the others after the Arusha decision), it is equally true that following this, the decision to impose an embargo against Burundi was endorsed by the OAU and the UN Security Council. 70. The decision to impose the embargo against Burundi is thus based, by implication, on the provisions of Chapter VII andChapter VIII of the UN Charter, regarding “Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression” and „Regional Arrangements‟, in the sense that the military coup which deposed the democratically elected government constituted a threat to, indeed a breach of, the peace in Burundi and the region. 71. The Respondent States took collective action as a sub-regional consortium to address a matter within the region that could constitute a threat to peace, stability and security. Their action was motivated by the principles enshrined in the Charters of the OAU and of the UN. The Charter of the OAU stipulates that “freedom, equality, justice and dignity are essential objectives for the achievement of the legitimate aspirations of the African peoples”. It goes on to promote international cooperation “to achieve a better life for the peoples of Africa…”. 72. The resolution to impose the embargo on Burundi was taken at a duly constituted summit of the states of the Great Lakes Region who had an interest in or were affected by the situation in Burundi. The resolution was subsequently presented to the appropriate organs of the OAU and the Security Council of the UN. No breach attaches to the procedure adopted by the states concerned. The embargo was not a mere unilateral action or a naked act of hostility but a carefully considered act of intervention which is sanctioned by international law. The endorsement of the embargo by resolution of the Security Council and of the summit of Heads of State and Government of the OAU does not merit a further enquiry as to how the action was initiated. 73. The UN Security Council is vested with authority to take prompt and effective action for the maintenance of international peace and security. In doing so, States agree that the Security Council „acts on their behalf…‟. This suggests that, once endorsed by resolution of the Security Council, the embargo is no longer the acts of a few neighbouring states but that it imposes obligations on all member states of the UN. 74. The Charter of the UN allows that member states of the UN may be called upon to apply measures including, “complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations…” . Economic sanctions and embargoes are legitimate interventions in international law. 75. The critical question and one which may affect the legitimacy of the action is whether such action as has been determined is excessive and disproportionate, is indiscriminate and seeks to achieve ends beyond the legitimate purpose. Sanctions therefore cannot be open-ended, the effects thereof must be carefully monitored, measures must be adopted to meet the basic needs of the most vulnerable populations or they must be targeted at the main perpetrators or authors of the nuisance complained of. The [UN] Human Rights Committee has adopted a General Comment in this regard precisely in order to create boundaries and limits to the imposition of sanctions. 76. We are satisfied that the sanctions imposed were not indiscriminate, that they were targeted in that a list of affected goods was made. A monitoring committee was put in place and situation was monitored regularly. As a result of these reports adjustments were made accordingly. The report by the Secretary General of the OAU is indicative of the sensitivity called upon in international law: “…besides their political, economic and psychological impact, they (the sanctions) continue to have a harsh impact on the people. The paradox is that they enrich the rich and impoverish the poor, without effectively producing the desired results… It would, perhaps, be appropriate to review the question of the sanctions, in such a way as to minimise the suffering of the people, maximise and th make effective the pressures on the intended target” (CM/2034 (LXVIII), 68 Ordinary Session of the Council of Ministers, Ouagadougou, 1-6 June 1998). 77. We accept the argument that sanctions are not an end in themselves. They are not imposed for the sole purpose of causing suffering. They are imposed in order to bring about a peaceful resolution of a dispute. It is self-evident that Burundians were in dispute among themselves and the neighbouring states had a legitimate interest in a peaceful and speedy resolution of the dispute. 78. With regard to the allegations of interference in the domestic affairs of other sovereign States, the [African] Commission recognises that international law has provided careful procedures where such