A/HRC/16/37 E. Conclusion 65. The independent expert in the field of cultural rights, Farida Shaheed, made some concluding remarks on the basis of the discussions that had taken during the workshop. She identified some of the basic agreements in the various presentations: (a) All cultures shared a common set of values that belonged to humankind in its entirety, and those values had made an important contribution to the development of human rights norms and standards; (b) Such values were inscribed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that, having incorporated diverse, cultural and political traditions and perspectives and having been adopted by consensus, “represents a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations”; (c) Each and every person, regardless of socio-economic, cultural and personal identity, belief system, political view or physical location was entitled to all the rights and freedoms recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; (d) All human rights were universal, indivisible, interrelated, interdependent and mutually reinforcing and must be treated in a fair and equal manner and on the same footing; (e) Under international law, all States, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems, had the obligation to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all. 66. Even if there was agreement on the universality of human rights, discussions on traditional values tended to focus on how the universality of rights was translated into reality. All human thinking and reasoning was rooted in people’s cultural perspectives and understandings, including the traditions of elaborating the contents of human rights. Therefore, to breathe life into international human rights standards, there must be ownership of these norms and standards among all communities of the world. This implied an acceptance and assimilation of concepts through local lexicons. Equally, however, the continuing development of universal human rights standards was only possible if this was informed by the cultural diversity of the world’s peoples. The interplay between universal standards and understanding and diverse localized realities raised a series of questions that had to be considered. To what extent were cultural notions and value systems in accordance with international human rights? Did international human rights reflect the cultural diversity of the world’s people? And if not, how were we to achieve harmony and a common understanding and therefore, make human rights a living reality? To what extent was it possible to distinguish between traditional values and traditional practices, which are the external, visible manifestations of such values? Was there a common understanding of what, in practical terms, constituted “traditional values”? Who was or should be responsible for defining the parameters and contents of “traditional values”? 67. It was essential to unpack the terms “tradition” and “traditional”, because of the emotive quality and resonance tradition had with cultural identity and the sense of self. Communities had divergent traditions that reflected different values within themselves, by reflecting the views of the majority and/or power-holders on the one hand, and those of the more marginalized, including minorities, on the other. Traditions constantly changed and evolved over time in response to changing realities and as a consequence of interactions and interchanges with other communities. Cultural notions and value systems drew upon both continuity with the past and a projected, imagined future. 15