A/HRC/33/45 49. A broad range of perspectives emerged during the consideration of individual criteria and sub-criteria. A debate was held on the use of such terms as the “human rights of migrants”, and on how to combine references to human rights and refugees law. In this regard, discussions were held on references to international mechanisms for conflict prevention, and on whether this was the appropriate forum to discuss them. On subcriterion 1 (j), a discussion was held on international development strategies, which were clarified as a focus on international cooperation as opposed to national development strategies. 50. Other issues discussed concerned participation, participatory processes, affected groups and vulnerable populations, preventive solidarity, the promotion of human rights education, the contribution of human rights mechanisms for evaluating the right to development, and the Sustainable Development Goals. 51. References to binding legal frameworks on the right to development were debated, including concerns raised on the term “right to development-based approach”, the ratification of human rights instruments, the term “good governance” as opposed to “global governance”, “accountability for” versus “promotion of” respect by business, the context and meaning of transparency, how to deal with corruption, and utilizing such terms as “equity” and “equitable”. 52. The issue of data collection capacity was also raised. It was found that some developing countries required assistance in this area. F. Consideration of the report of the Chair-Rapporteur 53. The Chair-Rapporteur of the Working Group introduced his report containing standards for the implementation of the right to development, prepared pursuant to a request of the Working Group as endorsed by the Human Rights Council in its resolution 30/28 (A/HRC/WG.2/17/2). The aim of the standards was to break the deadlock that had persisted in the Working Group and to identify common ground and agreed language. Since the right to development had to be people-centred, it could not be achieved or met without responding to human needs. The adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development would facilitate the task of the Working Group. National capacities and capabilities for realizing the right to development differed, and international cooperation was necessary. With regard to methodology, the Chair-Rapporteur identified the key challenges and obstacles to the implementation of the right to development, and focused on the implementation of universally accepted core development goals, such as those outlined in article 8 of the Declaration on the Right to Development. Of particular importance was Sustainable Development Goal 17, given that it related to the means of implementation and the revitalization of the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development. 54. The standards were intended as a road map or framework for action for achieving the Goals. They employed agreed language so as to ensure that they were non-controversial and enjoyed the broadest possible endorsement. The four standards proposed were as follows: Standard 1: All States shall demonstrate the necessary political will and commitment to realize the right to development on the basis of the obligations, rights and duties that they have accepted as a result of the decisions and resolutions adopted by consensus by the international community. Standard 2: All States shall cooperate to create the political, economic and social environment necessary to allow the implementation of the right to development. 15