A/HRC/36/58 135. IUF suggested inserting, in paragraph 2, language on active encouragement, as had been used by ILO in the Rural Workers’ Organisations Convention, 1975 (No. 141). Ecuador indicated that the idea of support was to help to address the imbalance between the negotiation position of peasants and counterparts. 136. 2. La Via Campesina (Korea) supported article 9 (1). Article 10 137. The European Union suggested that the words “right to” be deleted from the title, which should just read “Participation”. Throughout the text “have the right to participate” should be replaced with “should participate”. 138. Egypt suggested adding “in accordance with national law and legislation” to paragraph 3. 139. Guatemala believed that the word “participation” should not be qualified and suggested deleting “meaningful and informed” from paragraph 1. The reference to “land and livelihoods” should be deleted from paragraph 3. 3. Article 11 140. The European Union and Guatemala suggested deleting the word “right to” from the title. Switzerland had no objection to the use of the word “right” in article 11, while Ecuador was of the view that the text of the article would be stripped of meaning if the word “right” were to be deleted. 141. On paragraph 2, Guatemala asked how States could ensure effective participation. It noted that States should, rather, put into place only conditions that were conducive to participation. The paragraph should not refer to lands and livelihoods. 142. On paragraph 3, Mexico argued that States must ensure certification standards generally applicable to all without distinction. 143. Several civil society organizations expressed support for the inclusion of the right to information in the draft declaration. Another civil society organization suggested including the right to appropriate technology and digitalized information systems, as well as to information on weather and disaster forecasts. 4. Article 12 144. The European Union suggested replacing paragraph 1 with language on access to fair procedures for the resolution of disputes. Egypt proposed replacing “human rights standards” with “relevant obligations under international human rights law”. 145. Guatemala objected to the reference to individual and collective rights in paragraph 1 and questioned the existence of peasants’ legal systems. It requested that domestic legislation be mentioned in addition to international standards. 146. Guatemala indicated a preference for the previous formulation of paragraph 2. 147. La Via Campesina (India) suggested replacing “States shall consider additional measures” with “States shall take adequate measures” in paragraph 3. 148. On paragraph 4, the European Union proposed referring to effective, independent and pluralistic national institutions. El Salvador stated that the draft declaration should give an indication of what States needed to do to strengthen national human rights institutions and that reference to the principles relating to the status of national institutions for the promotion and protection of human rights (the Paris Principles) could be made. 149. The European Union proposed deleting “forced assimilation or integration” from paragraph 5. Guatemala stated that the formulation of paragraph 5 pre-empted the outcome of disputes on tenure of property and, as such, interfered with the impartiality of the justice system. 12