A/HRC/43/36 56. Many participants stated that only the Security Council should have the right to impose economic, financial and other non-forcible measures on States or individuals for the purpose of giving effect to its decisions. Delegates pointed out that unilateral coercive measures violated the Charter of the United Nations 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. Some delegates drew attention to the fact that even the sanctions applied pursuant to decisions of the Security Council were considered means of last resort, to be used in extreme cases. 57. Many participants emphasized that unilateral coercive measures had disproportionate and discriminatory effects on vulnerable groups, which deserved more attention from States and the Human Rights Council. Among those especially affected by unilateral coercive measures were women, children, the elderly, persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples, members of ethnic and religious minorities, peasants and the poor. Unilateral coercive measures that required the extraterritorial application of the laws of the source country and that imposed secondary sanctions for non-compliance were unlawful under international law. Moreover, unilateral sanctions that were intended to fill the protection gap or deter human rights violations by targeting perpetrators were inefficient and counterproductive, as the alleged perpetrators they were intended to affect often became more entrenched in their ways. 58. Some participants said that unilateral coercive measures were tools in the hands of the powerful. They allowed more developed countries to apply pressure on developing and least developed countries with economic and political regimes that did not enjoy their approval. They violated general international law, as they constituted interference in the self-determination of peoples and in their right to decide their own economic and political systems. Such coercive measures were not only unilateral but also unidirectional, as they were used by powerful States against weaker States. The representative of 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. 59. Other participants regarded unilateral coercive measures as a hindrance to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. The Human Rights Council and the General Assembly had adopted resolutions, reflecting the absolute majority of Member States, condemning such measures. In line with those resolutions, the participants urged all States to refrain from imposing unilateral coercive measures and remove any such measures currently in force as they were contrary to the Charter and to the norms and principles governing peaceful relations among States at all levels. It was recalled that such measures prevented the full realization of the economic and social development of nations while also affecting the full realization of human rights. 60. Participants urged States to refrain from adopting unilateral coercive measures in every case. Many also called for those in a position to do so to take measures to prevent third States from taking unilateral coercive measures, in violation of international human rights law. Such measures were not conducive to the effective implementation of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action or the Sustainable Development Goals. 61. Some participants proposed making the topic of unilateral coercive measures and related issues an intrinsic part of the work of all the mechanisms of the Human Rights Council, both the treaty-based mechanisms and the Charter-based mechanisms. The universal periodic review process should be used to address violations of human rights caused by unilateral coercive measures. IV. Conclusions 62. In their concluding remarks, the panellists stressed that unilateral coercive measures taken against a State or against certain sectors of its economy, thereby causing a disproportional adverse impact on the population, constituted collective punishment, were contrary to international law and should be prohibited. Unilateral coercive measures often violated a wide array of human rights, in particular the rights to life, to freedom of movement, to privacy, to a fair trial and due process, to the 9