UN Geneva - Multimedia Newsroom : OHCHR/ Special Procedures - Press conference: Special Rapporteur on UCM

Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you for joining us at this press briefing today.

Our speaker this afternoon is Miss Alina Duhan, the Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights.

The Special Rapporteur just presented her report to the 60th session of the Human Rights Council.

She'll begin today with opening remarks and then we'll take questions.

Special Rapporteur, you have the floor.

[Other language spoken]

Thank you very much for your kind introduction.

And ladies and gentlemen, I would like to thank all of you for coming today and to this press conference.

And I'm really grateful for your interest to this topic.

I intend to focus today on the a description and explanation of the main challenges which take place in the face of the expanding use of unilateral coercive measures.

Means of the enforcement and over compliance and some of the responses and initiatives which are undertaken or are being undertaken by the mandate to reduce and minimise human suffering.

The face of unilateral coercive measures in the search for solution for the problem of the growing use of unilateral coercive measures and growing humanitarian suffering.

Today we all are all the more observing the growing use of unilateral sanctions and over compliance in different forms.

Means of the enforcement ID diversified and all their all of that result in the growing over compliance from the side of different both public and private actors, which all together has a comprehensive humanitarian effect.

For example, when we talk about the developments in this field, the use of unilateral sanctions, I need to mention that besides already known comprehensive sectoral and so-called targeted primary and secondary sanctions, today we talk all the more about broader or narrower notions.

Unilateral sanctions for today are informed not only by secondary sanctions, which I reflected in my reports presented to the Human Rights Council two years ago and to the UN General Assembly a year ago.

Today, we are all the more observing the expanding use of criminal, civil, administrative and customs penalties for so-called circumvention of sanctions regimes or alleged circumvention of sanctions regimes of being somehow associated with some convention of sanctions regimes.

Deprivation of limitation of proper access to legal aid because, inter alia, for example, legal professionals are considered to be and requested to be a higher responsibility in criminal, including criminal responsibility for assistance and circumvention of sanctions regimes.

In practise, it's nearly not possible to DA to implement judicial and arbitration decisions which are taken not in spirit of unilateral sanctions regimes as well as reputational campaigns.

So-called targeted sanctions, which have been initially produced as the means to which we aim to minimise humanitarian suffering, do not look like that any longer.

First of all, when we come to application of targeted sanctions against high state officials of huge companies, at the very end, quite often it affects the whole company and country.

As such, at the same time, we during the last year we observe new types of targets of targeted unilateral sanctions, especially against those who are supposed to be safeguards for human rights standards.

And I refer now to the targeted sanctions against legal professionals or criminal cases against legal professionals which cannot exercise their duty to protect victims of human rights violations due to unilateral sanctions, means of the enforcement or over compliance.

Unilateral sanctions, so-called targeted ones, have been imposed since the last slightly more than two one year against judges and officers of the International Criminal Court.

Additionally, since a few months we have observed the imposition of unilateral sanctions on Special Rapporteur on Palestine, Miss Francesca Albanesa.

It shall be noted that all the above tendencies, however diversified they are, have very much in common.

They are against international law.

Contemporary international law is based on fundamental principles well known to each of us since the UN Charter has been adopted and seen the adoption of the Declaration and Principles of international Law in 1970.

The prohibition to use force.

The prohibition to intervene into domestic affairs of states.

Principle of sovereign inequality of states.

Obligation of states to respect human rights, excluding including extra territory, to cooperate in good faith and to settle their disputes peacefully.

Ladies and gentlemen, naturally states are always intending to promote their domestic interests in one way or another.

The UN Higher Commission on Human Rights and his opening statement at the biennial panel meeting on the impact of unilateral coercive measures on the right to food, which took place last Friday, rightly acknowledge that any unilateral measures, even of targeted character, can only be applied if they are legal.

However, from the point of international law, states can only allowed can only apply means of pressure unilaterally If such measures are aimed to implement sanctions of the UN Security Council within the scope of authorisation given by this body.

If such measures do not violate any single international obligations of States, both bilateral and unilateral so-called retortions, or if this illegality of such measures shall be excluded in the course of countermeasures in full conformity with standards of the law of international responsibility.

That means that such measures can be taken by the directly injured States in response to the violation of specific international obligation with the intention to restore fulfilment of such obligations rather than to punish someone else.

