A/HRC/42/35 implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals; and an optional protocol for individual or group complaints procedures and the settlement of disputes. 86. After the presentations, delegations from Cuba, the Gambia, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Pakistan, the Syrian Arab Republic and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (speaking both on behalf of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries except Colombia, Ecuador and Peru and in its national capacity) took the floor. They were followed by representatives of the South Centre and the civil society organizations the Associazione Comunità Papa Giovanni XXIII (speaking on behalf of the Working Group on the Right to Development of the Forum of Catholic-Inspired NGOs in Geneva), the Europe-Third World Centre, the International Human Rights Association of American Minorities, the Nigeria-Togo Association and Vie et Santé du Centre. Several speakers referred to the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures, trade barriers and negative international extraterritorial obligations on development efforts and asked how that could be reflected in the legally binding instrument. Some representatives spoke about the human rights obligations and the impact of international financial institutions on the right to development. Delegates also questioned the role and responsibilities of other stakeholders, including regional organizations, experts and indigenous peoples in the negotiations process and outcome document. The delegate of the Gambia referred to the purposes for determining compliance with the right to development outlined by Ms. Desierto, stressing the need to make information available to decision makers. That included information on regulatory and development decision-making gaps and intersectional data on the human rights impacts of economic decision-making. Deepened, democratized, and equalized engagement with all constituencies of economic decision-making was needed. The Syrian Arab Republic directed questions to experts on how to prevent pitfalls and shortcomings in the negotiations from the start and requested examples of international agreements and processes to be used as best practices for the legally binding instrument negotiations. The South Centre questioned whether the way forward would be a treaty with specific new obligations or one on how to implement existing obligations. The Islamic Republic of Iran asked experts to elaborate on the role of the depositary in the legally binding instrument. 87. The panellists responded to questions, including the need to refer to women in the legally binding instrument. Women minority groups were the hardest hit by poverty. With regard to other stakeholders and participation, the experts considered that negotiations should be an interdisciplinary and intersectional process. The Regional Agreement on Access to Information, Public Participation and Justice in Environmental Matters in Latin America and the Caribbean and the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters were mentioned as providing useful guidance. Panellists recommended conducting a baseline study to guide the way forward and negotiating the instrument in a manner that would clarify existing norms. Negotiating States could mirror good practices related to international cooperation in provisions of international environmental agreements, such as the Convention on the Law of the Non-navigational Uses of International Watercourses and the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. Inspiration for the negotiation process could be drawn from the process followed by the open-ended intergovernmental working group on transnational corporations and other business enterprises with respect to human rights. Regarding extraterritorial obligations, guidance could be drawn from general comment No. 24 (2017) of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights on State obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the context of business activities. Unilateral coercive measures were illegal according to international law. The duty to respect human rights and the “do no harm” principle were not restricted to States alone, and it was theoretically possible for non-State actors to be prescribed human rights responsibilities by States without their consent. Experts recommended appointing the Secretary-General as depositary. 17