5th Meeting, 1st session of the Intergovernmental Working Group on Older Persons (IGWG)

Good afternoon, Excellencies, distinguished participants. I declare open the 5th meeting of the Intergovernmental Working Group on the Human Rights of Older Persons. This afternoon we will resume our plenary discussions under item 4. Señoras y señores distinguidos—

Ladies and gentlemen, Dear colleagues, Excellencies, and friends, as we begin this segment, it is my pleasure to present to you the document. I would like to be clear from the very start: this document is not a draft treaty. It is not expecting any results nor is it trying to predefine any particular format or architecture. Quite simply, it is an invitation to begin. It has been drafted bearing in mind the contributions of States as well as the comments that have been made during this process and the views of national institutions, experts, and civil society. It seeks to identify amid legitimate differences, possible starting points for discussion. Because if one day we do want to have a legally binding instrument, then we must begin by asking ourselves how we're going to change our expectations into rights. How are we going to give greater clarity to the principles, to have more specificity in the obligations, and to make the whole Consistent. We're not starting with a blank page. There is a vast corpus of international human rights law, and our task is to see if we can build upon it, to add to it wherever necessary, and to address the protection gaps that we have heard of so frequently in this room. And we must recall an essential point. Any instrument that ends up coming out of this process will not be written alone. It will be the result of a convergence of wills. It must cross borders, legal systems, and different traditions. It must be understood by governments and presented to the constitutional processes of nearly 200 countries. That is the sheer size of the task before us. But it is also the vast size of our responsibility. Which is why this document is not closing any doors. Indeed, it is opening them all up. It does not present conclusions. Rather, it raises questions. It doesn't tell us what our endpoint shall be. It simply tells us, or suggests to us, a starting point for our common travels. The document you have before you now can change, be transformed, can be fit into, or even significantly reworded. And that is honestly what we expect from this debate. And it is in that spirit of openness that I invite you to share your observations, your criticisms, and proposals. The document is open for discussion. The debate has been launched, and now all of you have the floor. Thank you.

Now my colleague Sebastián Covarro to introduce the Food for Thought paper. Mr. Covarro, you have the floor.

Thank you.

Muchas gracias, señor presidente.

Thank you very much, sir. Excellencies, colleagues, delegates coming from capitals, representatives of the national human rights institutions, of civil society entities, of organizations of older persons. Ladies and gentlemen, today is a historic day. Up until yesterday, most of the discussions On the recognition of the human rights of older persons gravitated around why we should have a legally binding instrument at all. As of today, the discussions turn around what this instrument should be. In this framework, the Chair has decided to propose the inclusion of a 3-hour segment into the work program on our assessment of any and all issues that might garner a consensus. And so, in light of that, last week we distributed a document that has an introduction, a suggested structure for a treaty, and regulatory principles. And so, the introduction includes a reminder of the adoption of Resolution 58/13 of the Human Rights Council, in virtue of which we find ourselves here today. And we point out the importance of recognizing the demographic trends of the 21st century. Characterized by aging, by low birth rates, and by the challenges faced by the social security systems. In the preamble of the treaty, we say that some of the issues to be addressed shall be the human dignity of older persons and equality before the law. Democratic transition, of which we spoke just a moment ago, how important it is to include in the process every stakeholder, recognizing that older persons are not a homogenous group. And additionally, in the general provisions, principles and scope of application, We suggest that we should avoid a rigid definition of older persons and that we postpone the discussion to the national level and that we define principles such as equality before the law and non-discrimination on the grounds of age. From the practice of other international instruments, we see that a legally binding instrument Ought to bring in other principles as well, such as freedom, the right to development of their own personhood, duties and responsibilities of the community, privacy, the inclusive participation anchored on equal opportunities, equality and non-discrimination, with an express prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of age, And recognizing the interdependence to find a balance between resilience and family support. Additionally, we identified some cross-cutting topics, among them recognizing national and cultural diversity, the family support systems, and community support systems in keeping with applicable law. Among the substantive rights, we believe that the very core of the instrument ought to include an approach of equal opportunities, a positive translation of state obligations into rights and obligations for older persons, Full equality before independent, impartial courts and tribunals in keeping with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other treaties. Freedom from abuse, negligence. The right to health. The right to private property and a decent life. long-term care, digital inclusion, and the opportunities that come from the right of education. All of these provisions stand to be clarified as appropriate, subject to national legislation in the framework of what is available for the obligations of a state In keeping with different contexts and national possibilities, including accessibility and the availability of quality services. Regarding the implementation, we note very strong support to the contributions that have been received. To a robust implementation mechanism and establishing a committee with periodic obligations to report. The participation of the older persons themselves in any activities regarding the future treaty can be clarified among member states In order to arrive at a standard of international law that would emerge from these negotiations. In addition, the future treaty, in our view, should have ratification clauses, clauses of entry into force and amendments, in line with the Vienna Convention on the Right— the Laws of Treaties. And recognize that any topics that are not directly addressed in the final provisional section ought to be considered in light of the Convention, as for example withdrawal following a 1-year notification timeframe. Among the regulatory principles that we believe could assist in guiding its effective implementation We have that a rights-based approach on aging can be useful in recognizing, of course, the paradigm shift of charity and welfare to one of rights, the freedom and the right to development and the personhood of old persons. We also believe that the instrument ought to strike a balance between supporting decision-making and the respect for the will and preferences of the person. Also, we believe that care, as a human right, and redefined as a several-stakeholder responsibility that is not just limited to the family and doesn't ignore it, Is an area in which regulation, financing, and oversight is needed, as well as the prevention of abuse and negligence. Now, that would include setting quality standards, as well as a code of conduct for geriatric institutions, as well as the recognition of the course of life perspective, given that inequalities accrue throughout time with the concomitant need to develop preventive policies, which is also addressed. And lastly, to recognize that older persons are not a homogeneous group. The instrument can address as well discrimination against women, Persons with disabilities, rural life, persons under institutionalized care, as well as people requiring support. It is our hope that this document will contribute to guide our deliberations and can be used as one of the foundations to continue to build together a robust and broadly shared instrument that would lead to a consensus. Thank you very much, sir.

Thank you, Mr. Kovalu. Now I open the floor for an interactive discussion. Floor is open. I see that the distinguished representative of Malta Please, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Rapporteur. First of all, Malta aligns with the EU statement to be delivered shortly. Malta thanks you and the Secretariat for making the Food for Thought paper available for consideration by delegations as the process of elaborating a legally binding instrument commences. We also considered this paper together with the compilation of submissions document because in our view they should not be handled separately. Mr. Chair-Rapporteur, the present comment will include 2 segments, one specifically on the Food for Thought paper and the other on submissions made including by Malta. The Food for Thought paper is in our view a first early draft proposal for this Intergovernmental Working Group's work. In the Preambular Section, it is noticeable that the well-established concept of the enjoyment of human rights, an inherent right to all, is missing. The LBI should establish ab initio not just dignity and equality, but reaffirm older persons' enjoyment of human rights in toto. An additional issue of concern, also applicable throughout the paper, is the introduced concept of duties. In our assessment, the formulation listed in the preamble part of the paper does not accurately reflect Article 29 of the UDHR and seeks to expand the principle beyond its current normative understanding. We express our cautious approach on this point, noting in this LBI— that in this LBI should be drafted to imply that the well-established principle of persons being the rights holders and the duty— and that the duty is on the state to promote, protect, and defend implementation of all human rights is modified or reversed. Certainly, this process should not be a vehicle for reinterpretation of any longstanding norms and principles. This position applies for such references in Section 1, Preamble, Roman II principles, Roman III cross-cutting issues, Section 3 substantive rights, Roman 4, subsection 2, a human rights-based approach to aging. Moving on to the definition section, we would like to ask for clarification on the source of language for the term right to development of their own personality. We would consider it useful if the eventual legally binding instrument would utilize language which has already been well established in an effort to not create confusion of terms. Also with other definitions which are unrelated to older persons. We would thus suggest changing every reference to dignity and the free development of their personality in line with Article 22 of the UDHR. This applies to Section 4, Subsection 1, entitled A Human Rights-Based Approach to Aging. In Section 3, Substantive Rights, we seek a clarification on what the 3rd bullet means. Since it is referring to independent and impartial tribunals, and then lists the UDHR as an example. We are not aware that there are any tribunals or similar structures associated with the UDHR. Under Section 3, Care as a Human Rights Issue, Malta expresses its caution on proposals which seem to imply developing a code of conduct. We do not believe that this is the role of function of the eventual LBI. Additionally, Malta believes that this elaboration process should limit itself to its mandate and not attempt to include other elements which may seem valid but do fall outside the scope of the legally binding instrument, such as the notion in the same section of support to informal caregivers. Our understanding is that such items are handled under national employment law and standards. Only a few more sentences left. In Section 5, entitled Discrimination, we also seek clarification on what basis was this listing formulated and whether contributions from states and civil society were consulted in its compilation. As always, creating lists inherently carries the risk of exclusion. In this sense, we ask why gender-diverse persons are not included in this section, or in the paper as a whole? Gender-diverse persons, as we know, also become older persons and thus would enjoy the provisions of any future legally binding instruments. Furthermore, was consideration given to include in this listing indigenous and minority groups? This is by no means presented as a definitive list on our part, but an indicative one. As part of this process, the Intergovernmental Working Group should develop a legally binding instrument that is inclusive and one that also caters for possibly marginalized groups. Having presented Malta's initial reaction to the Food for Thought paper, we also suggest that the paper should be further enhanced beyond the generic approach, which is often limited in its scope. An LBI should take into account current issues and trends and not limit itself to the traditional aspects of the rights of older persons. We propose in this regard that older persons' right to make their own choices is clearly introduced and not just limited to the aforementioned personality development, and it should also delve deeper into issues of active participation in all aspects of civil and political rights, in enjoyment of all civil, cultural, economic, and social rights as the right holders. Digital inclusion, as already mentioned briefly in the paper, should be further strengthened as this concept will be highly important for older persons as more services become more online-oriented. Thank you.

Thank you, distinguished representative of Malta. Thank you for your contributions, your observations. As I said, this is an open project and we had to fill it up among all of us, so I think all these observations will take into account like anybody else. I, I will ask please if we can limit the speech to 3 minutes, if you also can, so everybody will be able to participate today. And I give you the floor to distinguished representative of Portugal. You have the floor.

Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairperson. We align ourselves with the statement to be delivered by the EU on behalf of its member states. Portugal thanks you once again for sharing the Food for Thought paper on guiding principle and structure, which, as you mentioned in your opening remarks, is a starting point for our discussion today. We welcome the many areas of common understanding reflected in the proposal and linked to our national submission, including the affirmation of the inherent dignity of older persons, equality before the law and non-discrimination, the promotion of equal opportunities, the recognition that older persons should enjoy all human rights and freedoms on an equal basis with others, and the importance attached to participation, inclusion and protection from abuse, violence and neglect. We also note the proposal's acknowledgement that older persons are not a homogeneous group and its emphasis on ensuring that legal and policy frameworks respond to the realities of ageing. In light of these shared objectives, we would welcome further insights on 2 issues that have emerged prominently throughout the discussion on the future Convention. While the proposal already contains references to equality, non-discrimination and equal opportunities, Would you see merit in explicitly addressing ageism within the future instrument, particularly in light of the prominence this issue has received throughout the discussions of this Working Group? How do you see the relationship between combating ageism and achieving the objectives on equality and non-discrimination already reflected in the text? Additionally, do you see merit in strengthening the references to the role of older persons as active participants in society, and in further developing how the future instrument should safeguard their autonomy, including their ability to make decisions in accordance with their own will and preferences. Thank you very much.

