A/HRC/24/20 Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights on the adverse consequences of economic sanctions on the enjoyment of human rights.3 The year 2013 marked the twentieth anniversary of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, which called upon States: to refrain from any unilateral measure not in accordance with international law and the Charter of the United Nations that creates obstacles to trade relations among States and impedes the full realization of the human rights set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international human rights instruments, in particular the rights of everyone to a standard of living adequate for their health and well-being, including food and medical care, housing and the necessary social services. In conclusion, she stated that the drafters of the Vienna Declaration had put people and their rights at the centre, an approach OHCHR continued to advocate. When addressing the impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights, we must focus on people, in particular vulnerable groups and individuals whose rights were most likely to be affected. 5. In his keynote speech, the President of the Constitutional Court of Belgium, Mr. Bossuyt, listed four features about sanctions that had been highlighted in the abovementioned working paper of the Subcommission that he had prepared: sanctions should always be limited in time; they affected most seriously innocent populations, especially the most vulnerable; they aggravated imbalances in income distribution; and they often gave rise to illegal and unethical business practices. He then provided a brief classification of sanctions, including trade, financial, travel, military, diplomatic and cultural sanctions, and proposed criteria to evaluate them: whether the sanctions concerned were imposed for valid reasons and within a reasonable time frame; whether they targeted the proper parties, goods or objects rather than innocent civilians; and if the sanctions were effective and free from “protest arising from violations of the principles of humanity and the dictates of the public conscience”.4 The most important criterion in evaluating sanctions was their legitimacy; it could hardly be disputed that sanctions imposed by the Security Council, unlike sanctions imposed unilaterally, were legitimate. He stressed that the effectiveness of sanctions should be periodically assessed, which would in turn affect their legitimacy. 6. Mr. Bossuyt stated that preference should be given to “smart sanctions” so that adverse consequences for the civilian population could be avoided. Such sanctions were conceived to affect directly political leaders by targeting their personal foreign assets and access to foreign financial markets, and subjecting them to travel restrictions. He then cited the three case studies examined in his working paper, which concerned Burundi, Cuba and Iraq. In conclusion, the effects of sanctions had to be evaluated at regular intervals (no more than one year at the maximum) and their impact on the enjoyment of human rights of the population should be taken prominently into account. If the desired results could not be attained within a reasonable time, the measures should be suspended; otherwise, the sanctions might lose legitimacy and become counterproductive. 7. Subsequently, the Chairperson opened the floor for general statements. Representatives of Belarus, Cuba, Iran (Islamic Republic of) (on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement), Iraq, the Sudan, the Syrian Arab Republic and Zimbabwe took the floor. Several delegations spoke of the impact of sanctions and unilateral coercive measures on their countries and how the human rights of the populations, such as the right to work, the 3 4 4 E/CN.4/Sub.2/2000/33. E/CN.4/Sub.2/2000/33, p. 12.