A/HRC/28/74 comments and inputs on the draft report. In its decision 13/5 adopted at the session, the Committee took note of the draft progress report and requested the drafting group to recirculate the questionnaire prepared earlier in order to further seek the views and inputs of the various stakeholders so as to allow for more informed work. It furthermore requested the drafting group to finalize the draft progress report, taking into account the discussion held at its thirteenth session, and to submit it to the Human Rights Council at its twentyeighth session. 5. As at November 2014, 12 States, one inter-governmental organization, one special procedure, three national human rights institutions and one non-governmental organization had responded to the questionnaire.6 II. Scope of the report 6. Pursuant to Human Rights Council resolution 24/14, the present report focuses on the adverse consequences of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights by the civilian population of targeted States and includes recommendations on the appropriate mechanism that may be used to assess the negative consequences of such measures and to promote accountability. The question of the legality of unilateral coercive measures, therefore, does not fall within the scope of the report. This issue has already been extensively examined in the thematic study of OHCHR on the impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights, 7 and was also a subject of discussion during the two workshops organized by OHCHR in April 2013 and in May 2014 at the request of the Council.8 III. Notion of unilateral coercive measures 7. The term “unilateral coercive measures” is a recent one. It has been used broadly to include measures such as “unilateral economic sanctions”, “unilateral economic measures” and “coercive economic measures” in various studies on the subject, as well as in United Nations documents and resolutions. To date, the term “unilateral coercive measures” does not seem to have a commonly agreed-upon definition. Despite the intensive discussion that the term has triggered among scholars and within the different bodies of the United Nations in recent decades, the definition used for the term and, particularly the main elements to be used for describing the term, remain elusive in certain respects. 8. The most commonly used definition of the term is “the use of economic measures taken by one State to compel a change of policy of another State”. 9 Some recent studies thereon, however, tend to hold the view that the term “unilateral” may be used in a broader sense to include States, group of States and “autonomous” regional organizations, unless 6 7 8 9 4 Belarus, Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, Honduras, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Kuwait, Lebanon, Mexico, Qatar, the Syrian Arab Republic, and Trinidad and Tobago; the European Union; the Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order; Defensoria Pueblo del Estado (Plurinational State of Bolivia), Conseil national des droits humains (Madagascar), and the National Human Rights Institution of Romania; and the Permanent Assembly for Human Rights. A/HRC/19/33. See presentations and statements made during the workshops available from the OHCHR webpage dedicated to the issue of human rights and unilateral coercive measures. See Andreas F. Lowenfeld, International Economic Law (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2002), p. 698.