A/HRC/39/67 56. Following the suggestion by one delegation that an emphasis on the responsibilities of peasants along with their rights be added to the text, one expert suggested that the term “sustainable use” of natural resources be used and agreed that the problems of sustainable management of natural resources were related to large-scale companies rather than peasants. Along the same lines, civil society representatives supported the Chair’s text and pointed out that, historically, peasants and other people working in rural areas had made use of natural resources in a sustainable manner. Another representative requested clarification regarding the term sustainable development, of which peasants were guarantors, not to be confused with the right to development. Article 5 (1) 57. One delegation suggested language, which is set out in annex III. Another delegation also suggested deleting the excessive “have” and “to” (under “have the right to have access to”) in the first line. No other delegations raised concerns about this paragraph. Article 5 (2) 58. One delegation put forward language proposals, since not all exploration should be subject to impact assessment and the text should be in line with article 41 of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Another delegation requested clarification on the “management of resources” and “benefits of development” and whether these were in line with agreed language, for example in the Convention on Biological Diversity. One delegation also pointed out that “any exploitation” was not in line with paragraph 1 on the management of natural resources and proposed using “sustainable exploitation” instead. Another delegation made language proposals to avoid restrictive language in order to give more flexibility to States. Article 5 (2) (a) 59. Delegations suggested language, which is contained in annex III. Article 5 (2) (b) 60. One delegation proposed that a reference be added to the International Labour Organization (ILO) Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention, 1989 (No. 169), which contains the requirement of free, prior and informed consent; the proposal was supported by experts. Another delegation countered the proposal, as the State obligation on consultation was contained in article 2 (3). No other delegations raised concerns about this paragraph. Article 5 (2) (c) 61. One delegation pointed out that this subparagraph goes beyond the provisions under the Convention on Biological Diversity, which does not refer to sharing of the benefits. No other delegations raised concerns about this article. Article 6. Right to life, liberty and security of person 62. Only one delegation took the floor, suggesting that the title of the article be changed to “Right to life, liberty, security of person and enjoyment of fundamental freedoms”. The same delegation also suggested that a cross-reference to article 13 (5) could be made after the reference to human trafficking in article 6 (2). Article 7. Freedom of movement 63. There were no major objections to the content of article 7. One delegation suggested that the list proposed in article 7 (2) was not necessary, as it repeated the definition under article 1. The same delegation also suggested deleting article 7 (3). One expert pointed out that such a list was relevant, as freedom of movement was particularly important for the specific groups mentioned in article 7 (2) and suggested that the text reflect agreed 10