A/HRC/28/74 economic hardship. Consequently, comprehensive unilateral coercive measures usually have an adverse impact on the enjoyment of human rights by the civilian population of targeted States, disproportionately affecting the poor and vulnerable groups in society, particularly in terms of access to food, health care and basic livelihood, contrary to the political declarations of the initiators and, as such, leading to or constituting the root cause of furthering the encroachment and limitation of and restrictions on numerous human rights and fundamental freedoms enshrined in universal instruments. 13. “Targeted sanctions” are, by contrast, designed to apply economic pressure to selected individuals or entities and may therefore not entail negative consequences for the enjoyment of human rights by the civilian population at large. This by no means implies that targeted sanctions do not give rise to violations of human rights of the individuals or entities targeted, particularly with regard to their civil and political rights. 14 Since comprehensive sanctions are the ones that usually have negative consequences on the enjoyment of human rights by the civilian population of targeted States, however, the present study focuses mainly on such measures. IV. Negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights 14. In several resolutions and declarations adopted by United Nations entities human rights bodies, including the Commission on Human Rights, increasing concerns were expressed about the negative impact of sanctions, including unilateral coercive measures, on the enjoyment of human rights, particularly their negative impact on the human rights of the civilian population of targeted States and, even more so, on such vulnerable groups as women, children, older persons and minorities.15 The Human Rights Council has followed this trend.16 15. There is general consensus that unilateral coercive measures, particularly those that are comprehensive in nature and manifested in the form of trade embargoes and restrictions on financial and investments flows between sender and target States, may have a serious impact on the enjoyment of human rights by the civilian population in targeted and nontargeted States alike. This is so because economic sanctions in general, including unilateral coercive measures, irrespective of their declared intent (such as preventing gross violations of human rights in targeted States), usually translate into a severe impact on the population at large, and in particular vulnerable groups in the society who become the true victims of such sanction rather than the States or Governments they are supposed to target. 17 In this regard, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, in its general comment No. 8, on the relationship between economic sanctions and respect for economic, social and cultural rights, declared that the inhabitants of a given country do not forfeit basic 14 15 16 17 6 See Thomas Biersteker and Sue Eckert, “Addressing Challenges to Targeted Sanctions: An Update of the ‘Watson Report’”, Watson Institute, Geneva, 2009, and Bardo, Fassbender, “Targeted Sanctions and Due Process: The responsibility of the UN Security Council to ensure that fair and clear procedures are made available to individuals and entities targeted with sanctions under Chapter VII of the UN Charter”, study commissioned by the United Nations Office of Legal Affairs, Office of the Legal Council. See also A/HRC/19/33, para. 27. See General Assembly resolutions 51/103, 52/120, 53/41, 54/172, 66/156, 67/170 and S-27/2, para. 30, and the World Summit Outcome (resolution 60/1), paras. 106 – 110; Subcommission on Human Rights resolution 2000/1; the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, para. 145; and SubCommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities resolution 1997/35. Resolutions 15/24 and 24/14, and decision 18/120. See A/50/60-S/1995/1, para. 70.