SECURITY COUNCIL ADOPTS MEASURES TO ENSURE ‘FAIR AND CLEAR’ PROCEDURES EXIST FOR DE-LISTING FROM SANCTIONS COMMITTEES
SECURITY COUNCIL ADOPTS MEASURES TO ENSURE ‘FAIR AND CLEAR’ PROCEDURES EXIST FOR DE-LISTING FROM SANCTIONS COMMITTEES
|Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York|
5599th Meeting (PM)
SECURITY COUNCIL ADOPTS MEASURES TO ENSURE ‘FAIR AND CLEAR’ PROCEDURES EXIST
FOR DE-LISTING FROM SANCTIONS COMMITTEES
Resolution 1730 (2006) Adopted Unanimously
The Security Council, resolved to ensure the carefully targeted nature of sanctions and that they balance effectiveness against possible adverse consequences, today asked the Secretary-General to establish a focal point within the Secretariat to ensure “fair and clear” procedures for placing individuals and entities on sanctions lists and for removing them.
Through the unanimous adoption of resolution 1730 (2006), under which only one sanctions committee member was needed to recommend de-listing in order to place the issue on the committee’s agenda, the Council directed the sanctions committees to revise their guidelines. Those applied to the committees established pursuant to resolution 1718 (2006), 1636 (2005), 1591 (2005), 1572 (2004), 1533 (2004), 1521 (2005), 1518 (2003), 1267 (1999), 1132 (1997), 918(1994), and 751 (1992).
According to the de-listing procedure, annexed to the text, the focal point, embedded in the Security Council Subsidiary Organs Branch, would perform the following tasks, among others: receive de-listing requests from a petitioner (individuals, groups, undertakings, and/or entities on the Sanctions Committee’s lists); verify the request; and forward it for information and possible comments to the designating Government(s) and to the Government(s) of citizenship and residence. If any of those Governments recommended de-listing, it would forward its recommendation, either through the focal point or directly to the Sanctions Committee Chairman, accompanied by its explanation.
Additionally, if any of the Governments, which had been consulted on the de-listing request, opposed the request, the focal point would so inform the Committee and provide copies of the request. Any Committee member that possessed information in support of the de-listing request was encouraged to share such information with the Governments that reviewed the de-listing request.
If, after a reasonable time (three months), none of the Governments that reviewed the de-listing request commended or indicated that they were working on the request and required an additional definite period of time, the focal point would notify all Committee members and provide copies of the de-listing request. Any members of the Committee might, after consultation with the designating Government(s), recommend de-listing by forwarding the request to the Chairman of the Sanctions Committee, accompanied by an explanation.
The resolution states further that, if, after one month, the Committee member recommended de-listing, then it would be deemed rejected and the Committee Chairman would so inform the focal point. The focal point would then inform the petitioner of the committee’s decision to grant the de-listing petition.
Speaking after the vote, France’s representative welcomed the unanimous adoption of the resolution, which had been the culmination of a collective effort within the Council and within the Security Council’s Al-Qaida/Taliban committee to improve de-listing procedures. With the development of the sanctions regimes, aimed at individuals and entities instead of countries, such procedures had been gradually improved. However, there had been widespread agreement that, once on the list, it was difficult to get off it. Moreover, the procedure had been opaque, whereas the process just adopted would enable individuals and entities to present their submissions for de-listing directly to a focal point. The new mechanism would make the procedure more accessible, clearer and more uniform, which represented considerable progress in terms of equity and transparency, and that would strengthen the support of States for the sanctions regimes. That support, in turn, would ensure the effectiveness of targeted sanctions.
Denmark’s representative said she had been pleased to have co-sponsored the text. In her assessment, it was the best possible result at present, and a step in the right direction. Approving listing and de-listing in the sanctions committees in general, and in the “1267 Committee” in particular, had been a priority of her delegation since it had joined the Security Council in 2005, when it had submitted a proposal for de-listing procedures. Its procedure would significantly improve the current ones, and she hoped the Council would give Denmark’s proposal due consideration, even after it left the Council. To strengthen the fight against terrorism, it was essential to make the sanctions committees more credible and effective and to provide more States with the incentive to engage early and actively in implementing the sanctions.
The representative of Greece said her delegation had co-sponsored the resolution, as it was a positive first step in addressing concerns regarding the need to establish procedural fairness. The sanctions committees should continue to improve their de-listing procedures and establish a review mechanism along the lines of suggestions made by the delegation of Denmark. Improving the targeted sanctions regime was important if sanctions were to be a credible tool of the Council.
Having also co-sponsored the text, Argentina’s representative said that the “1267 Committee”, which his delegation chaired, had provided the framework for discussion. He thanked all Committee members for their contributions to reformulating the working methods for listing and de-listing procures. The changes had been brought forward in the defence of human rights and in raising awareness of the need to fight terrorism from the point of view of respect for law and human rights. Those guidelines had been Argentina’s main convictions over the past two years as a non-permanent member of the Security Council.
Council President for December, Nassir Abdulaziz Al-Nasser ( Qatar), speaking in his national capacity, stressed the need for the Council to ensure respect for legal considerations and norms, as well as transparency in the listing and de-listing process. Heads of State and Government had called on the Security Council, with the Secretary-General’s support, to ensure just and clear procedures, as well as for granting of humanitarian exemptions. He commended the Secretary-General for his recommendations in that regard to one of the sanctions committees, following the call from Qatar’s delegation for the Secretary-General to do his duty in that respect. The Secretary-General had stated that it was the right of persons whose names were listed to have an appeal mechanism. The effectiveness of that mechanism depended on its neutrality, effective recourse and just compensation.
