A/HRC/27/32 Chair recalled that the disproportionate and indiscriminate human costs of comprehensive sanctions, most prominently the effects on the civilian population of the decade-long sanctions against Iraq, had accelerated the trend towards “smart” sanctions targeted against individuals (such as government leaders), particular commodities (such as arms) or services (such as asset freezes). Those in turn had generated their own human rights problems, and the lack of due process mechanisms for the Al-Qaida sanctions list of the Security Council, imposing asset freezes and other targeted measures against terrorist suspects, had resulted in challenges before domestic and regional courts. She noted that the 2005 World Summit Outcome, while recognizing the utility of sanctions as a tool to maintain international peace and security, stressed that there should be regular monitoring and review by the Security Council to ensure accountability for the way in which sanctions were implemented, and that such measures could now be challenged before an ombudsperson. The Chair stated that it would be paradoxical if the trend towards constraints on collective measures were not accompanied by similar constraints and accountability in respect of unilateral coercive measures, to prevent harmful effects on populations. 5. On behalf of OHCHR, the Chief of the Development and Economic and Social Issues Branch delivered welcoming remarks. He noted that unilateral coercive measures had potential impact on all three pillars of the United Nations: peace and security, development and human rights. In its thematic report submitted to the Human Rights Council in 2012, OHCHR had stressed that such measures must be subject to stringent conditions as to their duration and their proportionality to the legitimate and lawful aim sought, and must include explicit human rights safeguards, including monitoring by independent expert. The workshop provided an opportunity for an exchange of views on the forms that such safeguards and monitoring mechanisms should take. He reminded participants that no State should ever impose measures against another that were in breach of its human rights or humanitarian law obligations under treaty or customary international law, and that States which were subject to unilateral coercive measures remained duty bearers obligated to respect, protect and fulfil the human rights of all persons under their jurisdiction. In conclusion, he noted the political nature of unilateral coercive measures, which were generally resorted to when diplomatic relations between the States concerned had become hostile or had broken off altogether, and encouraged participants to focus not on politics but rather on the very real effects of such measures on human rights. 6. Subsequently, the Chair opened the floor for general statements. Representatives of the Islamic Republic of Iran (on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement), Qatar, Belarus, the Russian Federation, Myanmar, Cuba, Zimbabwe, the Sudan and Pakistan took the floor, followed by the Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order, Alfred-Maurice de Zayas, and representatives of the Organization for Defending Victims of Violence, the Hawa Society for Women and the Indian Council of South America (CISA). Several participants stated that unilateral coercive measures constituted violations of the Charter of the United Nations, international humanitarian law and international human rights law. Speakers highlighted in particular negative impacts on the rights to health, to an adequate standard of living, to food, to education, to work and to housing, as well as on the right to development. A number of participants proposed that the Human Rights Council should create a special procedure on unilateral coercive measures, and that a monitoring body within the United Nations system should ensure accountability for such measures. 4