A/HRC/28/81 special measures, where they were mandatory (in order to realise the rights to nondiscrimination and equality) constituted a form of discrimination. 80. During the discussion that followed, Brazil recalled efforts in Latin America to consolidate the laws on discrimination. Countries aimed, under the OAS umbrella, at drafting one convention that would encompass all forms of discrimination. As there was no consensus on some questions, two conventions were drafted and adopted as a solution. The representative of Brazil also asked if new norms on special measures were needed. 81. Ms. Petrova responded that while she saw no substantive or procedural gaps in the existing legal framework, there may be a need for further interpretation on how special measures and equality were related. Such an “interpretation gap” could be addressed in the form of another general recommendation by the CERD. 82. The representative of Morocco asked if the existing analysis of special measures in a number of countries could be compiled in one study. The expert noted that such compilation was possible, however its value would be hard to assess, as there was no rigorous quantitative assessment on the efficiency of special measures. That lack of quantitative assessment was also due to a lack of reliable statistics and in many regions, statistics on ethnicity were very controversial. There were also issues concerning data protection, as well as the quality of existing statistics was at doubt. Countries often used self-identification in order to determine ethnicity, which could be very insufficient; and it was not clear if data were comparable across borders. 83. Asked about her personal assessment of quotas, Ms. Petrova noted that she was not in support of them, as they often created more problems than benefits. In her view, it was advisable to empower people, through outreach programmes, clear targeting initiatives, mainstreaming and other measures, than to introduce quotas. 84. The representative of the United States noted that special measures needed to fit the local context and that consequently a certain amount of State discretion was required. Ms. Petrova replied that the best bodies for assessing the validity of special measures were the courts. It should be kept in mind that special measures were always purpose-driven, and designed for a specific purpose. 85. The Chairperson-Rapporteur noted that in many countries the group facing discrimination was in the minority; however, there were other countries such as South Africa or Brazil were those that were subject to discrimination were the majority of the population. The expert noted that the key issue was that of disadvantage, rather than the proportion of the population. With the development of equality law, the empowerment of the weakest had increasingly become the purpose of this law. In her view, the trend was moving in the direction of transformative equality and protection of the weaker members of society. C. Summary of the expert presentation and initial discussion on the topic of “Establishment, designation or maintaining of national mechanisms with competences to protect against and prevent all forms and manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance” 86. At the 10th meeting on 13 October, Mr. Pedro Mouratian, President, Instituto Nacional contra la Discriminación, la Xenofobia y el Racismo (INADI), Argentina, briefed the Committee on the work of his organization under the topic of “National mechanisms”. Mr. Mouratian noted that the institute was one of few specialized bodies in the region of Latin America. It was founded in 1995 pursuant to the Law on National Institution against 39