A/HRC/24/20 unilateral coercive measures: (a) those applied by States; (b) those that comprised primarily (but not exclusively) economic measures; (c) those applied to States or individuals who were able to decide on the policy of the State; and (d) those aimed to change a policy of a target State. These elements, however, might be used also to define normal and legal interactions between States. Various United Nations documents suggested that most States and United Nations bodies agreed on the illegality of unilateral coercive measures, even though “means of pressure or influence” were often still used. In order to minimize their negative impact on the enjoyment of human rights, both formal and legal criteria had to be used when defining unilateral coercive measures. Ms. Douhan proposed a definition of unilateral coercive measures as measures applied by States, groups of States or regional organizations without or beyond authorization of the Security Council [applied] to States, individuals or entities in order to change a policy or behaviour of directly or indirectly targeted States, if these measures cannot undoubtedly be qualified as not violating any international obligation of the applying state or organization, or its wrongfulness is not excluded under general international law. In this regard, international human rights law constituted an important qualifying criterion in deciding the legality of these measures. She proposed the establishment of an independent body to consider the issue in depth from the perspectives of human rights, security and the rule of law, and to decide whether certain measures would constitute unilateral coercive measures, their legality, and to review them periodically. 12. Mr. Smit-Sibinga stated that, for the European Union, sanctions were essentially a foreign policy instrument that concerned relations between States. While the European Union did therefore not consider the Human Rights Council the appropriate forum to address the issue, it agreed that sanctions should always be applied in accordance with international law and human rights. The European Union imposed “restrictive measures” to implement United Nations sanctions or on an “autonomous” basis, which was referred to as “unilateral” in the workshop, with an objective to bring about a change in policy or activity by the country in question, or the persons or entities targeted. Such restrictive measures had to be proportionate to their objectives, not have an economic motivation, and be drafted in accordance with article 6 of the Treaty of the European Union, and thus with respect for fundamental rights and freedoms, as guaranteed in, inter alia, the European Convention on Human Rights, including due process and the right to an effective remedy. He then provided some practical examples, such as travel bans, asset freezes and financial and trade restrictions, stressing the preventive nature of these measures and the inclusion of standard exemptions in order to guarantee human rights and basic needs. The sanctions should be targeted and minimize any unintended impact on the population. Autonomous sanctions had to be reviewed at least every year, and could be reviewed at any other time. In conclusion, it was reiterated that the sanctions applied by the European Union always included clearly defined safeguards in order to limit any unintended effects and to ensure that human rights obligations were respected. 13. In the ensuing interactive dialogue, representatives of Belarus, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua, the Russian Federation, Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) and the International Association of Schools of Social Work made interventions. Several speakers stressed that unilateral coercive measures were illegal, unjustified and ineffective, and that they impeded the right to self-determination, jeopardized international peace and security, hindered development and undermined the human rights of ordinary people. Some speakers proposed that the Human Rights Council establish a special procedure to monitor the impact on human rights of unilateral coercive measures. Economic, social and cultural rights and the rights of indigenous peoples were raised. Some delegations stated that unilateral coercive measures with extraterritorial effects violated the sovereignty of States, 6