A/HRC/15/WG.2/TF/2 Development Goals and other priority concerns of the international community. The study followed the approach of OHCHR by identifying structural, process and outcome indicators with universal and contextual relevance. The selection of indicators was guided by a number of criteria, such as the validity, reliability, international and inter-temporal comparability, the availability of data by subgroup, the scope of indicators considered and the databases searched and assessed. 66. In the discussion that followed, members of the task force commended the quality, comprehensiveness and methodological rigour of the study. Mr. Schrijver queried whether the criteria should evolve into a set of standards or guidelines and who would monitor them, and underlined the fact that due regard should be given to any possible overlap with ongoing work by international institutions, treaty monitoring bodies and the Human Rights Council. Flavia Piovesan asked how the criteria could be applied to international organizations and drew attention to the particularity of the right to development in comparison to other human rights in terms of duty bearers, which are States acting individually and collectively, and rights holders, who are peoples and individuals. Ms. Fukuda-Parr suggested that the task force should consider what exactly is meant by measurement, and whether the aim was to obtain measurement or criteria, that is, the framework by which to measure. She stressed the need to clarify these two concepts, and stated that a coherent approach to develop indicators was to start with identifying what should be measured. Mr. Atuguba underlined the importance of the right to development as the “mother of all rights” entailing individual rights and global responsibilities. The Chairperson-Rapporteur emphasized that the objective of the task force was to develop usable, comprehensive and coherent tools at manageable proportions to assess the implementation of the right to development. 67. The quality of the study was appreciated by several institutional members. UNCTAD commented that, in the light of the ongoing debate on whether a legally-binding document should be developed, the aim of the report takes great strides towards a consensus approach. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization referred to the view of some stakeholders that the right to development is achieved when all other rights are achieved, and suggested an approach that considers indicators for all other rights. WTO made detailed observations on the content of the study and enumerated issues on which its views differed from the latter’s findings. It noted that the TRIPS agreement had a broad potential, based on the understanding that all players should play an active role. With regard to innovation and technology transfer, WTO saw this relationship as mutually supportive. Its comments focused mostly on the relation between TRIPS-plus mechanisms and public health concerns, as reflected in indicators developed by the consultants. WIPO suggested that a possible fourth question would be “who will do the measurement”? It also stressed the importance of the independence of those using the criteria for evaluation purposes and the challenge of measuring development accurately and effectively in quantitative and qualitative terms. 68. The delegations commenting on the study included those of the African Union, Bangladesh, Egypt on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, India, Mauritius, the Philippines, South Africa, Spain on behalf of the European Union, and the United States of America. Several speakers highlighted the collective responsibility dimension of the right to development, particularly in creating an enabling environment for development, and commented on how the criteria, sub-criteria and indicators could be translated into a legally-binding instrument on the right to development. In this respect, some delegations emphasized the significance of providing criteria and operational sub-criteria to embark on norm-setting and operationalizing the right to development. In reaction to these comments, other delegations expressed the view that the right to development was an ever evolving concept with aspects that would always be shrouded in ambiguity and controversy. In their view, the State is the cornerstone of the international community and the duty bearer for all GE.10-11443 15