A/HRC/18/36 currently of the view that a legal definition was not really necessary to deal with the phenomenon of xenophobia and that the definition contained in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination was sufficient to deal with issues of xenophobia. As an example, at the European Union level, measures and legislation to protect children had been adopted without an exact legal definition of what was a child. 59. The Chairperson thanked the European Union for its intervention, noting that it was understood that perhaps a definition was not a requirement for taking action; however, since the issues were so emotive, it may well be advisable to have a common understanding. 60. The Association of the World Citizens expressed appreciation for the Chairperson’s guidance during the session and underscored the need to define xenophobia and its forms. Cercle de recherche sur les droits et les devoirs de la personne humaine (CRED) stated that it was important for the Ad Hoc Committee to work on a new text concerning xenophobia, citing the definition2 of xenophobia by the International Labour Organization (ILO), the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) contained in the preliminary discussion note, and arguing that such a definition was accurate and encompassed a group of people broader than the category of non-citizens. 61. Algeria offered the example where, despite the existence of article 34 of the Convention of the Rights of Child, which appeared to comprehensively deal with sexual exploitation and abuse of children, Member States had seen the need to develop the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography and suggested that the Ad Hoc Committee might wish to employ that logic. 62. The Chairperson expressed appreciation to participants for their constructive approach, adding that, although the current discussions on xenophobia were preliminary, they were nonetheless enriching. He noted that they had brought to light several important elements for a substantive debate at the following session of the Ad Hoc Committee. He noted that participants wished to build on what already existed and that it was important to survey how far the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination had advanced on the key issues raised concerning xenophobia. The importance of national mechanisms had also already been raised, which discussions served as a good prelude to discussions the following day. He recalled that there was a need to consider the outcome of the Ad Hoc Committee and where it wished eventually to arrive. He reiterated the question of gaps and whether current instruments were sufficient to address xenophobia and the debate on whether there was a need to define xenophobia. He recalled issues concerning the mandate of the Ad Hoc Committee. He reminded participants of the people on the ground and the imperative to translate the discussion into impact on victims’ lives. 2 12 “International Migration, Racism, Discrimination and Xenophobia”, joint discussion paper prepared for the 2001 Durban Conference by ILO, IOM and OHCHR, in consultation with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).