Thank you, distinguished representative of Portugal. Thank you for your contributions. Now I give the floor to distinguished representative of Austria. You have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Rapporteur. Austria aligns its statement as well with the statement to be delivered by the EU later on, and we would like to thank for preparing the food for thought paper on guiding principles and structure. The future convention will require further discussion, this is clear, refinement as well, as well as supplementation. It will be important to ensure that its structure reflects the lived realities of older persons in all their diversity and across different regions, social contexts, and life situations. Austria agrees that the future instrument should follow a clear and coherent structure. It should include a preamble, general principles, definitions, or a provision of scope, substantive rights, implementation and monitoring provisions, and a final clause. We would also see merit in considering a section on general obligations of States, Such a section could provide guidance on the types of measures States may take to support implementation of the Convention, including legislative, administrative, policy and awareness-raising measures, taking into account different national contexts and capacities. For Austria, the instrument must be firmly rights-based. It should respond not merely to demographic ageing, but to structural barriers, ageism and discrimination that prevent older persons from enjoying their human rights on an equal basis with others. In this regard, we believe that ageism should be explicitly addressed. Ageism is not only a matter of individual attitudes. It is a structural factor that can lead to exclusion, unequal treatment, violence, lack of access to services, and the denial of autonomy and participation. The convention should build on and not weaken existing human rights standards. This is particularly important in relation to gender equality, disability rights, legal capacity, autonomy, independent living, community inclusion, and protection against multiple and intersectional discrimination. Austria also supports a flexible, functional rights-based understanding of older age. The approach developed by the 2014 Council of Europe recommendation may provide useful inspiration. At the same time, the definition should remain adaptable, allowing it to respond to evolving societal realities and potential changes in the global context, while remaining consistent with the object and purpose of the instrument. On care and support, Austria recognizes their importance for the effective enjoyment of human rights of older age. However, the precise legal framing of obligations in this area requires further discussions, taking into account national systems, competences, and responsibilities. We would suggest focusing on human rights-compliant, accessible, affordable, and quality-assured care and support systems, including oversight, accountability, support for informal carers, and decent working conditions for care workers. Finally, Austria would like to highlight social isolation and loneliness as important cross-cutting challenges. They should be addressed through social inclusion, participation, accessible services, and community-based support. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, distinguished representative of Austria, and thank you for your contributions. Now I give the floor to distinguished representative of Nigeria.

Thank you, Chair. Nigeria thanks you for preparing this thoughtful paper. We consider it as a useful basis for beginning our substantive discussions and appreciate the efforts to identify possible elements of a future instrument without prejudging the outcome of our negotiations. Nigeria considers that the proposed structure provides a logical framework for our work. From the preamble to guiding principles, substantive rights, implementation, and final provisions broadly follow the architecture of existing international human rights treaties and provides a practical basis for our discussion. We also welcome the recognition that older persons are not a homogeneous group and the proposal to avoid a a rigid definition of older persons. Demographic realities like life expectancy and national legal frameworks differ considerably across countries. Accordingly, some degree of flexibility to reflect national realities and contexts is both appropriate and necessary. Mr. Chair, Nigeria particularly welcomes the emphasis placed on respect for national and cultural diversity. Community and family support systems, and intergenerational solidarity as guiding principles. More importantly, we welcome the balanced approach reflected in the paper, which recognizes not only the rights of older persons but also the important role of families, communities, and intergenerational solidarity in promoting their dignity and well-being. As reflected in our general system— general statement, in many societies, particularly in Africa, families remain the first source of care and support for our older peoples. We therefore consider it important that any future instrument should recognize and strengthen that role while complementing rather than replacing the primary responsibility of states. With regard to substantive rights proposed, we appreciate that the paper seeks to build on existing international human rights law while responding to the realities associated with aging. As our discussions progress, it will be important to ensure that the future instrument complements existing human rights treaties and remains practical and implementable across different national contexts. Nigeria also believes that greater prominence should be given to the economic rights and economic empowerment of older persons. For many developing countries, the challenge extends beyond healthcare and long-term care to inadequate income security, limited pension coverage, and insufficient social protection. Measures that strengthen pension systems, expand social protection and support opportunities for older persons, who wish to remain economically active deserve greater attention. In our view, economic dignity is an essential component of aging with dignity. Finally, with regards to implementation frameworks, while effective monitoring is important, any institutional arrangement should be practical, efficient, and mindful of existing treaty body mechanisms. At the same time, the implementation framework should recognize that for many developing countries, the challenge is often not a lack of political will but limited fiscal space and institutional capacity. In this regard, the future instrument should also recognize that national implementation is strengthened by an enabling international environment that addresses structural obstacles to development and allows states that the policy space and the resources necessary to fulfill their obligation towards other persons in accordance with national priorities and circumstances. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, distinguished representative of Nigeria. I'm going to ask you again, please, if you could reduce your speech to 3 minutes because I have a long list of speakers, fortunately. And there's a lot of interest in the provider statements, and I really think it's a very positive message. But I mean, at the same time, it is important that everybody will have the chance to speak. And now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Mexico.

Distinguished representative of Mexico has the floor.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair Rapporteur. We would like to thank you for the opportunity to begin this process for a reflective and constructive dialogue on the principle that must underpin a legally binding instrument on the human rights of older persons, as well as the structure and scope of application of said instrument. We would have liked to have this document a little bit more ahead of time in order to properly review it.

Thank you.

The recognition that older persons are not a homogeneous group, the intersection between disability and age, the importance of addressing the gap between rural and urban areas. However, we highlight a few things that we believe are missing from the document that could be aligned with international rules and standards in the area of human rights. First, it is important to begin from the premise that older persons rights holders, and that states are the primary duty bearers responsible for respecting, protecting, and fulfilling their rights. Secondly, we must start from the understanding that all human rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent, and interrelated, as well as the principle of progressive realization of human rights. While we must bear in mind the importance of diverse national and cultural contexts, It is the state's duty to promote and protect all human rights, regardless of their political, economic, and cultural system, as established by the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action. Third, it is essential to highlight the importance of the autonomy of older persons, the respect and protection of their legal personhood, as well as the right to independent life and inclusion in the community. These are core topics. Fourth, we believe that it is important for references to care and support systems to be aligned with the terminology, definition, and concepts that were adopted already in various international bodies, including the Human Rights Council, the General Assembly, the ILO, as well as by agencies such as UN Women and the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. In this regard, it must be recognized that older persons may require care and support, but that often, in many cases, it is they who provide care for family members, Particularly older women. Care is shared responsibility in families, communities, and private sector, and the state. And so in this context, ensuring access to care and support systems is primarily an obligation of states, so that the enjoyment of rights does not depend on capacities of family members. Care work, whether paid or unpaid, has been recognized as work within the framework of the ILO. While those receiving care and support must never be seen as a burden or obstacle, it is important to recognize that care responsibilities fall disproportionately on women, particularly older women, and this compromises their own care needs and their own enjoyment of their rights.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Representative of Mexico. Thank you for your contributions and your observations. Now I'd like to give the floor to the Representative of Cuba. You have the floor, sir.

Thank you very much, Chair, and we would like to thank you for the food-for-thought document in order to guide our work with a view to drafting a legally binding instrument. We would like to make the following comments and preliminary suggestions. One, regarding the structure of a future treaty convention, it is Cuba's opinion that any future instrument ought to include the next 8 main sections: Preamble, Purposes and Scope, Definitions, Principles, Obligations of States, International Follow-up Mechanism, Technical Support and International Cooperation, and Final Provisions. We are open to consider proposals from other delegations on the structure of the instrument, including the possibility of adding yet other sections in addition to the one we have proposed. Regarding the preamble, sir, we would like to propose including a reference saying that the rights included in the future international instrument are universal, indivisible, and interdependent, and that they are related to each other. We should also include a paragraph recognizing the need for international cooperation, technical assistance, and solidarity, including South-South cooperation, in order to support developing countries' efforts in the progressive fulfillment of the obligations arising from a future instrument, and to also include an explicit reference to the negative and disproportionate impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of the rights of older persons, particularly as regards access to medication, medical technology, geriatric equipment, and long-term care services. Regarding the definitions, In order to guarantee normative clarity, the future instrument ought to define key concepts such as older person, age discrimination, autonomy, care, among others. We believe that it is important for definitions to be formulated in such a way that the future instrument is regulatory clear, but at the same time it allows every State Party to have enough leeway and flexibility to adapt these concepts to their national contexts and to their respective national legislations. In other words, Cuba is in favor of flexible definitions, contextual definitions regarding the principles, and this we have referred to already in our statement during the general debate regarding the UN— respective UN principles, principles of universality, indivisibility, and interdependence and interrelation of human rights. Recognition of older persons as full right holders of all human rights. Recognition of the central role of the State in promoting social protection policies for older persons. And a focus on the importance of international cooperation and technical assistance. Regarding States' obligations: An express prohibition of any type of age-based discrimination and the obligation to adopt the legislative and administrative measures Appropriate to prevent and eradicate these practices. Guarantee the rights of older persons to take decisions about their own lives. To guarantee the right of older persons to fully and effectively participate. To guarantee the right of older persons to health, education, food, and social security, among other rights. States' responsibility to guarantee equal access to care services for older persons in economic vulnerability, and the state's obligation to not impose and immediately put an end to collateral measures imposed against other states that have a negative impact on attaining the purposes and goals of the future instrument. On the implementation, I will say something during tomorrow's interactive dialogue for the sake of time, and I want to highlight that we believe it's important to have a specific section on international assistance and cooperation, and that in order to facilitate State Parties, regardless of their respective obligations, to share at different levels and under different modalities their experiences, their knowledge, and their resources in order to bring about the purposes and principles of the instrument. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Representative of Cuba. Thank you for your contributions.

Representative of the League of Arab States, you have the floor.

Thank you, President. The League of Arab States acknowledges the importance of this document and the instrument. It's important to take into consideration the distinction between rural areas and urban areas. We also need to ensure there is a follow-up and assessment as well as mechanisms for training officials, and we need to ensure that proper policies are in place to implement this instrument at a national level. And we need to take into consideration the role of regional organizations in the implementation of this instrument. Thank you.

Thank you, distinguished representative of the League of Arab States. Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Brazil.

Brazil has the floor.

Let me begin by expressing our sincere appreciation to Argentina for preparing and sharing this paper. We commend your leadership and your commitment to the process during your chairmanship. Brazil considers the document a solid base for our discussion. In particular, we appreciate the clear diagnosis of the challenges posed by population aging, the recognition of the existing normative gaps in the international human rights framework, and the proposed structure for a future legally binding instrument. While we see the document as an excellent starting point, Brazil has identified a number of important topics that, in our view, should be emphasized to ensure that the future instrument reflects a comprehensive approach to the human rights of the older person. Allow me to highlight 7 points. First, we consider that the text lacks balance in relation to the responsibility for supporting older persons with an excessive emphasis on responsibilities of family members. While Brazil fully recognizes the essential role played by families in supporting and caring for older persons, we also believe that there must be a balance among the complementary responsibilities of families, societies, and states. In addition, we would suggest referring to families in the plural to reflect the diversity of families arrangement. Second, Brazil is essential to recognize that older persons may— oh, sorry— persons, especially women, persons with disabilities, persons of different sexual orientations, migrants, persons living in poverty, traditional peoples, and persons who belong to the ethnic racial, national, linguistic, religious, and rural groups. IRDs may experience multiple intersecting forms of discrimination, which often create additional vulnerabilities and affect the full enjoyment of their human rights and fundamental freedoms. Third, we attach particular importance to a gender perspective. Older persons frequently experience multiple intersecting forms of discrimination resulting from persistent gender inequalities and remain disproportionately exposed to physical, psychological, and other forms of violence. This should also be recognized. Fourth, we would welcome explicit reference to combating ageism alongside all forms of violence against older persons, addressing age-based prejudices and stereotypes for them to ensure the true realization to their lives, their rights. Brazil considers autonomy to be a central concept that should be reflected through the document. Promoting the autonomy, independence, social integration, and effective participation of older persons should remain one of the guiding objectives of the future instrument. In this regard, digital inclusion is becoming increasingly important. We also welcome reference to equal access to social protection and healthcare care, as well as full productive employment, decent work, and participation and representation in decision-making process. 7, finally, we underscore the importance of recognizing older persons not only as rights holders but also as active contributors to society. The future instrument should acknowledge the essential contribution that older persons continue to make to their families, communities, societies and recognize them as agents of change whose full and effective enjoyment of human rights benefits society as a whole. Thank you.

Thank you, distinguished representative of Brazil. Thank you for your contributions.

I'd like to recognize the distinguished representative of Guatemala. I have been notified that Guatemala has not asked for the floor. Apologies, I don't know why it's here on the list. The Russian Federation has the floor.

