A/HRC/16/37 them in the language of human rights. The European Union recalled its attachment to the universality of human rights; according to the Vienna Declaration and other instruments, no tradition could justify violations or limitations of human rights. As far as the positive dimension of traditional values that could be accommodated in the framework of the protection and promotion of human rights was concerned, it was already taken into account in international law, mainly through those instruments regarding culture, cultural diversity and cultural heritage. While some of these aspects fell under the competence of UNESCO, the independent expert in the field of cultural rights could also address them in the context of her mandate. 61. The representative of China stated that the concept of human rights should not be monopolized by a few countries, and that it was actually deeply rooted in the traditional value system of every country. China used the traditional value system to promote the development of the notion of human rights; for example, traditional Chinese religious thought emphasized that heaven gave birth to many things, but the most important was the human being. Therefore promoting such a traditional value had a positive effect on the development of human rights. According to China, the universality of human rights should be combined with the traditional values of countries. 62. The Human Rights Law Resource Center pointed out that many traditional values were already protected by human rights law, such as freedom of religion, freedom of expression and freedom of association. These were, however, not absolute rights. The unspoken claim of many asserting traditional values is that, in cases of conflict, traditional values trumped other rights. This was not, however, the position of international human rights law. To allow the automatic prioritization of religious and cultural rights over other human rights perpetuated a false hierarchy of rights and might entrench systemic discrimination and other violations of rights. There was therefore a danger in confusing the recognition of cultural or religious rights with the prioritization of those rights, to the detriment of other rights. 63. The representative of Egypt pointed out that it was necessary to differentiate between what constituted tradition and what constituted values that were traditional. Societies were always in motion and change; the process of adaptation of what was viewed as human rights norms and principles as they stood, and what was regarded as traditional values in the positive sense, also changed, because values were part of what constituted society. Traditional values should not be confused with traditions or practices that were harmful; these had to be fought within the values upon which societies were built. 64. The representative of the Netherlands doubted that all traditional values were by definition conducive to the promotion of respect, protection and enjoyment of human rights. The lack of a clear differentiation between harmful traditional practices and traditional values would make it difficult to give legal sense to these notions. The Netherlands attached great importance to the universality of all human rights: for example, the protection against torture or extrajudicial killings and of other human rights should be the same everywhere in the world. According to article 5 of the Vienna Declaration, while the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds must be born in mind, is was the duty of States, regardless of their political, economic or cultural system, to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms. 14