A/HRC/16/50 continue to be taken by the 1267 Committee, which is under no obligation to provide reasons for its decision and the extent to which the reasons will be communicated to the petitioner in practice is unclear. Finally, the Office of the Ombudsperson lacks the authority to grant appropriate relief in cases where human rights are violated, whilst the ability of individuals and entities to challenge their listing and seek relief at national level is constrained by the obligation on Member States to implement Security Council sanctions imposed under Chapter VII.12 22. These and other human rights concerns have fuelled challenges to the targeted sanctions regime and implementing measures in regional and national courts by political bodies at regional and national levels, by international human rights treaty bodies and special procedures of the Human Rights Council, and in other forums.13 For instance, the Eminent Jurists Panel on Terrorism, Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights of the International Commission of Jurists has referred to the “virtually uniform criticism of the system as it presently operates” and noted the difficulties the regime poses for Member States faced with abiding by their obligations to implement sanctions while meeting their domestic and international human rights obligations.14 While the procedural improvements established under resolution 1904 and the recent appointment and ongoing work of the Ombudsperson are positive and significant developments, they fail to adequately address the structural, due process-related concerns which have prompted these criticisms and challenges. 23. The recent decision of the European General Court in Kadi v. European Commission provides practical illustration of these challenges. The Court annulled the European Commission regulation implementing the Security Council resolutions and decisions related to the targeted sanctions regime insofar as it applied to the applicant, Mr. Kadi, on grounds that the regulation violated his right to defence. The Court stated that Mr. Kadi’s right to effective judicial review had been violated due to the lack of proper access to the information and evidence used against him, noting in particular that: 12 13 14 Individual cases have nonetheless been heard in national courts in Belgium, Canada, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Pakistan, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America. One example is the decision by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in January 2010 which struck down the domestic legislation implementing the 1267 regime in that country (consolidated cases HMT v. Mohammed Jabar Ahmed and others; Mohammed al-Ghabra and HMT v. Hani El Sayed Sabaei Youssef). See Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly resolution 1597 which found the 1267 sanctions regime to “violate the fundamental principles of human rights and the rule of law”; Council of Europe, Commissioner for Human Rights, “Arbitrary procedures for terrorist black-listing must now be changed” (2008), available from www.coe.int/t/commissioner/viewpoints/081201_en.asp; Case T85/09, Kadi v. European Commission, European General Court (Seventh Chamber), 30 September 2010; Joined Cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P, Yassin Abdullah Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v. Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities, European Court of Justice (Grand Chamber), 3 September 2008; communication No. 1472/2006, Sayadi and Vinck v. Belgium, Views adopted by the Human Rights Committee on 22 October 2008. At the national level see the resolution adopted by the Parliament of Switzerland, which provides for notification to the Security Council that the Government of Switzerland will not apply the sanctions required under the 1267 regime against individuals who have not been “brought to justice” after three years of being placed on the Consolidated List; who do not have the right of judicial review of their listing; who have not been charged by any judicial authority; and against whom no new evidence has been produced since being included on the List: Les fondements de notre ordre juridique courtcircuités par l’ONU (adopted 4 March 2010). International Commission of Jurists, Assessing Damage, Urging Action: Report of the Eminent Jurists Panel on Terrorism, Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights (Geneva, International Commission of Jurists, 2009), pp. 116–117. 9