Thank you, Chairman. We thank you for the preparation of the document, the Food for Thought paper, and we regard it as a useful foundation for further discussion regarding the possible future structures of an international legally binding instrument on the rights of older persons. We agree with many of its proposals. However, we also believe that future work on this document should take into consideration additional elements. First of all, we believe it's important to look at a special provision on international cooperation and international implementation of the future Convention and also consider the establishment of a conference of States Parties which could ensure the effective implementation of the instrument alongside a committee. It also seems appropriate to have a list of foundational principles of accessibility and equality between men and women as well as to recognize the important role of older persons in society and the responsibility of States to ensure their full enjoyment of their rights. As to the content of the future document, we believe it's important to consider the strengthening of special economic and social guarantees of a special importance to older persons, including guaranteed pensions, the protection of savings and income, the freedom of the choice of place of residence and medical care in line with national legislation. We also believe it's useful to more precisely reflect the position of older persons in terms of their effective participation in developing state policy, their right to establish voluntary organizations of veterans, and the right to transfer their knowledge to younger generations. We would also like to note the necessity of a provision that not all differences in the treatment by age should be regarded as discrimination. The International Convention should take into consideration justified distinctions, for example, as relates to pension laws or state policy in terms of employment and social protection. And finally, we believe it's important to state directly that the right of older people to autonomy and independent decisions should not be— should not include the interpretation that this might include euthanasia. We are convinced that with these provisions we would be able to make a more balanced document that also takes into consideration Federation national systems to ensure the rights of older persons. We would like to note that the Food for Thought paper was distributed only a brief time before the holding of this session, which did not allow for an in-depth analysis, and therefore the Russian Federation reserves its position on the document as a whole at this point. In conclusion, I'd like to recall that the current working group is an intergovernmental working group in a negotiating format. It is the states, however, which bear the responsibility for developing a future document, as they will be the ones to implement its provision. Of course, we appreciate the contributions of all stakeholders, but the draft, which is of determining importance, must reflect the position of state parties. Thank you.

Thank you, distinguished representative of Russian Federation. Thank you for your contributions. I give you the floor to distinguished representative of Iraq. You have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. President. We would like to thank you for having drafted the this food for thought document which enriches our discussions and facilitates the consideration of factors which require further analysis, study, and work. There are a number of important principles and we would like to share some observations which would allow us to strike a better balance in the future instruments. Without prejudice to future negotiations. We are of the view that we should clearly insist that any future approach should take into consideration the diversity of legal and cultural systems of the various countries and should take into consideration the diversity which would also impact the implementation of this instrument. Secondly, this document should also take into consideration the role of the family alongside the state in order to preserve their dignity within society, as the complementarity between the two is a crucial element in the effectiveness of support and care provided. Older persons do not represent a homogeneous group, and we must attach greater importance to disadvantaged groups, for example, in rural regions and in the framework of armed conflicts, terrorism, and natural and other disasters. These groups face more severe challenges which should be taken into consideration during our discussions. With respect to implementation, Iraq is of the view that we should take into consideration the example of successful practices. Protection systems in Iraq have demonstrated their effectiveness in providing support for large segments of the population, including older persons, through the social protection and social insurance systems. And an exchange of such experiences made in different countries could contribute to enriching this discussion. And we are also of the view that we should build upon experiences that we have already built up internationally. Whilst avoiding any duplication or repetition in order to strengthen the human rights system within the framework of the mandate of this group. And finally, we believe that our success will be determined by the possibility of taking advantage of international, regional, and national experience gained whilst demonstrating flexibility and taking into consideration the variety and diversity of experiences in order to ensure that older persons can fully and meaningfully benefit from their rights.

Thank you very much, distinguished representative of RAC. Just an announcement: given that we have some time constraints because everyone is surpassing the 3 minutes, even though I have quite patiently made the point several times, but everyone is going beyond the 3 minutes, After the 3rd speaker on my list, I'm going to cut off the floor at the 3-minute mark. And I understand that your statements are very important and we want to have them because it is part of our corpus which will allow us to continue to draft this instrument, a This is a very important instrument. We don't want to miss out on any observations or contributions, but at the same time we do have this time constraint. So I would ask you if you could please send your speeches to speeches@un.org.

speeches@un.org.

So that if you are unable to finish your statement because the microphone was cut off, you will still be able to submit your comments by sending your statements to that email address, and they will feed into our general body of statements. Now I'd like to give the floor to the representative of the Philippines. You have exactly 3 minutes.

Thank you, Chair. The Philippines commends the Chair-Rapporteur for the comprehensive, food-for-thought paper which provides a constructive and forward-looking basis for our deliberations during this first session. Drawing upon the outcomes of a multi-stakeholder, inclusive, and structured consultations among government agencies, the Commission on Human Rights civil society, and older persons, the Philippines wishes to highlight the following points that align with and expand upon the themes outlined in the Chair's paper. On the shift from a welfare paradigm to a human rights-based approach, we strongly support the Chair's proposal to transition the narrative from charity to one of rights and entitlements. The Philippines emphasizes that this instrument must fundamentally empower older persons, promoting their autonomy and recognizing them unequivocally as active rights holders. Human rights are an inherent birthright. Consequently, the meaningful participation and inclusion of older persons in all stages of this instrument's development, implementation, and monitoring must be central to our overarching framework. On substantive rights, for the Philippines, explicitly addressing age-based discrimination is crucial. Discrimination on the basis of age diminishes the agency, power, and self-actualization of older persons. The instrument must establish common ground regarding the right to work beyond socially or legally defined retirement Thank you. Applying the concept of reasonable accommodation to older persons. Crucially, these protections must encompass older persons in the informal economy, those engaged in extended self-employment who currently fall outside the scope of traditional contracts, salaries, and pension benefits. The Chair's focus on health and palliative and long-term care is welcome. My delegation advocates for an expanded understanding of the right to health, which must not only meet standards of availability, accessibility, acceptability, and equality, but must also be humane, compassionate, dignified, and timely. When addressing health and long-term care issues, the autonomy of the older person must take precedence over external best interests. determinations in cases where autonomy can be exercised. On care as a human rights issue, the Philippines welcomes the Chair's emphasis on care as a human rights issue. In reframing care systems, the LBI should also take into consideration the human rights of persons providing care, including caregivers, nurses, and other health professionals caring for older persons. On intergenerational solidarity, solidarity and emerging challenges. We appreciate the inclusion of intergenerational solidarity as a cross-cutting issue in the chair's text. We believe this mutual support between age groups strengthens the argument for a life course approach. Furthermore, the new legally binding instrument must be future-proof and flexible enough for challenges that would emerge, including impacts of technological advances on older populations. The Republic of the Philippines reaffirms its steadfast commitment to advancing the human rights, dignity, and well-being of all older persons. We stand ready to engage constructively with all delegations to ensure the elaboration of a robust, inclusive, and truly empowering instrument. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, distinguished representative of the Philippines. Thank you for your Thank you very much for your contributions. Now I give the floor to distinguished representative of Greece, and after that I will start cutting the microphone. I'll just give you this waiver of 2 speakers because I suppose you are going to check your statement with the chronometer so you can actually calculate the 3 minutes. Now I give the floor to distinguished representative of Greece. You have the floor.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Greece aligns with the statement to be delivered by the European Union. We thank you warmly for the food for thought paper, which provides a starting point for more focused, substantive discussions. We welcome more specifically the purpose anchoring in a human rights-based approach. Older persons are rights holders. States bear the corresponding obligations to respect, protect, and fulfill their rights and must be held accountable for their acts or omissions in On definitions, we share the paper's caution regarding rigid chronological formulations. We would favour a functional rather than essentialist definition, identifying older persons by reference to the barriers that older age poses to the full enjoyment of their rights. On general principles, the prohibition of age discrimination must be explicit, recognising ageism as a structural phenomenon as well as multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination. On substantive rights, the instrument should translate existing human rights law into terms responsive to older age on areas such as autonomy, participation, accessibility, freedom from violence, abuse, and neglect, access to justice, health, education, and digital inclusion. And we are happy to see these areas in the food for thought paper. The treatment of care as a human rights question is very welcome. As it involves primarily entitlements vis-à-vis the state and corresponding state obligations, life course perspective and active aging are also very relevant issues. On monitoring, we believe that this is an issue closely linked to the substantive part of the LBI. Suffice it to say at this stage that we can draw upon an already existing architecture while bearing in mind concerns about the duplication and overlap. In any case, monitoring should be effective and should promote domestic coordination and independent oversight mechanisms. To conclude, discussions held so far give grounds for optimism, as they have given evidence of a high degree of convergence around some fundamental principles also mirrored in the Food for Thought paper. We particularly appreciate the input and comments by NHRI's NGOs, representatives of all the present organizations and members of academia. We look forward to the following stages of this process to translate the principles we've been discussing this week into concrete treaty language. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, distinguished representative of Greece, and thank you for your contribution. I give the floor to distinguished representative of Belgium. You have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. First of all, we thank the Chair-Rapporteur for the organization of this session. We appreciate the efforts to facilitate a constructive discussion on the possible contours of a future legally binding instrument. However, Belgium will only be in a position to express its views on a possible future legally binding instrument once a draft text has been presented. However, allow me to share some preliminary views from our side. For Belgium, the core principles of the future LBI should be firmly grounded in the recognition that all human rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent, and interrelated. References to national context or cultural specificities should not be used in a manner that could weaken universally agreed human rights standards. It is, however, critical to foster local ownership. Regional organizations have played an essential role in bringing universal norms closer to local realities, including on the human rights rights of older persons and can serve as a source of inspiration in addition to existing human rights treaties. We welcome the vision that the overarching framework of the future legally binding instrument should be fully consistent with existing human rights treaties. In this regard, it is essential to reaffirm that states are the primary duty bearers for the respect, protection, and fulfillment of human rights, while older persons should be fully recognized as right holders. Ensuring their agency, dignity, and individual autonomy is fundamental to the effective enjoyment of these rights and to their full and meaningful participation in decisions that impact their life. With regards to the role of families, families have long been at the heart of most societies. However, societies continue to evolve, and families today take different forms. Any future legally binding instrument should reflect this diversity. At the same time, it should recognize individual family members as right holders in their own right and ensure that the rights of older persons who do not belong to any family structure are equally respected, protected, and fulfilled. In that regard, it is critical to acknowledge that while families play an important role in care and support systems, a disproportionate share of paid and unpaid care work continues to be undertaken by women and girls, and and which that constitutes a primary driver of gender inequality. We welcome the reference to non-discrimination, as prohibition of discrimination remains one of the most fundamental principles of international human rights law and is a key principle to ensure the human rights of older persons who may experience multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination throughout their lives. Any future treaty should therefore reflect an intersectional approach, recognizing that older persons may face multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination on various grounds, including gender, ethnic origin, age, disability, religion, socioeconomic status, political opinion, and other characteristics. Such an approach is essential to ensure the full enjoyment of the human rights of older persons. I thank you.

Thank you, distinguished representative of France. I give the floor to distinguished representative of Canada. You have the floor. Excuse me. Thank you, distinguished representative of Belgium. And I give you the floor to distinguished representative of France.

Merci, Monsieur le Président. La France est sous— Thank you, Chairman. We align ourselves with the statement of the European Union. We thank the presidency for the drafting of this food for thought document on outlines and thoughts for the future instrument. We have made written comments already over the past few days, and we would like to reflect that the structure of the document should be consistent with existing human rights documents, taking into consideration the age, and the definition of older persons should be the subject of a consultation between stage. The preamble should also refer to other relevant international conventions and provide the added value of the instrument. With respect to the general principle, we also would include gender equality, as is the case in other conventions. With regard to the role of the family, it is important to recognize and emphasize the role of caregivers, and this can be held by— this role can be played by members of the family. With regard to the general obligations of States, they should include effectiveness, the prevention of discrimination, and the role of the concerned persons. The future instrument should pay special attention to the effectiveness of rights in terms of the care provided and support. We also take into consideration accountability provisions, which would be in line with those of other conventions. The type of mechanism should be the topic of an in-depth discussion in order to identify the proper approach. Thank you.

Thank you, distinguished representative of France, and thank you for your contributions. And I give the floor to distinguished representative of Canada.

