A/HRC/24/37 development. The international community should respect the diversity of States in making development decisions. 22. In the view of Norway, the right to development was complex and influenced by global trends. The mainstreaming of the right to development should be on par with other human rights and it should bring human rights and the right to development closer together. Poverty reduction and development required good governance. Development should be participatory and transparent. Human rights needed to be mainstreamed in development processes. Development was a human right, and States had the responsibility to protect, respect and fulfil human rights using the maximum available resources. Human rights should be the framework for development cooperation. Both national and international responsibilities were critical in ensuring an enabling environment. 23. Senegal said that given the uncertain times with the economic crisis, the realization of the right to development was more than ever a necessity. The international community must demonstrate its political commitment and give the right to development the high profile it deserved, in particular in the context of the post-2015 development agenda. It hoped that the current process could move towards adoption of a legally binding instrument at the end. Algeria, Cuba, Indonesia, South Africa and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela also stressed the need for a legally binding instrument on the right to development. 24. Cuba reiterated the need to allocate more time to the Working Group in order to speed up its work. It said that the sole purpose of indicators was to permit developed countries to question the levels of the realization of rights. Cuba did not object to discussing freedom of expression and good governance, but there were more important issues to focus on, including the unjust and undemocratic international order. That was the reason the reform of the Bretton Woods institutions, international governance and the rule of law at the international level must be addressed. Disarmament and nuclear disarmament were relevant as they concern peace. The Working Group must also discuss real international cooperation, not limited to aid but also with regard to technology transfer, cooperation and trade. The principal obstacle to true development in Cuba was the economic and trade blockade by the United States, which was also recognized during the universal periodic review. 25. Australia said that it did not support providing additional working days to the Working Group and requested that the process be continued step by step in order to build consensus. It expressed concern about creating a new international instrument on the right to development and called for greater consensus on the definition and scope of the right to development. The Human Rights Council did not have a development or trade mandate; it should focus on the human rights mandate. 26. According to India, the draft criteria and operational subcriteria focussed unduly on individual national responsibilities. They must also focus on the international aspects and special needs of developing countries, such as special and differential treatment, common but differentiated responsibilities, and the need for policy space. Indonesia expressed concern about the non-implementation of the right to development and stressed the urgency of strengthening international cooperation in the face of multidimensional crises. 27. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela stated that the implementation of the right to development was necessary for the realization of all human rights and regretted that this right had been blocked by some countries, including through unilateral coercive measures which flagrantly violated the fundamental rights of some countries in the South. The predatory capitalist system directly threatened developing countries and least developed countries. 8