A/HRC/19/52 United Nations work: peace and security, development and human rights. OHCHR also released several publicity materials and a video aimed at increasing awareness and support of the right to development. He concluded with an assurance of the continued dedicated efforts and commitment of the Office in advancing the implementation of the right to development and full support to the Working Group. 18. In accordance with Human Rights Council resolution 15/25, the ChairpersonRapporteur of the Working Group presented her two reports (A/HRC/WG.2/12/2 and 12/3), representing respectively the submissions received from Governments, groups of Governments and regional groups, as well as the inputs received from other stakeholders. In total, 13 submissions were received from Member States and groups of States (Cameroon, Canada, Cuba, Egypt (on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement), the European Union, Guatemala, Japan, the Netherlands, Paraguay, Portugal, Qatar, Thailand and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland); 14 submissions were received from other stakeholders. The Chairperson-Rapporteur highlighted the general comments made on the work of the task force and on the way forward. She pointed out that the comments received varied widely in terms of qualitative assessment of the work of the task force, its orientation, and conclusions and recommendations. Some of the highlights were that many submissions disagreed with the reformulation of the scope and content of the right to development, and especially with the overemphasis on national responsibilities, neglecting the basic notion of international cooperation. It was felt that the criteria should address the structural imbalances and hence impediments to equitable development on a global scale. As for the criteria and sub-criteria, some submissions noted that they were a good basis for operationalizing the right to development, but emphasized the need for further work and refinement, and its application to all Member States, not only developing countries. Concern was expressed over the possible use of indicators to monitor the State at the national level. Some submissions pointed out that the current criteria should include issues pertinent to all stakeholders (i.e., peoples vested with the right to self-determination). Other issues raised in the submissions were the need to focus on the national level and on the individual, the importance of obtaining civil society inputs on the criteria and that in determining sub-criteria, the need for an improved balance between civil, political and economic, social and cultural rights. The submissions also covered the issue of integrating and mainstreaming right to development and consultations with regional institutions. On the way forward, submissions ranged from express support for the elaboration of a legally binding instrument to those submissions opposed to this, advocating a step-by-step approach and logical sequencing and other submissions stressing the need for agreement on the content of the right to development and a clarification of the collective and individual responsibilities of States at the international level. 19. In the discussion that followed, Egypt (on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement), Norway and Qatar took the floor. It was stressed that the implementation of the right to development implied, inter alia, mainstreaming human rights into the development process, in order to further improve the capacity of states to ensure the full enjoyment of all human rights. The right-to-development agenda can strengthen efforts to bring human rights and development more closely together. In such an approach, the fulfilment of social, economic and cultural rights as well as civil and political rights and women’s and children’s rights are key elements. Japan and Norway supported the approach of considering the outcome to the task force's work as well as a structured discussion of the compilation, with the belief that the work of the task force viewed as the sound basis for further consideration for the work ahead. Egypt pointed out that it would share comments on the compilations in the ensuing discussions on the criteria, but did clarify that in the document the Non-Aligned Movement contribution was referred to as one submission although the Movement represented more than 100 Member States. The Secretariat clarified that it was the established practice of intergovernmental reports to provide synthetic summaries of submissions, also guided by 8