A/HRC/33/45 and common ground to succeed. Implementation would be achieved at the national level and through commitments made in the framework of international instruments that would require monitoring. Ambassador Donoghue reiterated that it would not have been possible to finish the work on indicators in September 2015, and that it was to be concluded separately and the work done by a technical body. There would be no clustering of topics, given that implementation was only at its early stages. He endorsed the idea that the 2030 Agenda should be seen as an opportunity to reinvigorate the role of the Working Group, and that the positive energy of the Sustainable Development Goals should be used to find new ways forward. E. Second reading to refine draft right to development criteria and corresponding operational sub-criteria 45. The Working Group completed the second reading of the draft right to development criteria and the corresponding operational sub-criteria listed in the report of the high-level task force (A/HRC/15/WG.2/TF/2/Add.2, annex) with the aim of refining them, starting from sub-criterion 1 (h) (ii) bis. 46. The Working Group decided to adopt the same methodology as followed previously, looking at the criteria and the sub-criteria simultaneously. Some speakers suggested that explanations and reasons be provided for the various proposals made, particularly if the concern was about the concept or the language used. 47. One criterion and 14 sub-criteria were agreed ad referendum. 48. Criteria 1 (h), (i) and (j) and corresponding sub-criteria were discussed at the session covering topics such as the sharing of benefits of natural resources and issues relating to conflict and peace and security. Discussions also covered the adoption and periodic review of development strategies at the national and international levels, including collection and access to data, plans of action, political and financial support, and consultation and participation. Criterion 2 (a) and corresponding sub-criteria relating to law, policy and legal frameworks and sustainable development and right to development were discussed. Criterion 2 (b) and corresponding sub-criteria, covering topics such as human rights instruments, obligations, right to development and national development strategies, were also discussed. The views expressed during consideration of criterion 2 (c) and corresponding sub-criteria concerned access to information, effective remedies, access to justice, facilitating participation, and non-discrimination. The Working Group, in examining criterion 2 (d) and its sub-criteria, expressed views on good governance, the rule of law, global governance and the effective participation of all countries in international decision-making. Discussions on criterion 2 (e) and its sub-criteria covered good governance and the rule of law at the national level, corruption, transparency, and access to public services. On criterion 3 (a) and its sub-criteria, discussions covered the benefits of sustainable development, including access to services, infrastructure gaps, the equitable sharing of the benefits of globalization and the removal of international obstacles. Discussions on criterion 3 (b) and its sub-criteria covered the fair sharing of the burdens of development, assessing environmental, social and economic risks, common but differentiated responsibilities, and international cooperation. The discussions held on criterion 3 (c) and its sub-criteria featured the promotion of social justice, the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger, policies for ensuring decent work, strengthening international cooperation, land and housing related rights, access to education, and eliminating violence and trafficking. A range of new proposals for sub-criteria were also discussed by the Working Group. 14