A/HRC/28/74 the workshop held in May 2014, the negative impact of both multilateral and unilateral coercive measures was unequivocally shown on the enjoyment of human rights in targeted and non-targeted States and, in particular, by women, children, minorities, older persons and persons with disabilities. Panellists cited examples of such impact in States such as Iraq, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the former Yugoslavia, Haiti and Myanmar. 25 19. Almost all the responses to the question regarding the impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights underlined the fact that such measures often had a negative impact on the civilian population of targeted and non-targeted States and, in particular, on women, children, older persons and persons with disabilities. The examples given by the respondents with regard to the human rights affected by unilateral coercive measures included the rights to life, food, health, work and education, as well as to the right to development. They also pointed out that the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on targeted States was compounded where such a State was, to a greater degree, economically dependent on the State that imposed the measure. 20. In several studies and reports, attention was drawn to the difficulty of assessing the impact of unilateral coercive measures, particularly those that are comprehensive in nature. They recommended a more robust and independent mechanism to assess and monitor the impact of such measures, including by promoting accountability in this regard. 26 Some of the reasons that give rise to this challenge are the restrictions on access to the target country in which sanctions are imposed, and the difficulty to distinguish the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights by the affected population when such measures are imposed in conjunction with multilateral sanctions. When considering an appropriate mechanism for the assessment and monitoring of the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights, it is hence essential to establish a body that, as far as possible, may have access to targeted States in which human rights are likely to be affected by such measures and with adequate expertise to undertake such a task. V. Case studies 21. To date, few case studies on the impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights by the civilian population in targeted or non-target States have been available. The case studies below, which are well documented, serve to highlight some of the main adverse effects of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights in target and non-targeted States. A. Cuba 22. The economic sanctions on Cuba were initially imposed by the United States of America in the 1960s, and were subsequently amended by the Cuban Democracy Act of 25 26 8 See in particular the presentations made by Haifa Zangana, Dursun Peksen and Sarah Zaidi at the workshop on the application of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights by the affected population, in particular their socioeconomic impact on women and children in States targeted, Geneva, 23 May 2014. See Gary Haufbauer, Jeffrey Schott and Kimberly Elliot, Economic Sanctions Reconsidered: History and Current Policy, 2nd ed. (Washington, D.C., Peterson Institute, 1990), pp. 32–33; and Richard Garfield, “The Impact of Economic Sanctions on Health and Well-being”, Relief and Rehabilitation Network Paper, Overseas Development Institute, London, 1999.