A/HRC/32/43 (h) Although international solidarity was widely practised among States, it was important to stress that States had the primary responsibility for the human rights of individuals within their sovereign territory. Furthermore, doubts were expressed about whether the principle of international solidarity could be translated into the language of rights, since it was not perceived as meeting the requirement of a legal concept and that of a human right as such. It was also stated that the concept of international solidarity remained too vague. Concern was raised about whether such an attempt to formalize international solidarity as a human right would create the risk that rhetoric might take the place of legal content, therefore undermining the principle of international solidarity. It was suggested that the Independent Expert take into consideration the fact that, at present, there was no consensus within the Human Rights Council regarding the project of developing a draft declaration on the right of peoples and individuals to international solidarity; (i) The text should be shortened and the preamble paragraphs reduced but devoted to laying out the existing legal framework and the rationale for a right to international solidarity. Definitions, including that of the principle of international solidarity, should be in the operational part of the declaration. Furthermore, the operational paragraphs should start by defining the right to international solidarity; (j) The current structure of the proposed draft declaration was deemed to have too much resemblance to that of a convention, with the articles delineating rights and obligations. Use of a more traditional format for declarations would be more beneficial to the process. The text should be a clear statement, accompanied by a commentary, in the typical format of a United Nations declaration. It was added that guidelines might be useful to explain the practice of States and non-state actors in implementing international solidarity; (k) The draft declaration should use more assertive and affirmative language, with precise references to existing instruments that embody the principle of international solidarity. The point was made that customary law that could be discerned based on the practices of States should be consolidated into a formal legal framework in the draft text. III. African region 17. On 21 and 22 July 2015, the second consultation was convened by the Independent Expert in Addis Ababa, a few days after the conclusion of the third International Conference on Financing for Development, held in the same city from 13 to 16 July 2015. There were 30 participants, including representatives of 10 African States, the African Union Commission, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, United Nations entities, United Nations treaty bodies and civil society, including non-governmental organizations and academia. 18. The acting Regional Representative of OHCHR for East Africa delivered the opening remarks, welcoming the initiative to hold the consultation in Addis Ababa, where African cooperation and solidarity fell within the framework of the African Union. He affirmed the relevance and timeliness of the consultation in the light of recent events, including the Ebola crisis in West Africa. He added that international solidarity was closely linked to the current discussion on the post-2015 development agenda, and most especially to the issues discussed at the third International Conference on Financing for Development. 7