A/HRC/31/74 34. Belgium inquired about the challenge of follow-up, and the implementation of CERD recommendations, to which the representative of the United States said that the same interagency process led by the White House that served the preparation of the session was also used for the implementation of the recommendations. He also noted the overlaps in the United Nations human rights reporting cycle, and agreed that the focus of the process must be on implementation and changing the situation on the ground. The Norwegian representative added that its various reports were on time and outlined a decentralized reporting process lead by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. For Norway, the Universal Periodic Review process was beneficial to its CERD and other treaty body reporting preparation through awareness-raising and the collection of information. Belgium also inquired about the role of parliaments and parliamentarians in CERD reporting process. Given the separation of powers between Congress and the Executive Branch of government in the United States, there was no explicit role for parliamentarians. Nevertheless, the State Department has reported to Congress on the outcomes of the treaty body presentations and its related consultations with civil society. Norway replied as well that there was no participation by the Norwegian parliament in the treaty body preparations or the review. 35. The representative of South Africa asked the representatives of Norway and the United States of America if those national approaches had also resulted in more regular reporting and about how state and local members of the delegations were chosen. 36. The United States noted that its approach was generally successful, though not perfect, in improving and that White House involvement and leadership was very important to this success. He added that timelines were clearer and that preparations commenced well in advance of reviews. Addressing the question on the selection of delegates, the representative noted that the United States considered inter alia current issues as well as areas of interest raised by the Committee. 37. At its 6th meeting, on 15 July, the Ad Hoc Committee continued its consideration of item 5 of the programme of work on “Issues, challenges and best practices pertaining to reporting under the Convention”. At this meeting, the Deputy Permanent Representative of South Africa presented a briefing to the Committee in view of South Africa’s experience. As South Africa was a microcosm of the world, racism still existed in South Africa and it would take strong mobilisation and a programme of “de-racialisation” of society to eradicate racism. She also noted that South Africa had made great strides in dismantling the structures that had legalised racial discrimination. The Government continued to allocate substantial resources towards the creation of a non-racist State. All legislation that provided for racial discrimination had been repealed and new statutes had been adopted to provide a framework for racial equality, and elaborated on the legal framework that ensured equal treatment in South Africa. 38. The Deputy Permanent Representative noted that several avenues existed in South Africa through which one could claim redress for acts of racial discrimination. Equality Courts were designed to deal with any complaint alleging unfair discrimination, publication of information that unfairly discriminates, harassment and hate speech. Aside from the Equality Courts, one could also bring a claim to the South African Human Rights Commission. Non-state actors had also shown their willingness to assist in the enforcement of rights. An example was Lawyers for Human Rights, a non-governmental organization, which offered legal assistance in South Africa. 39. Article 4 of ICERD required that States Parties criminalize racism and social discrimination. In South Africa the prohibition of racial hatred was based on the Constitution, although the Constitution also guaranteed freedom of expression, the formulation made it clear that incitement that could because harm was excluded from the ambit of this right. 27