A/HRC/4/88 page 12 “Secondly, such a person has the right to be heard, via submissions in writing, within a reasonable time by the relevant decision-making body. That right should include the ability to directly access the decision-making body, possibly through a focal point in the Secretariat, as well as the right to be assisted or represented by counsel. Time limits should be set for the consideration of the case. “Thirdly, such a person has the right to review by an effective review mechanism. The effectiveness of that mechanism will depend on its impartiality, degree of independence and ability to provide an effective remedy, including the lifting of the measure and/or, under specific conditions to be determined, compensation. “Fourthly, the Security Council should, possibly through its Committees, periodically review on its own initiative targeted individual sanctions, especially the freezing of assets, in order to mitigate the risk of violating the right to property and related human rights. The frequency of such review should be proportionate to the rights and interests involved. The non-paper indicates also that those elements would apply mutatis mutandis in respect of entities.”10 28. Some improvements have been made recently to the procedures related to the United Nations targeted sanctions regime. In November 2006, the 1267 Committee produced revised standards which apply to new listings including a requirement on designating States to provide more detailed information about individuals and entities to be listed, as well as detailed statements of cases. Nonetheless, the targeted sanctions regime continues to pose a number of serious human rights challenges, notably due to the fact that the process does not provide an opportunity for affected individuals to be informed that such measures are being taken against them or to make submissions, nor does it provide a process for individuals to challenge their listing. In December 2006 the Security Council adopted resolution 1730 (2006) with a view to addressing these concerns. Resolution 1730 establishes new “delisting procedures” as well as a focal point within the Secretariat to serve as a liaison between the designating country and receive delisting requests. While the High Commissioner welcomes this first step towards ensuring fair and clear procedures for placing individuals and entities on Security Council sanctions lists and for removing them, the measures taken so far are far from being a comprehensive solution to the problem. 29. Human rights concerns such as those outlined above have prompted a number of challenges to the individual listings procedures before national and regional courts.11 The most recent of these involved a challenge before the European Court of First Instance by the 10 11 Security Council, 5474th meeting, 22 June 2006 (S/PV.5474). See, for example, Kadi v. Council and Commission, Case T-315/01, 21 September 2005; Yusuf and Al Barakaat International Foundation v. Council and Commission, Case T-306/01, 21 September 2005; Faraj Hassan, Case T-49/04, 12 July 2006; and Chafiq Ayadi, Case T-253/02, 12 July 2006.