Thank you, Chair, for this invitation to begin. We've been very encouraged by the significant convergence we have heard in the room over the last 2 days. And that was further underlined by Professor Burns' identification this morning of substantial areas of convergence across the submissions received. We are beginning this afternoon, I believe, the task of discussing how we translate that convergence into text. And with that in mind, we'd like to offer a few observations about areas from the, the Food for Thought paper where we think further discussions could be helpful. First, on the preamble, we recognize, you know, a core challenge with an instrument like this is that we have broad agreement that the older persons enjoy human rights under existing instruments. I think also broad convergence that there's space in this instrument to articulate some of those in more detail, or perhaps also to address gaps. And that raises a question of what goes in the preamble as kind of a re-articulation. articulation and what goes in the substance itself. And here we note, for example, the bullet in the preamble section of the paper on non-discrimination. And if we're talking here about discrimination on the basis of age, we wonder if that is more of a substantive point than a preambular point. Second, on, on family, community, and duties, um, you know, many people have raised this. We, we absolutely recognize the important role that families and communities often play in supporting older persons. We also echo the comments made by many. I think Mexico made it especially well about states being the primary duty bearers and responsible for respecting, protecting, and fulfilling human rights. Third, you know, we have an important question around specificity, particularly around some of the specific rights that where I think it'll be helpful to have further discussion. Professor Burns spoke to this to some extent this morning. This is in line also, I think, with some of the points the delegation from the Philippines made about the elements of the right to health. I mean, here we just want to offer an observation that, on the one hand, greater specificity can provide clarity and help states understand the depth and the degree of their obligations, but the more we're specific, we can also reduce flexibility in a treaty that, you know, will hopefully remain relevant over many decades. So finding that balance, we think, will be an important topic for this, for this working group to discuss. On implementation and monitoring, we'll just say we've heard lots of appetite for discussions of creative approaches. We welcome that. We look forward to that. We also agree with Professor Burns's suggestion that these are maybe questions we can come to a little bit later in the process once we've discussed the substance. And finally, we welcome the the comments in support of reflecting the experiences and perspectives of Indigenous peoples, and we'd be happy to see that in future discussion documents. Thank you.

Thank you, distinguished representative of Canada. Thank you for your contributions. And now give the floor to distinguished representative of the Gulf Cooperation Council. You have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to deliver this statement on behalf of the GCC countries. We would like to express our gratitude to you, Mr. Chair, for preparing the paper Food for Thought, which is a useful framework for the potential frame of the LBI. This concept paper presents many important inputs on the main factors and components, including definitions, principles, rights, and mechanisms of follow-up and progress. We as GCC countries welcome the content of the concept paper, namely reiterating the importance of human dignity, equality, non-discrimination based on age, protection from violence, abuse, neglect, as well as respecting the national diversity and cultural diversity, recognizing family and society and intergenerational support. In this context, we as GCC countries reiterate the importance of including concepts and clear definitions in the LBI that will help us in implementing it later, namely when it comes to care, care providers, daily care or the care during the day, neglect, abuse, as well as reasonable accommodation. As well as general design. We also highlight the importance of finding a definition of older persons and giving countries enough flexibility to take into account their national reality when defining the categories that should be targeted by support and empowerment. We as GCC countries consider that the LBI should focus on the health of older persons, improve the quality of their lives, active aging, as well as helping them to know their rights and to benefit from the relevant services and to secure their active participation in all walks of life. We need to take into account their needs when we draft policies, house public services, infrastructure, mobility services. We should take the needs of older persons in order to increase their social engagement. We also reiterate that it is important to have a future mechanism based on a participatory and transparent approach that takes into account the social and the national priorities of countries.

We offer the floor to the distinguished representative of the United Kingdom. You have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. We would like to thank the Chair for the Food for Thought paper and welcome this opportunity to offer some preliminary reflections, though we will, of course, need to consider proposals in greater detail, and we reserve the right to refine our views as discussions evolve. First, it is clear that older people are already rights holders. The UK is committed to protecting their rights. In considering the development of any future instrument, it is important to recognize that many of the rights relevant to older persons already exist within the international human rights framework. Rights contained in instruments such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights already apply to older persons as they do to all individuals. To the greatest extent possible, we should avoid duplicating, recreating, and weakening existing norms, and instead build upon the well-established human rights framework that already exists. Relatedly, we note that a number of the principles reflected in the paper are already addressed in existing human rights treaties, whether in the core treaties or in the more specialized instruments. For example, issues relating to access to a fair hearing and due process are addressed in the ICCPR, while protection against exploitation, violence, abuse, and neglect are reflected in instruments such as the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. In our view, these existing standards provide a logical starting point for this discussion. Second, we believe it is important to remain clear about the nature of human rights obligations. Human rights establish legal obligations on States in relation to individuals, as has been echoed by some several delegations before us. Accordingly, our focus should be on elaborating and clarifying those obligations. While families, communities, and other social actors undoubtedly play an important role in supporting older persons, they are not themselves bearers of international human rights obligations in the same way that states are. Third, we would underline the universal nature of human rights, as has also been echoed by several other delegations. While states may adopt different approaches to implementation in light of their own legal systems and circumstances, the content of human rights is universal and applies equally to all individuals. Human rights obligations are not contingent on national, cultural, or regional particularities. Finally, on a specific point, we would welcome further clarification regarding the proposal that older persons should enjoy a right to develop their own personality. We would be grateful to hear more about the intended scope and legal basis of this concept and how it relates to existing rights recognized under international human rights law. I thank you.

Thank you, distinguished representative of the United Kingdom. Thank you for your contributions. Now I give the floor to distinguished representative of Thailand. You have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thailand thanks the Chair reporter for the comprehensive food for thought paper which offers a forward-looking framework that will guide our future negotiations. On the underlying normative principle, we strongly support the emphasis on a human rights-based approach to aging. Shifting the narrative from charity and welfare to rights and entitlements is a fundamental paradigm shift that we must secure. We should also commend— we also commend the explicit recognition of the life course perspective and encourage preventive policy across the entire life course. Regarding definitions and cross-cutting issues, Thailand agrees with the flexible approach in defining older persons, which takes into account individual country contexts rather than imposing a rigid definition. Furthermore, we concur with the cross-cutting issues identified, especially the respect for national and cultural diversity, the importance of community and family support systems, On care and substantive rights, Thailand welcomes the reframing of care as a vital human rights issue and a multi-stakeholder responsibility. We strongly support provisions that recognize the need to support informal caregivers alongside establishing quality standards for care institutions. Thank you. Institution. Acknowledging that older persons are not a homogeneous group and addressing intersectional discrimination is also a crucial step forward. Finally, on implementation, we take note of the proposed implementation framework. As our deliberation advances, Thailand emphasizes that any future monitoring mechanism should focus on constructive dialogue. capacity building, and supporting effective implementation tailored to national capabilities and resources. We stand ready to engage constructively with all stakeholders on these elements to ensure that the future instrument is both ambitious in its protection and practical in its implementation. I thank you.

Thank you, distinguished representative of Thailand. I'll give the floor to distinguished representative of the European Union. You have the floor.

Thank you, Chair Rapporteur. Many thanks also for preparing the Food for Thought paper, which we see as a first basis for the discussion today. It is indeed important to move to more concrete conversations. The panel yesterday and all the submissions helpfully summarized this morning also feed this discussion and help us to take into account the experience, input, and lived realities of older persons, as well as inputs from around the world. As mentioned in our general statement, within the EU, we still need to deliberate more in detail on our common position on the elements of a future instrument. At the same time, we would like to contribute to this discussion with a couple of further initial comments. Our general statement underlined that the development of standards relating to the rights of older persons must be based on and fully aligned with international human rights law, including the CRPD, as well as regional instruments. A few points to make this more concrete. Any further instrument on human rights of older persons must embody and adhere to the principles of universality, indivisibility, interdependence, and interrelatedness of human rights. This was also underlined by many speakers today. Firmly rooted in the UDHR, the principle of universality asserts that rights apply to everyone globally regardless of culture, geography, or status. This was also confirmed in the VDPA. Secondly, any future instrument must be fully and firmly human rights-based. It must, as I already said, build on and strengthen existing standards. This should be fully reflected in the preamble of a future instrument and permeate the whole text. Thirdly, international human rights law is founded on the principle that every person possesses inherent dignity and equal rights. Therefore, the older persons must be recognized as individual rights holders and states as duty bearers. Fourthly, if international human rights law addresses duties, if individuals hold specific responsibilities, they are carefully articulated and primarily concern the duty not to violate the human rights of others. Fifthly, as mentioned in previous EU statements, We need to advance the full enjoyment of human rights by older persons without discrimination. This requires the future instrument to fully incorporate principles of non-discrimination, equality, and autonomy, while recognizing the diversity of older persons and taking a life course approach, and explicitly address ageism, age-based stereotypes and prejudice, age-based discrimination. Multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination require specific attention, as does the protection of those those who are in a disadvantaged, vulnerable, and marginalized situations. Sixth, the future instrument should also provide clear guidance on the prevention and protection from all forms of violence, abuse, neglect, and exploitation, and should ensure access to justice. Seventh, we support further discussion on a flexible approach regarding the definition of older persons, taking into account different national contexts while ensuring effective protection. Eighth, the future instrument should promote the meaningful and effective participation of older persons in all decisions. Ninth, the future structure should be clear and coherent and include the regular elements of a human rights treaty. And then, for— leave me to leave a 10th point. The future instrument should be one that enables the practical translation into concrete improvement of the enjoyment of human rights by older persons. And the pros and cons of including concrete implementation measures as guidance should be discussed within this working group. Thank you so much.

Thank you, distinguished representative of the European Union. You can send your speech to speeches@un.org. And I give the floor to distinguished representative of Algeria. You have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. President. Algeria wishes to express its sincere appreciation to the chair rapporteur for presenting this food for thought paper. Which serves as an excellent baseline to guide the structure and principles of any future instrument. My delegation notes with satisfaction that this document reflects several fundamental realities. We particularly welcome the explicit recognition of the individual's duties toward the family and the community, as well as the inclusion of the rights and duties of family members. This approach aligns with our core values, which establishes intergenerational solidarity as the central pillar for protecting older persons. Furthermore, the wise choice to avoid rigid chronological definition of older persons and to defer to national context demonstrates a respect for the cultural diversity of states. Finally, affirming that obligation must be framed within existing resources and national possibilities provides the necessary the necessary realities asked for by developing nations. However, Mr. Chair, Nigeria wishes to call for caution regarding Section 4 on implementation and monitoring. While understanding the need for effectiveness, we reiterate our concern regarding the risk of creating disproportionate reporting burden or duplicating mechanisms already existing within the UN system. The final architecture on this section should, in our view, focus on capacity building, constructive dialogue, and international cooperation rather than rigid oversight mechanisms. Additionally, regarding the concept of care, we must ensure that development of regulated system does not weaken or or discharge the family from its primary moral and legal responsibility towards its elders. Algeria affirms its commitment to work constructively on the basis of this paper to achieve a consensual and balanced instrument. I thank you.

Thank you, distinguished representative of Algeria. Thank you for your contributions. Now I give the floor to distinguished representative of the Chechen Republic.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, rapporteur. The Czech Republic aligns with the EU statement. The Czech Republic thanks the authors of the Food for Thought paper for their contribution to the discussion of the possible architecture and guiding principles of a legally binding instrument on the human rights of older persons. Once again, our starting point is that, as in the CRPD, Age should never constitute a barrier in access to human rights and freedoms. In our view, older persons are active rights holders, not merely passive recipients of care or subjects to the decisions of others. We welcome the paper's emphasis on dignity, equality, non-discrimination, autonomy, participation, protection from violence and neglect, and access to care and support. At the same time, We believe that the future instrument should have clear added value in relation to existing international human rights treaties. It should identify and address age-specific protection gaps, including age-based discrimination, autonomy and supported decision-making, prevention of abuse and neglect, long-term care, the situation of older persons in institutional and other dependent settings, digital inclusion, and access to justice. The Czech Republic supports a flexible, context-specific— excuse me, context-sensitive understanding of older person, avoiding a rigid age threshold while ensuring sufficient legal clarity and consistency in implementation. We suggest, for example, a set maximum age limit, for example 65, like in the CRC, which can be lowered by the state parties. While family, community, and intergenerational solidarity are important, they should not be formulated in a way that shifts the primary responsibility for respecting, protecting, and fulfilling human rights away from the state. References to available resources may guide the progressive realization of social rights, as it is the case in the ICESCR, but must not weaken immediate obligations such as non-discrimination, protection from violence, and neglect, access to justice, and respect for autonomy. The Czech Republic supports a flexible and context-sensitive approach to implementation. However, references to national, cultural, or social diversity should not be understood as allowing limitations on universal human rights or as justifying discrimination, violence, neglect, or restrictions, restrictions on autonomy. As regards the possible treaty body, The future instrument could draw inspiration from the CRPD committee model, in particular Article 34 of the CRPD, which requires due consideration of the participation of experts with disabilities in the committee's composition. By analogy, the future treaty body on the rights of older persons should ensure the meaningful participation of older persons with relevant expertise among its members. Finally, We attach great importance to the meaningful participation of all the persons and their representative organizations throughout the process in line with Human Rights Council Resolution 58/13. Thank you.

