8th Meeting, 1st session of the Intergovernmental Working Group on Older Persons (IGWG)

Good morning, Excellencies, distinguished participants. Excellencies, I declare open the 8th meeting of the Intergovernmental Working Group on the Human Rights of Older Persons. We'll now resume our plenary discussions under Agenda Item 4 to consider the proposed timeline of our work for the period 2026 and 2027, which has been shared with you earlier this week. At the outset, I'm pleased to invite distinguished representatives of Argentina and Brazil to take the floor.

Thank you very much indeed, Chairperson, Excellencies, colleagues, ladies and gentlemen. It's a real pleasure to take part in this segment where we'll be presenting issues and where delegations are able to comment on the document, the working document that was agreed upon Between delegations making up the core group of Resolution 5813: Brazil, Slovenia, Philippines, Gambia, and of course Argentina. The proposal contains an indicative framework for organizing future negotiations of this work, the work of this Intergovernmental Working Group. Allow me to begin by highlighting that the document that we are making available to you is not in any attempting to prejudge states' positions, to anticipate results, or to establish definitive stances. The numbers of the 5 facilitators and the 4 thematic segments proposed don't seek to limit the debate or to determine the structure of the future treaty. Chances are the future instrument will have more than 4 chapters, and this is an issue that will arise naturally throughout the negotiating process with consensus among participants. On the October meeting, which is the next step in our future work, that will open with an announcement from the chair on the result of consultations, the intersessional consultations on the appointment of facilitators, each of whom will. Be responsible for closely following debates developed in the relevant thematic segment with a view to faithfully reflecting the different positions expressed. The chair also believes it important to reserve a brief final— brief closing space at the end of the October meeting for each facilitator to present the main conclusions from the discussions from their thematic segments. So these presentations could then be followed by brief comments from delegations and from other participants. In November, we will be launching a call for input whereby member states and other interested stakeholders will have the opportunity to add or to update their contributions, their written contributions, so as to reflect exchanges and thoughts that have emerged— that emerged in the October meeting. After that phase is over, the chair Currently Argentina. That will come to a close and the baton will be passed to our colleagues from Brazil, the first country which decided to support us many years ago now in our efforts to include recognition of the rights of older persons on the Human Rights Council agenda. The October meeting will also include a point on the appointment of the Chair for 2027. We predict that that will be the last substantive matter on the program to be addressed. Argentina will continue to participate in this process with great interest, with conviction, compromise, and we will do this— commitment— and we will do this with the same sense of commitment that has characterized our participation in the core group as a member, contributing constructively to seeking consensus, enabling us to move forward towards a legitimate, robust, broadly supported instrument. Thank you very much.

Thank you, distinguished representative of Argentina. I give you the floor, distinguished representative of Brazil. You have the floor.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Let me begin by expressing our sincere appreciation for Argentina for its leadership and for the important efforts undertaken in guiding the first steps of this Working Group. We thank in particular you, Mr. Chair Ambassador Carlos Foradori, for your leadership and commitment to this process. Brazil is honored to continue this important work in 2027 in accordance with the rotation arrangement agreed by the Core Group. We fully recognize the responsibility that comes with assuming the chairmanship of this Working Group and remain committed to advancing a process that is open, inclusive, and conducive to meaningful progress towards the elaboration of a legally binding instrument on the human rights of older persons. After the appointment of the 5 facilitators in October and the new call for inputs in November, as anticipated by my colleague from Argentina, the process will be led by the Brazilian chairmanship starting in January 2027. During the intersessional period from December 2026 to April 2027, The idea is that the facilitators will conduct consultations and meetings on each of the 5 segments to discuss the content of the future legally binding instrument. Brazil intends, intends to maintain an open and inclusive dialogue with all stakeholders throughout this process, particularly with the civil society organizations. Whose engagement and expertise are essential to the success of our collective work. With these objectives in mind, consultations and meetings could be organized whenever possible in a hybrid format, allowing for broader participation, including from representatives based in capitals, maybe unable to travel to Geneva. Then, between May and June 2027, facilitators will consolidate the inputs received and prepare draft elements for the future instrument, which would then be presented and discussed during the 3rd session of the Working Group in July 2027. Then, from the 3rd session in July '27, regional consultations would convened during August and September, allowing for further reflections and contributions from all regions. Our ambitious objective is that facilitators will be able to submit a zero draft of the legally binding instrument to the Chair in October 2027 for its presentation and consideration during the 4th session of the Working Group in November 2027. During the 4th session, Gambia will also be nominated chair from January 2028. Before concluding, let me underscore that Brazil looks forward to this chairmanship. With this roadmap, we hope to advance next year towards a more concrete stage in the elaboration of the future legally binding instrument, and we count on all stakeholders' support. Thank you.

Thank you, distinguished representative of Brazil. Thank you for the commitment and the clarity in expressing the way forward. Now I open the floor for an interactive discussion. So the floor is open. Distinguished representative of the Czech Republic, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Rapporteur. We thank the Chair and the Argentinian Presidency for launching the work of the IGWG and for preparing this draft timeline. We also appreciate the efforts made in organizing and steering the first session. The proposed roadmap is a useful step towards transparency, predictability, and structured progress in the negotiations. Regarding the draft timeline, the proposed structure does not provide sufficient guidance on the substantive scope of the different segments. Greater clarity, including sufficiently detailed explanation in the call for inputs, would help prepare more focused contributions. We would appreciate further clarification on the rationale behind dividing the list of rights into Part 1 and Part 2. Is the Chair considering thematic groupings of rights, and if so, on what basis? We would welcome further information on the facilitators' working methods and expected outputs, including how states and other stakeholders will be able to engage with their work. Will facilitators prepare concept notes, compilations of submissions, informal papers, or other background documents before drafting the elements paper? We have taken note of the envisaged progression from the elements paper to to the zero draft paper. In our view, additional time between sessions 3 and 4 may be necessary to allow for meaningful consultations. Is a written consultation phase foreseen following session 3 to ensure that comments are adequately reflected before preparation of the zero draft? We welcome the intention to hold regional consultations. Could the Chair provide information on their format, objectives, and participation arrangements at an early stage? We strongly support hybrid consultations and meetings, which can facilitate broad participation. The legitimacy and success of the process will depend on transparent, inclusive, and accessible engagement with all stakeholders. We would like to raise the following questions. Are there plans to establish guiding drafting principles at an early stage, including how to avoid duplication with existing human rights treaties while addressing protection gaps? And second, will there be opportunities for intersessional written comments on successive drafts beyond formal sessions? Finally, we would appreciate the timely and systematic publication Of meeting schedules, agendas, submissions, facilitator summaries, and background papers, as well as regular updates on the drafting process. Thank you very much.

Thank you, distinguished representative of the Czech Republic. Ahora doy la palabra a la distinguida representante.

I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Mexico.

Gracias, señor presidente.

Thank you, Chair Rapporteur. We welcome the presentation of a timeline which would enable delegations and various stakeholders to have more clarity on the next steps for this IGWG. We thank Argentina for being chair rapporteur this year, and we recognize Brazil's readiness to assume the chairpersonship for the next cycle. We also voice our acknowledgement to the core group for their solidarity in driving forward this process. On the timeline in particular, we just wanted to voice a couple of comments and suggestions. On the thematic segments proposed, we believe that the scope is appropriate. However, we do think that the structure of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities— given that, we think it's worthwhile including a specific segment on general principles and general obligations of states. On the October session this year, We wanted to better understand what the basis for discussions would be and how will the methodology for the session be unrolled so as to best use this time— that time and space in October. We do need to avoid the risk of that session merely repeating the substantive statements from this session. So, perhaps we could get ahead of ourselves and The call for contributions that's planned for November 26th, that could be— there could be a preliminary call for contributions prior to October so that delegations could have material that would enable them to prepare more substantive, structured discussions in the October session of the Working Group. We reiterate our commitment to continue participating constructively in this Working Group, and we trust that these considerations will contribute to a better process moving towards developing a legally binding instrument on the rights of older persons. Thank you very much.

Muchas gracias, distinguida representante de México. I give the floor to distinguished representative of Portugal.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairperson. At the outset, allow me to thank Argentina for the manner in which it has conducted our work this week, as well as the rest of the Core Group for the proposed timeline. Portugal agrees with the Core Group proposal to pave the way for the drafting period through a new call for inputs, inviting States and other stakeholders to provide comments and contributions on each of the 5 thematic segments detailed in the document shared. We also agree to use upcoming sessions leading up to the November 2027 session to co-design and discuss elements paper and conduct regional consultation. On the 5 thematic segments of the future LBI, we would urge caution on the division of List of Rights Part 1 and Part 2, which can suggest mistakenly the idea that we are in a sort of way creating a hierarchy or importance of rights. Portugal firmly believes that all human rights are universal, indivisible, and interdependent, and all rights— civil, cultural, economic, political, and social— are equal in importance, and none can be fully enjoyed without the others. Could you elaborate further on how does the Core Group envisage the division between Part 1 and Part 2? Additionally, as stated in our national submission to the Chair's Call for Contribution, The structure of the LBI should also contain a section on general principles and general obligations of State Parties. We also heard this request from several delegations and civil society during this week. We are confident that the Core Group and the co-facilitators will take this into account when developing the proposed structure. Moreover, as set in the enabling resolution of this mandate, Resolution 58/13, We reiterate the need to promote the meaningful participation and engagement of older persons and their representative organizations in our discussions and in all stages of the process, and to give them the opportunity to actively contribute. As we enter the crucial stage of our work, we call on all States to engage constructively, in good faith and in a spirit of cooperation. This is a shared responsibility and a shared opportunity. Portugal will continue contributing actively so that the Intergovernmental Working Group can advance its mandate in a practical manner, allowing for concrete progress on the negotiations of a Convention on the Human Rights of Older Persons. I thank you.

