A/HRC/16/37 claimers. Secondly, it would be incompatible with human dignity to deprive individuals or groups of individuals of their rights. Thirdly, human dignity was not only an individual but also a societal value; thus, human rights should be understood in the context of human interaction, and that meant a need to respect the human dignity of the others – and the necessary legal protection to ensure such respect. Fourthly, human dignity required the recognition of human freedom: to be able to develop one’s own identity. While international human rights law may allow for limitations or restrictions on rights, human dignity required that such restrictions were not arbitrary and, in some cases – such as the prohibition of torture and cruel or degrading treatment – that no such restrictions were admitted. 16. Lastly, Mr. Klein addressed the issue of the universality of human rights. The assertion of human dignity as a foundational value carried an immanent claim of universal validity. The significance of national and regional particularities and various historical cultural, religious and backgrounds might, however, be relevant to the interpretation of human rights in specific contexts, especially of the permissibility of restrictions. Human dignity should always, however, be a yardstick for these interpretations. Cultural traditions could never be a justification for State action or failure to act when human dignity was at stake. Mr. Klein also stressed the need to take into context the evolution of values, which were not fixed or immutable, when interpreting human rights in the light of human dignity. He advocated for both openness and carefulness when doing so. 17. The Human Rights Director of the Tukui Shimi Foundation and former member of the Ecuadorian Constitutional Assembly, Mónica Chuji, placed the concept of human dignity in the context of the indigenous peoples’ worldview by focusing on the notion of sumak kawsay (“good living” or “life in harmony”), which had been incorporated into the new Constitutions of Ecuador and Bolivia (Plurinational State of), together with international human rights instruments and standards. The concept of sumak kawsay, which originated in the worldview of Andean indigenous peoples, based the notion of well-being not in the isolated individual, but in the relationship between the individual, the community and nature. 18. Sumak kawsay meant to enjoy access to a healthy and fertile land; to cultivate what was necessary and in a diversified way, to keep rivers, forest, mountains and the air clean; to manage collectively the territory, to provide and receive an education on the basis of the community’s own values, to respect the rights of others, and to decide collectively on the priorities of each community. It was based on the respect of those who lived around us and of the ancestral institutions that regulated community life. It was founded on equity, solidarity, reciprocity, discipline, respect, the acknowledgment of difference, conservation and the recognition that all of us are part of nature, part of biodiversity and have the responsibility of looking after our habitat. 19. The concept of sumak kawsay had multiple dimensions. It had a philosophical/ethical dimension, focused on the need for an indivisible, respectful and harmonious relationship of individuals and communities with nature. It had a political dimension, linked with self-determination and the collective rights of indigenous peoples to decide on their own development. It had a legal dimension, because it needed to be reflected in binding legal norms, which included customary norms. Sumak kawsay was also connected to universally recognized human rights; indeed, it was related to civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, and to both individual and collective rights. It had economic dimensions, because it offered a basis to assess which economic activities were respectful of nature and not based on the exploitation of either nature or human beings. Sumak kawsay promoted diverse, healthy and balanced production, allowing for sharing, consumption of own produce and fair trade. It had a cultural dimension, because it reflected traditional knowledge and values and was open to intercultural dialogue. It had an 6