A/HRC/36/58 Paragraph 1 61. The European Union proposed deleting “both”, “and extraterritorially” and “other appropriate” from the first sentence. 62. Switzerland recommended that the wording of paragraph 1 should be more similar to that of article 2 (1) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. South Africa agreed with Switzerland on the reference to achieving “progressively the full realization”, as that language accorded with the Covenant. South Africa, with the Russian Federation concurring, suggested deleting “the elements of”. 63. Chile requested clarification on the practical implementation of paragraph 1 as regards extraterritorial application, as did Brazil, Colombia, Egypt, Guatemala, India, the Philippines, the Russian Federation and Uruguay. Argentina suggested adding “in line with the domestic legal order of each State”. Ecuador indicated that extraterritorial protection of human rights was feasible. Guatemala asked that progressive and immediate obligations be clarified. 64. Ecuador requested that the Spanish translation, which did not refer to extraterritorial jurisdiction, be aligned with the English version. 65. The Programme on Women’s Economic, Social and Cultural Rights suggested deleting “that cannot be immediately guaranteed”. 66. The experts explained that article 2, in its entirety, was based on existing law and that the draft declaration provided guidelines on its implementation for peasants and other people working in rural areas. 67. Jordan reserved its position on paragraph 1. Paragraph 2 68. Mexico noted that paragraph 2 should clearly address multiple forms of discrimination. Paragraph 3 69. The European Union proposed replacing “shall” with “should” and deleting “in order to obtain the free, prior and informed consent of peasants and other people working in rural areas”. 70. Switzerland asked how the concept of free, prior and informed consent, typically applied to indigenous peoples, could be applied to people working in rural areas. Uruguay asked questions to understand better paragraph 3. 71. South Africa was supportive of the principle of free, prior and informed consent and underscored its relevance in the context of the regulation of transantional corporations and development projects. 72. While recognizing the duty to consult, Mexico did not agree that it should be applied to all government decisions. As currently framed, the paragraph could negatively affect the rights of indigenous peoples and should be more specific. 73. Guatemala disagreed with the formulation of paragraph 3, arguing that it might undermine the rights of indigenous peoples. 74. The Russian Federation noted that free, prior and informed consent was still subject to debate in the context of indigenous peoples’ rights and that it was not clear how it would apply to rural communities. While not opposing the inclusion of that term, the Russian Federation sought clarification on its concrete application to peasants. 75. Egypt stated that its Constitution recognized the principle of consultation but not that of prior consent. Consequently, Egypt was unable to agree to its inclusion in paragraph 3. 7