A/HRC/24/20 an independent assessment was needed. In this regard, the workshop could contribute by identifying the elements that would enable the international community to understand the impact of unilateral coercive measures on human rights. V. Session III: The way forward 23. The panellists of session III included the Permanent Representative of Uruguay to the United Nations Office at Geneva and former President of the Human Rights Council, Laura Dupuy Lasserre; former Special Rapporteur on the right to food and Professor at the University of Geneva, Jean Ziegler; and the Programme Director of Centre Europe-Tiers Monde, Melik Özden. 24. Ms. Dupuy Lasserre noted that there were a number of situations involving unlawful unilateral coercive measures that had come before the Human Rights Council in different ways, such as the blockade of Gaza, the presence of the United States base in Guantanamo, the use of unlawful unilateral means against non-State actors in the fight against terrorism, the impasse in the Security Council and the supply of weapons by various States to various parties in the internal armed conflict in the Syrian Arab Republic, and the threat of use of force by nuclear weapons by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Economic measures taken as countermeasures or retaliation to an international unlawful act by a State should be assessed by an independent body to distinguish whether such measures were coercive or legitimate under international law, especially in view of the principle of nonintervention. There were interesting examples in regional organizations where efforts were made to promote human rights, the rule of law and democracy, without breaching international law. The Organization of American States offered different ways of collective action in addressing problems in countries and sought to avoid the use of unilateral coercive measures. She highlighted the inter-American human rights system, and other regional peer-review mechanisms to combat corruption or the drugs problem, as well as various arbitration courts (subregional or international) in dealing with bilateral disputes. Ms. Dupuy Lasserre stressed the need to refrain from unlawful measures and to resort to dialogue and negotiation, as well as a cooperative approach at the bilateral, regional and multilateral levels. 25. Mr. Ziegler stated that the debate at hand had given rise to different opinions and that 12 States had voted against the resolution mandating the present workshop. Referring to a report on his visit to Cuba in 2007 as Special Rapporteur on the right to food, he added that the right to food in the country was guaranteed in spite of a complex regime of unilateral coercive measures, which had three dimensions: food and medical embargoes; regime change; and extraterritoriality. He then referred to the situation of the right to food in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and made several suggestions to address the impact of unilateral coercive measures on human rights. Compensation should be given to the families who had suffered because of unilateral embargoes and sanctions. Sanctions should be limited in duration (such as six months); regime change should never be an objective of unilateral coercive measures; when massively applied, smart sanctions were not substantively different from unilateral coercive measures. A special procedure should be created to report to the Human Rights Council at all sessions on the human rights consequences of unilateral coercive measures, and there should be a normative framework for these measures. 26. Mr. Özden stated that unilateral coercive measures infringed international law, including international humanitarian law and international human rights law. The General Assembly could adopt a declaration condemning unilateral coercive measures and turn to the International Court of Justice for advisory opinions on specific cases. Individuals affected by these measures could seek redress before such relevant treaty bodies as the 9