Thank you, distinguished representative of the Czech Republic, and thank you for your contribution. I give the floor to distinguished representative of Germany.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, rapporteur, for giving me the floor. Germany aligns itself with the statement delivered by the European Union. Thank you for the food for thought paper inspiring debate. As by now, I can just deliver preliminary thoughts and observations as we have not had the time for an in-depth interagency analysis. As stated on Monday, we are strongly convinced that the universality of human rights, which have no age limit, must be reflected in the new legally binding instrument. Human rights are individual rights which are fully applicable at all ages, so a comprehensive non-discrimination clause, including addressing multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination, must be a central part of the new LBI. International human rights law is founded on the principle that every person possesses inherent dignity and equal rights. Therefore, older persons must be recognized as individual rights holders and States as duty bearers. At this early stage, we would like to make the following methodological observations. As already stated in our input to the 3 guiding questions, we are in favor of pursuing the structure of preamble recalling and reaffirming existing standards, treaties, and norms, which are fully applicable to all ages, and thus setting the scenery. Scope: what is the group of older persons? A good way to approach this is the method used in drawing up Article 1 of the CRPD: definitions, general principles, general obligations, material law, follow-up and final clauses. As we have heard Monday and yesterday, there's a broad consensus on the substance stance, building on the results of the 14 sessions of the Open-Ended Working Group on Aging and the areas of concern identified and consented in the form of recommendations in Decision 14/1 of the Open-Ended Working Group, bearing in mind the regional instruments, and last but not least, the MIPAP process. We reiterate our plea for substantial travaux préparatoires elaborating on the added value of provisions reflecting where provisions originate, whether they reaffirm or clarify application on older age, strengthen protection, or guide implementation. Regarding the follow-up, we think the specificities should be discussed when a broad consensus is reached on the substantial clauses of the Convention. As stated in our input, we urge to be open-minded to explore new and more efficient ways for following up and are thus looking forward to the input that will be given tomorrow. Finally, we believe that maintaining a forward-looking, transparent, and accessible drafting process, including successive draft texts, written submissions, and meeting reports, will support institutional continuity and the quality of negotiations. I thank you very much.

Thank you, distinguished representative of Germany, and I give you the floor to distinguished representative of Turkey. Distinguished representative of Turkey.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Turkey welcomes the Chair's Food for Thought paper and appreciates the effort to provide a structured basis for the discussions. We would like to present several observations. With regard to the proposed preamble, Turkey supports emphasizing the inherent dignity and equal rights of older persons, as well as recognizing demographic aging as one of the defining global trends of our time. However, we would encourage language that reflects both the opportunities and the challenges associated with longevity, avoiding an approach that presents aging primarily as a policy burden. Turkey also welcomes the recognition that older persons are not a homogeneous group and that diversity among older persons should be reflected throughout the LBI, such as older women and older persons with disabilities. Regarding the guiding principles, Turkey welcomes the recognition of important role played by families and communities. Nevertheless, we believe that the instrument should clearly maintain the distinction between the supportive role of families and the legal obligations of States under international human rights law. The primary responsibility to respect, protect, and fulfill human rights should remain with States. Türkiye would favor maintaining flexibility regarding the definition of older persons. A rigid chronological threshold may not adequately reflect differing demographic realities and national contexts. Turkey also believes that certain concepts appearing throughout the paper could benefit from further refinement. In particular, terminology relating to autonomy, independence, legal capacity, and supported decision-making may provide greater legal certainty than broader references to the development of one's personality. Regarding substantive rights, we would like to draw attention to social security and economic security of older persons, and also encourage the use of well-established terminology drawn from existing international human rights treaties wherever possible. For instance, Turkey would favor replacing the expression decent living with the established term adequate standard of living, as this would ensure greater consistency with existing treaty language, particularly the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Finally, Türkiye considers that any future monitoring mechanism should complement the existing United Nations treaty body system, avoid unnecessary institutional duplication, and promote dialogue, technical cooperation, and capacity building. I thank you very much.

Thank you, distinguished representative of Türkiye. Now I give the floor to distinguished representative of Distinguished representative of Peru has the floor.

Thank you very much, Chair. We appreciate the presentation of the document and we believe that it's a useful foundation for guiding our discussion. We would like to offer some general comments to some of these sections. First, regarding the preamble, we would like to highlight the importance of showing that older persons must be fully recognized as active right holders, recognizing them as citizens— autonomous, participating, free, full of dignity— appreciating their life experiences and previous knowledge and their contribution to family, community, and society. We also believe that it is important for this section to recognize that older persons are not a homogeneous group, and on this, for Peru, characterized by broad cultural and ethnic, linguistic, territorial, and geographic diversity. For us, this is key. That will allow us to introduce, for example, the different types of discrimination they may face, including discrimination related to their ethnic origin, to them belonging to Indigenous communities, people of African descent, disability, plurality, geographic isolation, or other condition. Regarding the principles, in addition to supporting those that are already outlined, we would like to highlight those related to intergenerational solidarity and the intercultural approach. And regarding cross-cutting items, Peru, as a particularly vulnerable group to climate change, would like to suggest that the future instrument recognizing how these phenomena can deepen existing vulnerabilities. Also, we would like to suggest digital transformation and the use of AI be included because of their opportunities, as well as for the risk of exclusion, bias, and discrimination they might create. Regarding substantive rights, we believe that it is important to expressly consider the right to care, social protection, autonomy, participation, digital inclusion, and lifelong learning. We also believe that it is essential to strengthen protection from all types of violence, abuse, negligence, and abandonment. And lastly, we support the inclusion of a follow-up and monitoring mechanism. In that regard, we would also like to refer to the model that we find in the Inter-American Convention on the Rights of Older Persons. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Representative of Peru, for your contribution, for your clarification. Distinguished Representative of Uruguay has the floor.

Thank you very much, Chair Rapporteur. Uruguay wishes to express its appreciation for the preparation of this discussion paper. Which we regard as a basis for a structured discussion on the architecture and the guiding principles of a future instrument. We appreciate the proposed structure, including the preamble, the general provisions, substantive rights, which we believe must be strengthened, as well as the implementation mechanisms and the final clauses. We also share the recognition that international human rights law does not adequately address the specific challenges faced by older persons. We also welcome the references to equality, non-discrimination, participation, autonomy, long-term care and digital inclusion, and a life cycle approach. However, as we see it, certain aspects need to be strengthened. At first, we would like to present the following comments. To begin, we believe that it is important for the future treaty to better reflect that its primary goal is to establish binding obligations for States, that references to national legislation, available resources, and different national contexts should not weaken the universal nature of the rights recognized therein, nor the responsibility of States to respect, protect, and guarantee those rights. Second, we encourage to offer greater precision in several key areas such as mental health, rehabilitation, accessibility in all its dimensions, social protection, adequate income, palliative care, protection from institutionalization, abuse and neglect, as well as effective access to justice and appropriate remedies. Third, we consider it essential to strengthen an intersectional approach One that recognizes that older persons may face multiple types of discrimination, including on the grounds of gender, disability, ethnic or racial origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, Indigenous status, migration status, or socioeconomic situation. Regarding the role of the family, Uruguay recognizes that families and communities play a fundamental role in providing support, accompaniment, and care for many older persons. And that intergenerational solidarity is an important value. In spite of that, we believe that such a recognition should not transfer or replace the primary responsibility of States. The future instrument should also recognize the diversity of family situations, support caregivers, include a gender perspective, and always ensure the full respect for autonomy, the will, and the preferences of older persons. And finally, Uruguay believes that a future Convention should not be limited to simply reaffirming existing rights, but rather to close current normative gaps, providing greater legal certainty and practical guidance to States in order to ensure the full enjoyment of all human rights of older persons. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Representative of Uruguay, for the contributions. Now I give the floor to the distinguished Representative of Slovenia.

Thank you, Chair. At the outset, I would like to thank you for chairing the meeting today and for preparing the Food for Thought document. Slovenia aligns itself with the EU statement. Mr. Chair, as you pointed out, the document is not set in stone but outlines elements for our collective consideration. In our view, some of the concepts and ideas contained in the document would merit further discussion and elaboration. And I'm happy to see that the discussion is already ongoing today. We fully support the LBI on the rights of older persons, and we wish it to be formulated as a comprehensive international human rights treaty, one that will set the international standards which will garner the broadest consensus and support by all stakeholders. As Professor Brine pointed out in the morning session, there is a forming consensus on the LBI structure which follows the structure of existing human rights treaties. We support such approach as it will make the LBI effective and coherent. Mr. Chair, LBI must acknowledge that older age is not tied to a specific chronological threshold or that experience and meanings of older age is shaped by social and cultural norms and social expectations. This, however, in no way diminishes the universality of the human rights of older persons. Human rights belong to every person everywhere, and their enjoyment cannot be made subject to conditions or qualifications. They are indivisible and interdependent. Civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights reinforce each other and must be advanced together. The LBI must further firmly consolidate older persons as individual rights bearers. International human rights law is founded on the principle that every person possesses inherent dignity and equal rights. Recognizing older persons as individual right bearers will affirm their autonomy, legal capacity, agency, and entitlement to claim and enforce their rights without dependence on family or community. Families and communities play an important role in supporting and assisting older persons, yet we believe an effective treaty should rather establish clear, enforceable individual rights while recognizing that supportive social and community environments are important mechanisms for realizing those rights. This approach aligns with the broader international human rights framework, which places the individual at the center of rights protection while requiring States to create conditions that enable all persons to exercise their rights fully, freely, and equally. We also agree that the LBI should articulate guiding principles drawing from the existing international human rights law. It must follow the structured human rights-based approach. Among general guiding principles, we prioritize non-discrimination, including intersectional discrimination, equality, including gender equality, respect for inherent dignity and autonomy, full meaningful and equal participation and inclusion in society, accessibility and consistency with existing international human rights standards. So, to conclude, in short, the ALBI should build on, complement, and strengthen existing international human rights law while remaining flexible enough to remain responsive to emerging challenges.

Thanks.

Thank you, distinguished representative of Slovenia. Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Colombia.

Distinguished representative of Colombia has the floor.

Thank you very much, Chair Rapporteur. Colombia would like to thank those preparing the document. It is a specific foundation for structuring discussion on the guiding principles and the architecture of a future instrument. We would like to share some thoughts on the proposed ideas. First, we believe that the binding instrument ought to begin with a recognition of older persons as full rights holders in and of themselves, and not as people whose protection arises from debts or compensation. owed to them by society. A rights-based approach, and not on charity or welfare or anything else, must be the core of the document. Additionally, the future document must recognize the full legal personhood of older persons and the need to have support models and decision-making that respect their will and their preferences, overcoming the will substitution models. That does not mean that they're going to be substituted Along the same lines, it is important to keep at the very core of the debate a state's obligation to respect, protect, and ensure that older persons have their rights respected. Though there is state, society, and family involvement in their protection, that does not replace the main responsibility of the state. Secondly, we reiterate that the general principles of international human rights law, including universality and indivisibility, interdependence and progressivity, must guide the interpretation of the document. We recognize the need to have greater flexibility in order to adapt to national realities, but this flexibility cannot mean that we're going to have relative international obligations through cultural relativism. Third, Colombia believes that it is essential to keep and further develop the standards that were already reached in the UN, the ILO, and regional systems. That recognize care as a human right and also as a type of work. We highlight that Resolution 8152 of the GA already expressly recognizes the economic dimension of care and defines care systems including regulatory framework, services, financing, infrastructure, and governance. The instruments should then begin with that definition instead of trying to reformulate it. Also, though care care plays a social role, it is important to recognize its economic value and condition of labor in addition to a family and community duty. And lastly, Chair and Rapporteur, we would like to ask you, how does this document fit in with the approximately 200 contributions that were discussed today? Thank you.

Thank you very much, Representative of Colombia.

