A/HRC/27/32 28. In conclusion, Ms. Macdonald noted the need for a broad-based humanitarian exemption under sanctions regimes to allow humanitarian organizations to continue to function effectively on the ground, and narrower definitions of concepts such as “material support” to terrorists, so that they did not prevent humanitarian organizations from fulfilling their mandate to provide support to the population. 29. Mr. Halliday welcomed the focus of the discussions on accountability, noting that he could not recall the Security Council ever being held accountable for the consequences of its decisions under Chapter VII, Articles 41 and 42, of the Charter. He considered that it was unrealistic to expect States to respect basic principles in implementing unilateral coercive measures when the Security Council itself did not respect the purposes and principles set out in Articles 1 and 2 of the Charter when it imposed sanctions. Mr. Halliday therefore proposed a revised and binding Article 41 compatible with those purposes and principles, with time limitations, effective monitoring and rigid accountability provisions. 30. With regard to unilateral coercive measures, Mr. Halliday considered that there should be nothing less than complete cessation of them, as all such measures violated the Charter. However, as unilateral coercive measures would be hard to stop in practice, he proposed close monitoring by the Human Rights Council, with quarterly reporting to the General Assembly or a revitalized and operational International Court of Justice. Accountability could be ensured through devices such as suspension of United Nations membership, loss of General Assembly voting rights, payment of reparations and payment of compensation to individuals. Mr. Halliday suggested that positive rather than punitive intervention might, however, be more productive, with increased United Nations capability to anticipate bilateral problems, tensions and actions before coercive measures were begun, and early dispute resolution assistance made available to States involved in disputes. He stated that true accountability could be ensured only through a reformed, more democratic Security Council, with full global and North/South representation. 31. In conclusion, Mr. Halliday noted that few, if any, States appeared to win either when imposing or as a target of multilateral or unilateral coercive measures, and that nonviolent recognition, support, cooperation, and commitment to the letter and spirit of the Charter might prove to be more rewarding. 32. Ms. Zaidi, participating by video message, examined the recent history of the use of sanctions, noting that prior to 1990, the Security Council had imposed sanctions only twice, against the former Rhodesia and South Africa, but between 1990 and 2000, they had become a favoured coercive measure as an alternative to military intervention and had been imposed 13 times. Drawing from her experience in assessing, analysing and critiquing the negative humanitarian impacts of various sanctions regimes, she stated that if sanctions were not designed with human rights principles in mind from the outset, subsequent attempts to mitigate their humanitarian effects would be minor and insignificant, amounting to a form of greenwashing that served to obscure the harmful policies behind the sanctions. She gave examples of the human toll of comprehensive trade sanctions in Iraq; the improvement of social conditions in the Islamic Republic of Iran under comprehensive unilateral sanctions which had then worsened following the imposition of multilateral sanctions; public pressure to implement “smart” sanctions to reduce negative humanitarian and human rights effects; and the broader effect of current targeted sanctions on the economy of the Russian Federation. She noted that targeted sanctions, by definition, had narrower impacts, and as such were easier for policy elites to circumvent and thus were less effective from the perspective of the States imposing them. 33. Ms. Zaidi concluded that sanctions were war by another means, analogous to siege and blockade. Damage to the national economy on which the population depended for health and welfare was used by States imposing unilateral coercive measures to force a change in government behaviour. She said that smart sanctions would always be preferable to 10