A/HRC/37/311721424 International stakeholders, academics and civil society had pointed out that the imposition of unilateral coercive measures ran counter to foundational General Assembly resolutions, in particular Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV) regarding friendly relations between States. The unifying goal of friendly relations and the obligation to avoid interference in the internal affairs of other Member States were crucial preconditions for the peaceful coexistence of States. 28. The Independent Expert stressed that the international law applicable to coercive measures was remarkably clear. The Charter of the United Nations clarified that the Security Council was the only body with the authority to impose sanctions, and even then, only provided it had made a finding, under Article 39 of the Charter, that international peace and security had been jeopardized. Furthermore, he endorsed the report of the SubCommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights (E/CN.4/Sub.2/2000/33) that coercive measures must be limited in time, should not affect the innocent population, should not aggravate imbalances in income distribution, nor generate illegal or unethical business practices. Rather, sanctions regimes should be proved to be proportionate. They must be periodically monitored, and terminated when it becomes apparent that they are ineffective or result in grave human rights violations. 29. The Independent Expert argued that multilateral sanctions had been implemented successfully in the fight against colonialism, racism and apartheid in southern Africa. Similarly, a multilaterally agreed weapons embargo could be both legal and effective when appropriately aimed at promoting peace and diplomatic solutions to violence. He recommended that the harm to human rights caused by unilateral regimes should be further exposed through the communications dialogue of the special procedures, raised in the individual and inter-State complaints mechanisms of the treaty bodies, and debated in the context of the universal periodic review. 30. To conclude, the Independent Expert underscored how the accountability framework for the harm caused by unilateral coercive measures was underdeveloped. Where sanctions had resulted in famine, conflict or mass migration, the obligation to account for and repair the violation naturally followed. However, the political will to create and enforce this necessary framework remained absent. He called upon the States Members of the Human Rights Council to cooperate towards the development of mechanisms that would guarantee recourse and reparations for communities suffering as a result of coercive actions taken by individual States, and also defended multilateralism as the way forward. B. Interactive discussion 31. During the plenary discussion, representatives of the following States took the floor: Algeria, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), China, Cuba (on behalf of a like-minded group of developing countries), Ecuador, Egypt (on behalf of the Group of Arab States and in their national capacity), Fiji, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Nicaragua, Pakistan (statement on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and in their national capacity), Qatar, the Russian Federation, the Sudan, Tunisia (on behalf of the Group of African States), the United Arab Emirates (speaking on behalf of Bahrain, Egypt and Saudi Arabia), Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) (statement on behalf of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries and in their national capacity) and Zimbabwe. 32. Representatives of the following national human rights institutions and nongovernmental organizations spoke: the International Council Supporting Fair Trial and Human Rights, the Iraqi Development Organization, the Maarij Foundation for Peace and Development, the National Human Rights Committee of Qatar, United Nations Watch and Verein Südwind Entwicklungspolitik. 33. Most participants characterized the imposition of unilateral coercive measures as a violation of human rights, especially when taken against developing and least developed countries. Delegates also referenced unilateral coercive measures as having an adverse effect on the right to development and economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to education, the right to an adequate standard of living, the right to health, the right to food and the right to water. Some participants referred to instances where unilateral 6