The such measures cannot violate fundamental principles of international law, including the principle of sovereign equality of States and non intervention to domestic affairs of States, and such measures cannot violate fundamental human rights as a result.

Unfortunately, nearly all the vast majority of unilateral means of pressure applied today do not correspond this standard and unilateral missions of pressure which do not correspond the above criteria are illegal from the point of international law and can but not be justified by any good intention or belief or references to the domestic jurisdiction.

Enforcement or encouragement to over comply with such illegal measures are equally illegal as soon as the primary measures are illegal.

As such, ladies and gentlemen, beside the above legality issues, we are currently observing dramatic impact of unilateral sanctions, means of the enforcement and over compliance in all categories of human rights.

Reports which I have prepared this year are focusing specially on the impact of unilateral coercive measures on economic, social and namely labour rights, and another one on the right to education and academic freedoms in targeted countries, third countries and to a huge surprise, in the countries which impose sanction themselves.

Affecting indiscriminately the freedom from poverty, right to health, the right to education, right to water and sanitation, decent standard of living, right to food, other economic and social rights.

Especially affecting vulnerable groups such as elderly, children, women, homeless people, refugees, people suffering from specific diseases, those who are in need for social support.

Such measures have tremendous effect on the enjoyment of all aspects of their right to work.

Sanctions often result not only in the high unemployment rates, but also wage reductions, deterioration of working conditions and the shift towards informal employment impacting labour rights and standards.

Negative impact on entrepreneurships.

Unilateral sanctions meaningfully affect the right to development and the achievement of all SDTS.

Negative impact on the right to education.

Right of everyone to benefit from the results on the scientific progress are also severely affected due to the financial constraints, unavailability of teaching and research materials, poverty and hunger resulting in school dropout rates.

Increasing number of vacancies in the public sector including among teachers, university professors, researchers.

Absence of excellence to teaching materials and online databases.

Introducing sanctions closest in journals policies when journals refuse even to peer review an article already published.

Books cannot be delivered to sanctions jurisdiction, including to myself.

Take into account that Belarus is under unilateral sanctions as well, right?

Often it's impossible to register or to pay tradition fee or memberships, undermining international academic cooperation and the possibility to study and research abroad.

Even scholars from sanctioning states are severely affected due to the fear of possible penalties, negative repercussions and reputational risks up to the level of being scared to participate in international events or publish an article in the journal with within their own jurisdiction.

Comprehensive impact of unilateral sanctions.

Means of the enforcement and over compliance results in poverty, food and health insecurity, Violations of multiple provisions of international human rights, treating creating conditions conducive to terrorism and other types of transboundary crime and establishing risks for the maintenance of international peace and security.

Ladies and gentlemen, theoretically the solution of the problem of UCM is rather obvious.

First of all, we need to know exactly what we are talking about when we are talking about human rights violations that mean that we shall collect in good faith and verify in good faith information about such impact.

Additionally, all actors shall start to respect international legal norms.

Naturally, unilateral sanctions and over compliance are not the only factors which affect human rights and humanitarian situations in the countries under sanctions.

Under Article 2 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, all States, including States under sanctions, be a primary responsibility to ensure that their territory or jurisdiction that to ensure within their territory or jurisdiction all economic, labour, social and cultural rights within maximum resources available.

Such States are under obligation to take all possible measures within resources available to promote and protect such rights, to mitigate negative impact of unilateral sanctions on human rights and to assist people within the jurisdiction or control in promotion and protection of human rights affected by unilateral sanctions.

A serious problem, however, is that take into account that unilateral sanctions are often intending to affect the economy of a state or main economic the main businesses in the country, the maximum of resources available is much reduced in comparison to the period before sanctions.

States adopting, enforcing or implementing unilateral sanctions which undermine the ability of States under sanctions to implement progressively economic, labour, social and cultural rights are responsible for violation of such rights or retrogression in the implementation in accordance with International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in Targeted Societies.

Due to the reduction of the national capacity in the face of impositional enforcement of unilateral sanctions by the organs officials, they are also responsible for violation of the obligation of due diligence and consequent violation of human rights affected by over compliance by private actors under their jurisdiction and control.

In accordance with the approach taken by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in its multiple general comments, businesses are responsible of the activity taken to implement or over comply with unilateral sanctions regimes.

