A/HRC/27/45 64. Switzerland had proposed as a compromise that, in the letter, United Nations agencies should be invited to feel free to respond to questions that might be posed, including on integrating the right to development in the post-2015 development agenda. 65. Indonesia, Pakistan and Sri Lanka had been of the view that political will was lacking to join together internationally to implement the Declaration on the Right to Development and that, therefore, it was important to adopt a systemic approach that would permit discussion on the international system, on the need for an enabling environment and on identification of obstacles at the international level. 66. The Indian Council of South America had proposed establishing a process whereby indigenous peoples could participate in the work of the Working Group on an equal basis, taking into account their special status as peoples entitled to the exercise of the right to selfdetermination. One NGO had proposed that a privileged place be accorded to the participation of young people in the work of the Working Group, given their importance in society and their special responsibility for the future of humanity. NGOs had called for the compilation of all the comments made during the review process on criteria and operational subcriteria. C. Submissions of groups of States, States, regional groups and other stakeholders 67. The Human Rights Council, in its resolution 24/4, endorsed the recommendations adopted by the Working Group on the Right to Development at its fourteenth session, in which, inter alia, the Working Group requested OHCHR to make available on its website and to the Working Group at its fifteenth session, in the format of two conference room papers, all further submissions by Governments, groups of Governments and regional groups, as well as inputs by other stakeholders. The Chair-Rapporteur provided a summary of the submissions as follows. 68. In response to its letter dated 5 July 2013, the Secretariat received 4 submissions from groups of States (2 from NAM and 2 from EU), 33 from Member States, 10 from United Nations organizations, 4 from national human rights institutions (2 from the National Human Rights Commission of India and 1 each from the Independent Human Rights Commission of Afghanistan and the Advisory Council on Human Rights of Morocco), 1 from a United Nations treaty body (the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights), 4 joint submissions from NGOs (3 from Catholic-inspired NGOs and 1 from an indigenous peoples’ organization) and 12 individual submissions from civil society organizations and academics. Those submissions are in addition to comments made during the past three sessions. All the submissions have been posted in their original versions on the OHCHR website and have also been compiled in documents A/HRC/WG.2/15/CRP.3 and 4. 69. The content and focus of the contributions varied, ranging from general statements to specific proposals. One submission expressed concern that the draft right to development criteria and operational subcriteria sought to redefine the right to development and were conceived of, with their focus on the national dimension, as a tool to monitor the actions of States. However, the main objective of the exercise should be the creation of the necessary basis for the elaboration of a legally binding instrument. The focus of the criteria must be on achieving the conditions for economic development and strengthening the ability of States to promote and protect all human rights. Underdevelopment was not an intrinsic property of one or several countries, but the result of colonization and looting. International responsibility and collective action should therefore focus on creating the conditions necessary for the full realization of the right to development. 15