Distinguished Representative of Egypt, you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Allow me to start by extending our appreciation to the effort put in preparing the Food for Thought document. We understand the good intentions behind it. Unfortunately, this intervention isn't the definitive, exhaustive position of Egypt due to the time constraint and the short period allowed to review and discuss it with the capital. Older persons are fundamentally right holders of all human rights enshrined in international human rights treaties and conventions Egypt is party to. We also understand that the new aspired instrument is in seeking to reinterpret longstanding internationally recognized human rights, nor creating new rights, rather ensuring the full enjoyment of all human rights by older persons. On the substance in the paper, we welcome the reference to the role of the family, re-emphasizing its role as enshrined in Article 16 of the UDHR. HR, 23 of the ICCPR, and 10 of the ICESCR. We have a couple of points and questions that we seek clarity on. First, on the preamble, we seek clarity on the quoted phrase, recalling that human rights entail corresponding duties of the individuals to the family and communities, including duties towards older persons. We would seek clarity on the source of this phrase, and is it the intention to have the quoted phrase in the zero draft. On definitions section, and since we are discussing a legally binding instrument, accurate definition of the target individuals and concepts therein is crucially important for us for legal clarity and avoid ambiguity. Weak and nebulous definitions can jeopardize the whole goal of the LBI. On the principles, point A, the right to development of their own personality, we don't see such right in Articles 22 On point B, participation should be grounded in equal opportunities as well as merits-based. On point C, all forms of discrimination shall be prohibited regardless of its reason or basis to ensure universality and avoid selectivity. On Section 3, the cross-cutting issues, we believe that referencing private law as a ground according to which international law and treaties are elaborated or developed should be avoided. Finally, I wish to reiterate our thanks to you, Mr. Chair Rapporteur, and the efforts, and assure you of Egypt's continued constructive and cooperative approach when a zero draft is presented, wishing for a tangible and impactful outcome of the process. Thank you.

Thank you, distinguished representative of Egypt, and thank you for your contribution.

Distinguished representative of Chile has the floor.

Thank you, Chair, Rapporteur. We thank you for the drafting of the Food for Thought paper, and we believe that it is a useful guide. We particularly appreciate your proposal to structure the future instrument with a preamble, general principles, substantive rights, and implementation mechanisms. At the same time, believe that certain aspects could be improved upon in order to better reflect the development achieved in international law in this area. Well, first, we believe the preamble should expressly recognize that this process builds upon a great body of standards. In addition to reaffirming the Charter of the UN and universal human rights treaties, we believe that it is advisable to refer to the principal instruments that guided the development of international standards in the field, such as the UN Principles for Older Persons, the Proclamation on Aging, and the Madrid International Plan on Aging, as well as regional developments. Second, with regard to principles and cross-cutting issues, Chile believes that it is essential for the instrument to build upon a paradigm shift and to move towards a rights-based approach. Older persons must be recognized as full rights holders, With their own ability to make their own decisions and define their own life plans in accordance with their own will and their own preferences. In that regard, we believe that references to the role of families and communities are central, while also remaining complementary to the obligations of the State. Never are we talking about transferring these obligations or limitation of the autonomy of older persons. And lastly, regarding substantive rights, we believe that the instrument could move towards a more precise wording, expressly including rights such as access to justice, independence and autonomy, the right to health, long-term care and person-centered care, and digital inclusion. All of this backed by comparative experience and more recent development in international and regional law. Chile reiterates its willingness to work constructively in order to build an instrument that reflects the highest international standards and properly meets the challenges increasingly aging societies. Thank you.

Thank you very much, distinguished representative of the Republic of Chile, for your contributions and your statement.

The AC— because I was told that this morning happened more or less the same, I will actually appeal to the technicians for reestablish this AC. And I can imagine the interpreters in those boxes. I mean, really, just for the sake of everybody, I would like if the technician can do something about it. Thank you. Now give you the floor to distinguished representative of China.

You have the floor.

中方感谢主席提供的讨论文件。 Thank you, and we would like to thank you for this document and for your guidance in general. We have some concerns though. We should emphasize the respect of historic cultural traditions and the family ethics of all countries. There are exemplary practices of support and care for older persons Secondly, we could include provisions which reconciles the model of rights and the social support so as not to undermine the role of families, society, and government. Thirdly, we should ensure that we respect legal systems and traditions. With regard to the general provisions and the scope of application, China would like expressions such as development of personalities to be clarified in order to avoid any ambiguity and any impact on the possible universal acceptance of the future convention. We would like the working group to avoid using non-consensus-based and controversial terminology. In the general principles, we would like to include the respect of sovereignty, independence, and the territorial integrity of all countries, as well as the non-interference in domestic affairs. With regard to the implementation and follow-up mechanisms, with regard to the treaty bodies and their politicization that we have seen increasing, it would be good to state that the periodic reviews by member states should take into consideration the realities of every country. With regard to the final documents, we would like to emphasize that the spirit of the Vienna Conventions should be reflected. We should specify that Contracting Parties can make reasonable reservations with regarding— with regards to provisions that are incompatible with cultural traditions of States and legal traditions, and this would allow Contracting Parties to make reasonable reservations in that sense. Thank you.

Thank you, distinguished representative of China. And I give the floor to distinguished representative of Qatar. You have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We would like to align ourselves with the GCC statement and to express our thanks to your submission of the Food for concept paper, which contains clear concepts for the instrument under consideration. It is important to also resort back to terminology used in previous human rights treaties and to guide ourselves with the treaties endorsed by the Human Rights Council, namely relevant to older persons. We reiterate the importance of benefiting from from various countries' experiences and to enact the exchange of experiences, namely in the field of autonomy and care for older persons. Older persons should also be part of the drafting of the LBI and later at the implementation level. Regarding the gaps, we think that the LBI has a double role. First of all, to reaffirm the existing rights, namely cultural, social, political, civil, and other rights, and to tackle gaps when it comes to legal protection, namely discrimination based on age, as well as securing the right to protection, care, and to promote autonomy and to promote social protection. The State of Qatar considers that it is important to have a holistic structure that will raise the efficiency and applicability of the LBI. It should conclude the basic rights of older persons, protecting them from violence, their entitlement to protection and care, and this has been tackled by many countries this morning. It should also include obligations in terms of implementation, monitoring, as well as accessibility and development so that we can secure the sustainability of this LBI. The concept of safe digital aging should be included in this LBI in order to ensure digital literacy and to protect older persons from fraud or abuse by digital media. We should also have disaggregated data per age in order to assess the impact of policies and to have international indicators to measure the quality of life of older persons and their level of enjoyment of their own rights. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, distinguished representative of Qatar. Thank you for your contribution. I give the floor to distinguished representative of Pakistan. You have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This is— since this is the first time that Pakistan takes the floor, we'd like to congratulate you on your election as Chair Rapporteur. Pakistan appreciates the circulation of the Food for Thought paper and the effort invested in identifying possible elements for further discussion. We view the paper as a useful basis for reflection, and the observations we offer today are preliminary in nature. Older persons, Mr. Chair, in our view, already enjoy the protection of core international human rights treaties, including the ICCPR, IECSR, CRPD, CEDAW, and others. As discussions progress, it would therefore be useful to further examine where genuine normative gaps may exist, distinguish these challenges from implementation gaps, and consider how existing obligations can be more effectively realized. We note positively that the paper recognizes national and cultural diversity, the importance of families and communities, and the need to take account of national legislation, available resources, and national circumstances. We do not view these considerations as being at variance with the universality of human rights. Rather, they are essential to ensuring that human rights obligations are implemented effectively across diverse legal systems, social structures, and the levels of development. Chair, for many developing countries, the central challenge is not the absence of legal standards, but limited fiscal space, inadequate social protection systems, shortages of trained personnel, and insufficient care infrastructure. While some colleagues insist that states bear the primary responsibility for the promotion and protection of human rights, they must also be equipped to fulfill those responsibilities. The LBI could therefore place greater emphasis on the right to development in international cooperation, predictable financing, technical assistance, technology transfer, and capacity building. Furthermore, proposals relating to the establishment of a new treaty body and additional reporting obligations should be examined carefully in the light of the existing burden on states and the broader discussion on strengthening the treaty body system. Finally, as negotiations advance, this process should remain firmly consensus-based and inclusive. A future instrument would only be effective if enjoys the broad support of member states. AFED should focus on practical solutions that strengthen implementation on the ground and avoid introducing concepts or formulations, including those relating to multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination, that have yet to achieve broad international consensus. This process should seek to build common ground and respond to the practical needs of older persons rather than reproduce issues that have remained the subject of differing views in this Council. Pakistan looks forward to continuing these discussions in a constructive spirit and working with all the delegations towards an outcome that is practical, balanced, and widely supported. I thank you very much.

Thank you, distinguished representative of Pakistan. It's been the last statement by a member state representative. And really very, very, very glad for all your contributions. I think that really enriched the debate and give us the guide and the north where we should channel our common work. And I really thank you so much because I mean, it's the their respective contributions that actually give us more light to this process. And this active participation by so many member states, I think that indicates clearly that it's a matter of a common interest. And the fact that the large number of Member states and contributing and correcting and giving the direction is really, really a very positive message. By all means, and thank you for that. And I encourage you, even though many of you have respected the three minutes for your statement, still, if you can send the respective statements to the speeches that. at un.org. They will be really very useful because, I mean, we don't want to miss any of your observations and contributions and comments that are really very, very valuable for all of us. Now give the floor to— for a joint statement for the Swedish Institute for Human Rights. You have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. Excellencies, I have the honor to speak on behalf of A-status NHRI from Cameroon, Colombia, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Finland, Jordan, Korea, Nigeria, the Philippines, Poland, Slovenia, South Africa, Sweden, Thailand, and Ukraine. Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the initial Food for Thoughts paper. We want to reiterate that the LBI must be firmly rooted in human rights. Based on the current human rights framework, it should also address normative gaps. While families and communities play an important role in supporting older persons, it is states that have the duty to respect, protect, and fulfill human rights. Furthermore, we know that an emphasis on family responsibility often in reality means women, who already bear the burden of the majority of unpaid care work. The LBI should therefore clearly articulate states' obligations. It should include robust monitoring accountability mechanisms and effective remedies to ensure that those obligations are implemented in practice. NHRI stand ready to take on a monitoring role in future, relying on expertise and experience stemming from our various current human rights monitoring mandates. The LBI's purpose is to clarify how all human rights apply to older persons and to address the gaps in their implementation. The catalogue of rights must therefore be comprehensive, built on the perspectives and lived experience of older persons. We encourage States to conduct consultations at national levels in order to gather this information. Furthermore, all human rights are interrelated and interdependent. dependent, and only a holistic approach will ensure the autonomy and agency of older persons. Finally, we want to emphasise ageism. Ageism shapes how societies view ageing and older persons, often rendering them invisible as rights holders. The LBI must contain strong language on combating ageism and age discrimination, and should recognise older persons as full rights holders with all the diversity of experiences, needs and aspirations. It should respond to the multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination older persons experience, for example, on the basis of gender, disability, ethnicity, migration status, socio-economic background or other characteristics. Above all, the LBI should reaffirm that we are all entitled to the full full enjoyment of all human rights throughout our lives. Thank you very much.

Thank you. And I give you the floor to distinguished representative of the National Human Rights Commission of Republic of Korea. Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

The National Human Rights Commission of Korea appreciates your Food for Thought paper, which provides a valuable basis for discussions on a legally binding detriment on the human rights of older persons. While welcoming the recognition of the important role of families and communities, we emphasize that their support should complement, not substitute for, the responsibility of the state. With changing family structures, declining family size, and the growing number of older persons living alone, many older persons may no longer have family members able to provide care. At the same time, communities themselves may also lack the resources and capacity to respond to the growing care needs of aging societies. In such situations, it is the state that bears the primary responsibility to respect, protect, and fulfill the human rights of older persons. In addition, we encourage the future instrument to adopt a stronger gender perspective. Where care responsibilities are placed primarily on families without adequate public support, they are too often borne disproportionately by women. The legally binding instrument should therefore recognize care as a shared societal responsibility supported by adequate public policies, services, and resources, rather than placing the primary burden on families and communities. It should also recognize care as a human rights issue, ensuring that older persons can access the care they need while respecting their dignity and autonomy. A rights-based care system benefits both older persons and caregivers while promoting gender equality. Mr. Chairperson, we also believe that digital inclusion deserves greater attention in the future instrument. Increasingly, access to essential services such as public services, healthcare, banking, information, and opportunities for civic participation depends on digital technologies. Digital exclusion therefore risks becoming a new form of discrimination against older persons. In 2024, the NHRCK recommended that the government strengthen measures to ensure digital accessibility for older persons and prevent digital transformation from creating new barriers to the enjoyment of their rights. In line with this recommendation, we encourage explicit recognition of digital accessibility and meaningful digital inclusion as part of the future legally binding instrument. Finally, we urge that the legally binding instrument consistently recognizes older persons not merely as recipients of care, but as equal rights holders entitled to dignity, autonomy, agency, and full participation in all decisions affecting their lives. Only then can the future instrument truly leave no one behind. I thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, distinguished

representative of the Republic of Korea, for your contributions. Now I give the floor to distinguished representative of Finland, Finnish National Human Rights Institution. You have the floor. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Finnish

National Human Rights Institution considers the Chair's food for thought paper's reflections on the structure and guiding principles of the future instrument to be, on the whole, worthy of support. We would, however, like to make a few observations. The draft preamble notes that the views of all relevant stakeholders should be taken into account. The Finnish NHRI would encourage taking this approach a step further and considers that, in line with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the preamble should explicitly recognize the right of older persons to participate in decision-making processes and policies that affect them. More generally, the Finnish NHRI is of the view that when considering alternative formulations relating to the structure, guiding principles, obligations, and substantive provisions of the future instrument, careful attention should be paid to the lessons learned from the CRPD. Good practices and successful formulations should be drawn upon, while approaches that have proven less effective should be avoided. We understand the need to acknowledge differences between states and to recognize the role of families in the lives of older persons. At the same time, we consider it important to ensure that this perspective does not detract from the state's obligation to guarantee that older persons can exercise and enjoy their rights independently, autonomously, and where necessary, with appropriate support, and participate actively and fully in society. We also consider it essential when addressing equality and non-discrimination to recognize that substantive equality entails not only the prohibition of discrimination, but also the state's positive obligation, where necessary, to take proactive measures to promote equality. This is particularly important for older persons, and groups of older persons who face heightened disadvantage or are in particularly vulnerable situations. In this regard, the Finnish NHRI wishes to highlight the equal rights of older persons belonging to minorities, such as older persons with disabilities, older persons belonging to LGBTQ communities, and older indigenous persons. I thank you. Thank you. And I give you the floor

to the representative of Qatar National Human Rights Committee. You have the floor. The speech this morning.