[Other language spoken]

Ladies and gentlemen, to address the above challenges, my mandate has drafted the Guiding Principles and Sanctions, Business and Human Rights and the commentary to this document.

This document was discussed at the Multi Level Conference which took place in November 2024 and seeks to codify and reveal already existing international legal norms in the sphere of human rights protection as well as activity of business.

To write some awareness on the legality challenges and humanitarian impact of unilateral coercive measures.

I have acted as an editor in chief of two books and the presentation of the one of them, The first one published upon the large multi level conference organised with the OHCHR have just referred to took place on Monday this week.

The third book on the impact of unilateral corrosive measures on the axis of justice is in the Process of Preparation.

I have repeatedly reported by humanitarian actors and victims of human rights violation that so-called humanitarian exemptions are ineffective and inefficient.

However, as targeted societies have been often in need for the urgent humanitarian assistance, I have launched the process of development of the principles on of humanitarian action in the face of unilateral coercive measures.

As right to the effective remedy and responsibility are expected by every victim of human rights violations and number of such violations is extremely high due to the comprehensive impact of UCMS means of the enforcement and over compliance.

As mentioned above, I'm currently working on the on the guidance on the effective remedy and the responsibility and the unilateral sanctions environment, which also addresses the possibility to use different types of appeal mechanisms, including access to justice as a safeguard right.

The last topic has been discussed from different perspectives at the conference in Tehran in May 2025 and I'm currently collecting contributions from authors for the book.

During my ID and biennial panel meeting which took place last Friday and Monday, some states were requesting for the evidences of negative humanitarian impact of Ucms and other asked for the monitoring and assessment.

I'm hoping to announce that sanctions monitoring tool launched by my mandate as an instrumental revealing fact collecting and verifying data demonstrating causality links has been developed well side event focusing on the issues which take place on the 26th of September this year.

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm already on the 6th year of my mandate and I, as five years before, call on states, regional organisations and businesses to start behaving in accordance with principles of international law, including law of international responsibility and human rights law, with due respect to the principles of sovereign equality of states, principle of settlement of international dispute by peaceful means as peremptory norms of international law.

I also call upon sanctioning States and regional organisations to review measures taken without or beyond the authorisation of the UN Security Council and leave those which do not meet the criteria of retortions and countermeasures in full conformity with the standards and limitations of the law of international responsibility as constituting unilateral coercive measures.

I call upon them to ensure that implementation of humanitarian resolutions of the UN Security Council aim to meet basic needs of the people is not impeded by any unilateral measures, including any impediments to transfer money to deliver or to ensure humanitarian cargo and guarantee the deliver of humanitarian assistance to the countries under sanctions is not viewed as a punishable action.

The only way out of the only more deteriorating situation with the use of unilateral coercive measures are humanity, cooperation and dialogue.

I invite all states to be the international relations, domestic and foreign policy on the principle of legality and the principle of humanity, cooperation and openness for the dialogue.

I hope that my mandate helped to collect facts to raise awareness of the problem and revealed applicable legal norms and interpretations, but I will not be able to finish all this workload without your assistance.

I thank you for your attention.

Thank you, Special rapporteur.

The expert will now take questions.

Please state your name and organisation if before you ask.

[Other language spoken]

I'm a reporter of different Arabic media.

What legal?

My question is about the sanctions on Mrs Albanese.

What legal role should the OHCHR play in protecting the Special Rapporteur from the impact of unilateral sanctions?

And in your view, is it currently fulfilling this role effectively?

And how can such sanctions be legally challenged and what measures could be taken to mount a robust legal defence against them?

[Other language spoken]

Thank you very much for this question.

Indeed, as I have mentioned, it's currently a huge problem, taking into account that unilateral sanctions started to be imposed on people who traditionally have been viewed as enjoying full scope of immunities against any prosecution.

And I have to to mention that, for example, I'm speaking not about Madame Albanesar only, I'm speaking about the judges of the International Criminal Court as well as officials of the International Criminal Court.

Traditionally, international legal, international servants, international civil service, judges of international courts as well as special rapporteurs are expected to enjoy immunity because they are not acting on behalf of their self.

They are exercising their duties being in the position on the name of the legal expert in as in of the expert and as in the case of Madame Francesca Albanese or as judges or officials of International Criminal courts.