Thank you, distinguished representative of Portugal. I give you the floor, distinguished representative of Nigeria. You have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Nigeria thanks the core group for preparing the proposed timeline for the activities of the working group through 2027. We consider it a useful roadmap that provides a structured and predictable framework for the negotiations ahead. Having a clear timetable is important not only to maintain momentum but also to enable delegations to plan their participation well in advance. However, while we appreciate the importance of setting timelines, The ultimate objective should be to produce a text that enjoys broad support and genuinely reflects the views of member states. In our view, timelines should facilitate negotiations and not take precedence over meaningful participation and consensus building. We also believe that any timetable adopted should take into account the practical realities faced by many developing countries. Several delegations in Geneva have only one or two officers covering multiple meetings and negotiations simultaneously. In addition, the current financial constraints affecting both member states and the United Nations continue to impact participation in intergovernmental processes. For this reason, Nigeria strongly supports the proposal to hold consultations in hybrid format. Such an approach would facilitate greater participation from capitals, reduce travel-related costs, and ultimately make the process more inclusive. Having said that, we would appreciate further clarification from the Core Group on how feasible hybrid consultations would be in light of the current financial situation facing the UN. Mr. Chair, we also think it is important to allow adequate time between the calls for input and subsequent consultations. This is critical because, as we know, policies are not formulated overnight. They take time. A treaty of this nature requires cross-sectoral and inter-ministerial consultations, and for many countries, that process cannot be completed within a short period. Allowing sufficient time between each stage of the process would enable Member States to undertake the necessary domestic consultations and submit coordinated national positions. Finally, Nigeria supports the adoption of a clear roadmap for the working group. We believe that the timetable should remain flexible. It should be ambitious enough to maintain momentum but also realistic enough to ensure that no delegation is left behind in the process. I thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, distinguished representative of Nigeria, and I want to I would like to highlight something that you just mentioned regarding the fact that there are many missions here that don't have a lot of human resources. And in order to encourage the participation, there's something that we are going to do in the next days is just to appeal the Director-General of the United Nations here to organize a meeting among the different DGs here Because it's unbelievable what happens in the last two weeks. We have had so many general assemblies or executive councils of many organizations which have no sense whatsoever. I mean, the WIPO, the WTO, the UNCTAD disarmament, obviously this process, and so on and so forth. And and sometimes there are weeks that they are. Very, very few meetings. So really have no sense whatsoever. And we really encourage particularly missions that don't have a lot of delegates to attend the different and the variety of the meetings. So that, that means that only member states that count on missions with a large number of delegates, they can, they can actually cover everything. And all those who have like 2 or 3 or 4, I mean, they cannot really— they have to prioritize. And sometimes they are really keen to participate, but they cannot. And this has no sense whatsoever. So I fully agree for the fact that we really want to encourage everybody to participate. So the fact that we are trying to create this hybrid format, it will help. But it's not going to be the solution unless there's a little bit organization in this city, which is not existing at the moment. Sorry, because I mean, it's something that I'm working on that, because I mean, I just cannot understand. Sorry, and thank you for your statement. And now I give you the floor to the distinguished representative of Egypt. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, uh, before my speech, I personally shared the views you just mentioned. Sometimes I need to be in 5 different places simultaneously, so I feel the pain. I wish to thank you for the leadership and equally thank the members of the Core Group for presenting the roadmap. While we appreciate its high degree of ambition, experience from other intergovernmental working groups in the Human Rights Council and experience from the Open-Ended Working Group on Aging during its 14 years of work in New York before the termination of its mandate shows the need to strike a perfect balance between ambition and realism. We believe member states should have adequate time to deliberate on and study the identified thematic areas so that the result— the resulting proposals are robust and applicable. I have 3 questions on the roadmap. The first, on the list of 5 identified thematic segments, is it exhaustive? And as raised by delegations before me who took the floor, what is the exact difference between the 2 different sets of rights? My second question concerns the criteria for selecting the co-facilitators and if they will have a role in the envisaged regional consultations. The third question concerns the proposed timeline. Do you believe that the period following the presentation of the zero draft at the 4th session will give delegations enough time to review it, consult with their capitals, and prepare substantive inputs so that the session can be used effectively? Finally, and once again, I assure you of Egypt's constructive and cooperative approach engaging on the zero draft when it's presented. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, distinguished representative of Egypt.

I now give the floor to distinguished representative of Paraguay.

Thank you very much, Chair. At the outset, I would like to thank you for guiding this process and presenting a roadmap and reiterate our commitment to the promotion and protection of the rights of older persons. This requires answers that guarantee that older persons enjoy all human rights without discrimination and fully. We have to focus on main principles— non-discrimination, dignity, participation, accessibility, inclusion, and intergenerational solidarity— that should guide our work. Also, this process should be used to build up on progress that has already been achieved in the area of international human rights with a focus on regional systems. As far as our region is concerned, the Inter-American Convention on Protection of Human Rights of Older Persons is a valuable reference point, and the good practices may support our negotiations. Also, it is necessary for the future instrument to recognize the different legal systems, regional features, and the levels of development of each country. This will make possible to ensure that we can effectively implement the international norms referring to the regular relevant contexts and the ownership by states. Also, we believe that the future instrument should focus on groups of persons in situations of vulnerability, for example, persons with disabilities and indigenous peoples facing multiple forms of discriminations. In this respect, we— like to focus on the roadmap that is being proposed, and we see that it's been done in a transparent manner that will make it possible to bring together the achievements made throughout the process. And also, we support what was said by other delegations related to these approaches. Now, in terms of future sessions, we believe that the preamble part should reflect the common principles that guide these processes and also the aging process that is a reality in most parts of the world, the continued of structural inequalities and practices of discrimination, the need to strengthen the international regime for the protection of the rights of older persons. Finally, we affirm the need to ensure the significant participation of older persons in this process in order their experiences and their ideas contribute to creating an instrument that is practical, inclusive, and reflecting the needs of the international community. Thank you.

Thank you, distinguished representative of Paraguay. I give you the floor, distinguished representative of Austria. You have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. We thank the Chair and incoming Brazilian chairmanship for presenting a timeline covering the period until the end of 2027. We welcome the close cooperation between the current and incoming Chairs and the action-oriented approach reflected in this proposal. A clear roadmap is essential not only for maintaining momentum, but also for enabling effective coordination at the national level and the meaningful involvement of all the persons and other relevant stakeholders throughout the process. The proposed timeline is ambitious. While Astra supports maintaining momentum, the timetable should provide sufficient time for inclusive consultations, coordination in capitals, and the careful consideration of substantive proposals. Relevant documents and draft elements should therefore be circulated sufficiently in advance. The timeline should facilitate the process without prejudging its substantive outcome. We welcome the proposal to establish 5 thematic work streams. To enable states to engage effectively, we would appreciate further clarification regarding the scope of each work stream, in particular how the list of rights would be divided between parts 1 and 2, and in which of these segments state obligations will be incorporated. Further information on the mandate, selection, and composition of the facilitators would also be helpful. It would be useful to confirm whether states may participate in or contribute to more than one work stream and, more generally, that all states and stakeholders will be able to submit contributions across all 5 thematic areas. We also encourage the Chair to ensure geographical and gender balance and the meaningful participation of older persons, NHRI, civil society, the current and former independent experts throughout the work of the 5 thematic segments. Finally, we would welcome clarification on how the results of the regional consultations envisaged for August and September 2027 will feed into the preparation of the zero draft planned for October. These results should be transparently documented, made available to States, and other stakeholders and demonstrably reflected in the drafting process. Given the short interval between the regional consultations and the submission of the zero draft, sufficient time should be provided for the proper consideration. Austria stands ready to contribute constructively to the intersessional work.

Thank you.

Thank you, distinguished representative of Austria. I'll give the floor to distinguished representative of Japan. You have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, colleagues. Japan appreciates the core group's effort in presenting the proposed timeline. We believe it provides a certain quality for the future program work. However, as previous speaker mentioned, we have a certain question, but which is already exhausted, so we don't repeat. However, we believe the flexibility of timeline is important as we are still at the preliminary stage of the discussion. It might be difficult to predict and should not prejudge the outcome of discussion. And also, a previous speaker mentioned we have experience from the other ICWs, the certain discussion is important before presenting zero draft or certain tangible document. And also, in order to facilitate meaningful participation by states, civil society, and other stakeholders, it is important to ensure prior circulation of the document with material or information in advance for their meeting or deadline. So we encourage the core group to consider those timelines as feasible and meaningful for everyone. But having said that, we reaffirm our commitment to protecting and promoting all human lives, including older persons. I thank you.

Thank you, distinguished representative of Japan. I give you the floor, distinguished representative of I give the floor to Guatemala.

Muchas gracias.

