A/HRC/27/45 subcriteria. It suggested that experts be selected at the national level and tasked with making proposals on indicators. The Working Group must listen to the people whose lives depended on the implementation of the right to development. The collection of good practices and the involvement of national organizations could support its work. 45. The International Youth and Student Movement for the United Nations recalled that, in 1986, the overwhelming majority of Member States had supported the Declaration on the Right to Development. That right was necessary for the enjoyment of all other human rights and must eventually be embodied in a legally binding framework. The Movement expressed difficulty in understanding how some States continued to object to the substance of the right to development or a legally binding framework. It called on all to strongly commit themselves to the right to development. That was required by morality, as well as by law, as that right was part of customary international law. The Movement perceived a challenge in the discussion of measurability by States that had not all unambiguously agreed on the right to development. Every major human rights instrument had been created by first agreeing on a legal obligation and defining the core principles, and only then considering mechanisms to measure whether or not a right was being respected. Only if all parties agreed on the legal obligation could that measurement be discussed. It urged States to cooperate on the right to development and called on the Working Group to consider how it could contribute to the Open Working Group in defining the post-2015 development agenda and sustainable development goals. 46. Friedrich Ebert Stiftung asserted that the right to development belonged to individuals and peoples, and its implementation was crucial to the post-2015 development agenda. Implementation must take place at all levels, from local to global. Friedrich Ebert Stiftung suggested that, on completion of the first reading of the criteria and subcriteria, the Working Group should request the Human Rights Council to mandate its Advisory Committee to support work on measurement and monitoring, building on the work done in the Sub-Commission which had not received any follow-up. Expert advice could serve to unlock political debate and the work of the high-level task force could provide useful guidance. It was necessary to look at the options for the way forward and for the monitoring and measurability, as well as the legal standing, of the right to development. 47. The China NGO Network for International Exchanges stated that the criteria and subcriteria represented a historic milestone on the right to development. In the pursuit of sustainable development, it was necessary to look at the right to development, rights-based development and the human rights-based approach; and national and international obligations. States were not denied rights under the right to development, the biggest obstacle to which was the unequal world order. The right to development supported all countries to have equal opportunities for development. In the spirit of the Declaration on the Right to Development, that right promoted global justice. It supported the solution of problems of poverty, North-South inequality, inequality in financial systems and an unequal international and social order. The right to development encompassed all human rights, but was not limited to the sum total of all human rights in the two International Covenants; rather, it built on them and added further value to them. Human rights provided for protection at the national level, while the right to development needed to be implemented first at the international level. While States had the primary responsibility at the national level, the right to development required differentiated standards and responsibilities at the international level. It called for greater inclusiveness and participation in global governance, and required addressing not only outcomes, but also policies. The proposed indicators were mostly national rather than international, and more indicators were needed for the global level. The right to development required an institutional guarantee and was not about international charity. National and international obligations must be given more content, and a regional dimension should also be included. 12