I cannot say that in the first case when the issue of immunity of international civil service or any person being so-called expert on mission for the United Nations health and rights.

We have a number of decisions of the International Court of Justice which referred to the fact that these people shall be immune against any accusations and.

Imposing unilateral sanctions against both these type of both these type of expert, the judges, officials as well as special rapporteur is clearly against international law.

The more complicated, however is the case.

What exactly can be done when it comes to diplomatic means?

I believe the OHCHR, as well as other officials of the United Nations played their role properly.

They condemned imposition of sanctions against judges and officials of International Criminal Court and again the Special Rapporteur on police time.

The next step was the again which was properly done, the call upon the United stations to leave these sanctions.

And when it comes, for example, to such request, I was one of the Special Rapporteurs who joined and who Co written the communication to the United States as regard the immunities of the judges of International Criminal Court four years ago, when sanctions against them have been imposed for the first time.

The problem, however, is that at the moment, United Nations doesn't have feasible judicial or legal mechanisms to make a state to lift unilateral sanctions imposed against international civil servants judges as special rapporteurs.

Moreover, the United Nations never face this situation in this faith, and I believe that these challenges and this imposition of unilateral sanctions shall be seen by the United Nations as a clear sign that unilateral sanctions is not a political easy game applied by good guys against bad guys.

Traditionally, the rhetoric of unilateral sanctions presented in the media is that sanctions are targeted, they are nice, they do not affect population, they are not, They are affecting only bad targeted guys.

But we see here in the question the example of those bad guys which basically are supposed to be immune and they are not even acting on their behalf.

And for example, Madame Francesca Albanese, which cannot be accused even in the financial issues as other special rapporteurs, she's not even paid for her job.

So therefore, I hope that this facts and the imposition of sanctions again, these people will send a signal to the system of the United Nations to expand attention paid to unilateral cursive measures, means of the enforcement and over compliance.

It was a huge step forward to establish my mandate.

I'm only the second mandate holder.

The mandate was established 10 years ago only, but I believe it's not enough.

More and more, you and organs start to pay attention to the problem and we need joint voices to advocate on illegality of these sanctions and to demonstrate violation of human rights due to unilateral coercive measures.

[Other language spoken]

Do we have any other questions?

Yes, please identify yourself and your media organisation.

[Other language spoken]

My name is work for an organisation called She Corresponds Africa.

I would want a comment in regards to what she's just spoken about in regards to the Zimbabwean context.

I understand that it's also on the agenda.

Can we kindly have a comment in regards to that?

The effects of sanctions to the general populace of Zimbabwe based on what she previously alluded to.

Thank you very much for the question.

I believe that my main findings concerning the impact of unilateral sanctions on Zimbabwe have been reflected in my report on the country visit to Zimbabwe, which took place around 3 years ago.

And just stick into account that in the report I try to reflect to all the development in this sphere.

I will try to be rather brief.

Describing the main effects situation in Zimbabwe is rather specific.

That was one of the cases when no sectoral or comprehensive sanctions have been imposed and therefore it has been traditionally insisted that targeted sanctions imposed against bad guys only do not affect human rights in Zimbabwe at all.

But in reality, my country visit to Zimbabwe has clearly demonstrated that it's absolutely misleading to talk about targeted sanctions today because the majority of people who are in the the designation lists are higher state officials and traditionally as soon as had for example of the Minister of Health has affected the whole public health area is affected and sometimes even a private one.

And as a result, despite the fact of absence of comprehensive or even second or even sectoral sanctions against Zimbabwe, the combination of existing targeted sanctions and growing over compliance from the side of donors, from the side of other states, from third of banks or financial sector as well as other actors and up in nearly comprehensive sanctions regime affecting all spheres of human rights.

Starting from education, which results in deterioration of the basic knowledge and capacities of younger generation even much more than those who have already grown up, up to right to food, right to health, labour right, social rights.

I have reflected in my later reports, thematic reports on some elements in the countries worldwide, including Zimbabwe, reflecting on the growing rates of poverty, the growing rates of food insecurity.

Coming back to the using very hot hand work in the hebisphere of agriculture was reduced with the lower effectiveness of agriculture in Sometimes such sanctions might have so such consequences may arise from the sanctions imposed not on Zimbabwe at all.