Thank you very much, Chair. Guatemala would like to thank this working group for its commitment to the promotion and protection of the rights of older persons. Despite the challenges and limitations related to the crisis that affects the human rights pillar under a comprehensive approach to human rights that is promoted by the United Nations. Providing dignity and rights to older persons is an ethical and legal imperative, and we cannot delay the process anymore. And this is the focus of this group for 2026 and 2027, and the delegation of Guatemala is very pleased with this roadmap because it is an ambitious one. We value the decision to structure the work starting with the appointment of facilitators to look at the 5 thematic segments that are crucial for the future legally binding instrument from the preambular part through to the mechanism for implementation and follow-up. This approach takes into account the fact that we're not starting from scratch, moving ahead with substantive consultation between December 2026 and April 2027 until we consolidate the first set of elements to be looked at during 2027. We strongly support the idea of presenting the first draft document in the third semester of 2027 and be ready for the last part of '27 to work on that document. This will crown our efforts aimed at achieving a legally binding instrument, but it must be an effective one. Older generations can no longer wait. They need tangible responses and an international legal framework that guarantees the full exercise of their rights during the present. You can count on the proactive and constructive participation of my country in the future steps of this process, including the regional consultations that will take place in the second part of 2027, ensuring that the realities of our region are reflected in our work. We thank the chairmanship once again, the Secretariat, and other actors who contributed with their valuable inputs. Guatemala reiterates its unswerving commitment to the promotion, protection, and respect of the rights of older persons. And we will continue work hand in hand with other participants in this group as we move towards these legally binding instruments that should become a reality. Thank you.

Thank you to Guatemala. And thank you for your support and your contributions. And I'd like to use this opportunity to say the following. Many are referring to UNAT budgetary reductions. And the fact that there's less and less money. That is true, but the reality is that in any case, we have to analyze deeply the number of different processes that take place, including under the framework of the Human Rights Council, that overlap with other processes. And this is It's a historic debt that the international community has vis-à-vis older persons, a historic debt. And we cannot admit and we cannot imagine that the situation will have an impact on this process. And this chairmanship will not allow this to happen. But I would like to say this now because older persons Somehow the discussion is always postponed, but my chairmanship will not be part of any delays. So thank you very much to the representative of Guatemala. Malta, you have the floor, please.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Malta thanks you, the incoming Brazilian chair and the secretariat, for circulating the timeline document for consideration by the IGWG. We think this is an important step in this process, as it will provide important benchmarks to maintain the momentum this process has gained. As discussed over the past days, in our assessment, there is wide agreement that the future instrument should include the usual parts of existing human rights treaties, that is a preamble part, purpose and definitions, general guiding principles, general obligations, the list of rights and provisions on implementation, monitoring, and the reporting obligations of States Parties. For this important yet delicate process, coordination among the facilitators to be appointed will be paramount to ensure coherence across all parts of the legally binding instrument. In that sense, can you elaborate further about what modalities are envisaged for this purpose of coordination? Referring to the list of rights, the timeline document lists parts 1 and 2. Reiterating a point several delegations have already made, human rights are indivisible and interdependent. Civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights reinforce one another and must be advanced therefore together. We express our concern that such a division risks implying a hierarchy between rights. Perhaps unintentionally, as well as possibly impacting the important principle of coherence on a discussion that focuses on an important part of the document. We would appreciate further clarity on how the different aspects of human rights will be determined to fall under which section if this proposal is maintained. As a delegation and national administration with limited resources, and we fully share your views on the concurrence of meetings in Geneva, Mr. Chairman, Malta appeals for timely distribution of documentation, in particular those requiring input from states and all stakeholders, currently planned for autumn this year. This will ensure that participants have sufficient time to analyze the documentation and be able to fully engage during this— the upcoming phases of this process. Finally, regional consultations are important, and we welcome the proposal to hold these consultations provided sufficient preparatory time and information is made available in advance. We also welcome the proposal to employ hybrid modalities, which can serve to allow wider participation by all stakeholders. We look forward to continuing our engagement with this process, and as the IGWG enters a critical phase of its work, I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, distinguished representative of Malta.

I now give the floor to distinguished representative of the Republic of Chile.

Thank you very much, Chairperson, Rapporteur. At the outset, Chile would like to congratulate the Argentinian chairmanship for the excellent work guiding this session and also for the preparation of the roadmap for 2026-27 that we're considering now. In general terms, we believe that the purpose— proposal is a constructive move forward towards the future instruments. We also welcome the announcement that Brazil will be chairing this working group starting January 2027, and we express our full readiness to work closely with the future chair. Having said Uh, that we'd like to make the following suggestions in a constructive manner. We would like to have additional clarity what work will be carried out during the October 2026 sessions in order to avoid repeating the conversations we had this week and devote time in a more effective manner. Secondly, we would like to ask what will the facilitators need in the thematic And such a division may create gaps or create a fragmentation in human rights that are closely interlinked. We'd like to explore alternative approaches, for example, appointment of 2 facilitators for them to work together on a general category that covers all rights in order to ensure consistency and the comprehensive nature of the future instrument. And perhaps we can follow the proposal made by Mexico and supported by civil society to have a facilitator that will be focusing on general obligations, a very interesting idea, and we can support that approach. And we do hope that it will receive a positive response. And finally, we do support the proposals to organize consultations in a hybrid format, as many delegations have said before us. We believe that this is a very good approach for those delegations that do not have many representatives in Geneva, as was said by Argentina, in order to ensure inclusive participation. We will continue to participate constructively in this process, focusing on the roadmap. Thank you.

I thank the representative of Chile, and now I give the floor to the distinguished representative

Thank you very much, Chair. At the outset, I'd like to thank you for your proposals that guide the work of this group and make it possible for delegations to organize themselves to participate effectively in a substantive manner in future steps in this process. We also believe that this roadmap, this program, will help us move forward step by step, and it's a flexible program and a very inclusive one. I would like to focus on the thematic segments and the organization of work, reflecting on the concerns that were raised by other delegations, and we agree with many of those. And I'd like to make 2 suggestions. First, consider the possibility to consolidate substantive rights in one thematic group to avoid fragmentation, categorization, or any opposition between different rights, something that colleagues have mentioned already. And also, our second suggestion is that the 5th area of work can dedicate itself to questions that were not discussed including, as we said in our general statement, for us it's very important to work on general principles and the obligations of states parties. Also, we take a positive view of hybrid consultations. This will promote broader participation. And in terms of regional consultations, we find this to be very positive. It is important to look at a different social, economic, legal, and cultural realities. Finally, we believe that the progressive preparation of elements leading to the first draft and then a zero draft is the best possible approach to ensure transparency during negotiations. Thank you.

Thank you very much to Peru. Now I give the floor to distinguished representative of Ecuador.

Thank you very much, Chair. Ecuador, I'd like to join those in who congratulated you. Thanks to the way you were guiding this process and the roadmap that you're proposing for 2026-2027. And we welcome Brazil as a future chair, and we will cooperate with Brazil fully. We thank you for I agree with what you said in terms of some frustration that we have with the many meetings that we are having that make it difficult for certain delegations to participate in, and also not to let the financial crisis postpone any— anyway this process. And we would not wish to postpone the realization of the rights of older persons. That will simply not be be right. Now, we thank you for the explanations made by our colleagues of the contents of the timelines and timeframes. We find this correct approaches— this approach, and we also align ourselves with some recommendations that were made in terms of adjustments to the calendar. We agree what was said by Portugal, Malta, and other Delegations not to have any division in 2 separate sets of rights, something that may have an impact on the principle of indivisibility of human rights and their inter— independent nature. Also, we agree that perhaps we can have a space to include other elements that were raised as substantive elements of the future instrument. For example, the principles and obligations of states, references to provisions related to special protections in situation of natural disasters or conflicts, provisions related to access to justice, judiciary, provisions related to due diligence, prevention, and international cooperation. We understand that this is a very long list and perhaps it can complicate things, but perhaps the facilitators may look at this, at what we are suggesting, suggesting, and also at other inputs made by states and observers during this week of work. On the format of the consultations, we agree with the suggestion or recommendations to consider the possibility of having a hybrid format to include broader participation, including those who would not be able to come to these meetings And also having regional consultations is a very good idea. And finally, from the point of view of my country, a country that gives great importance to this issue, perhaps we can look at the possibility of having the zero draft a bit earlier. Let us not forget that this is a process that has been going on for 14 years, 14 years of discussions, and there's a lot of substantive material contained in the different submissions and from what was said in the room. So perhaps we can speed up the process. and to have greater clarity in connection with the October session and what will be the difference between that session and this session we're having right now. That was a very valuable session, so we thank you very much for your work, Chair.

I thank the distinguished representative of Ecuador.

The distinguished representative of Greece, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much, you, Mr. President, and the incoming Brazilian presidency for sharing us this timeline. Of course, I understand that it's very difficult at this stage to draft a very precise roadmap. However, I do share some of the concerns expressed by previous speakers, in particular Czech Republic, Portugal, Austria, and Malta. Thank you, of course, for clarifying that the timeline does not prejudge the structure of the LBI. However, We do have some concerns with this division of rights into parts. Of course, we're fully aware that this is not the intention of the core group, was not to— I mean, not to take into consideration the divisibility of rights, but it's still not very clear how— what this division entails. We also believe that there should be some space for definitions. Maybe this not only for definitions but also for general principles and obligations. So the segment which is now entitled definitions, maybe we could add these references to general principles and obligations. And we would have 3 more targeted questions. First of all, about the October session. As already stated by Chile, Mexico, and Ecuador, the program of work for our next session is not very clear. My second question regarding the meetings in hybrid format between December 2026 and April 2027. So does that mean that the 5 meetings will be held in Geneva during this time with a hybrid format? I would be very interested to know more about that, taking into consideration that at that time we will have the session of the Human Rights Council. There is also another slot for regional consultations between August and September 2027. Again, August 2027, at least for this hemisphere, is a bit challenging to organize regional consultations. And I would be also very interested to know what kind of documents will be produced at the end of each of these segments. Finally, as mentioned by many other delegations, it is very important for us to have a space for internal consultations within our administration as well as between like-minded groups of states. Having said that, I would like to reiterate our full appreciation appreciation for the work undertaken so far by you, Mr.

