A/HRC/36/58 took into consideration national laws, in recognition of their contribution to development and in accordance with universally agreed and recognized human rights as stipulated in international human rights law. 22. Chile highlighted that, while the new text was an improvement, it still required national and intersectoral consultation. The comments of Chile would be in line with its previous ones. 23. Brazil emphasized that the negotiation of the declaration was one of many efforts being made to draw attention to peasants. The draft declaration should not oppose or criticize agribusiness, whose practices should also be consistent with human rights. Brazil would contribute to the conclusion of a balanced draft declaration, consistent with international law. 24. Peru stated that the text should take into account the specificities of different legal systems, in particular regarding sovereignty over natural resources, which could not be exercised by a particular group. Peru was ready to work towards reaching the necessary consensus on that subject and other matters with a view to finalizing the draft declaration as soon as possible. 25. The Russian Federation emphasized that it had supported the resolutions establishing the working group. The practice of translating specific standards for a group, such as indigenous peoples, to the situation of peasants should be done with great care and the granting of additional rights should not violate the rights of others. 26. India highlighted that the draft declaration contained multiple rights that had been borrowed from existing treaties and conventions and that discussions on substantive rights must focus on existing norms. 27. Switzerland welcomed the new draft and stressed that the priority remained the implementation of existing instruments, for example the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (art. 9, on the rights of farmers). Addressing the needs and challenges that peasants faced could be done through an inclusive process and respecting a human rights-based approach. 28. Malaysia aligned itself with the statement of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries. The important contributions to the national economy made by peasants and small-scale farmers were highlighted, as was the need for an environment in which they could thrive, in a context of global competition. 29. The Plurinational State of Bolivia stated that the declaration was necessary to address problems like malnutrition and lack of access to seeds, among other concerns identified in the study of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee. 30. Ecuador emphasized the solidity of the draft declaration, which was based on over 50 instruments, resolutions and International Labour Organization (ILO) conventions. The protection of human rights through international instruments had been subject to constant evolution, allowing more attention to be paid to some groups that had been overlooked. 31. Cuba highlighted that a declaration could contribute to solving rural, environmental and food problems and emphasized the need to recognize new rights and increase protection of existing rights. 32. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela highlighted that many studies had emphasized the need for a declaration on the rights of peasants. Extreme poverty, the primitive nature of agricultural techniques and contemporary forms of slavery, among others, pointed towards the need to support the drafting of an instrument on that subject. The principles of the Charter of the United Nations must be reflected in the draft declaration. 33. Uruguay emphasized that the draft declaration was not a case of creating new rights but of making sure that people working in rural areas could enjoy all human rights on an equal footing. 34. Kenya supported the draft declaration because its objectives were part of the many solutions needed in the complicated realm of agriculture. The declaration would address the 4