A/HRC/27/32 public officials often embezzled funds, which were then transferred abroad. Targeted sanctions against corrupt officials, in particular politically exposed persons, could help to close loopholes, combat corruption and end impunity. Such measures could include denial of entry, which, unlike a travel ban, was normally within the jurisdiction of States. In its anti-corruption action plan adopted in 2010, the Group of 20 urged its members to adopt ad hoc denial-of-entry policies, legal frameworks and enforcement measures, and to cooperate in that area. A lack of publicly available information made it difficult to monitor and hold Governments to account for proper implementation, and the compliance rate among G-20 countries was low. Another tool which might put corrupt officials under pressure was the temporary freezing of economic resources to prevent their use and transfer. That would require greater transparency and information sharing in banking, as well as procedural guarantees against abuse. In conclusion, Ms. Kühn stated that targeted measures could be a powerful tool against corrupt individuals that might avoid the negative human rights impacts of other unilateral coercive measures. She pointed to the need for common standards and objective criteria for targeted unilateral coercive measures, the need to respect proportionality, and the need for adequate procedural guarantees and the highest degree of transparency to ensure their fair and effective implementation. 21. Mr. Okafor considered which of the existing international human rights mechanisms could be most appropriate for mitigating the adverse effects of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights. He identified six factors which should be taken into account in that analysis: the challenge of territoriality and jurisdictionally limited obligations; the need to ensure accountability; access to independent evidence; financial and administrative efficiency; the need to secure and deploy the most appropriate technical expertise; and the reduction of politicization. He noted that the mandate of treaty-based bodies to examine the human rights obligations of a State was generally limited to the territory and jurisdiction of the State under consideration. He suggested that a Charterbased body might be better placed to examine unilateral coercive measures, which by their very nature had extraterritorial effects. Extraterritorial issues might be taken into account in the universal periodic review process, and that mechanism might also meet the identified requirements of financial and administrative efficiency and accountability. However, those Member States conducting the review would not normally have robust access to direct, independent evidence or the flexibility to select and deploy the best available technical expertise. Were the Human Rights Council to decide to appoint a special rapporteur on the issue, that person would have direct access to evidence through country visits, as well as information from civil society organizations. Furthermore, the universal periodic review involved a significantly more political process than the work of a special rapporteur. Mr. Okafor therefore strongly recommended the creation of a dedicated special procedure for the assessment and/or mitigation of the adverse effects of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights. 22. The Chair welcomed the rigorous approach of the panellists, and remarked on some positive trends to overcome some of the identified jurisdictional challenges, including recognition by the International Court of Justice of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment as an erga omnes partes convention, meaning that any State party could make a claim regarding non-compliance by another State party. She pointed out that many targeted sanctions were not to be seen as mere administrative measures, but were punitive in nature without the accompanying due process guarantees. 23. During the interactive dialogue, interventions were made by representatives of the Indian Council of South America, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, the Hawa Society for Women and the Organization for Defending Victims of Violence, and by Mr. de Zayas. Several speakers highlighted the impact of unilateral coercive measures on the right to self- 8