18 United Nations Convention Against Torture and its Optional Protocol to the subject-​matter of the Convention other than those specified in the aforementioned mandate. Discussion then proceeded onto the preambular clauses themselves. A first suggestion made was to delete the phrase ‘of the inherent dignity and’ which existed in both the first and the second paragraphs. Since there was general agreement that the words were redundant, the suggestion was accepted and the change made to the first paragraph.10 With regard to the third paragraph, a proposal was made to include a reference to the principle of non-​discrimination as enshrined in either Article 55 of the United Nations Charter, or in Article 2(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This suggestion received wide support from the Working Group and the text was amended so as to include a mention of Article 55.11 Several delegations within the Working Group expressed discontent with the sixth preambular clause as drafted by Sweden.12 The observer for Amnesty International, for instance, argued that the clause in question risked undermining the authority and effectiveness of the 1975 Declaration.13 As a result, the following phrase was proposed by the Argentine delegation as a replacement for the Swedish draft: ‘Desiring to make more effective the struggle against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment throughout the world’.14 The proposal gained general support and was subsequently accepted by the Working Group. The appropriate amendments, as detailed above, were made and the Chairman-​ Rapporteur of the sessional Working Group, Jan Herman Burgers, submitted the revised set of preambular clauses which were then adopted by the Group during its 1983 session.15 There was still, however, one outstanding issue. During the second reading of the draft preambular clauses, which took place at the 11th meeting,16 the Peruvian delegation had proposed the following paragraph for inclusion in the preamble: Recognizing that the essential rights of men are not derived from one’s being a national of a certain State, but are based upon attributes of the human personality, and that they therefore justify international protection in the form of a convention.17 The Group was of the opinion that this was a proposal that warranted careful deliberation at a later stage. The Group recommenced the discussion of this proposal in 1984 when it was agreed that although the intention of the Peruvian delegation was commendable, the ideas contained in the proposal were too broad and too controversial for inclusion.18 Moreover, it was largely agreed that the existing second paragraph of the preamble incorporated many of the same ideas without being couched in as broad terms. The Peruvian delegation thus withdrew its proposal and the Group decided that the preamble would consist of the revised set of clauses as adopted in 1983.19 10   E/​CN.4/​1983/​WG.2/​WP.16 (n 6)  para 8.  See also Herman Burgers and Hans Danelius, The United Nations Convention against Torture: A Handbook on the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Martinus Nijhoff 1988) 84. 11   E/​CN.4/​1983/​WG.2/​WP.16 (n 6) para 9; Burgers and Danelius (n 10) 84. 12 13   E/​CN.4/​1983/​WG.2/​WP.16 (n 6) para  10.   Burgers and Danelius (n 10) 84. 14   E/​CN.4/​1983/​WG.2/​WP.16 (n 6) para  10. 15   Report of the Working Group of the Commission on Human Rights (1984) UN Doc E/​CN.4/​1984/​72, para 6. 16 17  ibid.   E/​CN.4/​1983/​WG.2/​WP.16 (n 6) para  12. 18 19   E/​CN.4/​1984/​72 (n 15) para  7.   Burgers and Danelius (n 10) 92.