One of the very simplest examples is access to fertilisers.

The majority of African countries got used fertilisers which come from Belarus centre or Russia which together have 40% of potash fertilisers market worldwide and cannot be replaced.

And as a result, the cost of fertilisers are either becomes intolerable for farmers or even if fertilisers are still coming from these countries, the delivery caused due to the longer distances becomes also extremely higher absence of access to agricultural machinery.

And that's what I have reflected in my recent report on the impact on economic rights.

Prevents people from doing normal agricultural.

They basically take shuffles against and come back to 100 years ago style of agriculture in it's very challenging to deliver food and naturally Zimbabwe faces a terrible problem with agriculture and watering as well as access to clean water and sanitation which already resulted in cholera outbreaks in the country.

Therefore, beside the reference to the fact, unfortunately that's not the unique situation in the country and therefore that's why I all the time ask not to use the misleading terms.

Targeted sanctions are not targeted.

[Other language spoken]

Absence of existence of unintended impact doesn't change it for people whose human rights are violated.

We are not talking about intention, we're talking about the results.

And I believe As for now, we have sufficient number of facts which clearly demonstrate that negative impact will take place and negative impact will be extremely high.

And in accordance with the principle of humanitarian precaution, it's not possible any longer to ignore the fact that this impact will happen and people will suffer, including up to violation of their right to life.

[Other language spoken]

Are there other questions for the Special Rapporteur, Mr.

Hunt, would you like to add anything to your remarks?

Today when we are talking about unilateral sanctions, it's possible to talk about so many things that it's hard to choose which one is the most important.

And I was really thinking yesterday which one I shall address beside the facts and the work which has been done by the mandate.

And I believe that one of the main challenges, besides the absence of attention to the facts beside the rhetoric, sanctions rhetoric about something not affecting people, imposed by good guys against the bad guys, The legality challenges is a problem that imposing unilateral sanctions is seen as a political instrument only being irrelevant to people.

But that's not true at all.

It's necessary to take into account than when we're talking about unilateral sanctions and the impact, we are talking about lives of real human beings who face challenges to get their foot.

Who having good education cannot get a proper drop and leave a decent life.

Who are deprived of the possibility to get a good education and to have their life better.

Who life earlier because of the absence of medicine or who die earlier because of the absence of medicine or just die because of the preventable or treatable diseases in the situation when in normally they cannot be.

Who face challenges to travel, who face challenges to cooperate, who are not able to get their salary from abroad even if the work is done, and many, many other issues.

And unfortunately, I believe the biggest problem due to this rhetoric is, first of all, that people trust the rhetoric which they hear from everywhere.

Because, for example, the reports which I produce are very long with many details.

And I have to admit, as a loan professor, I write in a complicated, legalistic way.

Therefore sometimes it's hard to understand.

That's why, unfortunately, from one side, the real human consequences quite often are overseen.

From the other side, people being victims of unilateral sanctions do not fully understand why they face these consequences.

5 1/2 Already years of my work as a mandate holder brought me to the idea that we can only start solving the problem when we see the human face of consequences of unilateral sanctions.

A man, a woman, a child, an elderly man and woman.

When we listen to their stories and when we listen to a story of a human being, not of the state leader, we start to associate ourself with that human being and we start to get a compassion, trying to understand whether we would be ready to face the consequences these people are facing.

They are not just figures.

A number of those who died because of absence of medicine or we can criticise them about the decreasing level of education or decreasing qualifications.

They are people which are equal all around the world, which want to live decent life, to have highest attainable level of health and to get good future for themselves and for their children.

And that's why, for example, I understand that my idea about development, establishment of the monitoring tool looks to be very complicated, many paragraphs.

But the idea is it's an instrument for each individual around the world to tell their story confidentially.

And might be when we show these stories and show these real impacts, it will be very hard to ignore the consequences on lives of every individual.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Special Rapporteur.

If there are no further questions for the expert, we will now close this press conference.

We are happy to share Miss Dohan's opening remarks if anyone wishes, and we can have that circulated.

[Other language spoken]

Thank you so much for joining us and thank you very much to the Special Rapporteur for being here.

Thank you very much.

OHCHR/ Special Procedures - Press conference: Special Rapporteur on UCM - 17 September 2025