A/HRC/39/13 123. Portugal welcomed the measures taken to prevent manifestations of racial discrimination in sport. 124. Qatar underscored the importance of promoting children’s rights and combating discrimination and violence against women. 125. Romania noted the importance of promoting human rights issues. 126. Rwanda encouraged the Russian Federation to adopt more proactive measures through the implementation of relevant anti-discrimination legislation. 127. Saudi Arabia congratulated the Russian Federation on the adoption of a national strategy for the development of education, prioritizing children’s upbringing. 128. Senegal welcomed the strengthening of the legal and institutional framework. 129. Serbia commended the Government’s measures to build a society based on tolerance. 130. Singapore welcomed the steps taken to promote the equal participation of women in all spheres. 131. Slovakia was concerned at reports of harassment and intimidation of lawyers, journalists and human rights defenders. 132. Slovenia encouraged the Government to take measures to foster a safe and enabling environment for civil society. 133. South Africa made recommendations. 134. The Republic of Korea welcomed the efforts of the Russian Federation to tackle crimes motivated by racism. 135. The delegation of the Russian Federation noted that the questions and recommendations from several delegations regarding human rights in territories that were not part of the Russian Federation, specifically Donbass, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, were unacceptable as they did not comply with the principles of the universal periodic review, as set out in resolutions 5/1 and 16/21 of the Human Rights Council. The remark that those territories were under the “effective control” of the Russian Federation was without basis. Moreover, the reference to the “illegally annexed” Crimea at the hands of the Russian Federation was also unacceptable. The populations of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol had chosen to be part of the Russian Federation through a free and democratic referendum, therefore exercising their right to self-determination, which was enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and fundamental international instruments. 136. Accordingly, in the territory of Crimea and Sevastopol, all the laws of the Russian Federation were in force, without exception. Citizens were under the protection of the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation and all cases of violations of the rights of those living in Crimea and Sevastopol were handled by the relevant authorities. The Russian Federation was ready to welcome representatives of international organizations to Crimea, provided visits were conducted impartially, in accordance with the mandates of the relevant organizations and the rules and procedures applicable to visits to the territory of the Russian Federation. 137. Several delegations had referred to alleged discrimination on various grounds in the Russian Federation without providing the Working Group with factual accounts. Those references were based merely on a general presumption of discrimination, reportedly on the grounds of sexual orientation, gender identity, or religious or political beliefs, or against human rights defenders and journalists. However, there was no evidence of such discrimination or the related violations. Individuals could be prosecuted only for criminal violations or administrative offences, such as violations of the laws regulating rallies, demonstrations and marches, statements made in the media, viewpoints published online or activities of a religious organization. No one could be prosecuted on the grounds of their political views. The decision to prohibit activities such as rallies, media publications and religious activities lay with the judiciary, which was independent of the executive. Those 8