The quotes don’t define human rights. They describe what countries are required to do.

This best captures the purpose, as we can tell from the lines in between the two quotes. The second quote shows the stronger language lobbied for by people who felt Article 1 was too weak.

This doesn’t capture the purpose of showing the stronger language of the proposal. The author doesn’t bring up the quotes to show a similarity. She brings them up to show a difference.

There’s no indication the author thinks the quotes are the “most important point” of each document. Read the lines between the quotes to get an understanding of the author’s purpose. The author wants to show the kind of stronger language lobbied for by people who were unsatisfied with Article 1.

This doesn’t capture the purpose of showing the stronger language of the proposal. There’s no indication the author cares about the style of each document. What the author wants to show is the stronger requirements of the proposal. Whereas Article 1 required countries to “respect” human rights, the proposal required countries to “take separate and joint action,” which goes further than merely “respect” for rights.