A/HRC/30/45 III. Reasons for a special procedure on the adverse human rights impact of unilateral coercive measures 10. In its Article 55(c), the Charter of the United Nations calls upon the United Nations to promote “universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms”. Likewise, the Vienna Declaration asserted the following that “the universal nature of these rights and freedoms is beyond question”. Furthermore, In its resolution 60/251, the General Assembly decided that the Human Rights Council should “be responsible for promoting universal respect for the protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction of any kind and in a fair and equal manner”. 11. Emphasis here is on “universal”: the thrust of the provisions of human rights treaties and covenants relate mainly to national jurisdictions of States, although some general comments of treaty bodies, such as general comments No. 8, No. 12 or No. 14 of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights do refer to extraterritorial “sanctions”. From the point of view of the victims of violations of human rights on the ground, addressing only the adverse human rights impact of domestic measures would leave a protection gap that falls short of the desired universality of human rights. It also stands to reason that the International Bill of Human Rights, which condemns violations of human rights by authorities in the territories under their jurisdiction, would also condemn such violations if perpetrated by the same authorities outside their own borders. The protection gap became painfully obvious during the 1990s, which has been referred to as the “sanctions decade”.1 At that time, the population of States targeted by external “sanctions”, such as Iraq, and in particular women and newborn children, suffered most acutely from comprehensive “sanctions”, which lead to the unwarranted death of many innocent people. The special procedure, as a Charter-based human rights mechanism, is not constrained by national jurisdictions and can thus address this protection gap. The comparative advantage of a Charter-based body over a treaty body to address this extraterritorial dimension of measures having an impact on human rights, was aptly underlined by the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee in a report dated 10 February 2015.2 12. Addressing possible violations of human rights from both national and foreign sources is indeed acting to promote universal respect for the promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms, as the Human Rights Council was mandated to do by the General Assembly in its resolution 60/251. IV. Clarifying definitions concerning unilateral coercive measures 13. From Human Rights Council resolution 27/21, one can infer that unilateral coercive measures are measures including, but not limited to, economic and political ones, imposed by States or groups of States to coerce another State in order to obtain from it the subordination of the exercise of its sovereign rights with a view to securing some specific change in its policy. 1 2 4 David Cortright and George A. Lopez, The Sanctions Decade, Assessing United Nations Strategies in the 1990s (Boulder, Colorado, Lynne Rienner, 2000). Research-based progress report of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee containing recommendations on mechanisms to assess the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights and to promote accountability (A/HRC/28/74). See in particular para. 60.