A/HRC/16/37 57. In the space reserved for questions and comments, the Marangopoulos Foundation for Human Rights reminded participants of the engagement that States undertook in the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action to eradicate “any conflicts which may arise between the rights of women and the harmful effects of certain traditional or customary practices”. While the Foundation supported the need to understand the traditional values underpinning human rights, it pointed out that the advancement of “traditional values” may have a certain negative effect on the campaign against such practices as sexual abuse of female children in the household, dowry-related violence and female genital mutilation. It urged the Human Rights Council to adopt a resolution in which it reminded States of their international obligations to address effectively all traditional practices resulting in violations of women’s rights, making it clear that traditional values may not be invoked to justify human rights violations and advancing only those values that are consistent with individual human rights law. 58. ARC International expressed concern at the potential of an approach based on traditional values to erode international human rights standards, and at attempts to portray tradition as static and monolithic. Traditional values were invoked to justify past practice or resist change, whereas human rights frequently required changes to ensure conformity with international standards. It pointed out that tradition and culture were pluralistic and evolving and that, while some traditions were consistent with international human rights law, others were not. Tradition could not be seen as simply a reflection of the values of the majority. Much of international human rights law was designed to protect minorities that had been historically marginalized and subjected to abuses by the State or by the majority. States had a positive obligation to eradicate harmful stereotypes, values, traditions and practices that were inconsistent with international human rights law. Tradition and culture may be useful to help promote respect for human rights in our diverse societies by way of human rights education at the national level, but no one could invoke traditional values to justify human rights violations or to restrict the scope of human rights. Given the potential for abuse of an approach based on traditional values, it suggested that it would be more productive in future to refer to “universal values” or “values underpinning international human rights law”. 59. Human Rights Watch pointed out that the discussion on traditional values should be firmly embedded in the implementation of human rights obligations. It stressed that all cultures contained diverse and sometimes clashing traditions and values. In this sense, it recalled that harmful practices were often justified by invoking certain traditional values. It also underscored the fact that there was no clear line separating traditional values, traditional practices and traditional symbols. Such a lack of clear definitions made it difficult to assess their respective impact on human rights. In any case, in cases of human rights violations, human rights must supersede tradition. Currently recognized human rights, such as the universal right to vote, including for women, would not long ago have been seen as in contradiction with traditional values. Finally, those excluded from defining traditions were often the first victims and they should be heard in the discussion. 60. Belgium, speaking on behalf of the European Union, recalled that the European Union had voted against the resolution that allowed for the organization of the workshop because the notion of “traditional values” had a negative connotation and was subject to broad interpretation. This undefined concept might weaken the principles enshrined in international human rights instruments. Cultural diversity should be taken as an opportunity to promote human rights, not as an instrument to undermine them. When traditional values enriched human rights, they deserved protection under human rights law, as was the case with cultural rights and indigenous peoples’ rights. More generally, traditions and values underpinning them were enriching factors for humanity, and were already protected as culture heritage by a number of UNESCO instruments. The absence of a universal definition of the non-legal concept of “traditional values” made it difficult to articulate 13