A/HRC/15/23 33. With regard to the sub-criteria, further explanation was requested from the task force as to why some were general in nature, while others were more operational, requiring actions such as “providing” and “reducing”. On the question of indicators, some delegations commented that the task force was not mandated to elaborate indicators; instead, the sub-criteria should have been the measurement tool. It had been hoped that the Working Group would receive, for each criterion and sub-criterion, a list of measures that should be taken in order for that particular criterion to be fulfilled, whereas the indicators were a set of conditions by which success could be measured. Indicators on whether or not a State had ratified a particular treaty or convention would not say much about the implementation of the content of those instruments. Furthermore, the indicators did not take into account different conditions prevalent in different countries. There was also a question as to how one would measure efforts undertaken by a State in a given situation when it had not ratified an instrument. The issue was that indicators in the human rights domain were viewed differently from indicators in development discourse. 34. Other delegations welcomed the development of indicators, while identifying some gaps and the need for refinement and methodological rigour, particularly with regard to the outcome (result) and the effort (policy and resources) indicators. They were of the view that the indicators were a good illustrative set for States to be engaged in progress at the national level, through national development plans and policies, which would then call for international cooperation and assistance. One delegation noted that indicators were not used to “dictate” development policy, but rather as a tool to assist Governments and international agencies in improving policies and practices. 35. The Chairperson-Rapporteur of the task force concluded the deliberations by responding to the points and concerns raised by various delegates. He emphasized the fact that the task force had stayed strictly within its mandate and accepted concepts in formulating the core norm and attributes, and had provided notes to the authoritative source for each of the criteria. He also reiterated that the indicators should be seen as flexible and subject to regular updating and improvement, while the core norm, attributes and criteria had a more lasting value. He hoped the Working Group would appreciate the fact that the task force’s aim was to make the right to development operational, and recalled the recommendation to circulate the criteria for comments so that they could benefit from the experience of Governments and other entities. Lastly, he clarified that the reference to “reporting template” was made so that the Working Group could determine priority areas for a more targeted exploration of how policies and institutions could be more responsive to right to development concerns, since it was not feasible to report on the whole range of criteria. 4. Suggestions for further work 36. The Chairperson-Rapporteur of the task force presented the suggestions for further work on the criteria, consideration of new thematic areas and mainstreaming the right to development (A/HRC/15/WG.2/TF/2, paras. 71–85). The criteria could be circulated in order to benefit from the insights of Governments and other entities, and be refined into a manageable reporting instrument capable of revealing where improvements could be made in the implementation of the right. To assist the Working Group in the further development of a comprehensive and coherent set of standards, the task force had recommended consultations with regional institutions, thus engaging regional actors in the process, and studying various formats for guidelines and other instruments so that an informed decision could be made on the eventual format of the standards. Should the Working Group wish to explore additional thematic areas of international cooperation, the task force recommended drawing on the United Nations Development Agenda. Lastly, the task force recommended strengthening the mainstreaming of the right to development into the work of United Nations human rights bodies and mechanisms, as well as OHCHR. GE.10-14167 11