children or unaccompanied applicants for international protection, the delegation pointed out that their protection was ensured through the appointment of guardians. As a general rule, in the absence of a member of the minor’s extended family in Luxembourg who could act as guardian, a juvenile judge appointed one from the social and educational professionals at two NGOs that worked with asylum cases. 13. With regard to measures taken to protect the bond between mothers in prison and their children born before or during their incarceration, the delegation indicated that the judge could decide that the child should be kept in prison with the mother up to a specific age, established on a case-by-case basis, beyond which the child’s normal psychological development would be compromised. The Ministry of Family Affairs had care institutions for children of all ages where judges could place the children of incarcerated mothers. The caregivers at those institutions could accompany children on visits to prison. The courts used all possible means to avoid imprisoning women who were pregnant or had young children. 14. In response to another question, the delegation said that the age requirement of 25 was a general condition in order to receive the minimum guaranteed income and did not apply to refugees in particular. Under the law, an exception was made for persons under the age of 25 who were bringing up a child for whom they received family allowances. 15. Luxembourg had submitted its outstanding reports to the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in December 2012. As for the other three outstanding reports, it had undertaken to submit them to the Human Rights Committee, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Committee against Torture as soon as possible. The work on the report to the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights would also serve to given a new impetus to ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which would be concluded as soon as possible. 4 GE.13-12572