A/HRC/39/67 entirety, particularly article 22 (2). One representative of an international organization welcomed the references to ILO standards and suggested further additions with concrete language. A number of civil society representatives and experts called for the text to be maintained in its current form, particularly in order to protect migrants despite their migratory status. Article 23. Right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health 81. One delegation intervened on this item to suggest changing “people” for “persons” and to highlight possible duplication with other intergovernmental forums discussing intellectual property and traditional knowledge. No other delegations raised concerns about article 23. Article 24. Right to adequate housing 82. No delegation raised concerns about article 24. Article 25. Right to education and training 83. There were no major objections to the content of article 25, although delegations made some comments. One delegation called for an explicit reference to the right to education of all peasants and also made a concrete language suggestion. One representative of an international organization suggested language regarding the quality of education. Civil society organizations highlighted the importance and appropriateness of education for the rural population. One civil society representative also called for more references on action against child labour. Article 26. Cultural rights and traditional knowledge 84. The content of article 26 is closely connected with many other issues contained in the declaration. One delegation made concrete language proposals, which are reflected in annex III. Another delegation shared concerns raised by other delegations on paragraph 4 and proposed that the text from the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity be used, instead of the current text. One delegation supported the content of the article, but rejected the reference to genetic resources in paragraph 4, as it was already contained in articles 5, 19 and 20. Other delegations endorsed the article as it stood. One delegation stated that paragraph 4 of article 26 was language taken from the Nagoya Protocol and proposed to eliminate it or to reach an agreement on the language. Another delegation supported the new paragraph 4 on prior, informed consent, which is a key applicable universal principle. Experts highlighted the importance of the preservation and protection of traditional knowledge, including that of peasants and indigenous peoples. Several civil society organizations expressed their support for the article as it stood and for the new paragraph 4 on prior informed consent for access to genetic resources in paragraph 4. No other delegations raised concerns about this article. Article 27. Responsibility of the United Nations and of other international organizations 85. One delegation proposed that “Responsibility” be replaced by “Contribution” in the title of the article and provided specific language suggestions to the text. One expert recalled that the Charter of the United Nations was the inspiration for article 27. She further suggested that references to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development Goals be excluded, as the declaration would go beyond the timeline of the 2030 Agenda. Civil society representatives called for keeping the current 15