A/HRC/31/82 19. Mr. Abdel-Moneim stated that unilateral coercive measures, sometimes referred to as sanctions, had always been controversial. Some States affirmed they were counterproductive, while others considered them beneficial in certain contexts. He recalled the experience after the First World War, when the sanctions adopted in 1919 led directly or indirectly to the Second World War. Sanctions had a harmful impact on human rights; most literature on this issue concurred with this conclusion. From a historical perspective, in many cases sanctions had been welcome, appreciated and applied in spite of criticism, when used to fight human rights abuses, as was the case with apartheid. The fact remained that sanctions may continue to be applied in the foreseeable future. 20. Mr. Abdel-Moneim highlighted three recent processes used to introduce important changes with regard to sanctions: one by the Government of Germany (the “Bonn-Berlin process”), one by the Government of Switzerland (the “Interlaken process”) and one by the Government of Sweden (the “Stockholm process”). The processes raised three issues. Firstly, some of these initiatives had been adopted more than a decade ago and needed to be updated. Secondly, although the humanitarian perspective had been taken into account, the processes needed to elaborate on the human rights component. Thirdly, the processes emphasized targeted sanctions; while it was accepted, however, that “targeted” or “smart” sanctions were better than comprehensive sanctions, they were not easy to apply and had to be used carefully. The outcome of targeted sanctions was difficult to foresee and to channel. For example, if a main bank was targeted, the banking system and, consequently, the whole economy could be destabilized. Certain helpful conditions to mitigate adverse effects, defined by the Non-Aligned Movement at the time of the Interlaken process, included the periodic review of sanctions, their immediate lifting after compliance (limited time frame) and the establishment of clear and specific rules or conditions for the targeted country. 21. With regard to what could be done in the foreseeable future, the stage prior to the drafting of sanctions was of crucial importance. Factual information on and estimates of each relevant factor had to be thoroughly verified and evaluated in a careful, precise and balanced manner. A comprehensive collective approach should be consolidated in this regard. 22. Mr. Abdel-Moneim agreed that sanctions could be harmful to human rights, and that it was difficult to affirm the contrary. The critical challenge was to monitor the impact of unilateral coercive measures on human rights. Quantitative models for assessing such an impact were available and needed to be improved. In that sense, general comment No. 8 of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights was worth considering, and treaty bodies could play a significant role, as appropriate, in this regard. 23. The moderator subsequently referred to three main elements. Regarding the nature of unilateral coercive measures, it seemed clear that their nature, legitimacy and legality were in question in a complex discussion, and they ran counter to moral common sense. Also, it was clear that the measures did not make a positive contribution to the advancement of human rights. Lastly, there was a need for an examination of the conceptual framework, be it by means of monitoring or re-examining and studying key concepts and issues with regard to unilateral coercive measures. B. Interactive discussion 24. During the plenary discussion, representatives of the following States took the floor: Algeria (on behalf of the Group of African States), Armenia, Belarus, China, Cuba, Ecuador (on behalf of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States), Egypt, Iran (Islamic Republic of) (one statement on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, another 6