A/HRC/33/48 10. On 15 December 2015, the Special Rapporteur joined with three other mandate holders and sent a communication to India regarding the alleged blockage at the NepalIndia border of vessels carrying essential goods, which had resulted in a lack of basic supplies and services to the people of Nepal (see A/HRC/32/53. p. 29). The Government of India replied on 28 December 2015.2 11. On 22 February 2016, the Special Rapporteur sent letters to member States reiterating his request for information on unilateral coercive measures. Thirteen countries3 sent written information. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Governments that replied and encourages all member States to provide him with the requested information so as to enable him to fulfil his mandate. In addition, in order to preserve the integrity of the Human Rights Council, he invites all States to engage in good faith with all special procedures, as requested by the Council in its resolutions, regardless of the voting record that led to the creation of the mandates. 12. On 21 June 2016, the Special Rapporteur participated in a side event, held during the thirty-second session of the Human Rights Council, on the negative impacts of unilateral coercive measures. III. Follow-up to previous recommendations of the Special Rapporteur 13. Since his appointment, the Special Rapporteur has submitted reports containing several observations and recommendations relating to the theme of his mandate to the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly.4 14. The Special Rapporteur reiterates all his recommendations, in particular the recommendation to set up a consolidated central register at the level of the Security Council or of the United Nations Secretariat to recapitulate the list of all unilateral coercive measures in force (see A/HRC/70/345, para. 56 (a)). This register should be kept according to the standards currently applied for Council sanctions and made public. Sender/source States or group of States should be invited to notify the Council of unilateral coercive measures in force at their initiative and of their evolution. Such a mechanism could draw on the model of the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms, which includes data on international arms transfers as well as information provided by member States on military holdings, procurement through national production and relevant policies.5 IV. Remedies available to States affected by unilateral coercive measures A. Remedies available under the Charter of the United Nations 15. The Charter of the United Nations (Article 33) sets out a number of mechanisms for the settlement of disputes between sovereign States, which may be of relevance for States on which unilateral coercive measures that affect the enjoyment of human rights by their 2 3 4 5 4 See https://spdb.ohchr.org/hrdb/31st/India_28.12.15_(16.2015).pdf. They were Angola, Bahrain, Belarus, Bolivia (Plurinational State of), Cuba, Ecuador, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Kuwait, Mexico, Montenegro, Russian Federation, Sudan and Syrian Arabic Republic. See A/HRC/30/45; and A/70/345, in particular, paras. 56, 64, 66, 68, 70, 72 and 76. See General Assembly resolution 46/36 L, para. 7.