A/HRC/16/37 were sources necessary to examine and convey values and reminds all that human rights were themselves a cross-cutting tradition. 32. Traditions could be considered a cultural heritage, cultural references that allowed human beings to identify with them, individually and in common, and to communicate with each other. As such, traditions must be approached with respect, but also with a critical attitude, given that they were not immutable. This “critical respect” towards tradition was the responsibility of all those who shared this reference. 33. Mr. Meyer–Bisch pointed out that the three elements building the scope of human rights comprised in article 1 of the Universal Declaration – freedom, equality in dignity and solidarity – corresponded to some fundamental capacities: of reason and conscience, of freedom and of responsibility. While dignity was always of individuals, it was difficult to conceive of it without collective references and modes of transmission, such as families, communities, heritage, schools and the media. 34. Regarding the relationship between tradition and innovation, Mr. Meyer–Bisch stressed that the development of cultural assets required conditions to allow excellence, valorization and creation. Cultural poverty could be defined as the failure of persons or communities to have access to those cultural resources that are necessary for their identity, freedoms, responsibilities and social ties. Prejudicial practices violating human rights and human dignity could be seen as indicators of cultural impoverishment, and it was the common responsibility of all to criticize them. This process could serve simultaneously as a respectful critique of traditional values and for the restoration of the dignity of persons and communities. Lastly, Mr. Meyer-Bisch suggested that intercultural dialogue may be insufficient to critically reflect on controversial issues and difficulties. Instead, he underscored the importance of intercultural debate as a means to benefit from the diversity of resources of our common reason. 35. After the interventions by the experts, several non-governmental organizations and State representatives made comments. According to the International Commission of Jurists, the international human rights legal framework had been established to ensure that human rights were guaranteed for all human beings everywhere, regardless of whether they belonged to a particular religion or none at all. The content of human rights must thus be determined not in reference to tradition or religion, but to international law as it was interpreted by legal authority and evolved over time. The world’s multiple and multifaceted traditions, cultures and religions offered us many positive and humanistic values and practices. However, some traditions, cultures or religions were not shared by everyone. International human rights law acknowledged the diversity of the human family and the unique nature of every individual through the principles of dignity, universality, nondiscrimination and equality before the law. It sought to protect the individual from harmful practices, violence and discrimination whether or not the perpetrators invoked tradition, culture or religion as justifications. 36. The Youth Coalition for Sexual and Reproductive Rights drew attention to the fact that traditional values, such as those surrounding gender, age, disability, race, caste and sexuality, had led to the marginalization of numerous individuals and groups of persons. Examples of human rights violations and abuses included the murder of young women and men who married outside their caste, the denial of contraception to young unmarried people in public health services, the denial of comprehensive sexuality education in public schools and violence against lesbians and gays. 37. The Russian Civic Chamber underscored the fact that some universal human rights did not necessarily fit in with local traditions. For example, the idea of “privacy” was not always easy to translate. In many regions of the Russian Federation, there was a prevalence of communal values over individual values. Some values were the main guarantee of 9