A/HRC/37/311721424 measures to prevent third States from adopting unilateral coercive measures in violation of international human rights law. Such measures were not conducive to the effective implementation of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action and the Sustainable Development Goals. 43. Some participants presented concrete proposals with regard to resources and the compensation necessary to promote accountability and reparations. All mechanisms of the Human Rights Council, including treaty-based mechanisms, Charter-based mechanisms and the universal periodic review mechanism, should be used to address and redress violations of human rights caused by unilateral coercive measures. 44. Many called for the creation of a dedicated mechanism of the United Nations human rights system to ensure accountability and reparations. The aim of the mechanism would be to prevent the application of new unilateral coercive measures, to mitigate the effects of those in place, and to provide full reparation through restitution, compensation and satisfaction. It could be an ad hoc or permanent body, adopted by the Human Rights Council through a regular resolution, a declaration or a separate treaty. Delegates also suggested the creation of a central registry to document violations of human rights as a consequence of unilateral coercive measure. The said mechanism and the central registry would be instrumental in the promotion of principles and guidelines to prevent further adverse effects on human rights caused by unilateral coercive measures. They would also contribute to democratic control of the exercise of political or economic power that affected people’s lives, assessing whether it was compatible with the purposes of the Charter. 45. The participants in the discussion explored what a possible mechanism or body for efficient and effective redress for victims affected by unilateral coercive measures and to promote accountability would look like. Some wondered which specific steps would be necessary to create such a mechanism to avoid vetoes by powerful States that impose such measures. Other questions were concerned with the absence, insufficiency or ineffective nature of existing mechanisms, the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on an international democratic order and on the sovereignty of States, and the prospects of reparations for those whose human rights had been affected by such measures. C. Responses from panellists 46. The Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights emphasized the diplomatic ambiguity of the treatment of unilateral coercive measures in official documents, entailing different interpretations from developing and developed countries. Some States had the view that unilateral coercive measures violated international law, while others argued that no such presumption existed. He noted that all States, whether developed or developing, should express their views to permit the gradual achievement of a common understanding. He referred to extraterritoriality as an issue on which there was a fair amount of consensus, based on official European Union policy. International human rights law should be able to protect people in peace time at least as much as international humanitarian law protected people in war time. He also recalled that recently, by proclaiming the Sustainable Development Goals, all States had renewed their commitment to the rule of law, nationally and internationally. Since existing mechanisms were not effective enough to address the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on human rights, the best option was to prevent the adoption of such measures. 47. Alena Douhan regretted the fact that debates on the issue of unilateral coercive measures focused too much on policy rather than on the rule of law. The rule of law had to be protected at the international level. To do so, the legal definition of unilateral coercive measures could clarify much of the political controversies surrounding them. Targeted sanctions were a violation in themselves, given that they did not provide procedural guarantees. On the other hand, not all attempts to influence other States were illegal; for example, counter measures could be adopted under the framework of existing international law. There were mechanisms to address reparations; they did not, however, function as they should, and effective mechanisms will not be possible until there was real dialogue on the matter between all parties concerned. 8