A/67/396 49. The Special Rapporteur accordingly considers that where there is a plausible basis 84 for believing that intelligence information may have been obtained through torture, the Office of the Independent Designations Adjudicator/Ombudsperson is under an obligation to investigate the manner in which the information was obtained. It is then for the designating State to establish that the information was not so obtained. 85 If, after investigation, there remains a real risk that torture was used to obtain the evidence, it must be excluded from consideration by the Office of the Independent Designations Adjudicator/Ombudsperson altogether, regardless of its apparent probative value. 86 The Special Rapporteur strongly recommends the introduction of an express provision to this effect. 50. At present, neither the report of the Ombudsperson nor her recommendation may be made public or disclosed to the petitioner. The Ombudsperson considers that these restrictions “unnecessarily impair the transparency” of the process. 87 The Monitoring Team also supports some increased transparency. 88 If the present system is retained, the Special Rapporteur agrees that the Ombudsperson should be permitted to disclose her recommendation to the petitioner, and further recommends that, subject to any necessary redactions, the comprehensive reports of the Ombudsperson be published. 51. Under the current procedure, the Committee is required to give reasons to the petitioner when rejecting an application for delisting, 89 but not where it accepts a delisting recommendation. The Committee has adopted a practice of giving rudimentary reasons in all cases, and the Ombudsperson has recommended that this should become mandatory. 90 The Special Rapporteur concurs with the recommendation of the Ombudsperson that the Committee should give reasons in all cases, and further recommends that the Committee’s reasons should be as full as possible, and should in all cases be made public. 52. The right to legal representation is fundamental to the fairness of the delisting procedure. Out of a total of 30 applications received by the Ombudsperson, 21 have so far been legally represented. However, many of the lawyers acting for petitioners have done so pro bono, since there is no mechanism for funding legal representation comparable to those established by the international criminal tribunals. International standards require States to fund the legal defence of an accused person if he or she lacks the means to pay for counsel. 91 The Special Rapporteur recommends that such a mechanism be introduced for the delisting process under the Al-Qaida sanctions regime. __________________ 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 12-52254 Information derived from detainee reporting in a State known to practise torture is sufficient to provide such a plausible basis (see A and others v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (No. 2) [2005] UKHL 71). See G.K. v. Switzerland, CAT/C/30/D/219/2002. See Manfred Nowak and Elizabeth McArthur, The United Nations Convention Against Torture, A Commentary, p. 534 (New York, Oxford University Press, 2008). See S/2012/590, paras. 38-43. See S/AC.37/2012/COMM.48, para. 39. See Security Council resolution 1989 (2011), annex II, paras. 13-14. See S/2012/590, para. 44. See International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art. 14; European Court of Human Rights, art. 6; and Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, art. 8 (2)(e); Security Council resolution 1452 (2002) allows an exemption to be made with regard to frozen assets for the payment of legal fees. Many petitioners are, however, indigent. Moreover, as regards the procedural obstacles for securing humanitarian exemptions (see para. 37 of the present report). 19