PROTECTING MINORITY RIGHTS – A Practical Guide to Developing Comprehensive Anti-Discrimination Legislation II. CHARTER BODIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL PROCESSES The consensus on the need to adopt comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation is also visible outside treaty-based processes. United Nations special procedure mandate holders have increasingly called for the adoption of comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation to improve protection for people and groups at risk of discrimination. Through the universal periodic review mechanism of the Human Rights Council, States from all regions of the world have made,59 received60 and accepted61 recommendations for the adoption of comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation. At the same time, the links between anti-discrimination law and the achievement of related social goals – such as sustainable development – have become more clearly understood and States have demonstrated their commitment to legislative protection for the rights to nondiscrimination and equality through other international processes. A. United Nations special procedure mandate holders Since 2010, a range of special procedure mandate holders have made recommendations to States on the adoption of comprehensive anti-discrimination law, as part of their thematic reports62 and country visits.63 For example, following a visit in 2013 to Panama, the Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent called on the country to “enact comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation which prohibits discrimination on all grounds”. Such legislation, according to the Working Group, “should provide for effective enforcement mechanisms and the availability of remedies.”64 More recently, in 2020, the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief called on all States to “adopt comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation, prohibiting direct and indirect discrimination, harassment and failure to make reasonable accommodation”.65 Such legislation should prohibit discrimination “on the basis of religion and all other grounds recognized in international law and in all areas of life regulated by law”.66 B. Universal periodic review In recent years, an increasing number of States have made and received recommendations to adopt, amend or implement comprehensive anti-discrimination law through their peer-to-peer interactions. At the time of the thirty-fifth session of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review, during the third cycle of the universal periodic review, specific recommendations for the passage of comprehensive anti-discrimination law had been made by 46 States across East, South and West Africa; North, South and Central America and the 6 59 See, for example, the recommendations of Australia, Bangladesh, Denmark, Ghana and Honduras (below). 60 See, for example, Angola (A/HRC/43/11, para. 146.64); the Dominican Republic (A/HRC/41/16, para. 94.54); Fiji (A/HRC/43/8, para. 140.25); Japan (A/HRC/37/15, para. 161.65); and Spain (A/HRC/44/7, para. 150.25). 61 See, for example, the reports of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review and supporting addenda relating to the third cycle reviews of Costa Rica (A/HRC/42/12, paras. 111.12 and 111.20, and A/HRC/42/12/Add.1, para. 10), Gabon (A/HRC/37/6, para. 118.62), the Republic of Korea (A/HRC/37/11/Add.1, para. 15) and Sweden (A/HRC/44/12, para. 156.91 and A/HRC/44/12/Add.1, para. 4). 62 A/68/293, para. 76; A/HRC/36/43, para. 61 (e); A/HRC/42/38, paras. 147–148; and A/75/385, para. 80 (d). 63 See, for example, A/HRC/19/56/Add.1, para. 90; A/HRC/24/52/Add.2, para. 105 (a); A/HRC/37/56/Add.2, para. 46; A/HRC/38/43/Add.1, paras. 63 and 78 (d); A/HRC/41/42/Add.2, para. 78 (b); A/HRC/42/38/Add.1, para. 73; A/HRC/41/34/Add.1, para. 100 (k); and A/HRC/40/61/Add.2, para. 105 (a). 64 A/HRC/24/52/Add.2, para. 105 (a). 65 A/75/385, para. 80 (d). 66 Ibid.