A/HRC/36/58 Rapporteur on human rights and the environment about the many negative effects of the loss of biodiversity. Paragraphs 3-4 231. The European Union, with Switzerland concurring, suggested deleting paragraph 3. Ecuador disagreed with the proposal but indicated its readiness to find text that would be agreeable to all. 232. A civil society organization suggested inserting a reference to human rights agreements in paragraph 3 and substituting “reduce” with “avoid” in paragraph 4. 2. Article 21 233. Switzerland proposed that the title of the article be aligned with the language of Human Rights Council resolution 33/10. 234. Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Panama, South Africa and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), as well as the representatives of many chapters of La Via Campesina, stressed the importance of the right to water for the right to life and supported the current draft of article 21. 235. Guatemala raised concerns that the wording of the article protecting the rights of one group might lead to the violation of the rights of others. The representative informed participants that, as consultations on the article were being held in Guatemala, a reservation was placed on the article in its entirety. 236. Switzerland drew attention to the fact that the French translation of paragraph 1 was not in line with the original text in English (from General Assembly resolution 64/292). 237. South Africa suggested adding a reference to dignity in paragraph 1. 238. Colombia suggested that paragraph 1 also refer to other dimensions of the right to water, such as availability, quality and continuous access. La Via Campesina (Europe) supported that proposal. 239. IUF and ILO stressed the importance of adding “access to free potable water at the place of work” to paragraph 2. 240. Switzerland proposed adding, at the end of paragraph 3, language from paragraph 109 of General Assembly resolution 66/288, annex, entitled “The future we want”. 241. On paragraph 3, the European Union made the following suggestions: insert “and endeavour” after “take measures”, insert “persons belonging to” before “disadvantaged and marginalized groups” and add “as defined by national legislation” after “migrants, regardless of their legal status”. 242. Switzerland proposed aligning paragraph 4 with language from target 6.6 of the Sustainable Development Goals. 243. La Via Campesina defended the article, drawing attention to how aspects of the right to water affect peasants’ involvement in agriculture. 3. Article 22 244. The European Union suggested deleting “regardless of their legal status” in paragraph 2, a proposal supported by Switzerland. ILO suggested inserting “with nationals” after “treatment”, in accordance with the ILO Equality of Treatment (Social Security) Convention, 1962 (No. 118). 245. Panama suggested deleting paragraph 2, as the text was also included in paragraph 3 of the same article, and said that the use of the word “regardless” complicated matters. Mr. Golay stated that deleting “regardless of their status” from article 22 would be contrary to ILO conventions. 19