A/HRC/27/63 47. It was pointed out that, considering the nature of the declaration and bearing in mind that it was a political document, the new proposal should be of a declarative character and the action-oriented part should only be inserted at the end of the text. 48. One delegation pointed out that the enumeration of preconditions for peace was not exhaustive and therefore more general language was preferable. Also, it did not support the singling out of a particular situation, such as humanitarian crises. 49. Non-governmental organizations and other stakeholders noted the relevance of the article, given its focus on the responsibility of States and on peace in absence of war. However, it was highlighted that the notions of human security, disarmament, the need to refrain from the use of propaganda, the reduction of military spending and conscientious objection to military service linked to the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, as well as the rights of victims, that had been included in the draft declaration on the right to peace prepared by the Advisory Committee, were missing in the text under consideration. D. Article 3 50. Before opening the discussion on article 3, the Chair-Rapporteur explained that the intention behind the article was to facilitate implementation of the declaration. While the draft declaration was by nature a political declaration, article 3 emphasized the need for all relevant actors to take action at different levels on peace matters, through the promotion of human rights and development. He also made reference to articles 34 and 83 of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action and the third part of the Declaration on the Preparation of Societies for Life in Peace, in which similar action-oriented wording could be found. 51. Several delegations expressed concern over the wording of the article, which seemed to suggest possible legal implications, and requested that it be reformulated. The declaration in general should be kept short and concise. It should also be clarified which national institutions were being referred to. 52. A number of delegations welcomed the action-oriented character of the article and indicated that the reference to the implementation of the declaration was essential, as the declaration should be seen as a starting point in the process towards establishing peace, rather than as an end point. One delegation, however, questioned the action-oriented character of the article. It was mentioned that the declaration should be seen as an expression of political will, rather than as an action-oriented tool. 53. Non-governmental organizations welcomed the text of article 3, stressing the importance of making implementation possible. It was suggested that the wording of the article should be strengthened. E. Article 4 54. Moving to article 4, the Chair-Rapporteur pointed out that it could be considered a relatively straightforward article that was intended to guarantee a human rights approach to the draft declaration. 55. One delegation stated that article 4 was not entirely necessary and that it ambiguously seemed to imply that the draft declaration was a legal instrument. The reference to legal implications could be avoided by using alternative wording. Some delegations suggested deleting the reference to the ratification by countries of relevant instruments, while others felt it more appropriate to refer to States than to countries. 10