A/HRC/19/70 addressed the issue of “too big to fail” and the regulation of derivative markets through a human rights lens. 48. Gabrielle Marceau, World Trade Organization, speaking on connecting trade, development effectiveness and human rights, argued that the debate on human rights and the world trade rules dated back to at least 1999. In her view, the world trade rules, the right to development and human rights in general shared the same values and principles. Trade was needed to create revenue to bring about economic growth. However, economic growth alone did not bring economic justice automatically. Ms. Marceau referred to the Doha round negotiations and the rules specifically targeting LDCs, according to which they were only required to make commitments consistent with their economic and administrative capacities. It was not the mandate of WTO to look into the equitable sharing of benefits from trade. Transparency obligations were in place and Governments should report how they spend benefits of trade. Ms. Marceau reported that there were gaps and that the WTO Director-General had set up a section dealing with human rights and trade. She underlined the need for close collaboration with the human rights community to allow trade to grow in the right direction towards social justice and implementation of the right to development. In her view, there were no legal impediments to taking human rights law into consideration, indeed this was already happening, for example, in the context of intellectual property law and in agriculture. 49. Jane Nalunga, Southern and Eastern African Trade Information and Negotiations Institute, speaking on understanding the implications of multilateral and bilateral trade agreements on the right to development and social welfare in Uganda, argued that trade agreements impacted on all aspects of life. Under the WTO regime, member States were obliged to abide to all agreements in a single undertaking. The decision process was undemocratic and unfair, largely determined by developed countries. All national laws had to be WTO compliant. Most developing countries lacked the capacity to take advantage of the existing flexibilities under WTO law, sometimes they were not used in order to attract investors or through donor pressure. WTO had a retaliation and sanctions mechanism, which did not exist under the human rights framework. The principal reason for the stalling of the Doha round concerned the structural inequalities in WTO. The trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPS) primarily protected corporate interests. Problems resulting from protection of intellectual property included food security, access to medicines and education and transfer of technology. There was the need to ensure the protection of human rights in all multilateral and bilateral trade agreements and to reform the WTO and trade negotiating systems. 50. Tenu Avafia, United Nations Development Programme, addressed the role of intellectual property in facilitating or impeding access to pharmaceutical products, in particular for the treatment of HIV/AIDS. Prior to the existence of the Agreement on TradeRelated Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Including Trade in Counterfeit Goods, countries had more flexibility to shape national intellectual property laws. The TRIPS agreement restricted that policy space to three groups of flexibilities, namely preventative, remedial and enforcement flexibilities. He encouraged countries to make use of these existing flexibilities and noted that it was important to provide assistance and guidance to countries on how best to make use thereof. He expressed concern over the provisions of TRIPS-plus agreements contained in free trade or other bilateral trade agreements under which developing countries’ use of these flexibilities might be compromised. 51. Representatives of the Housing and Land Rights Network, Egypt, Qatar, the Association for World Citizens, Cuba, the Russian Federation, Egypt (on behalf of the NonAligned Movement) and North-South XXI made interventions. Concern was expressed over the existing parallel legal structures and the question was raised how best to dismantle them. There was a need to create an enabling environment through international solidarity and 16