A/HRC/36/44 47. The compensation commission would need to operate according to strict rules of procedure, and should be designed so as to allow for an expedient, fair and efficient evaluation and adjudication of the claims. The following features would have to be agreed upon, in particular: (a) The composition of the adjudicatory body of the compensation commission; the creation of one single panel or several and the modalities of designation and replacement of the members of the commission (or panels); (b) victims; (c) The method of determining the amount of damages and their allocation to the The establishment of a secretariat and a supervisory body; (d) The requirements regarding the claimants and conditions of admissibility of the claims (eligibility criteria); the United Nations Compensation Commission adopted a system of consolidated claims, under which only States were entitled to submit claims on behalf of their nationals and corporations, but an alternative would be a direct right of action for victims; (e) The applicable rules of procedure, proof and evidence; (f) The time limits for the submission of claims; (g) The provisions regarding an appeal or review mechanism for decisions of the commission.38 VI. Conclusions and recommendations 48. The Special Rapporteur is of the view that the time has come for the international community to reaffirm the principle that all persons whose enjoyment of human rights has been affected by unilateral coercive measures are entitled to an effective remedy, including appropriate and effective financial compensation. Such affirmation necessarily flows from the general principle, enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and a number of other human rights instruments, that everyone has the right to an effective remedy for acts violating his or her fundamental rights. There is no reason why unilateral coercive measures should be exempted from this general principle, which is intended to benefit all victims of human rights violations, irrespective of the particular facts or context of such violations. It is worth recalling that, in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, States have pledged to act for the promotion of the rule of law at the national and international levels and to ensure equal access to justice for all (target 16.3 of the Sustainable Development Goals). 49. It is necessary to extend the paradigm from remediation to prevention of the adverse effects of unilateral sanctions. States should thus be called upon to take resolute steps, at an early date and in good faith, towards termination of unilateral coercive measures in force and renunciation of their use, in accordance with international law. A commitment by States to abolish unilateral sanctions and give precedence to means of peaceful settlement of international disputes and differences would be in line with their obligation under the Charter of the United Nations to settle their international disputes by peaceful means such that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, in accordance with Chapter VI of the Charter. 50. The fact that States increasingly resort to unilateral coercive measures raises some basic principles of international law which need to be reaffirmed. Assuming that there will be a transition period pending complete termination and elimination of 38 On institutional characteristics of the Compensation Commission, see, for instance, F.E. McGovern, “Dispute system design: the United Nations Compensation Commission”, Harvard Negotiation Law Review, vol. 14 (2009), pp. 171-193. 13