A/HRC/38/19 instruments were implemented on the basis of equal, mutually respectful and instructive cooperation among States. III. Contributions of the panel 13. The President of the Human Rights Council said that, early on during the thirtyseventh session of the Human Rights Council, States had repeatedly referred to the Universal Declaration. However, full implementation of the instrument remained some way off. He addressed a number of specific questions to each of the panellists, and invited them all to share their observations on the most important achievement of the Declaration since its adoption. 14. Mr. Christian Strohal shared his thoughts on the expectations at the Vienna Conference and on how delegations had worked together to adopt the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action. In the light of the favourable global political conditions following the end of the Cold War, States had decided to move forward and fulfil the promise enshrined in the Universal Declaration. In operational terms, the Universal Declaration was a promise: in Vienna, the idea had been to operationalize that promise by transforming it into an action-oriented result. 15. The Vienna Conference had been the result of a two-year preparatory process, characterized by disagreement on several points in the concluding document. The process had ignited the development of a global movement, with civil society organizations at its root. More than 3,000 such organizations had come to Vienna, creating momentum that had motivated States to act. That movement in itself had shown Governments not only the global nature of the promise enshrined in the Universal Declaration, but also the global nature of the response expected to that promise. The universality of all human rights, the shared obligations and responsibility and the engagement of civil society had led States to establish OHCHR. 16. Ms. Farha said that it was important to revisit the founding documents of human rights. People on the ground were aware of their human rights, contrary to the common assumption. However, the level of recognition of human rights by all Governments and at all levels of government was lower. Although government officials had some general knowledge of human rights, there were misconceptions about social and economic rights, which were perceived as being unenforceable. 17. Institutional and accountability mechanisms were the most effective tools for familiarizing members of the public with their social, economic, and cultural rights. It would be extremely useful to give individuals the possibility of bringing their cases on the right to housing before courts, tribunals and local community councils and to have a constitutional provision recognizing the right to adequate housing and other economic and social rights. Within society, there was a need for a human rights-based culture in each national context. 18. Mr. Heyns said that, at the end of the Second World War, the then recently adopted Charter of the United Nations had referred to human rights, without explaining what they were. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights had filled that gap, but was not in itself a binding instrument. Indeed, it was only with the successive adoption of the nine core human rights treaties that the norms inherent in the Universal Declaration had been provided with legally binding force. 19. The human rights treaty system would not have made a difference on its own. The treaty-based mechanisms with the individual communications system, the States’ reports and the general comments brought added value. Moreover, the special procedures of the Human Rights Council and the universal periodic review complemented the system. The idea at the core of human rights was that each individual had an immeasurable value and could not be sacrificed for the common good. The human rights treaties and their mechanisms turned that concept into a reality, and transformed the promise of the Universal Declaration into something that could be enforced. 4