A/HRC/12/22 page 15 40. The practice of listing and de-listing individuals and groups as terrorist and associated entities may seriously impact on a number of internationally protected human rights, as increasingly recognized by a number of regional and national courts. Following the recent European Court of Justice judgment in the case of Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation,40 as well as the Views of the Human Rights Committee,41 institutional changes to the sanctions regime have become necessary. 41. The freezing of assets has an impact on several human rights including the right to property. It impacts directly on the right to work and the right to freedom of movement associated with it. The impact of listing on an individual’s right to work was illustrated by a recent case before the Human Rights Committee. In the case of Nabil Sayadi and Patricia Vinck v. Belgium, the Human Rights Committee addressed the national implementation of the sanctions regime set forth in Security Council resolution 1267 (1999).42 The Committee noted that a travel ban against the complainants resulted from the transmittal by Belgium of their names to the Sanctions Committee. The Committee found that the travel ban constituted a violation of the authors’ right to freedom of movement under article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, because both the dismissal of a criminal investigation and the State party de-listing requests showed that the restrictions were not necessary to protect national security or public order. The Committee indicated that because of the travel ban, the victims had not been able to accept an offer of employment in another country. Based on its general comment No. 27 (1999) on article 12 (Freedom of movement), the Committee noted that “it is not sufficient that the restrictions serve the permissible purposes; they must also be necessary to protect them” and that “restrictive measures must conform to the principle of proportionality; they must be appropriate to achieve their protective function”.43 This decision was followed by six individual opinions from Committee members, both on admissibility and on merits. 42. Because individual listings are currently open-ended in duration, they may result in a temporary freeze of assets becoming permanent which, in turn, may amount to criminal punishment due to the severity of the sanction. This threatens to go well beyond the purpose of the United Nations to combat the terrorist threat posed by an individual case. In addition, there is no uniformity in relation to evidentiary standards and procedures. This poses serious human rights issues, as all punitive decisions should be either judicial or subject to judicial review. 40 Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice, Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v. Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities, joined cases C-402/05P and C-415/05P, 3 September 2008. 41 Communication No. 1472/2006, Sayadi and Vinck v. Belgium, CCPR/C/94/D/1472/2006, Views adopted on 22 October 2008. 42 Ibid. 43 Ibid., para. 10.5.