A/HRC/31/82 with regard to the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights, arguing for the need to inject a human rights dimension into deliberations on this issue. The challenges highlighted by the Committee included significant disruptions in the distribution of food, pharmaceuticals and sanitation supplies and clean drinking water, severely interfering with the functioning of basic health and education systems, and undermining the right to work. 7. The mandate of the special procedure on examining the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures, created by the Human Rights Council in 2014, had provided an opportunity to consider the adverse implications of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights. The biennial panel discussion would allow the Council to discuss the various aspects of this debate, also with regard to whether there was a need to develop basic principles, guidelines and mechanisms to assess and mitigate the adverse impact of unilateral coercive measures on human rights. III. Summary of the proceedings 8. During his initial remarks as moderator, Mr. Kazem Sajjadpour stated that sanctions and unilateral measures were usually used against developing countries as an easy solution for international disputes, in what seemed to be a “sanctions industry” in developed countries that currently affects more than 90 countries. He drew attention to what he described as the importance of assessing carefully the impact of these measures on the lives of people. The impact of unilateral coercive measures on human rights raises significant questions that need to be addressed, including the legality, morality and legitimacy of such measures. The possibility of legal remedy and redress for negative human rights implications caused by unilateral coercive measures should be considered. A. Contributions of panellists 9. The Vice-Chairperson of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Aslan Abashidze, affirmed that unilateral coercive measures lacked any legitimacy from the viewpoint of contemporary international law. He drew an analogy with international humanitarian law, where the issue of the legality of the use of force in international relations is decided by international law: the use of force in violation of the dispositions of the Charter of the United Nations is qualified as a crime against peace, with all the ensuing international legal consequences. In that context, any attempt to present unilateral coercive measures as not only legitimate but even permitted in exceptional cases goes against the mandatory provisions of the Charter. 10. Mr. Abashidze argued that unilateral coercive measures taken by individual States or regional associations violated the authority of the Security Council, as enshrined in Articles 39, 41 and 42 of the Charter, as well as Articles 103 and 53, which read that “no enforcement action shall be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the authorization of the Security Council”. According to the General Assembly in its resolution 2625 (XXV), unilateral coercive measures violated the principle of noninterference in the internal affairs of sovereign States. Unilateral coercive measures taken outside the framework of the Charter are not only illegal but also pose a threat to the collective security system based on the principles and norms of contemporary international law. Unilateral coercive economic measures applied with the objective of weakening or destroying the competitiveness of the economies of targeted countries should also be qualified as a violation of the mandates of the World Trade Organization. 11. The Vice-Chairperson of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights described the wide awareness of global and regional human rights bodies that unilateral 3