A/HRC/14/8 protection of human rights defenders and political opponents, and the effective guarantee of freedom of expression and respect for freedom of movement. It made recommendations. 63. Japan stated that, since the abrogation of the Constitution in April 2009, it had been concerned about the constraints on fundamental human rights, including freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly. Japan had been encouraging Fiji to return to democracy since the 2006 coup. It hoped that Fiji would make steadfast progress towards democracy and that fair elections would be held with a view to a return to democracy as soon as possible. Japan made recommendations. 64. The Netherlands was concerned about the human rights situation and the Public Emergency Regulation of 2009, which had imposed restrictions on the freedoms of association, movement and expression. It noted that the Senate and the House of Representatives had been disbanded in 2006 and that the judiciary had been dismissed in 2009. It asked how the interim Government would ensure the free and fair election of a new parliament and the re-establishment of an independent judiciary. Welcoming the visit of the Rapporteur for the Working Group on the use of mercenaries, who had enjoyed good cooperation, it stated that a number of other requests deserved immediate attention, including the requests for visits by the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers and by the Special Rapporteur on torture. It noted serious concerns at the situation of human rights defenders. The Netherlands made recommendations. 65. Maldives strongly encouraged Fiji to implement, speedily and fully, the reforms that it itself had admitted were necessary. While noting the reasons behind the delaying of the elections until 2014, and while understanding the concerns regarding stability, Maldives highlighted the fact that, without democracy, the constitutional reform process would be severely impeded. Maldives noted that the lack of trust both within Fiji and between Fiji and the international community was a major barrier to progress, stating that special procedures should not be seen not as a threat, but as a means of creating better understanding about the challenges faced by Fiji and of channelling international support. Maldives noted that, instead of condemning, the international community must lend assistance and work with Fijians to bring about the reforms. Maldives made recommendations. 66. Malaysia considered that continuous constructive engagement between Fiji and the international community was vital in order to facilitate the process of restoring democracy in Fiji. Malaysia supported the Government’s commitment to engaging all levels of society in the restoration of democracy and national reconciliation. Malaysia made recommendations. 67. Latvia noted with appreciation Fiji’s open spirit with regard to addressing human rights challenges. It referred to the country’s previous cooperation with special procedures mandate holders and made a recommendation. 68. Fiji thanked all delegations that had made interventions and noted that it had witnessed the extending of helping hands to assist and provide helpful advice and recommendations. 69. Fiji also stated that the Ministry for Foreign Affairs chaired the Fiji National Universal Periodic Review Committee, comprising representatives of Government ministries and departments. In addition, Fiji’s national report reflected the views of nongovernmental organizations and members of civil society that had participated. The Government fully respected the right of those non-governmental organizations that had expressed reluctance to be part of this important process. 70. Fiji reiterated that the Government, in its resolve to return the country to a truly sustainable parliamentary democracy by September 2014, intended to convene a national 11