Full preliminary findings of the UN special rapporteur on sanctions to Zimbabwe

In particular, while recognizing that states may freely vote in international organizations in line with their foreign policies, the Special Rapporteur notes that instructions of ZIDERA to the US executive directors of international financial institutions to oppose extending any loan, credit, or guarantee to the Government of Zimbabwe; or to cancel or reduce debts owed by the Government of Zimbabwe to the United States or any international financial institution unless the President certifies otherwise, do not correspond to the purposes of article 1(ii-iv) of the Articles of Agreement of the International Monetary Fund – to promote international monetary cooperation; to facilitate the expansion and balanced growth of international trade, and to contribute thereby to the promotion and maintenance of high levels of employment and real income and to the development of the productive resources of all members as primary objectives of economic policy; to promote exchange stability, and to maintain orderly exchange arrangements among members. This approach turns ad hoc decisions into nearly automatic denials, especially in view of the US possibility to block the IMF’s decisions.

The Special Rapporteur considers that the state of national emergency announced by the U.S. Government on 7 March 2003 in Executive Order 13288 as the ground for introducing sanctions against Zimbabwe, and repeatedly extended, does not correspond to the requirements of art. 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, such as the existence of a threat to the life of the nation, the limiting of measures to the exigencies of the situation, a limited duration, and the absence of discrimination, as referred to in the Communication of human rights experts of 29 January 2021.

The Special Rapporteur is concerned that existing unilateral targeted sanctions as a punitive action violate, at the very least, obligations arising from universal and regional human rights instruments, many of which have a peremptory character – procedural guarantees and presumption of innocence with a view that the grounds for their introduction do not constitute for the most part international crimes or comply with the grounds for universal criminal jurisdiction. The designation of family members of listed individuals contradicts the prohibition on punishment for activity which does not constitute a criminal offence and constitutes collective punishment prohibited by international human rights law.

The Special Rapporteur underlines that the listing of the majority of high state officials, and the possibility to designate property or companies they own or control, affect nearly all economic sectors. Imposing high fines on companies and banks for dealing with designated individuals or property they control, based on payments in US dollars, results in increasing reputational risks and the adoption of zero-risk policies by US and third-country nationals or companies as part of over-compliance.

Continued next page

(753 VIEWS)