A/HRC/43/36 those that threatened sovereignty, independence, freedom of trade and investment. The States members of the Movement remained committed to reversing the unilateral coercive measures currently in force against several countries and urged other States to do the same through the General Assembly and other organs of the United Nations. In accordance with international law, the Movement expressed solidarity with affected States and demanded that they be compensated for the damages caused. 18. Mr. Arreaza reported that the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries had decided to create a working group on sanctions that was coordinated by the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and that was tasked with advancing the principles of the Movement. 19. In 2017, on the margins of the high-level segment of the seventy-second session of the General Assembly, the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries had unanimously adopted a political declaration on the promulgation and implementation of unilateral coercive measures in violation of international law and human rights of the people subject to them (A/72/509, annex). That political declaration remained a road map for the Movement. 20. Mr. Arreaza concluded by demanding that the unilateral coercive measures against his country be lifted. Specifically, he called for companies, assets and stolen money to be returned to the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and the cessation of the commercial and financial blockade imposed on his people. 21. In his opening speech, the Permanent Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations Office and other international organizations in Geneva, Esmaeil Baghaei Hamaneh, stressed that unilateral coercive measures abrogated an array of human rights, including the right to health, as they hindered access to medicine and medical treatment, safe drinking water, a clean environment and development, all of which were essential for guaranteeing the right to life and to living in dignity. That abrogation affected tens of millions of people. 22. Unilateral coercive measures encompassed a wide variety of policies and actions, most of which were premised on weaponizing economic power, to pressure the target country into adopting a certain behaviour at the expense of the basic human rights of the whole population. As noted by the Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights in a recent report, it had been found that sanctions had inflicted very serious harm on human life and health, including by causing an estimated more than 40,000 deaths in 2017–2018, and that those sanctions would fit the definition of collective punishment as described in both the Geneva and Hague international conventions.2 23. Mr. Hamaneh challenged the assertion of the legality of sanctions. Sanctions led to the uprooting of millions of people and seriously affected the living conditions of many migrants and refugees who happened to reside in countries subject to sanctions. Sanctions even prevented international humanitarian agencies from delivering humanitarian assistance to people on the move and to people in need. 24. Unilateral coercive measures were contrary to the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, international law, international humanitarian law and its norms and principles. Their negative impact on basic human rights and humanitarian law was so massive as to be tantamount to crimes against humanity. 25. The community of States had long deplored the use of unilateral coercive measures for being contrary to international law and because their negative impact on the enjoyment of human rights had been recognized. That impact was so serious as to pose a threat to international peace and security as well. 26. The rejection of unilateral coercive measures had become so widespread that the international community had come to view those measures as unlawful, the extraterritorial effects of which affected the sovereignty of nations, the legitimate interests of entities or persons under their jurisdiction and the freedom of trade and navigation (A/HRC/42/46, para. 44). That constituted a solid basis for urging States to resist the extraterritorial 2 4 Mark Weisbrot and Jeffrey Sachs, “Economic sanctions as collective punishment: the case of Venezuela” (Washington, D.C., Center for Economic and Policy Research, April 2019), p. 1, cited in A/HRC/42/46, para. 31.