A/HRC/8/13 page 16 the purpose of the United Nations to combat the terrorist threat posed by an individual case. There instead needs to be regular, comprehensive review of the situation of those subjected to such sanctions. 48. Legal procedures are necessary to ensure that fair and clear procedures exist for placing individuals and entities on sanctions lists and removing them, as well as for granting humanitarian exemptions. In short, respect for due process rights must be guaranteed. International procedures under the authority of the Security Council level and at the domestic level should sensibly compliment each other in scope and protection. In my view, it is key that Parliaments debate how internationally binding obligations in this area properly transpose into domestic law. But at all levels, fair and clear procedures include the right of an individual to be informed of the measures taken and to know the case against him or her; the right of such a person to be heard within a reasonable time by the relevant decision-making body; the right to effective review by a competent, independent review mechanism; the right of such a person to representation with respect to all proceedings; and the right of such a person to an effective remedy. My Office has collaborated with the Office of Legal Affairs and the Department of Political Affairs in a process to “ensure that fair and clear procedures exist for placing individuals and entities on sanctions lists and removing them, as well as for granting humanitarian exemptions”. 49. Some improvements have been made recently to the procedures related to the United Nations targeted sanctions regime. While at present, there is no legal mechanism for reviewing the accuracy of the information behind a sanctions committee listing or the necessity for and proportionality of sanctions adopted, nor does the individual affected have a right of access to a review body at the international level. The only recourse for review of individuals and entities that may be wrongly listed, for example, is for the individual or entity to approach the Security Council through their State of nationality or residence. Member States are responsible for informing their nationals that they have been listed, but often this does not happen. Individuals have a right to know the reasons behind a listing decision, as well as the procedures available for challenging a decision. 50. Individual listings normally do not include an “end date” to the listing, which may result in a temporary freeze of assets becoming permanent. While targeted sanctions against individuals clearly have a punitive character, there is no uniformity in relation to evidentiary standards and procedures. The longer an individual is on a list, the more punitive the effect will be. States only have standing in the current sanctions regime, which assumes that the State will act on behalf of the individual. In practice, often this does not happen and individuals are effectively excluded from a process which may have a direct punitive impact on them. 51. Beyond procedural improvements in the listing process, there is a need for some form of appropriate review mechanism to which individuals and entities may appeal decisions regarding their listing. A review mechanism under the authority of the Security Council for consideration of delisting proposals should be established. An independent panel to consider delisting proposals with a judicial review of delisting decisions. All of these proposals should be taken into account in comprehensively addressing the human rights issues raised by asset freezing.