A/HRC/37/311721424 48. Jean Ziegler noted that Qatar was the object of unilateral sanctions applied by other States, and this had dramatic consequences for its population, given that many basic items had to be imported into the country. The sanctions imposed on Qatar were therefore illegal and should be lifted. In this case, the International Court of Justice would be competent to decide on compensation to the population of Qatar. The refusal to trade with another State was not in itself a violation of international law; but when it impeded the realization of the right to development, it was an unlawful measure. Mr. Ziegler recalled that the Human Rights Council first called for an end to unilateral coercive measures in 2012, when it adopted resolution 19/32. Little had since changed in places like Gaza and Cuba, which had suffered from the consequences of unilateral coercive measures for years. He hoped that this would not be the case with the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Mr. Ziegler cited former Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who had once stated that, with regard to human rights, human conscience evolved, “but at the pace of a glacier”. He concluded by calling upon all stakeholders to strive for a new norm banning unilateral coercive measures that violated human rights or impose obstacles to the collective right to development. 49. The Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order stated that the international order was undermined when States unilaterally imposed sanctions or blockades on other States without the approval of the Security Council. Remedies should be granted first by the cessation of the measures, and second by reparation to victims in both targeted States and third countries. The sanctions against Qatar were totally incompatible with General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV), and the State could bring an inter-State procedure before the Human Rights Committee. He also proposed that the General Assembly request an advisory opinion on unilateral coercive measures from the International Court of Justice. The Independent Expert emphasized that the general principles of law were violated by blockades and other coercive measures. The general principles were the spirit of the law, and what inspired the law; these included good faith, estoppel and non-arbitrariness. Unilateral embargoes also constituted a violation of pacta sunt servanda, and could be seen as a new form of colonialism. It was a usurpation of sovereign competencies. The Independent Expert referred to the lack of good faith of many businesses, which took advantage of investment dispute settlement procedures to the detriment of the basic human rights of populations affected, undermining the capacity of States to ensure these rights, but acted differently when their trade was affected by unilateral coercive measures. In cases of the latter, they rarely brought similar disputes before the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes against targeting States. IV. Conclusions 50. The moderator presented the following conclusions and recommendations drawn from the panel discussion: (a) Unilateral coercive measures should be prevented; violations of human rights caused by such measures could entail the international responsibility of States, and consequently, the duty to offer reparations to victims; (b) A clearer definition of unilateral coercive measures should guide efforts to identify them, including in relation to possible resources and means of access to compensation; (c) The Human Rights Council and Member States should focus on existing mechanisms when examining reparations for unilateral coercive measures; (d) All States are encouraged to create domestic reparation mechanisms; (e) The Human Rights Council should consider the establishment of a commission of indemnification and reparation for persons who feel that their human rights have been negatively affected by the adoption of unilateral coercive measures; (f) The Human Rights Council should also consider creating a repository of cases of violations of human rights that result from unilateral coercive measures. 9