1 S.C. Res. 1267, U.N. Doc. S/RES/1267 (Oct. 15,1999), available at http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N99/300/44/PDF/N9930044.pdf?OpenElement

2 For information on the Committee, see http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1267/index.html.

3 S.C. Res. 1333, U.N. Doc. S/RES/1333 (Dec. 19, 1990).

4 S.C. Res. 1390, U.N. Doc. S/RES/1390 (Jan. 16, 2002).

5 S.C. Res. 1452, S.C. Doc. S/RES/1452 (Dec. 20, 2002).

6 S.C. Res. 1730, S.C. Doc. S/RES/1730 (Dec. 19, 2006).

7 World Summit Outcome, G.A. Res. 60/1, UN Doc. A/RES/ 60/1 (Oct. 24, 2005), available at http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N05/487/60/PDF/N0548760.pdf?Open-Element.

8 Id ¶¶ 106-110.

9 Council Regulation 881/2002, 2002 OJ (L139/9) (EC).

10 Case T-306/01, Ahmed Ali Yusuf and Al Barakaat International Foundation v. Council and Commission, 2005 E.C.R. 11 3533; (appeal, C-415/05 P 2005 OJ. (C 48/11)) [hereinafter Al Barakaat]; and Yassin Abdullah Kadi v. Council and Commission, 2005 E.C.R. 11-3649, (appeal C-402/05 P, 2006 O.J. (C 36/19)) [hereinafter Kadi], available at http://curia.euro-pa.eu/jurisp/cgibin/form.pl?lang=EN&Submit=Rechercher&numaff=C-402/05.

11 See Al Barakaat and Kadi, Judgment of Sept. 3, 2008 in Joined Cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P, available at http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=EN&Submit=Rechercher&numaffC-402/05. In particular, the Court found that “[b]ecause the Council neither communicated to the appellants the evidence used against them to justify the restrictive measures imposed on them nor afforded them the right to be informed of that evidence within a reasonable period after those measures were enacted, the appellants were not in a position to make their point of view in that respect known to advantage. Therefore, the appellants’ rights of defence, in particular the right to be heard, were not respected. In addition, given the failure to inform them of the evidence adduced against them and having regard to the relationship, referred to in paragraphs 336 and 337 above, between the rights of the defence and the right to an effective legal remedy, the appellants were also unable to defend their rights with regard to that evidence in satisfactory conditions before the Community judicature, with the result that it must be held that their rightto an effective legal remedy has also been infringed.” Id. paras. 348-349.

12 See the Judgment of April 24, 2008 in A, K, M, Q and G v. H.M. Treasury, [2008] EWHC (Ch).869, available at http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2008/869.html, in which Mr. Justice Collins said, at para. 46: “The purpose of asset freezing is to ensure that funds are not made available for terrorist purposes. Thus any criminal liability which could fall on those who make any assets available to a designated person should depend on whether it was or ought to have been known to the supplier that the asset in question could result in funds being available for terrorist purposes. That at the very least seems to me to be an appropriate limitation on criminal liability. How the requirements of the Sanctions Committee should be put into law is, as it seems to me, having regard to the principles to which I have referred a matter for Parliamentary consideration. Thus I am satisfied that neither Order in Council represents a necessary or expedient means of giving effect to the obligations imposed by the Committee.”;