A/HRC/37/311721424 coercive measures had had an impact on civil and political rights, in particular, the right to freedom of movement, the right to privacy, the right to fair trial and the right to life. 34. Some speakers described unilateral coercive measures as a violation of the Charter and the principles enshrined in the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. They also regarded these measures as obstacles to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals included in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Some delegations also cited General Assembly resolution 71/193 as an instrument condemning the adoption of such measures. 35. Some delegates drew a distinction between unilateral coercive measures and sanctions applied pursuant to decisions by the Security Council. While the latter were considered effective tools that the international community used to resolve conflicts, unilateral coercive measures were perceived by the same delegations as a means of collective punishment. 36. Many participants emphasized that unilateral coercive measures had disproportionate and discriminatory effects on vulnerable groups, which deserved more attention of States and of the Human Rights Council. Some groups especially affected by unilateral coercive measures cited were women, children, older persons, persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples, ethnic and religious minorities, peasants and the poor. 37. According to one delegate, even if these groups were not the primary targets of the measures, experience showed that they were the first to suffer from their consequences. Speakers also considered the measures inefficient and counter-productive, as they often entrenched the leaders they were intended to affect. 38. Some participants recalled that unilateral coercive measures violated human rights beyond the populations of targeted States. Some measures could even affect the human rights of nationals of the targeting State. 39. According to a number of participants, unilateral coercive measures were tools in the hands of the powerful by which more developed countries could apply pressure to developing and least developed countries with economic and political regimes that did not enjoy their approval. This violated general international law, as it constituted interference in the self-determination of peoples and their right to decide on their own economic and political systems. Such coercive measures were not only unilateral but also unidirectional, as powerful States directed them against weaker ones. One delegation described them as “non-military measures to put pressure on countries”, and drew a parallel between the laws governing armed conflicts to protect civilians and the need to protect the human rights, including the right to development, of the persons and peoples affected by unilateral coercive measures. 40. Cases of unilateral coercive measures cited during the interactive discussion included the recent measures taken against Qatar and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, and the measures applied against Zimbabwe, Yemen, the State of Palestine (Gaza), the Islamic Republic of Iran and Iraq during the 1990s. Non-governmental organizations also referred to measures against specific groups, such as the Saharawi population by Morocco and the Rohingya by Myanmar. 41. One civil society organization noted that the panellists had spoken with largely the same perspective, despite different views on the legality and justifiability of unilateral coercive measures. One delegate regretted the absence of more voices that considered the measures potentially legal, since their presence would have enriched the debate. Another speaker, while recognizing the adverse effects to human rights caused by unilateral coercive measures, pointed out that corrupt practices of targeted States were primarily responsible for the lack of resources for the realization of human rights. A group of States proposed that a distinction be made between boycotts and blockades and unilateral coercive measures, given that the former measures were justified in cases where targeted States were believed to support terrorism. 42. A significant majority of participants urged States to refrain from adopting unilateral coercive measures in any case. Many also called for those in a position to do so to take 7