A/HRC/16/50 the Security Council has still not deemed it appropriate to establish an independent and impartial body responsible for hearing and determining, as regards matters of law and fact, actions against individual decisions taken by the Sanctions Committee. Furthermore, neither the focal point mechanism nor the Office of the Ombudsperson affects the principle that removal of a person from the Sanctions Committee’s list requires consensus within the committee. Moreover, the evidence which may be disclosed to the person concerned continues to be a matter entirely at the discretion of the State which proposed that he be included on the Sanctions Committee’s list and there is no mechanism to ensure that sufficient information be made available to the person concerned in order to allow him to defend himself effectively (he need not even be informed of the identity of the State which has requested his inclusion on the Sanctions Committee’s list).15 24. The Court stated that the considerations of the earlier decision by the European Court of Justice remain valid despite the creation by the Security Council of a focal point and an Office of the Ombudsperson, as these “cannot be equated with the provision of an effective judicial procedure for review of decisions of the Sanctions Committee”. The Court also found an infringement of the applicant’s right to property as a result of the general application and duration of the freezing measures. 25. Concerns similar to those addressed by the European General Court also have been raised by the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, including in his report to the sixty-fifth session of the General Assembly. While welcoming the adoption of resolution 1904 and related procedural improvements, the Special Rapporteur recommended that the Security Council adopt a widespread reform of its sanctions regime and replace resolutions 1373 (2001), 1624 (2005) and 1267 (1999) (as amended) with a single resolution, not adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, in order to systematize the States’ counter-terrorism measures and reporting duties of States under one framework with explicit human rights provisions, using the Global Strategy as a basis (A/65/258, para. 75). 26. The Security Council has reiterated its commitment “to ensure that fair and clear procedures exist for placing individuals and entities on sanctions lists and for removing them, as well as for granting humanitarian exemptions” (PRST/2010/19, p. 4) and to review the 1267 sanctions measures “with a view to their possible further strengthening” at latest by mid-2011.16 Importantly, the Security Council also has expressed its strong support for the Global Strategy, which recognizes respect for human rights and the rule of law as the fundamental basis for the fight against terrorism, and has reaffirmed that Member States “must ensure that any measures taken to combat terrorism comply with all their obligations under international law, in particular international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law”, noting further that “effective counter-terrorism measures and respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law are complementary and mutually reinforcing and are an essential part of a successful counter-terrorism effort” (PRST/2010/19, p. 2). 27. I welcome the renewed commitment of the Security Council to ensuring that measures for countering terrorism are adopted in compliance with international law and commend in particular its strong support for the Global Strategy. I urge the Security Council in this spirit to explore every avenue of possibility in order to ensure that sanctions imposed against individuals and entities are accompanied by rigorous procedural safeguards 15 16 10 Case T-85/09, Kadi v. European Commission, European General Court (Seventh Chamber), 30 September 2010, para. 128. Security Council resolution 1904.