A/HRC/36/58 76. Ecuador indicated that paragraph 3, rather than undermining the rights of indigenous peoples as submitted by other States, reinforced other standards, such as the ILO Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169). 77. Experts and representatives of civil society organizations explained that the principle of free, prior and informed consent was well established in international law and was a crucial element in decisions affecting the rights, livelihood and dignity of peasants. It was rightly extended to peasants, even if the principle had historically been applied to indigenous peoples. The freedom aspect of the principle was an important safeguard against coercion. Paragraph 4 78. Guatemala and India suggested deleting paragraph 4. Jordan expressed reservations to the fourth paragraph, which seemed unclear. 79. Ecuador noted that paragraph 4 was crucial as it called for consistency with human rights standards, which should apply across the board. Paragraph 5 80. The European Union proposed replacing “ensure that” with “promote the respect by” in the first sentence. 81. Regarding the regulation of private sector activity, Ecuador noted that the provision was important for the protection of peasants, who were often vulnerable to eviction. Paragraph 6 82. Switzerland observed that the partnerships envisaged in paragraph 6 should include the private sector and suggested making reference to mutually agreed terms in subparagraph 6 (d). 83. Guatemala, with Brazil concurring, indicated that subparagraph 6 (e) on the management of markets was a matter for the World Trade Organization given the complexity of implementing such a provision even when there was the political will to do so. Argentina suggested replacing “management of markets” in subparagraph 6 (e) with “functioning of markets”, as the suggested formulation was less imposing. 84. The European Union proposed inserting “where applicable” after “Ensuring” in subparagraph 6 (a) and inserting “voluntary” before “transfer of technologies” in subparagraph 6 (d). 3. Article 3 85. In the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination, Switzerland suggested adding “origin”. Uruguay expressed concern at grounds that had not been included and suggested replacing the list with “all forms of discrimination” so that countries could interpret the article in line with their own legislation. 86. Chile and Colombia underscored the importance of having an inclusive list that comprised gender identity and sexual orientation, to which Egypt and the Russian Federation were opposed. One civil society organization proposed adding “legal status”. 87. The European Union proposed inserting “all” after “the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and” and “any” before “grounds” in paragraph 1. 88. Chile requested that the formulation from the previous version of the draft be reinstated. Egypt and Jordan requested that the language on non-discrimination be aligned with that on the grounds of discrimination in article 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 89. Bolivia (Plurinational State of) and Uruguay suggested adding a reference to multiple and intersectional forms of discrimination in paragraph 1. 8