A/HRC/28/59 institutions to withdraw effectively from South Africa and prevent them from investing in the country and granting loans and credits to South Africa, and to hold them accountable for any transgressions.7 13. After the end of the cold war, the Security Council applied comprehensive sanctions, including financial sanctions, to Iraq (1990–2003), Libya, the former Yugoslavia (during the 1991–96 break-up) and Haiti (1993–94).8 In the case of Yugoslavia, the Security Council decided in resolution 757 (1992) that no State should make any funds available to the authorities or any commercial, industrial or public utility in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and should prevent any person within their own territories from making those funds available (except payments exclusively for medical or humanitarian purposes and foodstuffs). The sanctions were justified by ceasefire violations, forcible expulsions and attempts to change the ethnic composition of the populations in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia. 14. The sanctions regime imposed on Iraq and Haiti raised serious concerns about their adverse impact on the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights by the affected population,9 prompting the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to adopt its general comment No. 8 (1997) on the relationship between economic sanctions and respect for economic, social and cultural rights. 15. To avoid such negative effects on the enjoyment of human rights, Security Council sanctions have become more targeted and have included arms embargoes, travel bans, financial sanctions and comprehensive asset freezes on specified individuals and entities. The majority of current sanctions regimes of the United Nations include, as part of their justification, violations of international human rights or humanitarian law, or make explicit reference to particular violations, such as recruiting child soldiers, committing rape and gender-based violence, targeting civilians and other similar offences.10 Sanctions have been imposed on individuals in decision-making positions and on non-State actors, such as rebel and terrorist groups, and private sector actors. As of November 2013, there were 575 individuals and 414 entities designated for asset freezes by the Security Council. 11 While targeted sanctions avoid a number of negative human rights impacts associated with comprehensive economic or financial sanctions, they have raised concerns about due process and unintended negative impacts on economic, social and cultural rights, such as blocking legitimate humanitarian work or preventing the transmission of remittances to family members abroad (see, for example, A/HRC/16/50, paras. 1–27, A/65/258 and A/HRC/6/17 paras. 42–50). 7 8 9 10 11 6 The General Assembly had earlier requested all States, pending Security Council action, to adopt legislative and/or other measures to ensure, inter alia, the prohibition of financial loans and investments and the withdrawal of investments from South Africa. See, for example, resolution 40/64. See Security Council resolutions 661 (1990), 748 (1992), 757 (1992), 820 (1993) and 841 (1993). See, for example, Center for Economic and Social Rights, “UN-sanctioned suffering: a human rights assessment of United Nations Sanctions on Iraq” (New York, May 1996), available from http://cesr.org/downloads/Unsanctioned%20Suffering%201996.pdf; George. A. Lopez and David Cortright, “Economic sanctions and human rights: part of the problem or part of the solution?” International Journal of Human Rights, vol. 1, No. 2 (1997); E. Gibbons and R. Garfield, “The impact of economic sanctions on health and human rights in Haiti, 1991 to 1994”, American Journal of Public Health, vol. 89, No. 10 (October 1999); and E/CN.4/Sub.2/2000/33. See, for example, Security Council resolutions 1533 (2004), 1572 (2004), 1591 (2005), 1970 (2011) and 2127 (2013). Security Council special research report, “UN sanctions”, 25 November 2013, available from www.securitycouncilreport.org.