A/HRC/31/82 on national capacity), Nicaragua, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Viet Nam and Zimbabwe. A representative of the European Union participated in the discussion. 25. Representatives of the following non-governmental organizations took the floor: Africa Speaks, Agence pour les droits de l’homme, Global Network for Rights and Development, International-Lawyers.org, Indian Council of South America, Iranian Elite Research Centre, Organization for Defending Victims of Violence, Society Studies Centre and Verein Südwind Entwicklungspolitik. 26. The delegates who took the floor affirmed that it was an established fact that unilateral coercive measures had a negative impact on human rights, including and “above all” the right to development. In particular, the poor and groups in situations of vulnerability suffered more acutely as a result of the denial of access to medicines, food, clothing, housing and educational equipment, and of the restricted access to the job market. “Old approaches” based on coercion had proven, time and again, to be pointless and futile. 27. Unilateral coercive measures had severely hampered the development process and had a potential negative impact on key objectives of the United Nations. Moreover, longterm unilateral coercive measures often resulted in social problems and raised humanitarian concerns. It was affirmed that, within the responsibility of the international community to protect and guarantee human rights, there was no room for unilateral coercive measures and that collaboration should be the cornerstone on this issue. Speakers recalled that the Charter of the United Nations and the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action called upon States to refrain from any unilateral measure that created obstacles to trade relations among States and impeded the full realization of human rights. Unilateral coercive measures had also been recognized as a major challenge to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. 28. The Human Rights Council had to assess the impact on human rights of unilateral coercive measures imposed by industrial countries on developing countries. There was an urgent need for an independent mechanism within the United Nations for the victims of unilateral coercive measures to address the issues of remedies and redress with a view to promote accountability and reparations. One delegate recommended that the Special Rapporteur study and consider appropriate mechanisms, including a possible adjudicatory procedure for accountability of source States and reparations for affected States and victims. A plea was made to other special procedure mandate holders of the Council to tackle the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on human rights in the context of their respective mandates. 29. One delegate expressed the view that the Human Rights Council was not the appropriate forum to address this issue and that the situation in Crimea deserved equal treatment by the Council. The introduction and implementation of restrictive measures was a legitimate part of foreign policy that should always be used in accordance with international law, respect for human rights – including the right to due process and effective remedy – and international humanitarian law, and should always be proportionate with its objective. Restrictive measures were not punitive, given that they targeted policies, the means implementing them and the individuals responsible for them. Targeted sanctions included clearly defined safeguards designed to limit any unintended effects. They should minimize adverse consequences for those not responsible for such policies, and provide for appropriate exemptions to take into account the basic needs of targeted persons. A call was made for the Special Rapporteur to visit countries and to determine the root cause of unilateral coercive measures, not just their consequences. 30. Several delegates condemned unilateral coercive measures, including unilateral actions, which were taken for political concerns against sovereign countries, in order to 7