A/HRC/33/45 maintained that the consensus requirement was not an absolute one, and should not come at the expense of ensuring that the right to development was a reality for all. Regarding the standards, the Non-Aligned Movement was of the view that this initial discussion, together with the proposals made by Member States, would form the basis for the constitution of international standards and a convention on the right to development. International cooperation was an integral part to the implementation of the right to development. The right to development was distinct and should not be defined through secondary aspects of development. With regard to the methodology outlined by the Chair-Rapporteur, the NonAligned Movement would take the liberty to consider the text, make it its own and use it for whatever purpose it deemed fit. 58. Cuba stated that the report and conclusions had been prepared by the ChairRapporteur, and that it was not logical to negotiate his conclusions. It disagreed with the view that the standards were too focused on international cooperation, and in fact felt that they were too focused on the national level. Namibia, Egypt, South Africa, Tunisia and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela supported the statement delivered by the Islamic Republic of Iran on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement. Namibia commented that the conclusions of the Chair-Rapporteur were not an end in themselves, but rather the beginning of a new process, even though the procedural aspects of discussions on them still required clarification. Egypt referred to the critical timing of the report, stating that it was a foundation on which to develop the right conditions for the right to development to be realized. To ensure the political will required in standard 1, the document should refer to international cooperation, the transfer of technology and the means to achieve the right to development as an integrated approach covering social, economic and environmental development. 59. Brazil stated that the report of the Chair-Rapporteur, which contained loud and clear messages on the right to development, would aid the work of the Working Group. It agreed with the Chair-Rapporteur that the human right to development was no longer questioned, and that the document outlined a practical and realistic approach. With a collaborative and cooperative spirit, the Sustainable Development Goals would guide the Working Group in its work, giving the most significant impetus to the realization of the right to development. South Africa referred to the developments of recent years, when the issue of the criteria and sub-criteria had left the Working Group in disarray and had not been cost-effective. It supported the vision of the Chair-Rapporteur to put the Working Group on a more positive trajectory. The standards provided food for thought for work on a convention on the right to development. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela stated that the report of the ChairRapporteur would render the mandate of the Working Group more effective by promoting reflection. It provided a road map to be debated, and mechanisms and tools to move forward. 60. Argentina thanked the Chair-Rapporteur for his report, and expressed its appreciation for the set of standards presented to the Working Group for its consideration. Engagement with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development was a priority for the Government of Argentina. Development should be understood as “sustainable development”. The 2030 Agenda renewed the commitment with an integral human development strategy, which included people and the environment, and was aimed at strengthening institutions, civil society and international cooperation. 61. Japan reiterated the view that there should be more balance between national responsibility and international cooperation; the report of the Chair-Rapporteur tended towards the latter. It requested more clarity with regard to the use of such terms as rights and obligations in the document. It concluded with a call to discuss the document in more detail and to reach consensus. Tunisia stressed the pressing need for a favourable environment for realizing the right to development. While this was connected to 17