A/HRC/43/46/Add.1 organizations. 17 She particularly notes the overly broad definition of “charitable” and “religious” organizations, against which there is a presumption of vulnerability to terrorism. She records that the introduction of burdensome requirements on mandatory annual reporting for non-governmental organizations (NGOs), combined with the criminalization of the provision of false information, not only does away with the right of NGOs to privacy, increasing government control over their activities, but it also multiplies the grounds on which they can be arbitrarily sanctioned. She highlights that the definition of “suspicious” or “unreliable” transactions includes almost any transaction made to or from a civil society organization. Such measures go beyond what is warranted by recommendation 8 and cannot be considered as either necessary or proportionate. (f) Inclusion on the terrorism sanctions list 20. Given the overly broad nature of terrorism and extremism offences, the Special Rapporteur is particularly concerned that the national terrorism sanctions list automatically includes, in addition to individuals convicted of terrorism financing offences, individuals convicted of other (non-financing) related terrorism offences, individuals convicted of extremism offences, as well as persons against whom there is suspicion of involvement in these crimes but against whom there is insufficient evidence for prosecution, 18 which appears both arbitrary and lacking in oversight. 19 While there is a procedure for individuals to request to be taken off the list, there is no transparency in the listing process for those individuals who have not been convicted of a criminal offence (they can only be delisted if the circumstances surrounding their initial inclusion have changed). Given that the procedure does not aim to allow individuals to prove their wrongful inclusion, nor can it mitigate for over-inclusion, the procedure cannot lead to a robust and rights-compliant review. The Special Rapporteur articulates her extreme disquiet at the hardship created for family members and dependants given the impact of inclusion (asset freezing, prohibition of engaging in a number of commercial and notarial acts) and the breadth of this listing capacity, resulting in independently undermining the rights of women and children under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and which may obfuscate the listing basis contained in Security Council resolution 1373 (2001) mandating domestic listing for terrorism financing. She finds existing domestic remedies to be insufficient to ameliorate this hardship. Turning to the ISIL (Da’esh) and Al-Qaida sanctions list, the Special Rapporteur identifies a lack of legal certainty and due process in their management, as well as a lack of clarity in the determination of the government entity that has overall responsibility and accountability for these tasks. She stresses that Security Council resolutions on counter-terrorism, including those relating to sanctions, are not a carte blanche for the denial of human rights. 2. Discriminatory, disproportionate and arbitrary impact of overlapping measures on civil society 21. The Special Rapporteur reiterates her concern about the use of cumulative and overlapping counter-terrorism measures against civil society. She is further concerned that these wide-ranging and rights-limiting provisions, which theoretically apply equally to all, appear to be invariably and unfortunately targeted at distinct groups and minorities. She affirms that legal distinctions and discriminations against minorities and distinct social groups create patterns of exclusion and broader social discrimination, and are recognized as part of the negative legal landscape that feeds the violent extremism that leads to terrorism. 20 The Special Rapporteur also highlights that this regulatory matrix of overlapping rights-limiting measures allows intersectional discriminations, which have a 17 18 19 20 8 Laws on Introducing Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts on Matters Related to NonGovernmental Organizations and on Counteracting the Legalization (Laundering) of Proceeds from Crime and Financing of Terrorism. Non-judicial inclusion is based on data obtained from law enforcement and special State bodies compiled by the General Prosecutor’s Office. According to the Financial Monitoring Committee, the list contained 1,896 individuals and 90 organizations, of which 155 were added by the General Prosecutor’s Office as a preventive measure during investigations. See United Nations Development Programme, Journey to Extremism in Africa (New York, 2017) and A/HRC/40/52.