A/HRC/43/36 independence and therefore were unable to restructure their debts, even if they had wanted to. 51. Mr. Ziegler described examples of secondary coercive measures, including an appalling situation in Gaza. According to the World Health Organization, improperly treated water had caused kidney disease in Gaza, which had been under blockade since 2006. Due to the blockade, Gaza could not repair or refurbish its water processing system, nor could it import technology for dialysis. As a result, a large number of people had fallen sick and had died unnecessarily from kidney disease. That was a clear case of the collective punishment of civilians, which was prohibited by international law. 52. In conclusion, Mr. Ziegler underscored how the forthcoming work of the Human Rights Council on a United Nations declaration could reflect the discussions of the Advisory Committee on the following three issues, to be included in the draft. Firstly, the Advisory Committee considered unilateral coercive measures to be contrary to Article 2 (4) of the Charter of the United Nations, which prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Secondly, direct, secondary or extraterritorial unilateral coercive measures must be banned, as they were effectively acts of collective punishment that were prohibited under customary international law and explicitly prohibited by the Geneva Conventions and the Additional Protocols thereto. Thirdly, while some lawyers and academics supported and defended the use of unilateral coercive measures by arguing that they were “better than war”, the Advisory Committee categorically rejected such an argument because increases in the use of unilateral coercive measures were accompanied by increases in violence. As the Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights had noted, sanctions could be implemented as a prelude to the use of force. The Advisory Committee considered that there was an urgent need to have a declaration on unilateral coercive measures and supported the work being done to draft one. B. Interactive discussion 53. During the subsequent interactive discussion, representatives of the following States made statements: Algeria, Angola (on behalf of the Group of African States), Bolivia (Plurinational State of), China, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Fiji, Malaysia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Qatar, Russian Federation, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, United Arab Emirates and Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) (on behalf of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries and in its national capacity), as well as State of Palestine. 54. Representatives of the following national human rights institutions and nongovernmental organizations made statements: Centre Europe – tiers monde, Charitable Institute for Protecting Social Victims, International Association of Democratic Lawyers, International Human Rights Association of American Minorities, Organization for Defending Victims of Violence, Centro de Estudios Sobre la Juventud and Asociación Cubana de las Naciones Unidas. 55. Participants condemned unilateral coercive measures for being illegal, for being a form of collective punishment and for violating an array of human rights, in particular the right life, the right to freedom of movement, the right to privacy, the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, the right to a fair trial, the right to an adequate standard of living, the right to health, the right to food, the right to water and the right to development. In that context, the panellists, the delegates and the representatives of civil society expressed full support for the drafting of a United Nations declaration on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of all human rights, including the right to development. Such a declaration would introduce systems to ensure the nonperpetuation and non-recurrence of such sanctions. The updated set of elements prepared by the Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights could serve as a good basis for drafters of the declaration. The Special Rapporteur’s recommendation that a special representative of the Secretary-General on unilateral coercive measures be appointed was also welcomed. 8