A/HRC/24/20 right to health, the right to food, freedom of movement and the right to development, had been affected. A number of speakers stated that unilateral coercive measures constituted violations of the Charter of the United Nations and the multilateral trading system, and requested that these measures to be revoked immediately. Some delegations stated that unilateral coercive measures constituted human rights violations, including of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, as well as of the right to development. Several speakers highlighted the humanitarian, economic and development impact of sanctions, adding that sanctions on the transfer of funds had prevented the importation of food and medicine, as well as construction and other materials needed for the development of the countries targeted. 8. Responding to questions, the Director of the Research and Right to Development Division cited the OHCHR thematic study on the subject, in which the High Commissioner for Human Rights had noted that even carefully targeted sanctions imposed to end gross human rights violations, as part of a wider diplomatic effort and preferably in a multilateral framework, had to be subject to stringent conditions. According to the High Commissioner, they had to be imposed no longer than necessary, be proportional and be subject to appropriate human rights safeguards, including human rights impact assessments and monitoring conducted by independent experts. 5 The Director also referred to the visit made in 2012 by the High Commissioner to Zimbabwe, where she had spoken about the impact of sanctions on people. Mr. Bossuyt concurred and reiterated the importance for sanctions to be limited in duration and evaluated periodically. In closing the opening session, the Chairperson noted the converging views on the need to reform the current system of sanctions and unilateral coercive measures to make it more sensitive to human rights. III. Session I: Unilateral coercive measures: concept, legal framework and challenges 9. The panellists of session I included the Chairperson of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Ariranga Pillay; Alena Douhan, Associate Professor of the Belarusian State University; and Kees Smit-Sibinga, Senior Policy Officer of the Security Policy and Sanctions Division of the European External Action Service. 10. The Chairperson of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights listed a number of examples of unilateral coercive measures, such as trade sanctions, embargoes, boycotts and the interruption of financial flows, stating that some of these measures imposed by States had extraterritorial effects, as they were extended to third-party States. He stated that unilateral coercive measures were applied often without safeguards to protect human rights, causing deprivations that not only had an adverse impact on human rights and the right to development, but also disproportionately affected the poor and the most vulnerable. Citing general comment No. 8 of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, he added said that human rights had to be taken fully into account when designing an appropriate sanctions regime. When an external party took upon itself even partial responsibility for the situation within a country, it also unavoidably assumed a responsibility to do everything within its power to protect the economic, social and cultural rights of the affected population. 11. Ms. Douhan stated that there was no universal definition of “unilateral coercive measures” in international law; the term was not defined in any treaty and it did not appear in the Charter. Citing the OHCHR thematic study, she noted four main characteristics of 5 A/HRC/19/33, para. 38. 5