A/HRC/33/59 Rights, requested the inclusion of Dalits under article 1 (3) and the deletion of “that cannot be immediately guaranteed” in article 2 (1). The representative also suggested the addition of victims of natural disasters, earthquakes and fires in article 2 (3) and the inclusion of women’s land rights in article 4 (1). 42. The representative of the European Union stated that article 2 (4) provided an example of how peasants were presented as a homogenous group with common interests, which was doubtful. Article 2 (6) raised the question of how States were supposed to regulate private individuals. The language of article 3 (4) on affirmative action was vague and possibly controversial. The representative made specific comments on a number of articles. 43. The representative of Argentina expressed support for the text of article 4 on gender equality. Regarding article 5 (1), the representative stated that it ran counter to the constitution of Argentina. The country reserved its position on the right to food sovereignty and requested the deletion of article 5 (6). 44. The representative of Serikat Petani Indonesia insisted that there should be more emphasis on the obligations of States. The obligation to provide assistance to those vulnerable to climate change and natural disasters needed to be reinforced. States should ensure capacity-building and support the advocacy of peasant organizations in the context of trade negotiations. 45. The representative of Brazil recommended the addition of “without disregarding specific legislation on indigenous peoples” in article 2 (4), “gender” in article 3 (3) and “when applicable” in article 5 (1). 46. The representative of China stated that article 2 should mention national legislation, and expressed agreement with the representative of Argentina on article 5 (6). The representative of China insisted that peasants’ rights were individual and collective. Regarding sovereignty over natural resources, the representative emphasized the need to take national laws into consideration. 47. The representative of FIAN International clarified that accountability mechanisms were provided for in international covenants and regional organizations, and were mentioned in various general comments of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. 48. The representative of Cuba stated that Cuba was in favour of discussion leading to convergence on article 1. The representative highlighted the complex nature of article 5 and called for more discussion. 49. The representative of Egypt expressed the wish that the wording of article 3 (3) should be maintained. Alternatively, the word “sex” could be omitted and the word “gender” could be added. 50. The representative of the European Union requested clarification on the meaning and scope of article 5 (3) and 5 (4). The representative raised the issue of whether article 5 (6) would not be more realistic without the word “any” and raised the argument of peasants not being a homogenous group that could easily be consulted in relation to 5 (6) (b). 51. The representative of India called for adopting a holistic approach and requested clarification on accountability mechanisms. Regarding article 5, the representative questioned the added value of highlighting the obligations of States and indicated that the issue of sovereignty over natural resources should be approached with caution. 52. The representative of United Villages commented on article 2 (7) (c) and emphasized the need to put an end to speculation on foodstuffs. 9