A/HRC/36/35 focused on opposition to unilateral coercive measures and their implications on the right to development and advocated for deep changes to ensure conditions were favourable to developing countries. Speakers emphasized the need for a people-centred approach to the 2030 Agenda and reiterated the need for common but differentiated responsibilities and policy coherence. Some emphasized that poverty eradication was a key element to the right to development and a multifaceted issue that required an institutional response. Sustainable Development Goal 17 should be considered as a cross-cutting priority and synergies must be created where cooperation was lacking. Global stocktaking was suggested as a way of taking the 2017 session of the High-level Political Forum forward. Financing for development must be considered as an issue to be addressed by the United Nations, and the Working Group had to assume an important role in the Forum. 60. The panellists stressed that leaving no one behind was a basic minimum commitment in the right to development. Unilateral coercive measures must not harm people and the right to development should provide guidelines on how to avoid unilateral coercive measures. In terms of development, a real partnership between developing and developed countries was needed and innovation in all areas was emphasized for poverty reduction. There was a need to bring justice back, consistent with the human rights framework, through a network of goals and human rights mechanisms had a lot of experience with global stocktaking that could be built upon by the High-level Political Forum for the implementation of the 2030 Agenda. Furthermore, human rights inputs must populate the discussion on the right to development at all levels. 61. To conclude the interactive dialogue, the Chair-Rapporteur noted the high level of convergence and complementarity among the presentations and in the relationship between the Sustainable Development Goals and the right to development. The adoption by consensus of the Sustainable Development Goals provided the best way forward in the implementation of the right to development. Many issues, such as the development of a binding legal instrument or how unilateral coercive measures were tackled, were reflective of the difficult work carried out by the Working Group. However, the essence of what was required for the effective implementation of the right to development was political agreement and if that was possible with frameworks such as the Sustainable Development Goals, Financing for Development and the Paris Agreement, it was also possible in relation to the right to development. F. Standards for the implementation of the right to development 62. The Working Group followed up its consideration of the report on standards for the implementation of the right to development (A/HRC/WG.2/17/2) that was prepared and presented by the Chair-Rapporteur at its seventeenth session further to requests by the Working Group at its sixteenth session and the Human Rights Council in its resolution 30/28. 63. The representative of the Non-Aligned Movement presented a draft set of standards regarding the implementation and realization of the Right to Development (A/HRC/WG.2/18/G/1). The representative explained that the proposed standards drew on the work of the high-level task force on the right to development criteria and operational subcriteria and the provisions of the Declaration on the Right to Development and were in line with the Sustainable Development Goals. 64. In the ensuing discussion, the delegate from Japan said that Japan supported the importance of development as one of the basic rights of individuals, regardless of whether they lived in developing or developed countries. However, Japan was unable to support the right to development as being the exclusive right of developing countries. It was underlined that the right to development should not be the subject of a legally binding instrument. Japan reserved its position on the proposed set of standards submitted by the Non-Aligned Movement and emphasized its willingness to engage in a constructive dialogue with the Non-Aligned Movement. Japan was particularly concerned about standards 3 and 9. 65. The delegate from the European Union stated that it reserved its position on the Chair-Rapporteur’s report on standards for the implementation of the right to development 15