President, and by the representative of Greece for your support.

I give you the floor to distinguished representative of Canada. You have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. And our colleague from Greece has asked much of what I was going to say, so I'll try and go quickly. First, we share several of the questions others have raised around the process for selecting facilitators and also how the core group will approach the question of dividing up the 2 sets of rights, you know, recognizing that from a work perspective it's helpful to be able to divide things up. But we would welcome more clarity on that. Second, we'd also welcome more clarity on the October session. Is the idea that this would be primarily procedural, or is there an intention to begin some substantive discussions at that stage? On the one hand, we appreciate the challenge of getting too far into substance before the call for inputs. On the other hand, we all know that weeks of formal meetings are a precious resource here at the UN. One thought for your consideration might be whether part of that session could be used to look at some of the architectural questions that seem to be coming up repeatedly. For example, we've heard a lot this week about the relationship between this instrument and existing rights that are in the existing treaties. And it might be useful to look at how other conventions, CRPD in particular, have approached some of those questions. Not to prejudge any outcome, of course, but simply to learn from previous drafting processes and from the choices that were made there. And then a final question on stakeholder participation. Canada welcomes your open approach to stakeholder engagement to date, not least, Chair, your decisive approach to the seating arrangements in the room. My reading of the timeline document document is that the intention is for stakeholders to continue to participate in the consultations and meetings on substantive content currently envisaged between December 2026 and April 2027. However, we'd appreciate confirmation of that. While this will of course remain a state-led process, it's been evident this week that there's a depth of expertise outside of government that we would all benefit from. Thank you.

Thank you, distinguished representative of Canada. There's not any doubt that the member states are the ones that will have to drive this process. Of course, the cooperation, collaboration, and the experience of the All the NGOs are really very, very valuable for this process and are those who actually keep this process firm because otherwise I don't know what was going to happen. Now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Israel.

Thank you, Chair. Israel wishes to thank the core group for providing the draft timeline for our discussion, which we have carefully reviewed. We support the comments made by Canada, Czechia, Egypt, Greece, Malta, Mexico, and Nigeria, and would like to emphasize the following regarding the planned October 2026 announcement of appointment of facilitators, we would appreciate clarification on the process of selection of facilitators, including whether the facilitating country representatives would rotate according to the expertise required or be required to join for the entire process. Also, it should be ensured that the composition of representatives reflects adequate geographic and gender diversity. On the planned November 2026 launch of a new call for inputs, we would like to note that in light of the significance and complexity of the issues addressed, at the beginning of the process sufficient time should be provided to respond to all calls for inputs. Alternatively, staggered submission deadlines could be considered for the 5 segments. In particular, it is important to note that States may require sufficient and adequate time to undertake the necessary internal consultations, develop their positions through appropriate processes, and where necessary obtain the relevant authorization. Finally, in view of the planned presentation of the draft elements of the text in July 2027 and the zero draft in November 2027, we would like to note that in order to facilitate an effective and substantive discussion, the draft elements of the text as well as the zero draft of the instrument should be circulated sufficiently in advance of the respective sessions in order to allow adequate time to consult and present serious responses and conduct constructive discussion. Looking forward, and in order to promote the important subject matter without deviating to particular contexts, we believe focus should remain on the human rights lens, as in the other conventions, without attempts to introduce other normative frameworks. Israel also supports the call to allow for hybrid modalities to allow for broader participation. Thank you.

Thank you, distinguished representative of Israel. And I give the floor to distinguished representative of China.

You have the floor.

Thank you very much, Chairman. I'd very much like to thank the delegation of Argentina for having presented the roadmap, which is clear, precise and applicable, namely one that is essential to move forward this process. We welcome the fact that the roadmap has taken account of the hybrid mode and has— we would invite countries to continue to submit written contributions. We would have 3 suggestions to make. Firstly, all discussion documents should be published well in advance in order to enable states to have sufficient time to study them in depth. Secondly, future plans must fully take into account reality, notably and in particular that of the financial crisis of the United Nations and the lack of human and financial resources that are being noted by states. Thirdly, we mustn't just limit things to formalities and appearances. The zero draft must take account of the existing legal framework, the existing human rights law, international human rights law, and treaties so as to establish a constructive basis. Negotiations must be gradual, stage by stage, stage based on consensus. Thank you very much indeed, Chairman.

Thank you, distinguished representative of China. And I give the floor to distinguished representative of Qatar. You have the floor. I think your mic is off.

Thank you very much indeed, Chairman.

We'd like to thank you for having prepared the timeline, which is a clear roadmap to set out the path forward for the group without leaving anyone behind. It is vital that all reference documents and all draft documents be circulated early enough so that we can all contribute in writing in sufficient time. We believe that all draft documents and instruments should be based on existing international human rights standards, and we must ensure— we must ensure It is necessary to avoid establishing new standards which do not enjoy the consensus of all countries. It's also important to respect social and religious specificities, preserving the rights of older persons. We must come to a consensus-based version that protects the rights of older persons. Qatar reaffirms that protection for the rights of older persons is a shared responsibility which requires international cooperation. We do hope that we will continue to work with States Parties and with all stakeholders so as to come up with a document and an international instrument that preserve human rights, that protect them, and that address all the challenges faced by this swathe of the population. Thank you very much.

Thank you, distinguished representative of Qatar. I give the floor to distinguished representative of Iran.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

At the outset, we would like to thank the core group for preparing the proposed timeline and appreciate the effort made to provide a roadmap for the future work of this working group. Regarding the proposed timeline, we believe that the working group should follow a realistic, balanced, and achievable roadmap. Given the complexity of developing and adopting a legally binding international instrument, the timeline should remain sufficiently flexible to allow for meaningful negotiations. And consensus-building. We should also take into account that other important treaty-making processes in the field of human rights, including the Draft Convention on the Right to Development, have not yet reached the stage of formal adoption. These experiences demonstrate that the development of a legally binding instrument requires sufficient time for meaningful careful negotiations, consensus-building, and careful consideration. It would therefore be appropriate to ensure that the future timetable remains realistic, flexible, and consistent with the overall workload and capacities of member states and the Human Rights Council. A well-paced and inclusive process will ultimately contribute a stronger, more balanced, and widely supported instrument. Thank you.

Thank you, distinguished representative of Iran. I give the floor to distinguished representative Kippa.

Thank you very much indeed, Chairperson. We welcome the proposed timeline that you've presented for '26/'27. We would just put forward a few preliminary considerations on that proposal. Delegations, including the smallest delegations, must have sufficient time in order to examine the documents produced by the Working Group and to consult with capitals. The timeframe for the sending of inputs should be clarified with more detail. We would call attention, for example, to the fact that in the period December 26th to April 2027, that coincides with the end-of-year holidays when a high number of our colleagues are just not in Geneva. And secondly, it ties in with the 64th Human Rights Council session, including the high-level segment, which requires particular attention from our delegations. We would propose that the information produced by the Working Group be circulated prior to that and with sufficient time for the proper analysis and consideration thereof, and for the sending to Capital with a more reasonable margin for review. Appointment of facilitators should be preceded by transparency. Transparent consultations with regional groups. The 5 thematic areas identified must be broadened. We need to include explicitly areas on technical cooperation and assistance, general principles, scope of the implementation of the international instrument, as well as obligations of states. We have heard in previous statements during this debate that various states have also mentioned specific proposals on these. In our view, Chair, the work will be facilitated on different areas. If it's simultaneous work, it would entail a significant burden for small delegations that need to follow various processes in parallel with different interlocutors. Therefore, we believe that reducing the number of facilitators pooling various thematic areas under one facilitator would alleviate that burden and would also avoid excessive fragmentation of the exercise. On the hybrid mode, we believe that using hybrid should also make sure that if we do that, we need to respect the principle of sovereign equality and egalitarian access of all states to digital platforms that are used in these meetings. Avoiding any barriers that may constitute discrimination. It's also vital to ensure strict compliance with the rules of procedure, timely verification of accreditation, and the solving of technical problems during the meeting should they occur. If there were this hybrid participation, our delegation stands ready to contribute constructively and actively in. a timeline which takes due account of the legitimate concerns of all delegations. And once again, we voice our support for the process overall. Thank you, sir.

Thank you for that statement.

Cuba.

Distinguished representative of Australia, you have the floor.

