A/HRC/4/47 page 7 Review Mechanism and providing useful guidance for the implementation of the right to development. The development by the task force of an initial implementation checklist in relation to the criteria was welcomed (A/HRC/4/WG.2/TF/2, annex III). The EU noted elements of clarification of responsibilities between developing countries and development partners (such as questions 1-4, and 14-15) and important linkages to a human rights-based approach to development, such as non-discrimination, inclusion of vulnerable groups and principles of transparency and accountability (e.g. questions 8, 9, 11, 16, 17). The EU recommended the examination of sample bilateral partnerships, and also partnerships based on a formal legal agreement on development cooperation. By focusing on identified rights, such as rights of the child and gender aspects, the EU expressed the view that the Working Group could contribute to conceptualizing implementation strategies for particular human rights in the field of development cooperation. 21. Following these general statements, the Working Group had the opportunity to make general comments on the report of the high-level task force (A/HRC/4/WG.2/TF/2). Argentina, Bangladesh, Canada, China, Indonesia, New Zealand, Republic of Korea, South Africa and Thailand made opening statements on issues relating to the realization of the right to development and on the report of the task force. Delegations commended the work of the task force, and welcomed its focus on the operative aspects of the right to development and its examination of partnerships applying identified criteria. Specific proposals were made to expand the coverage and evaluation of partnerships. The categorization of criteria into structure/enabling environment, process and outcome, was seen as useful structured approach to reflect the multiple dimensions of the criteria and enhance their applicability. Regarding the initial checklist identified by the task force, several delegates considered it to be preliminary, partial and nonexhaustive. Views in favor of the adoption by the Human Rights Council of a universal periodic review that covers the right to development were expressed. 22. In the afternoon meeting, a substantive presentation of the report of the high-level task force was done by the Chairperson of the task force, Mr. Stephen Marks. In his introductory remarks, Mr. Marks noted that, after a first report focusing on impact assessments and MDGs in general and a second on developing criteria for assessing global partnerships as defined by Goal 8 from the perspective of the right to development, the third report covers the task force’s first attempt to apply the 15 criteria to three such partnerships. 23. The African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) is by African States for African States and thus difficult to characterize as an MDG 8 global partnership. The task force sought to measure the success of APRM and was assisted in this task by a member of the APRM Panel of Eminent Persons, a member of the APRM Secretariat and the Executive Secretary of Ghana’s APRM Governing Council. The focus on governance and accountability and the degree of local ownership and outreach to civil society in the case of Ghana were remarkable. The APRM also demonstrates the potential advantage of integrating the normative framework of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the Declaration on the Right to Development into the review process; the potential advantage of developing a transparent process for dealing with country follow-up to shortcomings the review process might uncover and to improving the response of regional and international partners to opportunities to advance the right to development among participating countries.