A/HRC/39/67 the title and replacing the references to “people” throughout the text with “persons”, except in the case of “indigenous peoples”. Some delegations requested that the mention of people be retained. While one delegation expressed its reservation about the mention of migrant workers “regardless of their legal status”, another argued that the reference was in line with the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, which was supported by other delegations and civil society. One expert said that “legal status” could be replaced by “migratory status” in line with relevant resolutions of the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly. Experts and civil society organizations supported the reference to “peoples” and emphasized that “people” was simply the plural of “person” and as such it did not capture peasants as a group. Reference was made by delegations and civil society organizations to other groups in regional contexts. Civil society organizations also stressed the importance of the rights of peasants in order to counter historical stigmas, including against peasant women. Some delegations suggested adding other categories, such as traditional and local communities. Article 2. General obligations of States 47. Article 2 as most recently revised, was welcomed by delegations. Other language proposals are contained in annex III below. While some delegations endorsed the article in its present form, others suggested replacing “shall” with “may” in one of its provisions, which was opposed by other delegations and civil society experts, who noted that “shall” was the appropriate language used in other similar international instruments, such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. A number of delegations also made language proposals. A proposal to delete the word “promptly” in article 2 (1) was opposed by experts, who stressed that steps to realize economic, social and cultural rights must be taken immediately as clarified in general comments of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. 48. With regard to article 2 (4), one delegation highlighted concern about the current draft, while another delegation suggested adding “relevant” before “international agreements”, which was supported by one delegation and civil society organizations. Another delegation proposed a compromise to move the text of article 2 (4) to the preamble of the draft declaration. Experts and civil society organizations argued for retaining article 2 (4) as it was, as it was an expression of the primacy of international human rights law, based on Article 103 of the Charter of the United Nations, to be read in conjunction with articles 55 (c) and 1 (3) and the preamble. Civil society organizations also suggested adding language to the paragraph to highlight its application to peasants and other people working in rural areas. 49. One delegation suggested language for paragraph 6 (d) and also proposed a new paragraph on the obligations of peasants to respect the environment. Experts cautioned against the proposal, emphasizing that this article was about the obligations of States to respect, protect and fulfil human rights and the obligations of non-State actors had been removed from the draft. They also suggested that the relationship between peasants and the environment had been adequately covered in the preamble of the text. Some civil society organizations welcomed the proposal for a new paragraph, while others reminded participants of the role of peasants in the sustainable use of the environment, calling them guardians of the environment. Article 3. Equality and non-discrimination, and right to development 50. There were no major objections to the content of article 3. Some delegations and civil society organizations made concrete suggestions on language. One delegation highlighted the importance of sustainable development and stated that the right to development did not mean peasants were entitled to cut down pristine forests to cultivate the land. In that context, it suggested adding a reference to sustainability in line with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. One delegation stated that it did not have a common position on the right to development. Another delegation suggested that the title of article 3 should reflect the fundamental principles of human rights, namely equality, non8