A/HRC/24/20 Human Rights Committee, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women and the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. In particular, those affected could bring cases under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, after it came into force in May 2013. Mr. Özden agreed that the Human Rights Council should create a specific mechanism on the impact of unilateral coercive measures, because the existing mechanisms had not given the necessary attention to this important matter. 27. During the ensuing interactive dialogue, the representatives of Algeria, Belarus, Cuba, Egypt, Indonesia, the Sudan and the Syrian Arab Republic took the floor. A number of proposals were made as a follow-up mechanism to address the issue of unilateral coercive measures and their impact on the enjoyment of human rights. The human rights mainstreaming panel of the Human Rights Council should deal with the impact of unilateral coercive measures. The Advisory Committee of the Council should be tasked to develop a code of conduct for respecting the human rights of people affected by sanctions. OHCHR should be given a stronger role in this area. Lastly, the qualitative and quantitative magnitude of the negative impact on human rights of these measures had to be registered in order to promote accountability. 28. Responding to questions and comments, Mr. Ziegler stated that there had to be an end to impunity, and that the right of the victims to reparation must be guaranteed. Mr. Özden added that the goal was to end unilateral coercive measures, and that States could decide how to do so. VI. Conclusions and recommendations 29. In summing up the discussion held during the workshop, the Chairperson concluded that unilateral coercive measures were regarded by States or a group of States that resorted to them as an instrument of their foreign policy. Those affected by such measures considered them to be infringements on their sovereign rights, and on the principles of non-discrimination and non-interference in their internal affairs. Whether in terms of legitimacy or effectiveness, many speakers recognized that unilateral coercive measures had been tools to achieve their proclaimed objective of forcing the States targeted to change their policies. Where such policies were challenged on the grounds of violations of human rights, unilateral coercive measures might even be self-defeating if they themselves denied the enjoyment of such human rights as the rights to food, to health and to education. Thus, some participants maintained, instead of being assisted in upholding their rights, innocent civilians might be doubly victimized. 30. Furthermore, it was suggested that, if States resorted unilaterally to coercive measures, other States might follow suit and thus undermine the rule-based international system. It was stressed that the Charter of the United Nations offered, including under Chapter VII, the framework for applying such measures within a rule-based system. Measures outside this framework and with an impact on the enjoyment of human rights required, in the opinion of the speakers, an assessment of their legitimacy and effectiveness. Many speakers emphasized that States or a group of States resorting to such measures were accountable for their impact on human rights as were those States whose internal policies were challenged on this basis. The impact on human rights of extraterritorial extension of domestic policies via third States or multilateral institutions was also mentioned as a cause of concern to some. There was broad-based recognition of the need for an independent assessment of the impact on human rights of unilateral coercive measures, and for jurisdictions to uphold human rights and accountability in this context. 10