Thank you.

Thank you for your participation. on this discussion. And now I give the floor to distinguished representative of Human Rights Watch. You have the floor.

Thank you, Chair.

Human Rights Watch welcomes the recognition in the Food for Thought paper of equality and non-discrimination, dignity and autonomy. Human Rights Watch is, however, concerned that the paper frames the treaty as a response to aging. Aging is a natural part of life and is not itself a driver of human rights violations. Instead, the treaty should recognize and respond to ageism and other drivers of rights violations against older persons. Human Rights Watch is also concerned by the emphasis on care institutions and the characterization of older persons as dependent. This is inconsistent with the principles of the UN Convention on the Rights of persons with disabilities. The Disability Rights Convention recognizes persons with disabilities, including older persons with disabilities, as full autonomous rights holders who actively contribute to the development of society and have the right to support systems tailored to their needs that empower independent living. A treaty that characterizes older persons as dependent risks reinforcing negative ageist attitudes and stigmatizing older persons further. Human Rights Watch is also concerned that references to family and community duties and responsibilities for older persons could be interpreted as diminishing states' human rights obligations. Families and communities have an important role to play, and states should support them in doing so. However, as an international human rights instrument, The treaty should articulate and reinforce states' obligations to respect, protect, and fulfill the rights of older persons, rather than be underpinned by an assumption that responsibility rests with families or communities. Human Rights Watch agrees with the Chair that the treaty should avoid a rigid definition of an older person. However, allowing each state to determine who falls within the treaty's scope would undermine its universality. Instead, the treaty should articulate to whom it applies in line with its purpose of ensuring the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights by older persons. As such, it should apply to all people who are denied or are at risk of being denied their rights on the basis of their known or perceived older age. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Chair. We welcome the Chair's food for thought paper, which can help stimulate discussion at this early stage of the drafting process. I would like to make, on behalf of our 100-member organisation, some comments aiming to ensure a comprehensive, ambitious, and firmly human rights-based legally binding instrument. Regarding its scope, AGE supports a flexible and inclusive understanding of older age rather than a rigid chronological definition. However, the treaty should provide sufficient normative guidance to ensure consistent and universal protection. Exclusive reliance on national definitions risks creating legal uncertainty and unequal protection across State parties. The definition established in the 2014 Council of Europe recommendation represents an existing example of a factional rights-based definition grounded on the social construction of aging and is without prejudice to the use of complementary definitions at national levels where these are relevant and are in line with the treaty's purpose and related obligations. Second, the convention should be the first international treaty to explicitly recognize ageism as a structural driver of human rights violations in its preamble, and also prohibit ageism and age discrimination against older persons in substantive provisions. It should embrace substantive and transformative equality, requiring States not only to prohibit discrimination, but also to remove structural and systemic barriers, dismantle ageist norms, and adopt positive measures to achieve equality in practice, accessibility, reasonable accommodation, gender equality, and protection against multiple intersectional discrimination should form integral components of the equality framework. Third, the LBI should not include provisions that permit exceptions, limitations, or restrictions that reduce the level of protection of human rights guaranteed under other human rights treaties. It should also ensure that no existing limitations, exceptions, or biases in law and practice that have constrained the full and equal enjoyment of human rights by older persons are carried forward or replicated in its provisions. It must instead remedy gaps and overcome the current conceptual limitations that have historically limited the full and equal realization of human rights in old age. Fourth, we agree that families, communities, and informal networks play an invaluable role in the lives of many older persons, and their contributions to older persons' well-being and care must be recognized and supported. Nevertheless, international human rights obligations remain obligations of States. The Convention should avoid shifting legal responsibility from States to families or assuming that family support is always available, appropriate, or desired. Instead, it should focus on clarifying State obligations. Finally, the instrument should include strong provisions on implementation at the national and international level, including an independent mechanism at the national level, which involves the meaningful role for organizations of older persons drawing on Article 33 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Thank you.

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

Thank you, Chair. As a founding member of GAROP, Impeela aligns with previous GAROP position statements made. We welcome the opportunity to contribute to this discussion. The legally binding instrument needs to explicitly name ageism as a main structural barrier that prevents us from enjoying our human rights. It's crucial that the new legally binding instrument both complements and strengthens existing international human rights instruments and doesn't weaken current standards and protections of rights, such as those on autonomy and legal capacity. Existing standards must be maintained and strengthened, and their application to older persons must be explicit. The Convention should not include any provisions that permit exceptions, limitations, or restrictions that could reduce the level of protection of human rights already guaranteed. The instrument should also remedy any gaps and shortcomings in the existing mechanisms that have historically limited the full and equal realization of human rights of older persons. Although support networks including families, unpaid caregivers, and communities play valuable and seldom acknowledged roles in many older people's lives, international human rights obligations define the obligations of States. In a new Convention, legal responsibility must not be transferred onto families. A new instrument should provide a clear focus on States' obligations and provide remedies for rights violations. The Food for Thought paper rightly identifies care and support as a central element of human rights in, in a new Convention, but the instrument must avoid framing care as a family responsibility or a welfare service. It should enable older individuals to have choice, control, independence and autonomy in their lives. Care and support systems are strongly related to a range of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights such as dignity, equality and non-discrimination, legal capacity, participation, health, access to justice, freedom from violence, abuse, and neglect, and social protection. As the primary duty bearers, states have the obligation to ensure that care and support systems respect, protect, and help to fulfill these rights for older persons. Finally, while strong provisions for implementation, monitoring, and accountability must be included in a new instrument, the content needs to be established first, but always with older persons' participation throughout the process. Thank you.

Thank you. I give the floor to distinguished representative of the National Association of Community Legal Centres. You have the floor.

Community Legal Centres Australia thanks the Chair for his food for thought paper as a stimulus for discussion. Today. Community Legal Centres Australia aligns itself with the statement of the Global Alliance on the Rights of Older People and wishes to emphasise 3 points. Firstly, we must make ageism central to the proposed instrument. The instrument must define ageism and set out strong obligations on States Parties to eliminate ageism by public and private actors. Secondly, on the definition of older persons or older age, the paper is not clear on whether it suggests a strictly chronological definition of older persons or suggests leaving the matter to individual states to define. In our view, neither situation provides an appropriate approach. The work of the Open-Ended Working Group on Ageing revealed considerable variation in the age thresholds used by states to determine eligibility for old age pensions, in fact ranging from 50 to 85 years. The higher end of this range would not be aligned with the expectations of receiving a pension within a reasonable life expectancy. Over just one quarter of states would have average life expectancies that aligned with the higher end of that scale for most of their citizens. Age proxies are frequently used as determinants of entitlement and exclusion across legal, social, and economic systems. While chronological age may provide administrative clarity, reliance on age thresholds can embed assumptions and stereotypes about older persons and also may fail to account for the diversity of ageing experiences. The drafting process should therefore carefully examine the tension between age-based classifications, the prohibition on age discrimination, and the obligation to achieve substantive equality through recognition of intersectionality. In our view, the Convention should develop dynamic, inclusive, and adaptable definitions that avoid rigid age-based limitations and ensure the instrument remains responsive and future-proof. To do otherwise would be antithetical to our role here today. Finally, the paper makes no explicit mention of this issue of intersectionality, and we consider this to be an omission. The instrument provides an opportunity to articulate existing international guarantees of equality and non-discrimination so that they include all older persons who are marginalised and discriminated against. and we must grasp that opportunity. I thank the Chair.

Thank you. I give the floor to International Federation on Aging.

Thank you, Chair. The International Federation on Aging welcomes your Food for Thought paper. As expected in a drafting process of this nature, it also offers member states and stakeholders opportunity to further strengthen and refine the conceptual foundations of the future Convention. With that objective in mind, the IFAE would respectfully suggest 3 areas where the paper could be further strengthened. First, we believe the guiding principles could more explicitly reflect the concepts that will underpin the interpretation and implementation of the Convention, including dignity, autonomy, equality, and non-discrimination, accessibility, meaningful participation, legal capacity, inclusion and respect for diversity. Together, these principles recognise older persons as full rights holders and provide a coherent framework for all substantive provisions. Second, we encourage the explicit recognition of ageism as one of the structural causes of discrimination and exclusion. exclusion. If discrimination is the visible symptom, ageism is too often the invisible cause. Recognising and addressing ageism explicitly will strengthen both the conceptual coherence and the practical effectiveness of the Convention. Third, we encourage the Convention to consistently reflect the complementary relationship between autonomy and support. Support should never replace autonomy. Rather, it should enable older persons to exercise their rights, express their will and preferences, and participate fully in society. This also requires recognising the complementary roles of families, communities, public institutions and the state in creating environments where older persons can live with dignity, independence and inclusion. IFA encourages the Working Group to maintain a life course perspective throughout the Convention, recognising both the diversity of older persons and the cumulative impact that discrimination and inequalities experienced through life may have in older age. Finally, the IFA reinforces the need to engage older people in the drafting of the LBI. Nothing for us, without us. Thank you.

Thank you. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of International Disability Alliance. You have the floor.

Thank you very much, Chair. IDA appreciates the work put into developing this document, which triggers relevant discussions. We provide here a few comments from our perspective to inform this and future conversations. To begin with, IDA believes the reference to the policy challenge caused by demographic aging in the second point of the section preamble might be somewhat misplaced. In our understanding, the legally binding instrument's focus should be the recognition and development of human rights of all the persons regardless of the democratic— sorry, demographic trend in particular. Secondly, addressing principles in Section 2.2, but also in underlying normative principles in Section 4, seems somewhat unclear on whether the positive elements of supported decision-making are respected for will and preferences are meant to be included explicitly and exactly how. I would suggest rather that the future treaty is thorough in the explicit inclusion of relevant principles, which in our view should include, among others highlighted by many colleagues: first, respect for inherent dignity, individual autonomy, including the freedom to make one's own choices and independence of persons, with supported decision-making and respect for will and preference, to be further developed in the future treaty in other provisions. Second, equality and non-discrimination based on age, complemented by a strong intersectional approach. Third, full and effective participation and inclusion in society. And fourth, the principle of accessibility, all of them enshrined in Article 3 of the Either is concerned about the references to duties of the individual to the family and to the community and similar ones. We believe that any acknowledgment of families should be carefully crafted not to suggest de-responsibilizing the state as duty bearer of human rights obligations, including in connection with care and support systems. The few references broadly endorsing institutional care in sections Roman 2.3 and Roman 4.2 are particularly worrisome for IDA, as it might overlook and perpetuate institutionalisation. As characterised by the CRPD Committee's General Comment No. 5 on Article 19 of the CRPD, institutionalisation should not be favoured but phased out. It excludes, segregates, and harms people, limiting their autonomy and choices and removing people's control over their own life. Care and support systems need to go in the direction of enhancing autonomy, agency, control over one's own life, and social inclusion and participation. Thank you very much for your attention.

Thank you. And I give the floor to the Center for the Human Rights of Users and Survivors of Fissure Training.

