A/HRC/9/17 page 10 task force in revising and reordering the criteria with a view to enhancing their relevance and applicability to global partnerships for development, both geographically and thematically. The European Union expressed its interest in the task force criteria expert meeting. 31. Welcoming the comments made by the delegations, Mr. Marks assured the Working Group that their observations would certainly be taken into account in the further refinement of the criteria. In relation to the perceived focus on the national dimension of the right to development, he made a few clarifications on the sources of the criteria, referring to the Declaration on the Right to Development, the priority concerns that emerged through discussions in the Commission on Human Rights and in the present Working Group, as well as the points raised in the reports of the independent expert on the right to development. Mr. Marks acknowledged that the methodology of drafting the criteria was reactive rather than methodical and stressed the need to think afresh with experts who had relevant experience in measuring progress towards complex development goals, through qualitative and quantitative indicators and criteria. In response, Cuba (on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement) recalled that there were other important provisions of the Declaration on the Right to Development that had not yet been reflected in the criteria, and requested the task force to do so, especially those relating to the international dimension of the right to development. 32. A question was asked as to whether the criteria were meant to be generally and globally applicable to all partnerships or whether there was a need to devise different criteria for different themes and regions. Mr. Marks replied that the task force looked to the Working Group to address the ambiguity of whether the criteria were to be applicable to all kinds of partnerships or to particular areas of partnership. 33. Mr. Sengupta suggested five main themes from which the criteria could be drawn: (a) whether the partnership contributes to development with equity; (b) whether it promotes the right without violating any other right through a process of progressive realization; (c) whether the duty-bearers and duties are identified nationally and internationally; (d) whether there is a mechanism of monitoring and review, nationally and internationally, and whether appropriate indicators have been developed or can be developed; and (e) whether the process is consistent with equity, non-discrimination, participation, transparency and accountability. 34. At the request of Cuba (on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement), the secretariat provided the Working Group with the provisional time frame for implementation by the task force of the road map, which took into account the proposed additional partnerships to be evaluated by the task force. It was clarified that the road map, endorsed by the Council in its resolution 4/4, foresaw 2009 to cover the third phase, implying that the consolidated findings of the task force would be presented to the Working Group at its annual session in June 2010. Considering the explanation provided by the secretariat, the Working Group agreed to request the Council to extend accordingly the mandate of the task force in order to enable it to complete its tasks within the framework of the three-phase road map mentioned above. B. Address of the acting United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights 35. In her address, Kyung-wha Kang, acting United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, underlined the progress made by the Working Group in maintaining a sustained focus on the operational dimensions of the realization of the right to development through Millennium