A/HRC/19/32 9. The National Human Rights Commission of Azerbaijan (Human Rights Ombudsman) and the Quatar National Human Rights Committee emphasized the added value that lay in specifically addressing stigmatization and discrimination of the poor. 10. The Governments of Peru and of Sweden both pointed to the central role empowerment played in the fight against extreme poverty. However, they also drew attention to the fact that it was not human rights that empowered people living in extreme poverty but that the former merely served as an instrument for the latter to empower themselves. In this sense, the draft guiding principles provided a framework for the recognition of human rights claims of people living in extreme poverty. 11. The Governments of Bulgaria, the Philippines, Slovenia, and South Africa as well as the National Human Rights Commission of Mexico and the South African Human Rights Commission, the Communitá Papa Giovanni, the Congregation of Our Lady of the Missions, International Disability Alliance (IDA) and the Subcommittee on Poverty Eradication emphasized that the draft guiding principles were an element of United Nations human rights monitoring and, as such, should be treated as a both a complement to and a concretization and clarification of existing international obligations addressing extreme poverty. A particular synergy existed in relation to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights for which the draft guiding principles should serve as an implementation device. They should, therefore, explicitly remind States of the obligations they have assumed under the Covenant, fulfilment of which was a measuring rod for their commitment to fight extreme poverty. 12. The Government of Peru as well as the North-South Institute (NSI) stated that the ways in which the guiding principles might contribute to the implementation of the Millennium Development Goals should be treated here. They proposed that the draft guiding principles specify, for instance, how empowerment would proceed in practice by calling for the drafting of specific “how to” manuals. 13. The Governments of Finland and of Mexico proposed to include, in the Rationale, a reference to the economic benefits of poverty eradication, as well as the strengthening of social cohesion as a result of the reduction of social inequality, especially in post-conflict and transition societies. The Government of Bolivia added that the general outlook that the draft guiding principles took on poverty should be social and economic with a view to fostering different forms of economic redistribution as a core objective. 14. The Government of Lithuania pointed out, that the guiding principles might more clearly reflect the importance of society-wide commitment to poverty reduction, that is, not only governments but also civil society and business were to engage in this endeavour. 15. The Government of Canada drew attention to the fact that, given the nonmandatory character of the Guiding Principles, mandatory language should be avoided throughout the document. Analytic conclusions on the section 16. There was broad consensus that the DGPs should be seen as complementary with other human rights instruments, 3 especially the International Covenant on Economic, 3 6 See submissions by the Governments of Bulgaria, the Philippines, Slovenia, and South Africa as well as by the National Human Rights Commission of Mexico and the South African Human Rights Commission, and the Communitá Papa Giovanni, the Congregation of Our Lady of the Missions, International Disability Alliance (IDA) and the Subcommittee on Poverty Eradication at www.ohchr.org.