A/HRC/24/20 post-unilateral coercive measures to assess the situation on the ground and their continuing impact of the measures after they were lifted. She proposed that the Human Rights Council set up an expert committee with the support of the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN-Women) and relevant bodies to study and report on the impact on gender and human rights of unilateral coercive measures. States that had used these measures should apologize for the indescribable misery caused, while the international women and human rights movements that had resulted in Security Council resolution 1325 (2000) on women and peace and security should now be encouraged to push for a Council resolution against unilateral coercive measures. 19. Mr. Tanajero stated that he would discuss unilateral coercive measures from the perspective of the Americas and their impact on human rights. The Inter-American Democratic Charter prohibited States from interfering with each other. Mexico had tried to eliminate such measures and to promote fair trade. In 1996, Mexico requested an opinion on the extraterritorial application of the Helms-Burton Act of the United States of America, whether it was compatible with international law and what its impact was on Cuba and other countries in the Americas. He cited the conclusions of the Inter-American Judicial Committee, which stated that all States were subject to international law in their relations among themselves; all States were free to exercise their jurisdiction, but in exercising that right they had to respect the boundaries of international law; if this exercise was not in conformity with international law, they would be responsible. On the impact of unilateral coercive measures on human rights, he added that the indiscriminate nature of these measures was one of their greatest dangers, because the people they were supposed to protect were often those most affected. There was a need to monitor specific human rights violations resulting from unilateral coercive measures. The Human Rights Council had enough mechanisms at its disposal. Reports should be presented on such violations so that these human rights mechanisms could address them accordingly. 20. Speakers during the ensuing interactive dialogue included the representatives of Belarus, Cuba, Iran (Islamic Republic of) (on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement), Iraq, Malaysia, the Syrian Arab Republic, Swaziland and the Union of Arab Jurists. Some speakers raised issues relating to the impact of unilateral coercive measures on the transfer of technology, access to the Internet, freedom of expression, the right to life and the measures imposed on the Occupied Palestinian Territory by Israel. Several delegations supported the creation of a monitoring body to conduct an independent assessment of unilateral coercive measures and to ensure accountability, while some did not agree with the proposal to create a world court of human rights. According to some speakers, a set of principles or a legal framework that determined the human rights aspects of unilateral coercive measures could serve as a preventive instrument for the international community to consider when States were deciding to impose coercive measures unilaterally. Any further delay in finding a solution would only cause more suffering. 21. Responding to a question about the impact of unilateral measures on freedom of expression, Mr. Tanajero stated that the right to freedom of expression existed both online and offline, the only legal limitations being those established in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Ms. Chenoy stated that, even as a receiver of unilateral coercive measures, Cuba had achieved three Millennium Development Goals through social spending, and that this methodology could be followed by other countries. Mr. Chigara stressed that unilateral coercive measures were illegal under current international law and warned that States were “sleepwalking” into the making of customary international law perpetuated by “persistent objectors” who insisted on their right to use these measures to ensure human rights. 22. The Chairperson summed up the discussion and noted that agreement might never be reached on the desirability of unilateral coercive measures, although it was agreed that 8