Thank you.

As the Chair's paper helpfully recognises, there needs to be a sharp move away from the current charity and welfare model to recognition that older persons should have the same rights and freedoms and the same respect for legal capacity as anyone else. The key to achieving this will be a complete shift from all forms of institutionalisation to creative community-based options rooted in the will and preferences of older people in all their diversity. It will be essential that however extensive some older person's support needs may be, it is older persons, not professionals, family members, friends, or others, who choose what services older people receive and in what form, but older people's decision, aided by supported decision-making, when they would value it. In addition, this fundamental change of approach replaces the assumption that it's adequate just to improve current services and that some older persons will always have to be institutionalised regardless of their wishes and experience certain restrictions to their autonomy. The UNCRPD deinstitutionalisation guidelines provide some useful examples of rights-based, community-based forms of support, for example, personal assistance, peer support networks, circles of support, user-led centres for independent living, and assistance from family members and friends all grounded in respect for older persons' own choices and the lifestyle which is important to any one individual. For older persons who prefer to live in communal settings, co-housing settings run by their members are one creative option, including cross-generational forms of these. For older persons experiencing crisis, Crisis houses which provide support for them based on their own choices are an important resource. When older persons need intensive support, the key element to rights-based communal living will be services which are controlled by residents and attuned to both individual and group wishes. Thank you.

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

Mr. Chair, delegates, and friends, AgeWell Foundation welcomes the Chair's Food for Thought paper. It offers a strong foundation with its human rights based approach focused on dignity, autonomy, non-discrimination, and intergenerational solidarity. From the Global South perspective, we suggest the following enhancements. First, the preamble and the general principles should explicitly acknowledge that the Global South already hosts the majority of the world's older persons, and they face distinct challenges, including limited social protection and eroding family support systems. Second, elevate intergenerational solidarity and justice as a standalone guiding principle, promoting youth participation and life course approaches. Third, the substantive rights and implementation sections include clear provisions on progressive realization supported by international cooperation, digital inclusion, long-term care, and gender-sensitive measures, with flexible language that respects national context and resource realities. Finally, Ensure robust participation mechanisms so that older persons and youth from the Global South can meaningfully contribute. Mr. Chair, building on your excellent paper with these elements will help create a truly universal and transformative instrument. Nothing about us without us, across generations and continents. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. And I give the floor to the Confederazione Generale Italiana del Lavoro. You have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. While demographic trends are undeniable, we respectfully suggest that the first core message needs to be reversed. We should not start speaking of a challenge, but rejoice is that human beings live longer, thanks to life and medical advances. So our task is to promote older persons' enjoyment of human rights across the world, living in societies that strive to secure access for all to quality lives, including through better socioeconomic rights. Ageism needs, therefore, to be specifically addressed. Since the raison d'être of a new specific convention is to define the States' responsibility to uphold the human rights obligation, this must be stated in the preamble. Individuals, families, in whatever form they are shaped across the world, and communities have certainly a key role to play, but we cannot shift responsibility, not substitute for the role of the States. It is good to speak about supporting intergenerational solidarity, But language about family duties does not fit a legal binding instrument, as we cannot pass responsibilities to families and communities, especially to older women, as mentioned in the debate, for lack of policies or inadequate funding. On care, we cannot only discuss long-term care or informal care. Healthy aging and care have to be addressed, including through access to free quality public services and through extending decent work to those who provide care for older persons. Quality life should be ensured at home until whenever possible, or creating alternative living arrangements that would respect free choices and dignity, as my friend just said. As per Social Security policies and in line with ILO Convention 102 and Recommendation 202, the instruments need to indicate commitment to paths to social protection for all. While countries are certainly free to adapt national policy at local level and in discussion with national stakeholders, the instruments need clear guidelines, a robust framework, and adequate follow-up at international and national level to be credible and We look forward to a successful exercise. Thank you.

And I give the floor to the International Association for Hospice and Palliative Care. You have the floor.

Thank you, Chair. The IHPC thanks you for explicitly including palliative care as part of the right to health in the Food for Thought paper. A rights-based approach to palliative care will require public health services to relieve the severe pain and burdensome symptoms experienced by older persons with serious illness through interdisciplinary patient-centered practices. The WHO estimates that only 14% of people with palliative care needs receive it globally, mostly in high-income countries. Stipulating palliative care as part of the right to health in an LBI will go a long way to remedying that egregious inequity that penalizes those most in need, particularly in the Global South. We align with the Global Alliance for the Rights of Older Persons joint position paper in insisting the LBI explicitly prohibit age discrimination. Ageism is a scourge in public and private health systems worldwide that often prevents older persons from accessing palliative care services that support their self-determination and freedom of choice, including around end-of-life decision-making, distribution of property, place of death, disposition of remains, and other key legal matters. Explicit prohibition of age-based discrimination in healthcare, including in hospice and palliative care systems where they exist, is essential to protect dignity, the right to health, and the right to be free from torture. The Global Healthy and Compassionate Communities Movement, recently celebrated at the WHO conference in Spain, showcased the governance support for age-friendly communities anchored in mayoral and city council offices. This global movement testifies to the principle of subsidiarity and state support for communities that are willing to step into the widening breach left by health and social systems as regards aging, serious illness, and bereavement. A legally binding instrument that recognizes palliative care will protect older persons at the most vulnerable time of their lives. It will uphold standards for ambulatory and home-based care to protect the resilience of households and survivors, shepherding through the trauma of serious illness, and bereavement.

I thank you.

Thank you. And I give the floor to the Center for International Environmental Law.

The Center for International Environmental Law welcomes the framework outlined in the Chair's Food for Thought paper to guide the architecture of the legally binding instrument. As this working group considers the underlying principles general obligations and specific rights of the new legally binding instrument, we must ensure it is fit for the realities of the 21st century. To achieve this, we would urge states to integrate a holistic twofold approach to the environment. On one hand, the legally binding instrument should explicitly identify the triple planetary crisis— climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution— as a structural threat to older persons. And on the other, it should formally enshrine the autonomous right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment. Numerous human rights mechanisms and institutions have made clear that older persons are rights holders whose specific needs must be addressed and whose meaningful participation must be ensured in climate and environmental decision-making, disaster risk reduction, and policy design at all levels. They have called on states to adopt age-inclusive, disability-inclusive, and gender-responsive climate laws and policies that recognize older persons' rights, resilience, and agency. The right to a healthy environment has already been recognized by the UN General Assembly and the Human Rights Council, as well as regional mechanisms. Including this right among those protected under the legally binding instrument, it would thus be essential to ensure that the instrument is consistent with international human rights law. Therefore, in alignment with the proposed structure of the instrument, we urge member states to embed environmental rights into the text across 2 levels: substantive obligations explicitly requiring states to protect older persons from environmental disruption affecting their rights and include the right healthy environment among the protected ones. And procedural obligations, formally guaranteeing older persons the right to access environmental information, public participation, and access to justice. Older persons must not only be framed as victims of climate change, but as active agents of change whose voices and capabilities are legally protected. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. And this was the last speaker that we can accommodate. All statements will be placed on the website, and I please ask you to send your statements to speeches@un.org. All of you, Including all those who didn't have the chance to speak today because of lack of time. That is the negative side. The positive side is the intensive discussion and intensive participation of member states and all the civil society. I think it's a very good sign and very good message. Now I'll give back the floor to Mr. Kovaru for responding to further comments. Mr. Kovaru, you have the floor.

Muchas gracias, señor presidente.

Thank you very much, Chair. And colleagues, thank you for all your comments. We have taken due note of many of the things that were said. And if there is one thing that I can add at this stage of the debate, and after having been working since December 2024 on this subject, and after having talked I talked to you in various formats. As we were discussing the text of the resolution, which was then adopted as 58/13, and then towards organizing the meeting in February and the preparatory group, all the way up to this meeting here today. I would like to reiterate that I can see the true interests that all stakeholders have in, well, not just recognizing the human rights of older persons, but in working on robust implementation of the treaty that we are working on as of today. And this is not just the level of Geneva delegations, but also the numerous effort experts coming from ministries and capitals, colleagues coming from New York, the National Human Rights institutions, civil society, and the numerous academics and experts that devote their time and energy to this throughout the world, many of whom have already worked on prolific works producing very significant results that without a doubt at some point in the process we will turn to as references to help us guide further discussion. I'm really pleased to listen and to see that States practically unanimously support the theoretical conceptual framework of a future treaty to be the international system for the protection of human rights. We know that there are some concepts coming from other academic perspectives, and they're entirely valuable, and we have them there. there as references for our discussion. And we have talked at length about these out there in the hallways and in other informal settings. But I can confirm that the framework for our work will be the international system for the protection of human rights. And that's important for all of us to be clear on as we move forward.

And then, does the Chinese—

Over and above any differences that we might have seen regarding the use of a specific word, certain labels, or matters that we might categorize as ideological, if we really get down to it, to brass tacks and the essence of the contributions made today, we will find a level of support, consistency, and convergence I don't think we're losing sight of the forest for the trees. I think that here we saw a message from at least 2 representatives speaking about a holistic, comprehensive support, that the paragraph of the treaty we're going to have, that the word we might want to include in the text should not eclipse the general interest, the genuine interest to continue to move forward with the treaty.

Thank you.

I do know that for many delegations, the matter of keeping the centrality of constitutional liberal law and the traditions coming from European liberalism and libertarian trends in this debate is extremely important. But as a delegate from Argentina, I can tell you that in Argentina, I cannot ignore the political context of our country, and right now there is no government in the world that is more identified with the currents of European liberalism and the trends of freedom than Argentina. So we have a great interest in including in our work the importance of the individual and how they can have a I know that for many colleagues from the most represented regional groups in the Group of 77, the matter of international cooperation is extremely important. At no point in our exercise are we going to cast aside the perspectives and the needs of countries of Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. Asia in our discussions, and I am fully convinced that the treaty will have a clause on international cooperation that will ensure that the 5 regional groups feel at ease with the future implementation of this treaty. I personally pledge, as does the chair, to really deeply study all matters that have been raised related to duplication of certain rights that have already been mentioned in other instruments. I am very interested to hear the contribution on access to justice. We know also that any discussion guided by public law, the inclusion of concepts coming from private law do add a technical dimension, very difficult and complicated dimension. But here we have extremely competent jurists among us, and I am sure that we will be able to find a solution to these differences in the future. A lot has been said about the structure, but the structure of the treaty is not set in stone, and as the Chair has said, we are open to continue listening Thank you, Mr. President, for your kind words. We appreciate them. We appreciate what you're saying to you, and we understand that there are some understandings and views on certain details that should the instrument look more like this document or that, but that's perfectly understandable. It's natural to any discussion among states in a multilateral system. I am pleased to hear the support that matters such as intergenerational responsibility have, a flexible definition of older persons, the paradigm shift, and the recognition that the population of older persons is not homogeneous. Everyone at some point in our lives has been vulnerable to one extent or another, and part of our responsibility as government delegates is to continue to strengthen the international system for the protection of human rights, not to deny these vulnerabilities, but rather to continue to strive to address them in the most fitting manner while respecting human dignity, a dignity that is still inherent to older persons, as will be recognized in the future treaty.

Thank you.

And that's a point that has been made several times during our dialogues.

So you will draw a parallel?

We will continue to work. We will continue to consider your contributions. Over 200 of them have come in. And something we have tried to do with this document is Not really to have a detailed list of everything that has been said because the summary in the minutes is there for that. Instead, what we have tried to do is to have a conceptual interpretation that may be subjective for the time being of many of the things that were said and things that delegations transmitted to us informally. Thank you very much for your attention, and I give the chair back to the chair. Thank you very much.

Mr. Covarro, I would like to say that this is, I believe, a historical moment. Historical not because we have reached the end of the road, but because perhaps for the first time we have truly begun to walk it together. We are working from constructive premises. We are listening to different views. We are keeping every member state in mind, as well as the organizations that have invested their concern, their experience, and their hopes in this process. Something is important, and something important has changed. We have begun to build the ground on which we can move forward. I reaffirm my unwavering commitment to impartiality, neutrality, and objectivity as we undertake the collective construction of this important instrument, an instrument that no one will write alone because it belongs to all of us. We have begun to write it together with passion but also with reason, with conviction but also with the wisdom to listen. At last we have begun. Now with this, Excellencies, distinguished participants, this brings us to the end of this meeting. Tomorrow we will resume our session at 10:00 AM for a focus debate On the treaty monitoring arrangement, I hereby declare this meeting closed.