A/HRC/36/58 2. Article 6 122. 3. No oral statements were made. Article 7 123. The European Union suggested inserting “and as defined by national legislation” after “international agreements” in paragraph 2. 124. Mexico stated that paragraph 2 was not precise enough to allow for distinct migration policies for different peoples. Switzerland expressed doubt as to the scope of the implication of paragraph 2 and solicited suggestions from other States. 125. Chile stated that it had no problem with the language on the freedom of movement of persons proposed in paragraph 2, but that the free movement of plants and animals could not be ensured given the need to protect them. 126. The European Union and Guatemala suggested deleting the specific reference to indigenous peoples in paragraph 3. Guatemala believed the draft could not include any reference to transboundary tenure issues. Switzerland specified that paragraph 3 should be in line with the FAO voluntary guidelines on land tenure. 127. Several non-governmental organizations (NGOs) expressed real concern at the intention to amend or delete paragraph 2, calling attention to the fact that small-scale fishers, for example, could be arrested by the authorities of another country, fall prey to tides and drift in the wrong direction. 4. Article 8 128. The European Union and Guatemala suggested deleting “individually and collectively” from paragraph 2 and “individually and in association with others” from paragraph 3. Ms. Claeys constructively proposed language from the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights’ general comment No. 21 (2009) on the right of everyone to take part in cultural life, in which it is stated that rights can be exercised “individually or in association with others or within a community or group”. 129. The Korean Women Peasants Association suggested deleting the word “peaceful” from paragraphs 1 and 2. 130. The International Indian Treaty Council indicated that, after consultation with many indigenous bodies, it could accept the removal of references to indigenous peoples but could not accept the deletion of references to collective rights. La Via Campesina (Europe) highlighted the importance of collective rights for trade union activities aimed at defending peasants’ rights. C. 1. Articles 9-12 Article 9 131. Egypt, with the Russian Federation concurring, suggested bringing article 9 into line with article 22 (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Mr. Golay clarified that the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples did not refer to compliance with national legislation and suggested using the language of its article 46 (3). 132. ILO proposed adding the right to bargain collectively to paragraph 1. The proposal was supported by Ecuador and IUF. 133. Guatemala suggested deleting “their” from the phrase “growth and pursuit of their lawful activities” in paragraph 2 and bringing paragraph 2 into line with article 5 (1) of the ILO Rural Workers’ Organisations Convention, 1975 (No. 141). 134. ILO suggested deleting “cooperatives and other” from the first sentence of paragraph 2 and inserting “including unions, cooperatives and other organizations of the social and solidarity economy” after “people working in rural areas”. 11