A/HRC/16/50 its international sanctions regime of individuals, a number of improvements have been made to the 1267 regime in an effort to address these weaknesses. These include the establishment by the Council of a focal point for de-listing,8 the requirement that Member States provide a detailed statement of case prior to listing,9 and a requirement that the Committee make accessible a narrative summary of reasons for listing, make further efforts to try to inform the individual of the listing, and conduct a review of all names on the list by 30 June 2010.10 19. The latest measure towards the improvement of the Security Council’s listing and de-listing procedure lies in the adoption on 17 December 2009 of resolution 1904. Through the resolution, the Security Council established an Office of the Ombudsperson to receive requests from individuals and entities seeking removal from the Consolidated List. The General Assembly has recognized the need to continue ensuring that fair and clear procedures under the United Nations terrorism-related sanctions regime are strengthened in order to enhance their efficiency and transparency, and has welcomed and encouraged the ongoing efforts of the Security Council in support of these objectives, including by establishing an Office of the Ombudsperson and continuing to review all the names of individuals and entities in the regime.11 I commend the efforts of the Security Council to improve the sanctions regime through procedural reforms, including the adoption of resolution 1904 and the appointment in July 2010 of the first Ombudsperson, as a significant step towards ensuring fair and clear procedures and preventing further human rights violations. 20. Resolution 1904 provides for a strict timetable for the review procedure once the Office of the Ombudsperson has received a de-listing request, with an initial informationgathering phase which requires the Ombudsperson, inter alia, to acknowledge the receipt of the de-listing request; inform the petitioner of the general procedure for processing de-listing requests; answer specific questions from the petitioner about 1267 Committee procedures; and forward the de-listing request to the 1267 Monitoring Team for additional information. The process then involves a two-month period of engagement including the possibility for dialogue between the Ombudsperson, the petitioner and Member States. The Ombudsperson must then submit a comprehensive report to the Committee, which lays out the principal arguments concerning the request and summarizes and, “as appropriate”, specifies the sources of, all information. The resolution also states that de-listing petitions not returned to the petitioner will be forwarded to, inter alia, relevant United Nations bodies which, in the light of the important human rights issues related to de-listing, I trust will include OHCHR. 21. While the newly-established de-listing procedures represent an important step towards fair and clear procedures, the gulf between the 1267 regime and due process-related requirements in international human rights law and the need for more comprehensive reform remain. There is still no recourse to independent judicial or quasi-judicial review either of a decision to list or denial of a request to de-list. In addition, there is no obligation to publish in full the Ombudsperson’s report, nor is the petitioner entitled to know entirely the information available to the Ombudsperson or the Committee. Furthermore, although the powers given to the Ombudsperson include access to some information provided by the petitioner and the Monitoring Team, in practice the Ombudsperson may still depend in large measure on the willingness of individual States to provide the non-redacted information necessary to produce a full analysis of de-listing requests. The decision to de-list will 8 9 10 11 8 Security Council resolution 1730 (2006). Security Council resolution 1735 (2006). Security Council resolution 1822 (2008). See A/65/456/Add.2 (Part II), sect. III, draft resolution XVI.