A/HRC/33/59 d’action paysanne (LVC member)); (c) the rights to permanent sovereignty over natural resources and to food sovereignty (World Forum of Fisher Peoples and International Federation of Rural Adult Catholic Movements); (d) the right to food and the obligation of the State to conduct land reform (FIAN Nepal); (e) the issue of forced evictions (Coordinadora Latinoamericana de Organizaciones del Campo (LVC member)); and (f) reference to the extraterritorial obligations of States (Comité français pour la solidarité internationale and Coordination Sud). Non-governmental organizations highlighted that peasants’ rights issues cut across North and South (International Network of Human Rights) and that the declaration would not create new rights but rather ensure that the human rights framework adequately protected all people (Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales). V. Second reading of the draft declaration 32. The following account presents a summary of comments made on the text. Detailed proposals for the revision of the text are listed in annex III. A. Articles 1 to 5 33. The representative of the European Union stated that the European Union wished to be provided with the normative sources of the text. The representative noted that the term “peasants” appeared inadequate and derogatory in English, and that “peasants” as a category were presented as a homogenous group, which raised the issue of how a consultation process could be managed. 34. The Secretariat reminded participants that the objective of the study by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights would be to clarify the normative sources of the draft. The Chair agreed to circulate the draft with its footnotes. 35. The representative of Argentina made concrete proposals on articles 2 and 3, and requested clarification on the accountability mechanisms mentioned under article 2 (2). 36. The representative of FIAN International stressed the importance of extraterritorial obligations and the principle of free, prior and informed consent for peasants and rural communities. 37. The representative of Ecuador expressed support for the inclusion of extraterritorial obligations in article 2 and the inclusion of the right to food sovereignty in article 5, although more debate would be needed regarding natural resources. 38. The representative of the Russian Federation wished to see, in reference to article 5 (1), direct reference to existing State legislation. Regarding article 5 (6) (b), the proposed mechanism (free, prior and informed consent) was not clear and deletion would be preferred. 39. The representative of FAO recommended the inclusion of aquaculture in article 1 (2) and suggested wording for article 5 (1). 40. The representative of Egypt suggested amendments to articles 2, 3, 4 and 5. Regarding article 4, the representative could not accept the concept of gender identity. That view was supported by the representative of the Russian Federation. Regarding article 5, the constitution of Egypt gave sovereignty over natural resources to the people, not to a specific group. 41. The representative of the Programme on Women’s Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, on behalf of South Asian Feminist Alliance for Economic, Social and Cultural 8