Good morning, colleagues, and thank you to the Chair and the Core Group for their efforts in designing and proposing this way forward. Australia is grateful for the detail and predictability that the timeline envisions. We appreciate that some modalities may need to be adjusted in future, including as the presidencies and chairs evolve. We'd be grateful for your assessment as to how much flexibility or iteration you anticipate might be needed in future to refine the current roadmap. Colleagues so far have raised some additional thoughtful and precise questions, for which thanks, particularly on: 1, the program of work for the very next session in October; 2, the selection of roles and responsibilities of facilitators. And 3, the relationship between consultations organized by regional groupings and thematic segments. And lastly, can I supplement these with 4 general points of support? The resolution of— the timely resolution of negotiations for the instrument more broadly, looking to the example of the CRPD concluded after 5 years. Support the working group planning up to a 4th negotiating session by the end of next year in Geneva, as well as allowing hybrid engagement for these initial negotiating sessions, which enhances participation, and noting the difficulties that that may present for textual negotiations. We reaffirmed the importance of participation by civil society in negotiation, and lastly encouraged the avoidance of a shopping list approach to the new convention. with the potential to prolong negotiation timelines. Thank you.

Thank you, distinguished representative of Australia. And I give the floor to distinguished representative of Türkiye.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Türkiye welcomes— Türkiye welcomes the proposed timeline for advancing the work of an Intergovernmental Working Group and appreciates the efforts of Core Group for preparing this roadmap. We support broad consultations with member states, national human rights institutions, academia, and civil society, including organizations representing older persons themselves. We also welcome the envisaged hybrid modalities, which may facilitate wider participation from capitals. Türkiye stands ready to constructively in this process, and we reaffirm our commitment to continuing dialogue aimed at promoting and protecting the rights and dignity of older persons. At this point, we would like to emphasize that it is important that all relevant documents are distributed in a timely manner for all stakeholders during this process. Additionally, it is significant to ensure balanced regional representation in the consultation processes to be conducted by the facilitators. For the 5 thematic segments of the future legally binding instrument, would consideration be given to including a dedicated section setting out the guiding principles and general obligations? In addition, on what basis the 2 different sets of rights will be decided? As previously stated, could this lead to implying that some rights are superior to others? We would also welcome a clarification on the criteria for the appointment of facilitators. Mr. Chair, thank you once again for the content and timeline. Clear and transparent negotiation processes will be crucial to achieve effective and strong outcomes. I thank you.

Thank you, distinguished representative of Turkey. Now I give you the floor to distinguished representative of Germany. You have the floor.

Thank you to the Chair and the Core Group. Germany welcomes the proposed timeline as a balanced and constructive basis for the next phase of work. We support the statements made by Austria, Czech Republic, Greece, and Malta and would like to add the following observations. To maximize its value, we would like to encourage that the preparatory process include consolidated facilitator reports identifying areas of convergence, remaining differences, and the relationship between emerging proposals and the existing international human rights framework. Such an approach would enhance transparency, support coherence across the international human rights system, help avoid unnecessary fragmentation, and provide a productive foundation for an innovative future monitoring mechanism.

And finally, we kindly ask for a timely distribution of all meeting documents.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Thank you, distinguished representative of Germany. I give you the floor for a joint statement of Poland, the Commissioner for Human Rights. You have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. I have the honor to speak on behalf of A-status NHRI from Cameroon, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Finland, Jordan, Republic of Korea, Nigeria, the Philippines, Poland, Slovenia, Sweden, and Thailand. Regarding the 5 thematic segments, we recommend, just like representatives of Mexico, Chile, and Greece have suggested earlier, having a dedicated segment on general obligations and principles, as this will establish the primary duties of states. We also advise to include and identify in the timeline the representation of different stakeholders from the regions, as well as NHRI, CSOs, and older persons in each of these meetings. Meetings. The timeline would benefit from explicitly identifying annual periods dedicated to consultations and meetings at national and local levels, as there is currently little focus given to the participation of older persons throughout the process. Clear allocation of time for such consultations in the timeline will serve as confirmation that meaningful participation of older persons including those who communicate in local languages or living in remote areas, is treated seriously by Member States. Moreover, if Member States aim to develop a robust and effective LBI, they may also see those public events at national level as a venue for raising awareness among older persons and the wider public about the drafting process and for empowering older persons as rights holders. stakeholders. This is crucial for effective implementation of the new treaty in the future. We also propose that Member States, the Intergovernmental Working Group, and the OHCHR Secretariat enhance their coordination and engagement with NHRIs, as well as regional NHRIs networks and the Global Alliance of the NHRIs. In accordance with the Paris Principles, NHRIs are mandated to advise governments, promote and protect human rights, cooperate with the United Nations and regional human rights mechanisms, and engage with civil society. NHRI stands ready to support you in the succeeding initiatives. Thank you.

Thank you. And I give the floor to distinguished representative of Human Rights Watch. You have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Human Rights Watch welcomes the consultations and meetings built into the proposed timeline. A point of convergence emerging in the Working Group is the importance of building on existing standards, with frequent reference to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Human Rights Watch is concerned that the process falls short of the inclusive and participatory practice used in the drafting of the Disability Rights Convention, namely the establishment of a Working Group tasked with preparing and presenting a draft text of the Convention with representation of persons with disabilities, non-governmental organizations, and national human rights institutions. Human Rights Watch encourages the Chair to consider mechanisms that enable the direct and effective participation of older persons and their representative organizations, civil society organizations, and national human rights institutions in the development of the zero draft, consistent with the inclusive approach that was central to the CRPD drafting process. The legitimacy and effectiveness of the future treaty will depend not only on its substantive content, but also on the inclusiveness and transparency of the process through which it is developed. In addition, we have 2 questions. First, as has been mentioned by others, the proposed process does not include sections of the treaty on underlying principles and general obligations on states. How will these sections be developed? Second, how will the Chair ensure both consistency in the consultation process and coherence in the substance across sections of the zero draft in a process that is led by 5 different facilitators. Thank you.

Thank you. And I give the floor to distinguished representative of Age Platform Europe. You have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. On behalf of Age Platform Europe and the German National Association of Senior Citizens' Organizations, BAGSO, I would like to express our support for the timeline proposed. Which will enable states, civil society, and other stakeholders to plan their substantive contributions, coordinate consultations, build capacity, and participate effectively in this process. We welcome the commitment reflected throughout this week for the meaningful participation of older persons and their representative organizations, and we also welcome the ongoing discussions which revealed significant areas of agreement, providing a solid basis for further work. We align ourselves with the statement to be delivered by the Global Alliance for the Rights of Older People, and we would like to request a few further clarifications and make a couple of recommendations. First, what will the foreseen regional consultations focus on, and how will the involvement of all stakeholders be ensured? For AGE and BACSO, regional meetings, as foreseen in paragraph 4 of the Human Rights Council Resolution 1558/13, provide a unique opportunity to engage with actors who cannot participate participate in Geneva-based meetings can ensure synergies with regional developments and build on the regional acquis. We hope that such meetings will begin early in the process and be repeated at key strategic moments throughout the negotiations. To make best use of those regional discussions, we would advise collaborating with regional OHCHR offices, civil society organizations, and NHRIs, and also developing common methodologies and questions to be addressed across all regions. We would also like to ask how the outcomes of these consultations feed into the zero draft. 2, how will the facilitators of the 5 segments ensure a consistent methodology and build on a common conceptual understanding? We believe the 5 areas should be viewed as interconnected building blocks, each informing the others. The outcomes of the recent call for input could provide a common ground for this work, but further thinking on how to achieve this would be crucial. We also suggest the inclusion of a segment on general principles and general obligations that can enhance the coherence and the ambition of the LBI? 3, how will the timeline allow for consultations with older persons, including from marginalized communities? As networks that bring together more than 200 organizations, AGE and BACSO would like to draw attention to the time and resources that are necessary to consult our members on the ground in their full diversity. Calls for inputs and regional and national consultations should provide for ample time to reach out to these communities, and timely access to information and documentation will be crucial to achieve this. And finally, how will the zero draft be produced? On this point, we would like to reiterate the importance of the meaningful participation of older persons across all stages of the drafting process, and request clarification about how the zero draft will include representatives of older persons and their representative organizations alongside NHRIs. AGE and BACSO commit to mobilize our members to contribute to this process and to be active at national and regional levels. Thank you.

Thank you. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of the International Network for the Prevention of Elder Abuse. You have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. This statement is delivered on behalf of the Steering Group of the Global Alliance for the Rights of Older People in consultation with NGOs present at this session. We welcome the proposed timeline, its commitment to involving different stakeholders, and the inclusion of hybrid formats. The success of the drafting process depends on the full and meaningful participation of civil society and older persons in all their diversity. In the spirit of strengthening the clarity and precision of the proposed process, We have the following questions: How will discussions of human rights be taken forward, ensuring the focus is on developing specific, consistent language in the treaty? Where will a discussion on general obligations take place in the thematic segments? What will be the nature and geographical scope of the consultations envisaged between December 26th and April 2027? And could this timeframe be extended to allow greater involvement of marginalized groups? What will the regional consultations from August to September 27th be based on, and how will involvement of all stakeholders be ensured? We also offer the following recommendations for your consideration. First, to ensure the meaningful participation of older persons, Calls for inputs should provide ample time to consult fully so that older persons who can neither travel to Geneva nor be online can have their views and experiences taken into account. National consultations should also take place to allow for meaningful discussions in local languages and accessible formats. Second, all intersectoral consultations and meetings should include non-ECSOC NGOs to ensure diversity and grassroots engagement. Particularly from older persons often excluded, such as those with psychosocial or intellectual disabilities. Third, facilitators for the 5 thematic segments should ensure member states and civil society participation from all regions. Fourth, facilitators should provide clear guiding questions and meeting programs well in advance, and these should be prepared in consultation with civil society. Fifth, facilitators should use a standardized methodology across all 5 thematic segments to support coherence and minimize fragmentation. Finally, the Chair should ensure that representatives of older persons, civil society, and NHRIs are explicitly included in the process of writing the zero draft. The Global Alliance stands ready to mobilize support for this process and will play an active role in the intersectional work. I thank you.

