A/HRC/43/31 35. A total of 15 States, one national human rights institution and three non-governmental organizations submitted inputs in view of the present report. The concept of mutually beneficial cooperation occupied a very important place in the replies of at least seven States. 36. In the view of Australia, mutually beneficial cooperation is not an agreed multilateral concept in human rights, but rather a domestic concept of one particular State. The use of the term is likely to cause confusion and undermine clear long established and agreed principles with regard to the promotion and protection of technical assistance and capacity-building, and also development cooperation. 37. Canada stressed that mutually beneficial cooperation and “win-win” cooperation appeared to be closely linked. It generally described cooperation in the economic field. Canada added that “win-win” cooperation was a term usually used by representatives of China in the context of the United Nations. Given the ambiguity of the term “mutually beneficial cooperation” in the context of human rights, defining or clarifying it in such a context should be the first task of the Advisory Committee, which should be guided in its efforts by international human rights instruments principles established by the Human Rights Council, particularly those outlined by the General Assembly in its resolution 60/251. 38. According to China, the deficit in human rights is still a very serious matter. Human rights issues were used to attack others countries and to interfere in their internal affairs, thus poisoning the global atmosphere of human rights. 39. Technical assistance and capacity-building played an important role in the promotion and protection of human rights through win-win cooperation. First, they enhance mutual understanding, since different countries have different historical and cultural traditions, levels of economic and social development and political systems. Second, to improve the level of human rights protection, all States should strengthen win-win cooperation, exchange and learn from each other and make common progress in the field of human rights through technical assistance and capacity-building. Third, States should promote the healthy development of global human rights governance by exploring ways to promote democratization and the rule of law by supporting the participation of developing countries in global governance. 40. In the view expressed by China, in order to strengthen win-win cooperation in the field of human rights through technical assistance and capacity-building, five principles should be taken into account: first, total adherence to the purposes and principles of the Charter, in particular with regard to respect for sovereignty and opposing the politicization of human rights; second, consultations are needed to determine the areas of cooperation, project planning and concrete implementation according to the requests and priorities of the parties concerned; third, all human rights should be promoted in a balanced manner and by paying more attention to the demands of developing countries for the realization of the right to development and continuous progress of human rights; four, the full implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, and fundamental guaranties for people’s enjoyment of human rights alongside technical assistance and capacity-building; And five, States should safeguard international fairness and justice, fully understand the difficulties and efforts of developing countries in achieving economic development and maintaining social stability, guarantee the special and differential treatment enjoyed by developing countries in institutions like World Trade Organization, and create conditions for the development of human rights in those countries. 41. France and Germany submitted a joint response in which they stressed that the concept of mutually beneficial cooperation and the similar – or even identical– term “winwin cooperation” were useful in, for example, trade negotiations. In their view, however, it could not be applied to the field of human rights, since existing human rights obligations ought not to depend on intergovernmental negotiations, the risk in that case being that the application of such standards would depend on the balance of power between States, to the detriment of small States and of individuals. 42. Japan indicated that the terms “building a community of shared future for human rights” and “mutually beneficial cooperation” were not widely recognized in the field of human rights, and were unclear, which made their use in a resolution of the Human Rights Council unsuitable. 7