A/HRC/31/82 coercive measures have a negative impact on the enjoyment of human rights; to that end, he quoted the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, resolutions of the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council, general comment No. 8 of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and several other instruments and reports. Unilateral coercive measures were also immoral because of their particularly negative effect on marginalized populations, primarily in the social sphere of the countries targeted. An example of this was a study by the American Association for World Health on Cuba, which concluded that the blockade by the United States of America had had a considerably negative impact on the country’s health-care system. 12. Mr. Abashidze argued that unilateral coercive measures taken outside the mandate of the Security Council should be classified not as “forced” but “hostile” acts, aimed at destabilizing the situation on a regional and a global scale. The measures were warfare by non-military means, entailing large-scale negative consequences for international security, and which should be more appropriately called “unilateral hostile measures”. As a result, hiding the illegality and negative effects of unilateral coercive measures by their designation with terms such as “smart” or “restrictive” was doubly immoral. Some examples of “smart” measures that should rather be regarded as beyond any reasonableness included the closure of the airspace for aircraft carrying humanitarian aid to the population of the Syrian Arab Republic; the right to take the floor denied to Russian parliamentarians before the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe; and the refusal by the States belonging to the Group of Eight to discuss pressing international issues with the Russian Federation. 13. According to Mr. Abashidze, the discussions ongoing in treaty bodies aimed at creating monitoring mechanisms for unilateral coercive measures had no prospect for success, given that some countries were not a party to some of the core human rights treaties. In the light of the diametrically opposed views on this issue, reflected by the decision by some States to vote against Human Rights Council draft resolution A/HRC/27/L.2 (adopted as resolution 27/21), it had became necessary, first of all, to reach a consensus on the illegality and adverse consequences of unilateral coercive measures. To achieve this, States should build upon the experience of the Secretary-General, who organized in 2003 a high-level panel discussion on the theme “Threats, challenges and change” and presented a subsequent report in 2004 entitled “A more secure world: our shared responsibility” (A/59/565). He advocated for a similar comprehensive report on unilateral coercive measures and their real threat to the preservation of the system of collective security of the Charter. 14. The Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights welcomed the progress made recently in the implementation of multiple United Nations resolutions on unilateral coercive measures, including those of the General Assembly, specialized world conferences and the Human Rights Council. There has been some positive developments, such as the transition from comprehensive to targeted unilateral coercive measures (although it was sometimes difficult to draw a line between them); the introduction of some modicum of rule of law and due process in these matters; the end of two long-standing cases of embargo affecting two developing countries; and the establishment by the Human Rights Council, in its resolution 27/21, of the mandate to address the adverse impact of unilateral coercive measures on human rights, after decades of discussions. He regretted, however, the polarization in the vote on resolution 27/21, and appealed to all stakeholders to give dialogue and engagement a chance. 15. The Special Rapporteur noted that some conceptual difficulties remained. There was the question of compatibility between unilateral coercive measures and international law, human rights law and humanitarian law. The Vienna Declaration called upon all States “to refrain from any unilateral measure not in accordance with international law and the 4