Thank you. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of AgeWell Foundation.

Mr. Chairman, delegates, and friends, AgeWell Foundation welcomes the discussion on the timeline and its proposed steps. While thoroughness is important, we urge the Working Group to move forward with a strong sense of urgency. Societies in the Global South are aging rapidly, and older persons cannot wait many more years for effective international protection. Personally, I have been closely associated with the international aging agenda since the Second World Assembly on Aging in Madrid in 2002, which I attended as a member of the Indian government delegation. The long experience has reinforced the need to balance careful drafting with timely progress. We therefore suggest an ambitious yet realistic timeline that allows for meaningful consultations while keeping the process on the track towards early adoption. We also stand ready to contribute our grounded experience of interacting with more than 25,000 old people every day and the insights gained regularly to the drafting stages. AgeWell Foundation, as an organization holding special consultative status with ECOSOC since 2011 and as a member of the UN ESCAP Shareholders Advisory Group, remains fully committed to supporting an inclusive, context-sensitive, and effective legally binding instrument.

Mr.

Chair, let this process be marked by both wisdom and urgency. The older persons of today and tomorrow deserve a treaty that truly responds to their realities. Nothing about us without us for a future where every older person's voice shapes their rights, dignity, and protection. I thank you.

Thank you. And you just mentioned the summit in Madrid in 2002, and if we reflect upon that, it's practically a quarter of the century. So all these people who were already older persons that participated in that meeting, they don't exist anymore. So there have been so many words, words, words, words, papers, papers, papers, and no action. So we are determined to start the action, and that's why I'm so glad that we started finally. Now I give you the floor, distinguished representative of the Center for Global Nonkilling.

Dear human beings, good morning. Mr. Chair, Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, dear older persons, everyone everywhere, greetings of longevity and human rights. First, excuse me, Chair, for this last statement delivered at this session, I would like to highlight a very large discrimination that has not yet been mentioned. It is slightly out of topic but is surely linked with timelines. I'm addressing in a humble and gentle way, but it's very serious, at least for me and my sort. Why do human males on average live 3 to 5 years less than females? Isn't this profoundly unjust? The data is here, the causes of this are well known. There are biological factors, a few, but not only. Mostly the difference in lifespan is caused by social factors. Thus preventable ones. I put the fact down maybe for varied perspective on gender equality and on the way we progress in common about it. We will see what will happen with it and how it will be addressed in the future. Secondly, on the topic, I repeat what I said yesterday: humanity is immensely rich, and the United Nations has funds that could help small delegations. Two out-of-the-box examples. One would say, no, not UNICEF. Well, it is not so clear. Here in the host state, Switzerland, the greatest children's daycare is by far grandparents. Thanks to them. Another possibility could be the Peacebuilding Fund. Older persons certainly need, and if willing and equipped, do bring peace. Let us see if this can connect. Exploring other possibilities and sharing them with smaller delegations and other stakeholders is important. Finally, I would like to thank the chairs and the core group, all panelists, participants, and supporters, UN staff and employees, including the cleaners. Our work has gone on and has been going on in a visible manner and a clear timeline. It has been a very smooth, well-organized, and very pleasant session. Thank you. May life be bountiful and beautiful for all. See you in October. We stay in touch. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. I give the floor to distinguished representative of ALDE.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you for the timeline for our discussion. As we have stated, participation is a crucial component of of human rights processes. A fundamental part of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities that gives life to this right is Article 4.3, which is part of the general obligations of that treaty. We also attach great importance, as many others have noted, to having general obligations, and that should be a clearly contemplated part of the timeline. The resolution establishing this working group calls upon it to encourage and promote the meaningful participation and engagement of older persons and their representative organizations. We work as part of a coordinated network of GARAP with consultative processes that include older persons organizations who also have consultative processes. In order for representative organizations of older persons to participate in this process, as the working group's establishing resolution calls for, adequate timeframes for sharing information for each point on the timeline is necessary. Just as we have heard from member states, representative organizations of older persons and civil society cannot participate without adequate time. We have 2 questions. First, we note a reference to stakeholders in meetings from December 26th, 2026 to April 2027, but it is not elaborated or continued through the timeline. How have you contemplated addressing the participation of older persons' representative organizations and civil society throughout all of this work? And finally, we note that the resolution establishing this working group requests it to submit a report on progress made to the Human Rights Council for its consideration at its 63rd session, and to make the report available in easy-to-read accessible formats. When does the Working Group anticipate this report being available? We wish again to express our appreciation for this timeline and the opportunity to discuss it with you today.

Thank you, and I give the floor to distinguished representative of Silver Nets. You have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. It is obvious that the legally binding instrument takes time to establish. It must be carefully negotiated, but older persons cannot wait for many more years. So, the timeline must be realistic, but it must also be ambitious. Silbernetz fully aligns itself with the statement of GAROP, including the questions. Allow me to make a few remarks on top. First, the core group should prepare a clear map of the way forward. This map should include loneliness, social isolation, home-based support and digital exclusion. Second, the process must include targeted outreach to older persons who are rarely heard. This cannot be only online. It should include telephone formats, simple written formats, local meetings, and of course cooperation with organisations that are already in contact with isolated older persons. That will take time. Third, the Working Group should move towards a first consolidated draft in due time. A draft text will focus the debate. But— and I apologise for repeating myself— full, meaningful and effective participation and engagement in the drafting process by older persons and their representative organizations is an essential element. Only that will ensure the instrument's legitimacy and effectiveness. Finally, it is important that this process itself becomes more accessible. This is not a small administrative point. It is part of the substance. If the process is too difficult, many voices will be excluded. And of course, papers and other materials should be provided well in time. We urge States to keep momentum and to keep civil society on board. The Convention should be developed with urgency but also with care. Thank you.

Thank you. And I give the floor to the distinguished representative

Thank you, Chair.

Age International is a member of the Global Alliance on the Rights of Older People and aligns itself with the statement presented on its behalf. We thank the Chair and the many member states who affirmed the essential role that older persons and civil society play in the process, and we will focus our remarks on practical measures for making this a reality in the process outlined in the timeline. We welcome the concrete milestones and dates that the timeline provides. This is a necessary and fundamental prerequisite for ensuring the participation of those who are most affected by this treaty, especially those in the Global South. Older persons groups and civil society groups working alongside them require long lead-in times to ensure that those who are hardest to reach and least likely to take part in formal policy dialogues can contribute their experience and expertise. This must be accompanied by the provision of materials and processes that allow all older persons, including those with disabilities, to contribute. This includes, at a minimum, easy-to-read documents written in simple language in multiple languages, the provision of closed captions, sign language interpretation, physical accessibility for in-person meetings, and non-digital options for any consultations. Member States have a critical role in facilitating national and local-level dialogue with civil society in their countries, and should fully resource the participation of those who may be least likely to engage in these consultations because of intersectional discrimination. We also encourage all Member States to include older persons in their delegations to these negotiations as a concrete and tangible expression expression of their commitment to strengthening and promoting the rights of older persons. Finally, we would like to see greater precision in the timeline regarding the production of the zero draft and expect that representatives of older persons and civil society will be part of the formal preparation of the zero draft. We remind Member States that within these groups are those who have drafted previous human rights treaties and those whose lived experiences form the bedrock of this legally binding instrument. The precedent for this participation was set in the drafting of CRPD, and we expect the same commitment to be present in this process. Thank you.

Thank you.

And I give the floor to the distinguished representative of the State of Palestine. You have the floor.

Thank you, Excellency Chair Rapporteur. The State of Palestine thanks the facilitators for presenting the proposed timeline. In our view, this roadmap provides a useful basis for advancing the work of the Working Group in a structured and transparent manner. After discussions and the valuable submissions received during this first session, the process should now progressively move from identifying protection gaps towards elaborating substantive treaty provisions. We therefore support a timeline that maintains momentum and allows sufficient time for inclusive consultations while keeping a clear drafting objective. As we move into the drafting phase, it will be important to ensure that the future instrument remains firmly grounded in international human rights law while clarifying how older persons effectively enjoy their rights in all circumstances, including in situations of risk. Doing so does not expand the normative framework; rather, it gives practical effect to the universal application of human rights for older persons. We also encourage facilitators throughout the thematic discussions to ensure coherent. Across coherence across different sections of the future instrument so that its guiding principles, general obligations, substantive rights, and implementation mechanisms are developed in an integrated and mutually reinforcing manner. Finally, we attach particular importance to ensure broader and meaningful participation throughout the process, including the participation of older persons and their representative organizations, as well as experts and stakeholders from all regions. Mr. Chair, the ultimate measure of success will not be the number of consultations we hold, but our ability to deliver a comprehensive, balanced, and effective legally binding instrument within a reasonable timeframe. Thank you.

Thank you, distinguished representative of State of Palestine. I give the floor to distinguished representative of Aquí de pronto, profesor María Soledad Cisterna Reyes de la Universidad del Alba tiene la palabra.

Muchas gracias, presidente.

