I would add that, as regards human rights, which are quasi-constitutional, the definition has to be broad. If there is a definition, it must be open, and people must be able to identify with the act. If a person is the victim of harassment or violence, the important thing is for them to be able to identify with the act.
If the definition is restrictive or exhaustive, there is a risk that this could result in a barrier rather than an act that provides protection, an open act that people can identify with.
What we are saying with regard to human rights is that those that an act is supposed to protect must understand the act. The most important thing is for people to identify with the act. So it is very important that the definition is not exhaustive.