A/HRC/37/311721424 medical supplies, which led to violations of the rights to food, to water, to health – and ultimately, to the right to life. 8. Ms. Hicks then encouraged the members of the panel to address the following questions:  How could sanctions be designed so that they did not render already vulnerable parts of the population more vulnerable?  What safeguards could be put in place when such measures were imposed?  What review and monitoring were possible to assess the impact of measures on human rights, and how could immediate remedial measures be taken when sanctions had negative consequences?  How could accountability and reparation be framed in this context? III. Summary of the proceedings 9. During his initial remarks as moderator, the Ambassador and Permanent Representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela to the United Nations Office at Geneva, Jorge Valero, recalled the summit of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries, held on Margarita Island, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, in September 2016, where Heads of State and Government condemned the approval and imposition of unilateral coercive measures in violation of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, particularly the principles of non-intervention, self-determination and the independence of States subjected to such practices. Mr. Valero echoed the call for the removal of such measures undermining human rights and which prevent people from achieving full economic and social development. A. Contributions of panellists 10. The Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights, Idriss Jazairy, affirmed that the basic principle when addressing unilateral coercive measures was to focus on prevention. Where such measures were adopted and entailed a negative impact on human rights, the right to a remedy should be effectively available and be protected at the national, regional and international levels. The lack of such mechanisms would contravene some of the basic obligations enshrined in most human rights treaties. 11. The Special Rapporteur described a range of differential legal mechanisms that offered potential avenues for victims of unilateral coercive measures to claim remedies and redress. In practice, however, such measures rarely granted the requisite degree of remedies or redress to affected parties. Some mechanisms were only available to States, such as the International Court of Justice, which had already considered the legality of economic sanctions under international law. In the case of Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), the Court’s ruling suggested that the freedom to impose measures restricting trade with a targeted State was limited to situations where such measures would not involve a violation of existing treaty obligations. The Special Rapporteur suggested that the Court could be requested to provide an advisory opinion on the legality or otherwise of unilateral coercive measures that could be in conflict with the International Bill of Human Rights. Another inter-State mechanism was the act of resorting to the Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade Organization in the case of sanctions between States Members of the Organization. In such cases, the State imposing sanctions was likely to invoke the security exceptions (art. XXI) of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. The admissibility of the defence would have to be assessed on a caseby-case basis. 12. With regard to mechanisms directly available to affected individuals and entities, the Special Rapporteur gave the examples of national, regional and international mechanisms. National courts had rarely addressed cases concerning unilateral coercive measures in a 3