A/HRC/37/311721424 20. According to Ms. Douhan, steps should be taken at the highest level, such as by means of a General Assembly resolution, to prevent the adoption and application of unilateral coercive measures. When a State sought to change the behaviour of another State leading to a dispute between them, it should seek a settlement through any peaceful means available, for example, the Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade Organization, which addresses the application of economic sanctions. 21. The whole system involving the application of targeted sanctions should be amended to ensure that it offers guarantees of due process. Criminal or administrative proceedings should be started immediately by the targeting State with simultaneous submission of information about the party concerned to the Security Council (or the European Council in the case of restrictive measures applied by the European Union). Targeted sanctions should be lifted if the party concerned was acquitted. 22. Ms. Douhan concluded by pointing out that natural or legal entities should be able to have recourse to relevant bodies that are able to decide whether a given act falls within the scope of unilateral coercive measures, and order, if applicable, a response or compensation from the State responsible. 23. Jean Ziegler, a member of the Advisory Committee, pointed out that unilateral coercive measures generally violated economic, social and cultural rights, as well as the right to autonomous development, an opinion expressed by the Advisory Committee in a study issued some years earlier. He underlined how unilateral coercive measures constantly violated the human rights of people living in States subjected to sanctions. The Advisory Committee had concerned itself mainly with the way unilateral coercive measures functioned and the way they were technically implemented. The sanctions operated on three levels, on an ongoing basis, regardless of the State on which they were imposed. Firstly, there was an assault on the foreign relations of the State targeted. Secondly, the State deploying the sanctions interfered in the national economic, social and political policies in the State on which the sanctions had been applied. Thirdly, a press campaign also accompanied and tried to justify the sanctions. 24. Mr. Ziegler referred to the case of unilateral coercive measures applied by the United States of America on the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. The measures adopted by the President of the United States of America, Donald Trump, on 24 August 2017 affected the State’s access to financial markets. The measures had been accompanied by interference in national politics and the economy, and by a press campaign to legitimize the unilateral coercive measures. Mr. Ziegler also drew a parallel between the circumstances surrounding the overthrowing of the democratically elected Government of Chile in 1973 at the three levels with contemporary unilateral coercive measures. 25. Mr. Ziegler welcomed the work of the Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights and his proposal to establish a commission to regulate and put an end to unilateral coercive measures once and for all. 26. In his statement, the Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order, Alfred de Zayas, affirmed that the imposition of unilateral coercive measures threatened the realization of a democratic and equitable international order. These measures had been shown to cause immense harm to the world’s most vulnerable populations, while granting disproportionate leverage to the powerful. In an interconnected and unsteady world, the unilateral actions of a single State could have a negative impact on the realization of rights across the globe. The ability of States to fulfil their economic, social and cultural rights obligations was hampered when unilateral actions disturbed the provision of public services or the maintenance of vital infrastructure. Human rights and humanitarian actors had raised concern about the particular harm that unilateral measures had inflicted on historically marginalized groups. That was why such measures had been condemned by a majority of States on a regular basis and in a number of different international forums. 27. The Independent Expert underlined how the contributory nature of unilateral coercive measures to ongoing human rights situations, including those related to the supply of weapons to armed groups, the blockade of Gaza and the targeted killings of non-State actors, touched the fundamental United Nations pillar of international peace and security. 5