A/HRC/15/WG.2/TF/2 Economic Cooperation and Development and has regularly updated the task force on the human-rights related work of the bank. 60. In the interactive session with observers, Spain, on behalf of the European Union, expressed support for the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries initiative, which had made significant progress, and outlined its efforts, as both donor and creditor, to address the issue of debt relief. Egypt, speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, recognized that international financial institutions are constrained by their mandates to deal explicitly with human rights, but stressed that the aim is to draw from the experiences of those institutions to draft and refine the criteria and sub-criteria in a comprehensive way. Egypt emphasized that debt relief only focuses on poverty reduction, but the issue of development is much broader, and includes health, education and many other areas. Egypt concluded by advocating for a stronger voice for developing countries in the decision-making process of international financial institutions. 61. The representative of IMF, while drawing attention to the need for the Executive Board to determine whether and how human rights issues may enter into the work of the Fund and how to give more voice to developing countries, expressed satisfaction with the dialogue with the task force, and suggested that such dialogue continue in order to explore further concrete ideas of how to strengthen the linkages between all human rights, including the right to development and IMF activities. The representatives of both IMF and World Bank stressed that it is for Governments to decide how to sustain their commitment to the right to development when they sit on the boards of international financial institutions. D. Right to development criteria and corresponding operational subcriteria 62. Introducing the presentation of the consultant study on the criteria by Susan Randolph and Maria Green (A/HRC/15/WG.2/TF/CRP.5), the Chairperson-Rapporteur recalled that their report had been preceded by an expert meeting in January 2009 (see A/HRC/12/WG.2/TF/CRP.7) and had been examined in detail at another expert meeting in December 2009 (see A/HRC/15/WG.2/TF/CRP.4). He stressed that the consultants’ paper was an independent study and did not reflect the views of the task force, which would draw on its findings, along with other materials it had accumulated on the criteria. 63. In her presentation, Ms Randolph identified three key questions: (a) what are we measuring? (b) why are we measuring? and (c) how are we measuring? The purpose of the first question was to identify the rights holders and duty bearers, as well as the normative content of the right to development. She characterized this right as one of both peoples and individuals, which entails obligations of all States, regardless of their level of development, towards those both within and outside their jurisdiction; and the obligations of States acting collectively. With regard to the specific normative content of the right to development, the study defined the general overarching principle of this right as the improvement in the wellbeing of individuals and peoples, while the general obligation was defined as an enabling environment for development. 64. With regard to the second question, Ms. Randolph asserted that the right to development, when more fully operationalized through assessment tools, could contribute to international development practice and, accordingly, foster more rapid gains in global development. Emphasizing the strong influence of what is measured on development practice, she stated that the right to development criteria can offer a standard against which international policies, institutions, programmes and processes could be assessed. 65. The third question was addressed by reviewing the criteria, sub-criteria and indicators to tackle the essential features of the right to development, Millennium 14 GE.10-11443