A/HRC/37/311721424 I. Introduction 1. In its resolution 34/13, the Human Rights Council requested the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to organize for the thirty-sixth session of the Council the biennial panel discussion on the issue of unilateral coercive measures and human rights, and requested the Office of the High Commissioner (OHCHR) to prepare a report on the panel discussion for submission and presentation to the Council at its thirtyseventh session. The Office submits the present report to the Council pursuant to that request. 2. The objective of the biennial panel discussion, held on 14 September 2017, pursuant to Council resolution 34/13, was to increase awareness among all stakeholders, including United Nations human rights mechanisms, of the negative impact that unilateral coercive measures have on the enjoyment of human rights in targeted and non-targeted countries. The discussion also offered a platform for the continuous exchange of views and experiences among Member States, academic and civil society organizations, human rights mechanisms and other stakeholders on the impact of unilateral coercive measures on human rights. 3. The panel discussion focused on the resources and compensation necessary to promote accountability and reparations. Its objective was to build consensus on the development of basic principles and guidelines and the identification of mechanisms to assess and mitigate the adverse impact of unilateral coercive measures and to ensure accountability; and to follow up on and update the recommendations of the previous panel discussions and workshops mandated by the Human Rights Council, held in 2015, 2014 and 2013, and the report of the Human Rights Council Advisory Committee (A/HRC/28/74). 4. The panel discussion was chaired by the Vice-President of the Human Rights Council, Amr Ramadan, and moderated by the Ambassador and Permanent Representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela to the United Nations Office at Geneva, Jorge Valero. The panellists were the Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights, Idriss Jazairy; the Vice-Rector and Head of the International Law Department at the International University MITSO (Minsk), Alena Douhan; a member of the Advisory Committee, Jean Ziegler ; and the Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order, Alfred de Zayas. II. Opening of the panel discussion 5. The chair opened the session and gave the floor to the Director of the Thematic Engagement, Special Procedures and Right to Development Division, Peggy Hicks, who delivered an opening statement on behalf of OHCHR. The moderator then introduced the topic and defined the scope of the discussion. The panellists made their initial statements, which were followed by an interactive discussion with the participation of States and nongovernmental organizations. Panellists reacted to comments from the floor in two rounds. The discussion concluded with the final remarks by the moderator. 6. Ms. Hicks recalled the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, which urged States to refrain from any unilateral measure not in accordance with international law; the Charter of the United Nations; and the call made by the Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights to inject a human rights dimension into deliberations on this issue. 7. Ms. Hicks also referred to a thematic study by OHCHR (A/HRC/19/33), which recommended that all Member States avoid the application of any coercive measures that had negative effects on human rights, particularly on the most vulnerable. In particular, she stressed that the positive impact that sanctions imposed with the objective of protecting human rights could be reasonably expected to have must outweigh the negative impact, and that the measures must be subject to appropriate human rights safeguards. Unilateral coercive measures nonetheless continued to be imposed without full consideration of their human rights impact, and without proper assessment, monitoring and remedy. Sanctions often failed to provide for clear exemptions for the purchase and payment of food or 2