A/HRC/36/44 need to monitor human rights violations associated with unilateral coercive measures and to promote accountability. In the same resolution, the Council recognized the importance of the quantitative and qualitative documentation of any such negative impact in the context of ensuring the accountability of those responsible for human rights violations resulting from the application of unilateral coercive measures against any State. The Special Rapporteur believes that the establishment of a consolidated register of unilateral coercive measures will be required to ensure the availability of such documentation. The register must be supplied with the necessary information and must function effectively in order to evaluate accurately the negative impact of unilateral sanctions and hence to ensure accountability and redress for victims. As the Special Rapporteur has already pointed out (see A/71/287, para. 39), measures aiming to ensure transparency in sanctions regimes that are already in force are a prerequisite for the implementation of the right to a remedy for adverse consequences for human rights of unilateral coercive measures. The Special Rapporteur welcomes the support for his proposal for a central register expressed by some participants at the thirty-third session of the Human Rights Council.1 18. The Special Rapporteur also wishes to reiterate his call to the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly to restate in a declaration the right of victims to an effective remedy, including appropriate and effective financial compensation, in all situations where their human rights are adversely impacted by unilateral measures. While such a right is arguably acknowledged in theory and principle as a necessary component of human rights, it has not, to date, been recognized or affirmed in a specific manner, and it is frequently ignored or set aside in practice. Unlike victims of armed conflict, for whom the right to a remedy and the conditions of its realization have been affirmed and widely recognized at the international level,2 victims of unilateral sanctions all too often remain in legal limbo. 19. The Special Rapporteur worked further on his proposals for a draft declaration and a register of unilateral sanctions, and held a meeting of a high-level expert working group on 3 June 2017 to review, assess and refine the two proposals and agree on the language to be put before the Human Rights Council. The outcome document of the meeting is annexed to the present report. IV. Extraterritoriality and international sanctions 20. The issue of extraterritoriality in relation to international sanctions raises two separate, albeit interrelated questions: whether the extraterritorial reach of sanctions is to be deemed admissible (or lawful) under international law, including international human rights law, and whether States (or international organizations) are subject to extraterritorial obligations under human rights instruments in relation to the application and effects of sanctions. A. Extraterritorial sanctions under international law 1. General international law 21. For over two decades, the Government of the United States of America has commonly applied the country’s domestic sanctions law to foreign persons and institutions. 3 For example, it has sanctioned foreign financial institutions for having engaged in financial transactions initiated outside the United States that do not comply with 1 2 3 See, for instance, the comments by Tehmina Janjua, Permanent Representative of Pakistan, on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (13 September 2016). See, for instance, Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law. M. Rathbone, P. Jeydel and A. Lentz, “Sanctions, sanctions everywhere: forging a path through complex transnational sanctions laws”, Georgetown Journal of International Law, vol. 44 (2012-13), pp. 1055-1126. 5