Thank you very much, Chair. At the outset, I would like to congratulate you for Thank you, Mr. President. I want to thank you for your courage that has been guiding our work from the very beginning when you said that we have to fully comply with the relevant mandates, but also to respond to the needs to so many older persons throughout the world. And I also agree where you said that this is still an outstanding debt, and this is the reason why there should be no more delays. I believe that the timetable that you have proposed is fully consistent with what we need to do, ensuring the participation of older persons and also reflecting all of their needs, and also the need to include principles, the general obligations of states States, reflecting the very purpose of the convention. In terms of the facilitators, I think we should have real trust that we will be identifying and nominating the most knowledgeable persons. And we need to have periodic meetings that will ensure consistency in our approach. And perhaps one or two persons cannot really be able to cover all of the work. We have 5 thematic approaches, but this is just a pedagogical approach to things without any other implications. I think that it will be very appropriate to— convenient to identify even the first part will refer to political and civil rights, and the second part will relate to economic, social, and environmental rights. Then look at the legal provisions I'd like to reflect in the future instrument. I also would like to say and highlight that the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities had 8 sessions from 2002 to 2006, and that was a time we didn't— when we didn't have the relevant technologies and the different possibilities that we have today. And I believe that this convention could be concluded in 4 years, something we did with the Convention on Persons with Disabilities. Of course, we had sessions of 2 weeks, but we already have a good example and we will be able to conclude our work within a reasonable time frame of 4 years. Thank you.

Muchas gracias.

Thank you very much to Professor Cisternas for your contributions. Very appropriate comments and rest assured that We will be doing all of the— what we need to do as quickly as possible.

Professor Fusako Seki, you have the floor.

I'm Fusako Seki, professor from Japan. I welcome the timeline and offer one proposal. Before drafting the preamble and beyond, one thing is still missing. A shared image of who older persons are. The Convention on the Rights of the Child stands on the image of a person still developing. That is why, to enjoy the universal rights to express one's views, children need safeguards against parental influence. On what image will our instrument stand? My answer is a person who has lived a long life, And is now approaching its final stage. Let us consider this question together. Why does this question come first? This summer, heat waves have taken far more older lives than younger ones in Europe and Japan alike. The Airbnb where I was staying had no air condition. It was hot, but I feel thirst. So I drink water and I do not collapse. Many older persons cannot because aging dulls the sense of heat and thirst. Not only that, in Japan, many older persons die in rooms where air conditioning is installed but not used. They tell themselves, I have lived without it until now, so So I'm fine, I'll be fine. Their long way of living simply continues. This is neither disability nor childhood. It is reality specific to old age. From this image, we can derive the elements that matter for older persons' rights and interests. I have proposed 3. The first is temporality. The time remaining is limited. The second is continuity, respecting the life, relationships, and habits built over many years. As the air conditioning example shows, continuing continuity is a strength to protect and also a fragility that needs life-saving care. The third is recognition of the life lived. Older persons are not only persons to be supported, They built today's societies. Hence my proposal. In the November call for inputs, please ask 2 questions: the human image of older persons and the considerations specific to older age that follows. Could the facilitators kindly begin with these 2 questions? Civil society knows these lives best, and its knowledge will enrich that image. This may look like a detour, yet I'm convinced it is the shortest road to a solid preamble and definitions. Thank you.

Thank you, distinguished representative, Professor Fusako Seki. And I would, I would like to reflect something about what you just said. Regarding the lack of air conditioning. And in a way, I'm, I'm very glad that that happens because that happens in Europe where it costs a lot of lives, thousands. What do you think happens in Africa where I lived for many years? They don't have air conditioning and there's a lot of places with a lot of hot, very, very Very high temperatures. And that happens in a very— it's very common that that happens all the time. So that is something very important to take into account, because there's a lot of old people there that also die every year. But you know what? I mean, the media probably doesn't care about that, because it's not in Europe. Or it's not in— in developed countries. So that's why we have to look for an inclusive process where everybody can participate and give the experiences, because now we experience all these problems with the hot weather here, blah, blah, blah. Well, there are many, many countries, not only in Africa but also other countries, that they don't have the resources to have air conditioning very comfortable everywhere. And there's a lot of older persons everywhere. They die every year, but you don't even know that. That's really sad. Sorry about this reflection, but I mean, what I'm trying to say is that we have to think beyond our horizon, because sometimes our horizon is very limited. And the idea of this process should be completely inclusive, globally inclusive, and not centered in one place that we have certain problems. I mean, there are many, many problems in the world. So we have to extend the capacity of our mind to understand what happens in many, many other places. And I give the floor to distinguished representative for Global Initiative of Aging and LGBT. Thank you.

Señor Presidente, primero mi felicitación. Thank you, Chair. At the outset, I'd like to thank you for the timetable document that you presented, presented both by Argentina and Brazil. The document includes a reference to regional consultations that focus on the participation of civil society of the Global South. I believe that such consultations are of crucial importance since they include, in terms of what we're doing here, The voice of regions, as you correctly said, are not in a position to be in Geneva, do not have the economic opportunities to be here, and this helps us have a broader range of opinions and views. I also believe that we should ensure, as you said, a better level of coordination between the conference services in order to be able to participate. And I think we listened to 57 countries expressing their views and also a very large number of NGOs. These were valuable contributions, but also it is important to ensure greater levels of participation. And I'd like to suggest to the chair to present a report or a request to regional groups related to the progress achieved with these initiatives and how can we ensure greater participation of states in our work. Now, on the issue of general obligations, I would like to say I would like to say once again that I agree with many of the speakers who spoke before. The basic rules that we need to include for the convention are already included in some other conventions. For example, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Article 4, for example, Article 4 refers to obligations, and then we have other articles that really depend on what we have in Article 4. And I agree with what you said and also the commitment of Argentina and Brazil, the need to move forward rapidly on this process. And again, as we said and our colleague from Guatemala said, Older persons can no longer wait. And we remember the Madrid Agreement. There have been 4 cycles since, I believe, and I think, as you said, it is high time to act. So thank you very much and congratulations. Thank you.

Thank you very much for your contribution and your support. And for very appropriate comments.

Well, now, this was my last speaker in my list and I give you the floor back to the distinguished representative of Argentina and Brazil for concluding remarks and answer questions. I think many of them have been raised. Really very, very productive, very positive, and this is exactly what we're looking for, the active participation of everybody. So then this is the idea, that everybody can actually contribute to this process. And if we are not on the right track, I really like you to give us ideas and comments so that we can go back on track. Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Argentina. You have the floor.

Thank you very much, Chairman. Since I began working on this topic, on this issue, at the beginning of December 2024, and then culminating with the adoption of the resolution by the Council, thanks to all of your support and the co-sponsors, Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the delegation, sponsors, members. A large part of the spirit of our work has been guided by the fact that there needs to be precedence in terms of substance over discussions, but these discussions aren't the starting point or the finish line. So we fully support the comment from Nigeria and the proposal from the core group to present the timeline now. That's what we wanted to do. We wanted to incorporate expectations from many member states who've voiced their concerns to us over recent months. With the comments made by various delegations regarding the hierarchy of rights, this is a concern. That we take note of. We understand that this is a subjective assessment that's important. It wasn't necessarily the idea of the core group at the time of including this issue in the proposal that we circulated for your consideration today. The issue of small delegations and their participation in these debates is something that we are concerned about on an ongoing basis, and that's why we always include general debates in all of our meetings. This facilitates participation of colleagues and delegations from smaller Delegations, and that's why the October session will be very substantive and discussions will take place consecutively and not simultaneously, not in parallel, as we discuss the different elements. On consistency, coherence, and coordination, this is to be ensured by the chair, the facilitators. The facilitators will make proposals. We will hear from members. commit at the last minute and not necessarily having a— it's not that having a document months in advance will make up for the political will to achieve the consensus required in terms of adoption of the final report. In terms of international cooperation, that is part, as we see from the core group, that's part of the mandate of the facilitators. Working on issues of monitoring and implementation, also working on the final provisions of the treaty, as one delegation already spoke about their interest in reservations that they may accept in any future instrument. When we were negotiating the resolution, we talked to a number of you in private, in the coffee bar, in very informal meetings, the process of NGOs that don't have paid employees in Geneva and their inclusion. And this is one of the absolute priorities, not only of the penholder of the resolution, the core group, and of many of the states that co-sponsored the resolution. This is one of the issues— with all due respect to the big NGOs who do have paid staff in Geneva and are always here with their responsible commitment, but including NGOs in this process that don't have permanent offices in Geneva, this is a priority, an absolute priority, and we would reiterate our commitment to having them involved in the process. The sense of urgency has always been there. There have been many stakeholders who have said, well, why has the resolution been so quick to come before the Council in March last year? It's a comment that we take note of, and we took note of indeed with a great deal of respect, but we don't believe it's up to the core group or the current or future chair to be called into question on that. We believe that we take it as a message to all stakeholders involved in the process to— so that we work actively, effectively towards a treaty in as short a time as possible, renewing and reiterating our commitment to that and to the need to move forward. In terms of hybrid modalities, this is a complex issue. From a technical perspective, the challenges of ensuring multilingualism, we've committed to Studying the concerns that have been voiced in detail and in depth, we will come back to you with a proposal or a counter-proposal over the next few months as the meetings get closer, if there are meetings that could be held in, in hybrid. In terms of regional consultations, we know that there are government delegates that are supporting this process, but following the approval of the resolution, this is something that we did talk about. I would just recall we talked about it with many states who approached us when we were talking about the text before it was adopted, and we didn't incorporate a paragraph covering A consultation process with inputs with the regular budget of the United Nations that was in line with what member states wanted. So it's not an excuse to work less. It's a message that we need to recall.

