A/HRC/31/82 Commission on States’ responsibility made reference to “other actions”; consequently, any attempt to apply coercive sanctions or measures unilaterally was not legitimate under international law. Practitioners and academics should pay more attention to assessing the legitimacy of unilateral coercive measures. Once agreement was reached regarding their legitimacy and legality, the global community would be able to move forward to discuss in the Security Council the measures that could be adopted to address specific situations. 41. The Special Rapporteur stated that a large number of United Nations resolutions and documents did not favour unilateral coercive measures, and pointed out their negative impact on human rights. Although efforts made by some source States to scale back unilateral coercive measures were welcome, a number of States continued to maintain unilateral coercive measures as an important element of their foreign policy. It was regrettable that little had been said about the 2005 World Summit Outcome,3 in which Heads of State and Government called for fair and clear procedures for listing individuals of concern on sanctions lists. This was a huge issue, and some progress had been made. The Special Rapporteur hoped to see similar progress in the listing of States using or being subjected to unilateral coercive measures, given that mass of data on this issue was unfortunately not transparent. 42. The Special Rapporteur made a plea to rethink the concept of “humanitarian access”; this was exemplified by the case of the Islamic Republic of Iran, where although medicines were excluded from the sanctions, more than 85,000 additional people per year suffering from cancer were unable to obtain the proper medicines. Concerning the relationship between the right to self-determination and unilateral coercive measures, the right was deemed to have been violated where people were deprived of their own means of subsistence. He clarified that, as a special procedure mandate holder, he could not make any judgement about the causes of current international crises, but focused exclusively on his mandate, which was the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on human rights. 43. Mr. Abdel-Moneim noted with appreciation the comments made and questions asked by delegates and civil society organizations. International peace and security could be best maintained when human suffering was eliminated and when human dignity was safeguarded. Since 2003, the Security Council had imposed a great number of sanctions. The priority should be to alleviate suffering; once that has been addressed, the discussion may move on to the design of international sanctions. 44. It was important to make a distinction between the legality of decisions on the use of unilateral coercive measures and the legal implications of the effects of the implementation of those decisions. These are two related but separate things. The fact to be addressed immediately is the human rights implications of sanctions. Economic measures have an impact first and foremost on economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development, and it is logical that the United Nations treaty bodies concerned deal with this issue, in addition to the Charter-based bodies. IV. Conclusions 45. In closing the discussion, the moderator offered brief conclusions and a summary of the recommendations drawn from the panel discussion: (a) Looking ahead, an “ABC” (assumptions, building blocks and common ground) approach might be adopted for unilateral coercive measures; 3 10 General Assembly resolution 60/1.