A/HRC/21/19 which would lead to an international legally binding instrument that reflects the principles, the equilibrium and the elements contained in the Declaration on the Right to Development. 24. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland reiterated that the right to development could not be considered in isolation but was closely linked to the realization of all human rights. The criteria should strike a more equal balance between State action at the national and international levels; take full account of the indivisibility of all human rights, recognizing that progress has to be made in basic civil and political rights in order to create an environment in which the right to development can be implemented; and be formulated in a way that respects the universal character of the right to development. The United Kingdom proposed that there should be a detailed discussion involving experts of each criterion, incorporating their sub-criteria and indicators, so as to ensure that each is rigorously tested and that States have the opportunity to consider in detail the implications for national policies and practices. The United Kingdom further emphasized the need to consider all criteria, sub-criteria and indicators as a package. The next step should be translating policy discussion into concrete action. The United Kingdom did not support the development of a legally binding instrument but remained open to exploring other options, including guidelines or voluntary principles; training and education; exploring how human rights regimes incorporated the right to development into their work; and the provision of technical assistance or sharing of best practices. 25. Honduras reaffirmed its commitment to the realization of the right to development. In its view, the Millennium Development Goals constituted the consensus of the international community and prioritized actions to achieve the goals aimed at in the Declaration on the Right to Development. The realization of the right to development required collective action, in addition to national actions, for which strategies for international cooperation were essential. Honduras viewed the right to development as a process which was not essentially about economic growth but about the effective realization of all human rights. The right to development should not be seen exclusively in its individual dimension, but in its dual dimension as an individual right and the right of nations to achieve full development. 26. Brazil attached great importance to the process and to finding a way to move forward, with a view to achieving concrete results. The right to development was not about a North-South divide, but was a concern to all. The speaker underlined in that context the key notion of common and differentiated responsibilities, agreed in the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, in recognition of different levels of development among countries. However, the lack of development could not be used as an excuse for human rights violations. The right to development was connected with all human rights but it was not only the duty of States; more emphasis had to be placed on international cooperation. Brazil suggested that the Working Group should identify and address the obstacles to the implementation of the right to development. 27. The Indian Council of South America, speaking on behalf of the Indigenous Peoples and Nations Coalition and the International Council for Human Rights, stressed that individual and collective rights were vitally important to the realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and were paramount attributes that had to be applied when working towards eliminating, for all peoples, injustices based on discrimination and in operationalizing the right to development. In its view, States often selectively reduced the scope and application of the right to development because they perceived that it applied only to their interests and not to the right of peoples. Indigenous peoples must be given an equal voice. The parameters of the nature of collective rights could not be designated only for States, but also for peoples who aspired to exercise their international right to selfdetermination. The Indian Council emphasized that the right of peoples to selfdetermination was a necessary component in the operationalization of the right to 9