A/HRC/39/54 inviolability under international law, as was stressed by the Secretary-General with respect to the incident in 2013, in which the aircraft carrying the President of the Plurinational State of Bolivia, Evo Morales, was not allowed by several European nations to overfly their airspace.54 45. On a related note, measures such as those targeting a head of State in office after his re-election,55 and high-level officials including the head of the central bank of a State, 56 appear to be unprecedented moves, likely to escalate underlying disputes and inhibit the prospects of a negotiated, peaceful settlement, since they affect the ability of the target States simply to interact with the international community (or, in the case of the governor of a central bank, his ability to interact with central banks of other States and the global financial system at large). 46. On a related note, the Special Rapporteur pays tribute to the European Union which, while having voted against the creation of his mandate, has respected the decision taken by the Human Rights Council and cooperated effectively with the mandate holder. That sets an example for others to follow. Lessons learned on the practice of diplomacy in the context of the mandate 47. As an ambassador, the Special Rapporteur was one of the framers of Human Rights Council resolutions 5/1 on institution-building of the Council and 5/2 on the code of conduct for special procedure mandate holders. At that time, it was recognized that one of the reasons for the demise of the Commission on Human Rights was that it had indulged excessively in “naming and shaming” rather than engaging in dialogue with Member States to advance human rights, where dialogue was still possible, and in providing advice and technical assistance to improve their compliance with human rights obligations. That explains why in both resolutions emphasis was put on interactive dialogue, nonconfrontational postures, non-politicization, a focus on the enhancement of the capacity of States in that regard and the provision of technical assistance with the consent of the State concerned. Seen from that perspective, the human rights mechanisms have the same goals as independent human rights defenders and NGOs but can pursue them in a distinct and complementary manner rather than acting as though they were another advocacy NGO. That applies particularly to the mandate on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights, where the issue lies mainly with the source countries or groups of countries enforcing unilateral coercive measures directed most often, although not always, at weaker and more vulnerable States. The source countries tend to be powerful or rich countries and may not respond positively to public admonishment by the Special Rapporteur. On the contrary, that may lead to a refusal to engage by source countries, either because they consider that their national legislation takes precedence over international law or because, contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and to the thrust of adoption by majority voting on General Assembly and Human Rights Council resolutions, they consider their action not to be contrary to international law. Scoring a legal point publicly in such circumstances may negatively affect opportunities for engagement with the source of sanctions, damaging the ability of the mandate holder to work towards the gradual alleviation of the sufferings of innocent victims. 48. The Special Rapporteur believes that the United Nations human rights mechanisms, including his mandate in particular, should be wary of following the same course of action as the Commission on Human Rights in returning to systematic “naming and shaming”, which scores political points but with scant effect on improving the status of human rights for vulnerable people at the grass roots, who actually bear the brunt of unilateral coercive measures. This mandate has therefore endeavoured to limit its work through public 54 55 56 See https://news.un.org/en/story/2013/07/444262. In July 2017, the Office of Foreign Assets Control designated the President of Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro Moros, pursuant to executive order No. 13692, in which sanctions against current or former officials of the Government of Venezuela and others undermining democracy in Venezuela are authorized. See www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/sm0137.aspx. See https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm0385. 15