A/HRC/43/36 equality of States, the principle that States should refrain from the threat or use of force, the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the duty not to intervene in matters within the domestic jurisdiction of States, the principle that States should settle their international disputes by peaceful means, the duty of States to cooperate with one another and the principle that States should fulfil in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the Charter. 42. According to Mr. Mohamad, the adverse impact of unilateral sanctions on basic human rights in target countries was manifest. Furthermore, unilateral coercive measures were clearly an impediment to the implementation of the Declaration on the Right to Development, as they hampered the fulfilment of obligations on economic and social development in developing and least developed countries. 43. Mr. Mohamad argued that the unilateral coercive measures used by developed countries had far-reaching repercussions on human rights. The measures disproportionately affected the poor and the most vulnerable segments of the population in developing and least developed countries and had particular consequences for women, children, including adolescents, the elderly and persons with disabilities, and may in turn result in social problems and thus raise humanitarian concerns. 44. Mr. Mohamad said that individual States and groups of States should refrain from imposing unilateral coercive measures and remove any such measures already in force. Moreover, States should commit themselves to using other means for the peaceful settlement of international disputes and differences. 45. According to Mr. Mohamad, the time had come for the international community to reaffirm the principle of fair treatment of all persons affected by unilateral coercive measures and to recognize that such persons were entitled to an effective remedy, including appropriate and effective financial compensation. While a few States might argue that economic sanctions were not prohibited by the Charter of the United Nations, even if that were true, sanctions should not be immune from review and judicial scrutiny. 46. Mr. Mohamad concluded by suggesting that everyone had the right to an effective remedy for acts violating his or her fundamental rights. There was no reason to exempt unilateral coercive measures from that general principle, which was intended to benefit all victims of human rights violations, irrespective of particular facts or the context of the violations. In that context, he recalled that States had pledged to promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all (target 16.3 of the Sustainable Development Goals). 47. Mr. Ziegler noted that, after the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee had published, in 2015, its study on the issue of unilateral coercive measures (A/HRC/28/74), the Advisory Committee had convened three public debates with representatives of civil society and Member States. The Advisory Committee fully endorsed the intention of drafting a United Nations declaration on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of all human rights, including the right to development, although a treaty on the same matter would be preferable. Nonetheless, such a declaration would be of great practical importance for multilateral diplomacy. 48. On the matter of whether unilateral coercive measures posed a challenge to the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, Mr. Ziegler argued that unilateral coercive measures killed. In support of his argument, he spoke about violations of the right to food and the right to health. In particular, hunger had been increasing to appalling rates worldwide since 2017 and about 72 million people were suffering from chronic undernutrition, which meant that 1 in 11 people lived in constant hunger. 49. As a result of sanctions, Venezuelan industry had been unable to purchase spare parts for its agricultural work. Even in normal times, 65 per cent of Venezuelan food was imported. As it had been prevented from using the international payment system, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela could not transfer money, even if it had sufficient funds. The situation had had a massive effect on Venezuelans’ enjoyment of the right to food. 50. Mr. Ziegler stressed that the right to development was very difficult to exercise in certain countries. Many developing countries had an overwhelming burden of external debt. Moreover, indebted countries subject to sanctions had no financial or economic 7