A/HRC/19/52 dimension. The Movement reformulated a number of the criteria and sub-criteria. It also proposed new language to address a number of areas of concern. These included but were not limited to the incorporation of the right to development as a legal norm at both the national and international levels in institutions, mechanisms, legislation and policies; mainstreaming the right to development in all development and development-related forums; the full participation of developing countries in international decision-making; the establishment and implementation of operational arrangements and modalities for international cooperation in support of national efforts towards the right to development; mechanisms for the fulfilment of international commitments in support of developing countries, including in finance and technology, trade, innovation, climate change, and sustainable development; strengthening of South-South and trilateral cooperation as a complement to North-South cooperation; international debt relief workout mechanisms; removal of international obstacles to the exercise by developing countries of their policy space to define and implement their development objectives and policies; assessment mechanisms to see how far United Nations coordinated action in the development area had incorporated and respected the right to development; and good governance at the international level. 25. The European Union agreed that the work of the task force was a good basis to make the right to development operational. However, it remains unfinished business and further work needs to be done. The position was to call for more expertise as it would be difficult for the Working Group to evaluate the criteria and sub-criteria, as there were limits on what could be achieved within the Working Group. In terms of content, they felt that the subcriteria needed to be assessed to see if they covered what each criterion encompassed. It also had some questions on the three levels of responsibility as outlined by the task force. In response to the proposal by the Non-Aligned Movement for mapping the criteria onto articles in the Declaration, the European Union recalled that work should be based on the criteria elaborated by the high-level task force and not aim at developing a completely new set of criteria. 26. Algeria, Brazil, Cuba, China, Côte d’Ivoire, Germany, India, Japan, Mauritius, Morocco, Norway, Senegal (on behalf of the African Group), Sri Lanka, the Philippines, the United Kingdom, the United States of America and Zimbabwe, as well as the observer from the Indian Council of America, also took to the floor on the discussion of the criteria, sub-criteria and indicators, particularly on the issue of the structure and methodology to be adopted in assessing the criteria at the session. Some delegations supported the view of the Non-Aligned Movement and pointed to the need to balance national and international responsibilities in the criteria and to maintain a strong link with the Declaration, while other delegations agreed with the European Union that the discussion should be broader and the basis for discussion should be the high-level task force report on the criteria, not the Declaration. In this discussion, references were made to Human Rights Council resolution 15/25 and how it should be interpreted in any exercise for further deliberation on the criteria. A few delegations pointed out that it did not make a difference what the starting point was as long as the criteria were discussed and the Declaration was considered as a backdrop and a foundational document. The criteria were viewed of as a work in progress, subject to the deliberations of the Working Group and open to amendment and change. One delegation mentioned that the review should be focused at the national level, and that, issues of transparency, accountability, and the empowerment of women and the vulnerable were priorities. It suggested removing the criteria on the transfer of technology and on international assistance and the sub-criteria on the World Bank, the IMF and WTO. One delegation stated that the right to development entailed the freedom to live in dignity, free from want and fear. Owing to the World Bank, the IMF and WTO, all developing countries had been through difficult fiscal measures and structural adjustment. The right to development needed to be seen against this backdrop, in a globalized world. Delegations 11