A/HRC/13/58 20. Xenophobia 113. Statements and/or text proposals were made by Nigeria (on behalf of the African Group), Liechtenstein, Poland, Algeria, and Sweden (on behalf of the EU) (see A/HRC/13/CRP.1). 114. The African Group submitted the following proposals: 1. To elaborate a definition of xenophobia, as it has not been integrated in the International Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; 2. Each Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish the following acts or conduct as criminal offence under its domestic law: (a) Threatening, with the commission of a serious criminal offence as defined under its domestic law, (i) persons for the reason that they belong to a group, distinguished by race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin, as well as religion, if used as a pretext for any of these factors, or (ii) a group of persons which is distinguished by any of these characteristics. (b) Insulting publicly, (i) persons for the reason that they belong to a group, distinguished by race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin, as well as religion, if used as a pretext for any of these factors, or (ii) a group of persons which is distinguished by any of these characteristics. 115. The Chairperson then concluded the substantive portion of the programme of work (see A/HRC/13/CRP.1). E. Discussion on the way forward for future sessions 116. The Chairperson opened the 13th meeting with a discussion on the way forward. Pakistan, on behalf of the OIC, stated that the way forward had to mean tangible action, adding that the Committee was obliged to implement its mandate. The delegate stated that the Chairperson needed to formulate the proposals made during the session in the form of draft complementary standards and that, in doing so, he could consult relevant experts. 117. Argentina, on behalf of Brazil, Chile, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Japan, Mexico, the Republic of Korea, Switzerland and Uruguay, noted that consensus should be the working method and remained unconvinced of the need to elaborate complementary standards in the form of an additional protocol. 118. The United States, supported by Australia, stressed that there was consensus on the need to address the grave problems of racism, racial and religious discrimination, racial profiling, hate crimes and xenophobia. The United States, Canada, Liechtenstein and Norway stated their position that there was no need for complementary standards. 119. Sweden, on behalf of the EU, emphasized that empirical or fact-based evidence demonstrating the need for an additional international legal norm was lacking. It added that possible complementary standards did not necessarily have to be binding; that the scope, form and nature of complementary standards could vary depending on the gap to be filled and could include guidelines, best practices, general comments of treaty bodies, etc. 120. Nigeria, on behalf of the African Group, stated that the report needed to contain all specific proposals and that it expected the next session to draft complementary standards. 121. Liechtenstein stated that any additional protocol to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination would weaken this instrument if the 24 GE.10-10366