It's already been discussed.

Thank you.

As we discussed, it threw up challenges, and as the core group will be working to address this in the most responsible way possible over the next few months, I'm sure the incoming chair will also look to work on this matter because the Office of the High Commissioner, as I was saying, they don't have the necessary budget to support support our work or participation of developing countries or NGOs in regional consultations. On the October meeting, I just want to reiterate that it will be very substantive and I would ask you to pay a great deal of attention to the following— to the closing comments of the Chair because we will be explaining our priorities very clearly for the session that will be happening soon.

Thank you.

Thank you. Now I'll give you the floor to distinguished representative of Brazil. You have the floor.

Thank you, Ambassador. Thank you for all the delegations. The comments are very useful. I understand the idea of having a timeline received wide support, but also some, some, some suggestions and some comments that will be taken into account. First, the idea that this timeline should be flexible, that's important, I believe. We, we are not trying to put the negotiation in a straitjacket. It's just to have a framework for, for to guide our work. So this, this, this suggestion that it should be flexible is well, well understood. Second, a number of questions and suggestions asking for details about all the steps that we, we have mentioned in this timeline. And yes, the idea is that we— you should receive more detailed guidelines about each step. In this document, we were very brief. It's a one-pager document. So, but yes, we understand that we should give you more details in each step of these timelines. There was a suggestion for a clear call for inputs. That's also important. That what we ask you to provide us in terms of subsidies are clear, focused, and that you then can provide this information in a useful manner. Just one small— a number of comments about the list of 5 facilitators and why did we choose. Well, first, the idea— it was also mentioned and suggested that this should not be exhaustive in terms, meaning that we are not here with this list trying to say that we don't want something in the agreement. It's just a way to, you know, just a way to structure the work, but Any suggestions should be taken aboard. This question about list of rights, why Part 1 and Part 2, this is not in any way trying to present a hierarchy between those rights. That's not the idea of the NOHRR hierarchy. They are interdependent rights. It's just that this is the core of the agreement. We heard the suggestion about having 2 facilitators dealing with the whole body of rights. That's an idea, but it's just that this— it's not these 5 facilitators they should have more or less the same amount of work and importance. So, so that's why we— and, and, and the list of rights, it's, it's basically the, the idea that these will be a big challenge to arrive on that. Then the, the There was mentioned a suggestion that our zero draft— we put this on October 27th, presenting this zero draft to be then discussed in the 4th session. And it was asked that there is some sufficient time to delegations to consider this zero draft before, before the session. So that's, that's Well taken on board.

Thank you.

That's that's of course that's important. Let me also say that these drafts will be discussed in in in many occasions. So maybe after this initial presentation, we could have a discussion at some depth and then proceed to to have more in-depth discussions in the next. Sessions, but that's well understood, this suggestion. There was the important comment on vulnerable groups and multiple forms of discrimination. That's also important, and the participation of older persons and civil society throughout the whole process. That's the idea, and we mentioned that. The idea of geographical balance on these consultations. The question of what types of documents should these regional consultations provide in the end of them— well, that's also one of the things that we should, yes, have the details in due time. There are a number of Answers to that could be maybe chair summary or report, so that these regional consultations then feed in in in the in the main negotiation. So I believe well it was mentioned also that about the five these five topics was mentioned general principles. Supposed general obligations of states, as Sebastian mentioned, cooperation and technical assistance, the scope, all of that will have, yes, indeed to be discussed. And as I said, it's not— we believe that these 5 topics that we presented should, yes, include all of these issues, and it will depend on the facilitators ability and coordination also. They will have to have a strong coordination so that makes sure that everything, all of these aspects are included. Thank you, thank you, Chair.

Thank you, distinguished representative of Brazil and distinguished representative of Argentina, for your clarifications. You may have the guarantee that all these comments and contributions, observations will be taken into account. That's what we are here for. And considering that we have some time, we will pass to agenda item 5 for conclusions. We now move to the adoption of the report of this session. This draft report of the first session has been circulated to all the delegations, and I propose that the Working Group adopt the draft report of its first session at referendum. I will finalize the report with the assistance of the Secretariat. Upon the circulation, delegations will have 2 weeks to submit their comments. May I now propose that the Working Group adopt its referendum— its report at referendum? I see no objection. Ipso declared. Excellencies, distinguished participants, this brings us to the end of the first session of the Intergovernmental Working Group on the Human Rights of Older Persons. And I will switch to Spanish to give my final remarks.

Excelencias, distinguished delegates, colleagues, and friends. As we conclude this first substantive meeting of our Working Group, I wanted to start with just 2 simple words: thank you. Thank you to delegations, thank you to national human rights institutions, thank you to civil society organizations, and thank you to each and every one of you for having shown that it is possible to debate something firmly without renouncing respect. It's possible to defend convictions without not listening or continuing to listen. And it's possible to sustain positions without closing the door on dialogue. Some years ago, I heard a story that always comes to mind when negotiations conclude. An elderly engineer said that the best work of his life, the most wonderful thing he'd ever built, was a bridge. He was asked what the secret was behind this amazing bridge, and he answered that nobody talks about it. They just cross it. The best bridges are the ones which unite shores without themselves becoming the protagonists. And I think that's exactly what we've begun to build here. We're not trying to write a document just for the simple fact of having a text to produce. We are building the bridges of trust that one day will enable this text to exist, to be accepted, and above all, to be useful. And that is why I particularly wanted to thank the dozens of states and the over 200 representatives of national human rights institutions, non-governmental organizations, and other stakeholders who have presented and submitted written and oral contributions. None of them will be forgotten. They will all be a vital input to serve to guide our work. Because we're not building a treaty from scratch, we are taking the first steps in complying with the mandate that the Human Rights Council have given us. And although there is still a long road to travel, I genuinely believe that we are concluding this session today with a much more robust basis than that which— with which we started. And now the really important phase begins. During the intersessional period, I will conduct consultations to appoint the facilitators who will support our thematic discussions in October. I trust I'll be able to form a team that is balanced representative, and that will help Member States, with the valuable support of other stakeholders, to guide and conduct this process in an orderly, efficient, and transparent way. Our October meeting will be a clear and predictable roadmap, and we will begin announcing the facilitators and providing a space for general statements, which is particularly useful for smaller delegations. Then we will successively address the preamble, definitions which may be necessary, the enumeration of the rights, and lastly the chapters on monitoring, implementation, international cooperation, and the final provisions. We won't yet be negotiating a text article by article. We will be building the common ground that will make that phase possible. The weeks between now and October will be key, and it'll be my last meeting as chair of this working group, So I wanted to invite all delegations to come with clear instructions, with concrete proposals, and where possible supported by examples that will enable us to better understand the stances. And I take note of the request to send the text as early as possible. Once that meeting is over, the Chair will open a new call for inputs to receive written contributions that will enable us to develop and refine the ideas that emerge from our debates. But there's something more important than the timeframe. The legitimacy of this process will not only depend on the legal quality of the instrument that we're able to draft. It will depend above all on our capacity to build a text that inspires confidence, a text that is politically inclusive, legally robust and solid, and respectful of the diversity of perspectives represented in this room. None of us will get exactly the instrument that we envisaged at the beginning of the process. That's the nature of any and all collective construction. But if we act with intelligence and generosity, we will all be able to contribute to a better instrument than any of us— than anything we could have written individually. I'm particularly pleased to note that the different approaches have never prevented mutual respect, and this spirit, I think, is probably the greatest achievement of this week so far. None of this would have been possible without the extraordinary support of the Core Group. My deepest thanks go to the ambassadors of Brazil, Slovenia, Philippines, and Gambia, as well as your teams, for your tireless commitment and professionalism. My gratitude and thanks are also extended to the experts and panelists who have enriched our debates, to the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, particularly to the Deputy High Commissioner, To Khaled Kassim and the whole Secretariat team, whose silent work behind the scenes has made this meeting possible, and to our interpreters, thanks to whose talent I'm able to address you in different languages and in my mother tongue like now. To those who've traveled from various corners of the world to be here, I thank you for your efforts, and to our colleagues who are based in Geneva, thank you for your daily commitment. I wish you all a safe journey home, a fruitful intercessional period, and I do genuinely hope to see you all back here in October. And when we come back to sit around this table again, we'll talk again about definitions, monitoring mechanisms, international cooperation, and final provisions. These words are important, but we mustn't forget that they only— they remain merely words until they are able to transform the lives of people, because behind every legal concept Behind every proposal, behind every decision that we adopt, there are millions of older persons who are hoping and looking for something very simple: that this process contributes to better protecting their dignity, their rights, and their place in our societies. Dear colleagues, Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, friends, many years ago, somebody asked 3 builders what they were doing. The first answered, I am placing bricks. The second said, I'm building a wall. But the third looked up and answered, I am building a cathedral. Let us aspire to us all together— governments, NGOs, civil society— being able to answer when we're asked in the future, what are we doing? And we can say without doubt, without hesitation, that we together are building a beautiful cathedral to protect with dignity the older persons, all older persons across the whole world. And that is the challenge of our generation and it is our unavoidable collective responsibility. Thank you very much indeed.