14 Compendium: High Level Review of United Nations Sanctions It was therefore not surprising that the Review encountered an enduring perception that, at least in some instances, sanctions-related decisionmaking by the Council and its subsidiary bodies was motivated by political rather than security considerations and was therefore unfair. Sanctions also tended to be judged collectively on the basis of the least effective element or example. They were still perceived as being “imposed against a State”, even in cases where the sanctions were intended to support the relevant Government and were implemented in partnership with that Government. Finally, the more a State directly affected by the sanctions regime felt removed from the governance of those sanctions, the more alienated that State would feel, negatively impacting its motivation to support and comply with the sanctions. Further complicating a commitment to compliance was the real or perceived financial cost of sanctions implementation. Effective implementation requires national regulatory capacity and resources that challenge small states generally but is particularly difficult for those States to whose territories sanctions typically apply, emerging from conflict likely triggered by a preexisting institutional fragility. But the Review was also told that sanctions, however well targeted, could have an impact on legitimate trade with the targeted State, due to payment and delivery delays caused by sanctions compliance measures, thereby creating a competitive disadvantage vis à vis other States less rigorous in sanctions implementation. The Review also considered the political impact on the perception of sanctions related to the potential conflict between sanctions targeting individuals and entities and national laws and policies protecting civil economic and social rights. A lack of fairness and transparency in the process that placed individuals or entities under sanctions, and the inability to engage meaningfully with the sanctioning body on the reasons for the sanctions (or what “proof of innocence” or commitment to alternative conduct would see the sanctions removed) could erode the motivation of States to comply with the measures. This conflict could impede national implementation of sanctions, or prevent cooperation or information-sharing related to the implementation or enforcement of those measures with other Member States, sanctions committees or expert groups. The Review heard that the effectiveness of sanctions to maintain or restore international peace and security to the situation to which they were applied depended upon a mutual conviction within the relevant region that the sanctions were themselves just, contributed to regional peace and stability, and contributed to individual States’ security. Regional consensus regarding the legitimacy of sanctions cannot be taken for granted: it needs to be