A/HRC/31/82 prevent them from exercising their sovereign right to choose their own political, social and economic systems. Countries and regional organizations that took unilateral coercive measures, particularly under the pretext of human rights, should remember that such actions had a serious negative impact on human rights that, in some cases, was similar to a violation of international humanitarian law. States were call upon to stop imposing such measures as a political tool. An appeal was made for unilateral coercive measures by the European Union against the Syrian oil industry to be investigated, given that they jeopardized the full range of human rights and interfered with the sovereign rights of the State. 31. Delegates pointed out that since unilateral coercive measures had direct negative consequences on the enjoyment of human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights and the right to development, victims were entitled to reparation. Unilateral coercive measures were often contrary to international law, created an international spirit of suspicion and distrust, impeded good neighbourly relations, restricted transnational trade and had a long-term destabilizing effect on targeted countries. It was pointed out that the restriction of trade agreements and the obstruction of financial and investment flows between sender and targeted countries undermined the ability of States to meet their development commitments by, inter alia, hampering transit and communication routes, creating burdens on economic operators and businesses, and multiplying costs of basic products. Delegates stressed the importance of discussing ways to assess the tangible impact of these measures, and of the measures that could be taken to minimize that impact. 32. It was stressed that groups in situations of vulnerability from developing countries were the primary victims of unilateral coercive measures, which had led to the loss of thousands of lives and usually resulted in marginalizing those who were already marginalized. Sanctions were often applied without safeguards to protect the rights of local populations. Land blockades by neighbouring countries had negative human rights implications, which were further compounded in the case of land-locked countries. An example was offered regarding the unilateral coercive measures imposed on Zimbabwe; the measures were not selective, and had had a devastating impact on the population. Reference was also made to the long-lasting embargo against Cuba, which was regarded as the longest and most unjust system of unilateral coercive measures ever imposed. The panel was asked to discuss how to best rebuild fragile national frameworks in order to mitigate the impact of unilateral coercive measures on their citizens. 33. Delegates emphasized that the imposition of unilateral sanctions was often influenced by political objectives to force smaller States to bow to the wishes of powerful ones. It was affirmed that unilateral coercive measures jeopardized peace and international security. Delegates expressed serious concern at the absence of a comprehensive mechanism for monitoring the negative impact of sanctions, and called upon the Human Rights Council to play a proactive role in the establishment of such a mechanism. One delegate stated that the violation of the sovereignty of States constituted a flagrant violation of human rights, and that the Council should work to promote dialogue among States. Quantitative and qualitative documentation of violations resulting from the illegitimate and illegal use of unilateral coercive measures was particularly important to ensure accountability, avoid impunity and allow enhanced access for redress for victims, including compensation and guarantees of non-recurrence. 34. The representatives of non-governmental organizations taking the floor advocated for the immediate lifting of unilateral coercive measures, which were widely regarded as politically motivated and contrary to international law. Some participants qualified the measures as a systemic and egregious violation of human rights. There was agreement that unilateral coercive measures particularly affect marginalized people, and that they should not target civilians. It was stressed that economic embargoes was a form of collective 8