A/HRC/7/32 page 5 emphasized that applying a human rights analysis to extreme poverty will help duty-bearers to perform their obligations and ensures that they have “binding obligations” and that non-compliance with their duties constitutes a violation of the human rights, for which they can thus be held accountable. 6. The Government of Argentina expressed its support for the human rights-based approach to the eradication of extreme poverty, and that “basic rights” are a matter of justice not charity. It further stated that extreme poverty is a violation of basic rights and a leading factor in aggravating discrimination. 7. The Government of Switzerland expressed its concern that the draft guiding principles might not conform closely enough to the current state of international law and human rights and should thus be drafted in a language that guides and aids States. It further suggested that wordings and expressions should not be used which would give the impression that the draft guiding principles created obligations for States and, in an impermissible way, required specific actions on the part of States. 8. The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) suggested that the draft guiding principles could more clearly spell out the principles to address the rights of the poor, and that the language could be more precise and consistent with existing human rights language (e.g., in the use of the term “right to employment”). It further suggested that the draft guiding principles could refer to the need for policy space at the national level for poverty reduction, and expressed concern that major governmental and non-governmental actors in the fields of development and poverty reduction were not yet sufficiently aware of the draft guiding principles. 9. The South African Human Rights Commission and Sightsavers International pointed out that the draft guiding principles did not yet adequately reflect the relationship between poverty and disability, while the Equal Opportunity Commission suggested that the draft guiding principles specifically address the rights of the people with disabilities. It was proposed that draft guiding principles acknowledge that a particular focus is needed to ensure that poor people with disabilities are able to access programmes put in place to assist the poor and that they share in the benefits of social inclusion promoted by the draft guiding principles. 10. The South African Human Rights Commission further proposed that the draft guiding principles should address the question of children living in poverty. 11. HelpAge International and Sightsavers International proposed that the impact of demographic ageing be recognized in the draft guiding principles, in particular through the inclusion of a reference to the Madrid International Plan of Action on Ageing adopted by the Second World Assembly on Ageing on 12 April 2002. 12. Care International proposed the inclusion of a right to a clean and healthy environment in the draft guiding principles, arguing that climate change jeopardizes the ability to respect, protect and fulfil the whole spectrum of indivisible and interdependent rights. It further suggested that each right be formulated in a gender-sensitive manner and consider the effects of corruption.