A/HRC/12/28 page 9 30. The Chairperson further explained the basic approach to refining the criteria according to the principle that they should reflect distinct attributes that represented an exhaustive reading of the normative content of the right to development. Thus, the criteria were arranged around the components of comprehensive human-centred development, an enabling environment, and social justice and equity. The sub-criteria would provide indicators and benchmarks for measuring the extent to which relevant stakeholders had addressed the concerns of each criterion. While the task force had decided not to share draft sub-criteria until the criteria had been finalized and the formulation of quantitative and qualitative tools of measurement had been developed with the aid of professionals in the relevant fields, some examples were provided at the request of delegations. 31. The representatives of the Czech Republic (on behalf of the European Union), the United States, the Netherlands, Brazil, Cuba (on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement), Bangladesh, Argentina, Paraguay, Ecuador, South Africa, the Philippines, Mexico, Germany, India, Canada, the United Kingdom, Pakistan and Senegal expressed their views on the refinement process undertaken by the task force. Some expressed concern that the criteria placed too much emphasis on a human rights-based approach to development at the national level and that not enough attention was given to international cooperation, market access for developing countries, debt relief and non-imposition of conditionalities. For those countries, implementing the right to development did not mean mainstreaming human rights in the development process, but mainstreaming development throughout the developing world in order to allow States to have the necessary resources to ensure the full enjoyment of all human rights by all; that should be the approach to follow in the elaboration of the criteria. In their view, critical issues such as poverty, lack of human and financial resources and access to technology, hunger, poor health, low levels of education, inadequate housing and unemployment were essential to the right to development and should be reflected in more balanced criteria. For others, the rights of individuals to develop their potential were paramount to the realization of the right to development, which should not be addressed as a collective right of States. For those countries, the criteria dealing with good governance, non-discrimination, participation, transparency and the rule of law were vital. 32. Several delegates addressed the significance of the root causes of conflict, conditions for sustainable and durable peace, the fight against poverty, social exclusion, promotion of employment, income for all and social safety nets in the criteria. One delegation explained how it had restructured its external debt and obtained debt relief and suggested that the task force should draw on the work of relevant special procedures. For another delegate, not all types of debt of developing countries were unsustainable, and debt relief alone could not ensure the realization of the right to development. Another addressed issues of access to medicines and technology transfer, which should include a role for the private sector and private-public partnerships. There were other vehicles for development beyond mandatory technology transfer. 33. Among the other matters raised by delegates was the need to take into account different conditions prevailing in countries, the negative effects of the financial crisis on the ability of developing countries to realize this right, and the challenge of climate change to the right to development, all of which should be reflected in the criteria and sub-criteria. 34. Notwithstanding the differences in emphasis, there was general support for the approach of the task force to reflect both the national and international dimensions of the right to development in elaborating the criteria and to apply a holistic approach to human rights in the