A/HRC/28/81 prevention and human rights education, special measures, xenophobia and national mechanisms. The presentation of Mr. Kemal had shown that the Ad Hoc Committee should keep discussing the issue of procedural gaps and that there was clear room for improvement. That idea had already been stressed by the “study of CERD on possible measures to strengthen implementation through optimal recommendation or the update of its monitoring procedures” in 2007. The group believed that the topic of procedural gaps should be further discussed in future sessions of the Ad Hoc Committee, in order to find ways to address those concretely. 130. The United States of America noted that Mr. Kemal proposed a protocol to ICERD that would allow country visits. The representative asked if other treaties contained similar provisions for country visits and how such visits would be organized. The expert noted that other treaty bodies indeed used country visits. An improved inquiry procedure would be beneficial to CERD as racism had become a global phenomenon and CERD would need to inquire in various parts of the world. The expert explained that he was not in a position to explain the “mechanics” of a country visit, and that CERD would rely on the Secretariat to undertake work with regard to this issue when the need arose. He agreed that such visits might be expensive if all members of CERD would decide to travel, but the Protocol could be drafted in such a way to avoid this. 131. The representative of Uruguay asked if the article 14 procedure was used frequently and if the procedure could be made more effective. Mr. Kemal explained that less than 60 countries had accepted the article 14 procedure and that CERD received very few complaints on the basis of article 14. The procedure was not well-known, and individuals might consider the procedure not worth the effort, or they might fear it. He added that many complaints were, rejected because domestic remedies had not been exhausted. Nevertheless, CERD might consider taking some action in order to support the victim, if the Committee was of the opinion that the case had some merit. 132. Brazil inquired how CERD dealt with discrimination based on religion. The expert noted that in his view sometimes religion could be linked to ethnicity, and the aspects of ethnicity and religion became fused. CERD tended to treat issues of religious discrimination on a case-by-case basis, and only if there were multiple aspects of discrimination that were linked to ethnicity. 133. The delegate of Pakistan, on behalf of the OIC, reminded the Committee that a 2006 study noted that an optional protocol would be helpful. The representative asked Mr. Kemal how the Committee should proceed in his opinion. The expert noted that it was important to consult on the way forward with the CERD, following a decision made by the Committee. 134. The Republic of South Africa stated that multiple reservations made to key articles of ICERD impeded the Convention’s implementation. The representative emphasized that ICERD was mainly an aspirational document for many countries that had made reservations, as the Convention was not enforceable. That constituted a protection gap. Implementation made sense only if human rights could be adjudicated, and reservations defeated that purpose. Implementation of ICERD was, however, not enough as paragraph 199 of the DDPA had held. That mandate still obliged the Committee to update the existing legal framework. The expert assured South Africa that recommendations by countries (for general comments) were considered by CERD, and that the Committee had recently published a comment on hate speech because it saw the need, and this need had also been expressed by several countries. 135. The European Union noted that the expert confirmed that CERD was able to address all new and arising challenges under the current Convention. His point that there was no substantial gap was important information for the Committee. The representative further asked what obstacles hindered full implementation according to the expert. The expert 47