text: with the consideration of reports under the relevant human rights instruments". Without prejudice to his person, the Chairman of that Commission could not represent the interests of the States parties to the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid since his country had not ratified that Convention and therefore did not participate in the reporting procedure. Thirdly, the composition of the meeting violated one of the basic principles of multilateral negotiations, namely, the representation of regional groups. While half the participants were from one regional group, Africa and Eastern Europe were not represented at all. It was therefore not surprising that the results of the meeting were disappointing and one-sided. Instead of facilitating the effective implementation of human rights instruments, the meeting had proposed increasing the number of meetings, consultations and trips, as well as ~e volume of documentation and hence, the financial costs. Moreover, instead of focusing on co-operation between the Governments and the human rights bodies, the wording of the texts stressed the anti-democratic concepts of monitoring and supervising the States parties and included methods which constituted forms of interference in internal affairs, such as "sample legislation". Acceptance of the latter proposal, moreover, was inconceivable, in view of the political, economic, social and ideological differences between Member States. 61. In conclusion, his delegation wished to stress that human rights were not the prerogative of any single group of States, socio-economic system or culture. Hence the imposition of uniform models and methods of implementing the international human rights instruments was contrary to the very nature of international co-operation and was even harmful to that co-operation. 62. The CHAIRMAN made a statement and reminded delegations that the time limit for the submission of draft resolutions with programme budget implications under agenda 
analysis: The text appears to be discussing a meeting or conference related to human rights, with criticisms of the composition and outcomes of the meeting. The language used is formal and diplomatic, suggesting a international or United Nations context. The issues raised are related to the implementation and monitoring of human rights instruments, rather than specific economic or environmental topics.