E/CN.4/2002/73/Add.2 page 10 26. As stated by the Secretary-General of the United Nations at the World Conference on Human Rights held in Vienna, in 1993, human rights, and in particular those of women, when viewed at the universal level, bring us face to face with the most challenging dialectical conflict ever: between “identity” and “otherness”, between the “myself” and “others”. They teach us in a direct, straightforward manner that we are at the same time identical and different.27 27. Universality is inherent in human rights.28 The Charter of the United Nations unambiguously expressed this in its Article 55. The very title of the Universal—and not international—Declaration of Human Rights reinforced that trend, the objective being to unite all individuals over and above their racial, ethnic, religious and gender differences and combine unity and diversity in the name of equal dignity in regard to differences of identity.29 28. Different traditions may diverge in this respect. It can be argued, for example, that distinctions in inheritance, family responsibilities, custody of children or women’s access to positions of political or religious responsibility do not constitute discrimination since they are part of a coherent system founded on the respective roles and duties of men and women in society and within the family and would therefore be justifiable, especially as they may be based on religious precepts. Numerous examples could be given. They may relate to genital mutilation or to practices that pose a threat to women’s health or lives (these aspects will be explored further in chapter II). Responding to such objections is far from easy. In contrast to other human rights, this is an area where faith-based considerations overlap with the temporal, where the sacred merges with the social and cultural and where the irrational confronts the requirements of social life and of respect for human rights. Attention should, however, be drawn to a number of criteria. 29. As attested by many relevant international instruments, broadly representative State practice and virtually unanimous legal opinion, the universality of human rights is now a fully accepted principle and an established right that can no longer be called into question. That imperative derives from the concept of the human person and from the fact that women’s rights, even when involving cultural and religious aspects, form part of the fundamental rights of the individual. Also, universality arises out of a concept which is at the very root of human rights: the consubstantial and inherent dignity of the person. It is the cardinal and indivisible notion of human dignity which is the common foundation of a universal conception of women’s rights notwithstanding cultural or religious differences. When women’s dignity is infringed, there is no place for sovereignty or for cultural or religious distinctions. This fundamental concept of dignity is the common denominator among all individuals, peoples, nations and States irrespective of their cultural or religious differences or stage of development. 30. That notion can broadly affirm the pre-eminence—over every custom or tradition, whether religious in origin or otherwise—of the essential universal principles of respect for the person and for the inalienable right to self-determination as well as full equality between men and women. There can be no compromise in that respect, since, without this common denominator, there can be no credible system for the enduring protection of human rights in general and those of women in particular. 31. This concept does not undermine cultural diversity or even cultural relativism. But such relativism can be conceivable only insofar as it incorporates the elements of universality and does not detract from the dignity of women at the different stages of their lives. Pluralism of