A/HRC/33/48 of its contracting parties to respect human rights to “everyone within their jurisdiction”.70 As a matter of fact, all of the three cases reviewed above concerned the effects of sanctions on persons or entities residing in a State party to the Convention. Although the jurisprudence of the Court has extended the extraterritorial application of its provisions,71 it still seems to require that the State alleged to have violated the provisions of the Convention exercise some form of “effective control” over the territory where the applicant resides. It is thus still unclear and unsettled, to the Special Rapporteur at least, whether the European Court of Human Rights has jurisdiction to address claims of violations of the European Convention on Human Rights in relation to the adverse impacts of unilateral coercive measures imposed by member States of the Council of Europe on the human rights of persons or groups living in third countries.72 VI. Conclusion and recommendations 67. Based on the review of existing mechanisms that have actually been used (or could arguably be used) to claim for damages for the adverse effects of sanctions, it appears that such mechanisms are generally few and that their powers to grant actually effective remedies and damages, including compensation and redress, are most often limited. Prima facie, for targeted individuals or private entities, the main, if not only, functioning and available legal mechanisms seem to be the courts of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights. However, these institutions, themselves, seem to have limited ability, or willingness, to grant effective compensation to victims of violations of human rights owing to sanctions. 68. In each situation worldwide, where unilateral coercive measures are found to have a negative impact on human rights, the right to a remedy should be effectively available and be protected, and appropriate mechanisms at the national or international level should be available for the victims to obtain remedies, compensation and redress. It is not acceptable that the populations of a large number of States should be deprived of access to any forum or mechanism through which they could seek remedies, compensation and redress. The lack of such mechanisms contravenes some of the basic obligations enshrined in most human rights treaties. 69. The Human Rights Council and the General Assembly should be called upon to restate in a solemn manner, through a declaration, the right of victims to an effective remedy, including appropriate and effective financial compensation, in all situations where their human rights are affected by unilateral coercive measures. 70. States whose populations are affected by unilateral coercive measures should consider the jurisdictional options available to them by virtue of treaties in force, including the contentious jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, or other available forums to challenge the legality and application of such measures with respect to international law, including human rights law. 70 71 72 See European Convention on Human Rights, art. 1. The European Court of Human Rights has acknowledged that “the concept of ‘jurisdiction’ [under] the Convention is not restricted to the national territory of the High Contracting Parties. In exceptional circumstances the acts of Contracting States performed outside their territory or which produced effects there, might amount to exercise by them of their jurisdiction”. See Issa and Others v. Turkey, Application No. 31821/96, European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), Judgment of 16 November 2004, para.68. Consultations at the European Court of Human Rights, 15 June 2016. 19