In a presidential statement on 22 June, the Council had committed to setting out fair and clear procedures for the listing and de-listing of individuals and entities, which had had his delegation’s support. Despite voting in favour of today’s resolution, however, he felt that the annex was a weak and modest attempt to improve the de-listing procedures. He remained gravely concerned at the fact that the resolution did not respect many legal norms in de-listing individuals. Such measures did not provide for independence, neutrality or effective recourse.
He said he also regretted that the co-sponsors had not taken up Qatar’s proposal for legal representatives of persons on the list to seek de-listing, particularly since some persons on the list were now deceased. In spite of the fact that Qatar’s proposal had been sound and logical, the draft’s co-sponsors had set it aside. Qatar had also proposed the possibility of submitting de-listing requests to the focal point through the Secretary-General or the United Nations offices in or near the country of citizenship or residence, but that proposal had also been rejected by the sponsors. A further proposal was that the committees be allowed at least to submit the necessary recommendations as it reviewed the de-listing requests, which had also been rejected.
He said he hoped the Council would review the annex –- indeed the entire issue -- and that there would be transparency and independence in considering de-listing requests and further respect for the rule of international law. The Council had committed in the text to enhancing the listing and de-listing procedures and granting of humanitarian exemptions. That had prompted his delegation to vote in favour of the resolution, and he hoped the Council would implement those commitments.
The meeting began at 4:25 p.m. and was adjourned at 4:42 p.m.
The full text of resolution 1730 (2006) reads as follows:
“The Security Council,
“Recalling the statement of its President of 22 June 2006 (S/PRST/2006/28),
“Emphasizing that sanctions are an important tool in the maintenance and restoration of international peace and security,
“Further emphasizing the obligations placed upon all Member States to implement, in full, the mandatory measures adopted by the Security Council,
“Continuing in its resolve to ensure that sanctions are carefully targeted in support of clear objectives and implemented in ways that balance effectiveness against possible adverse consequences,
“Committed to ensuring 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,
“1. Adopts the de-listing procedure in the document annexed to this resolution and requests the Secretary-General to establish within the Secretariat (Security Council Subsidiary Organs Branch), a focal point to receive de-listing requests and to perform the tasks described in the attached annex;
“2. Directs the sanctions committees established by the Security Council, including those established pursuant to resolution 1718 (2006), 1636 (2005), 1591 (2005), 1572 (2004), 1533 (2004), 1521 (2005), 1518 (2003), 1267 (1999), 1132 (1997), 918 (1994), and 751 (1992) to revise their guidelines accordingly;
“3. Decides to remain seized of the matter.”
The Security Council requests the Secretary-General to establish, within the Secretariat (Security Council Subsidiary Organs Branch), a focal point to receive de-listing requests. Petitioners seeking to submit a request for de-listing can do so either through the focal point process outlined below or through their state of residence or citizenship.
The focal point will perform the following tasks:
1. Receive de-listing requests from a petitioner (individual(s), groups, undertakings, and/or entities on the Sanctions Committee’s lists).
2. Verify if the request is new or is a repeated request.
3. If it is a repeated request and if it does not contain any additional information, return it to the petitioner.
4. Acknowledge receipt of the request to the petitioner and inform the petitioner on the general procedure for processing that request.
5. Forward the request, for their information and possible comments to the designating government(s) and to the government(s) of citizenship and residence. Those governments are encouraged to consult with the designating Government(s) before recommending de-listing. To this end, they may approach the focal point, which, if the designating state(s) so agree(s), will put them in contact with the designating state(s).
6. (a) If, after these consultations, any of these governments recommend de-listing, that government will forward its recommendation, either through the focal point or directly to the Chairman of the Sanctions Committee, accompanied by that government’s explanation. The Chairman will then place the de-listing request on the Committee’s agenda.
(b) If any of the Governments, which were consulted on the de-listing request under paragraph 5 above oppose the request, the focal point will so inform the Committee and provide copies of the de-listing request. Any member of the Committee, which possesses information in support of the de-listing request, is encouraged to share such information with the governments that reviewed the de-listing request under paragraph 5 above.
(c) If, after a reasonable time (3 months), none of the governments which reviewed the de-listing request under paragraph 5 above comment, or indicate that they are working on the de-listing request to the Committee and require an additional definite period of time, the focal point will so notify all members of the Committee and provide copies of the de-listing request. Any member of the Committee may, after consultation with the designating government(s), recommend de-listing by forwarding the request to the Chairman of the Sanctions Committee, accompanied by an explanation. (Only one member of the Committee needs to recommend de-listing in order to place the issue on the Committee’s agenda.) If after one month, no Committee member recommends de-listing, then it shall be deemed rejected and the Chairman of the Committee shall inform the focal point accordingly.
7. The focal point shall convey all communications, which it receives from Member States, to the Committee for its information.
8. Inform the petitioner:
(a) Of the decision of the Sanctions Committee to grant the de-listing petition; or
(b) That the process of consideration of the de-listing request within the Committee has been completed and that the petitioner remains on the list of the Committee.
* A State can decide, that as a rule, its citizens or residents should address their de-listing requests directly to the focal point. The State will do so by a declaration addressed to the Chairman of the Committee that will be published on the Committee’s website.
* *** *