A/HRC/43/31 43. Côte d’Ivoire, Kuwait, Mauritius, Morocco and the Philippines stressed the fundamental role of technical assistance and capacity-building in the protection, promotion and realization of human rights. They did not question the validity or the introduction of the concept of mutually beneficial cooperation in the field of technical assistance and capacitybuilding. 44. The Netherlands pointed out that mutually beneficial cooperation prioritized relations between States, thereby excluding essential actors in the field of human rights, such as United Nations agencies non-governmental organizations and civil society. The term lacked a clear definition and seemed strongly associated with economic development, therefore running the risk of overemphasising economic rights over civil and political rights. 45. In the view of New Zealand, mutually beneficial cooperation did not have a definition agreed upon at the intergovernmental level. It was unclear how mutually beneficial cooperation differed from international cooperation, and what if any value there might be in the consideration of the concept. 46. According to Switzerland, the term “mutually beneficial cooperation” was not sufficiently defined, and remained sceptical about the added value of this new concept. 47. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland strongly supported technical assistance and capacity-building as a means of enabling a State to fulfil its human rights obligations. The concept of mutually beneficial cooperation, however, posed significant challenges, since the term was not defined in Human Rights Council resolution 37/23 and was not agreed United Nations language; furthermore, it was not an approved concept in multilateral human rights contexts. 48. The United Kingdom did not support the introduction of a new and undefined term and concept that was not included in international human rights law, adding that, if the term “mutually beneficial cooperation” was to be used in human rights context, its meaning had to be clearly compatible with international human rights obligations. Without a definition, it was not clear whether mutually beneficial cooperation was compatible. 49. The non-governmental organizations Association nationale de promotion et de protection des droits de l’homme (Cameroon), Associazione Communità Papa Giovanni XXIII (Italy) and Protector of Citizens (Serbia), and the national human rights institution of India did not comment on or criticize the concept of mutually beneficial cooperation. They insisted on the importance of technical assistance, which enabled them to better protect human rights and prevent violations, and pointed out the main weaknesses of technical assistance and how to remedy them. 50. The Advisory Committee observes from the above submissions that rather serious differences or conflicts of views exist with regard to the concept of “mutually beneficial cooperation”; further clarification and (re-)interpretation of the concept will therefore be required. At the same time, the Committee considers that attention should be paid to the origin of the concept, which from a movement of developing countries (or the “Third World”), vividly illustrated by the famous 10-point “declaration on promotion of world peace and cooperation” in 1955. The declaration, which was adopted unanimously by 29 Asian and African States representing 54 per cent of the then total world population, included the notion of “promotion of mutual interests and cooperation”. VI. Information provided by States with regard to international and national technical assistance programmes promoted on their own initiative 51. In its submission, Japan indicated that it had been implementing technical assistance and capacity-building on human rights as part of the cooperation programmes conducted by the Japan International Cooperation Agency for developing countries all over the world, especially in South and South-East Asia. The projects covered four sectors: the legal and judicial sector; elections; the police; and the media. The legal and judicial sector covered the drafting and dissemination of civil law and other laws and regulations. The elections sector 8