A/67/396 legal standards between mere suspicion and the internationally recognized criminal standards that are precluded by resolution 1989 (2011). These intermediate standards include reasonable grounds for suspicion, reasonable grounds for belief, and proof on the balance of probabilities. The “reasonable and credible basis” test adopted by the Ombudsperson does not clearly differentiate between them, or indicate which standard is to be applied. 57. The answer must be divined from the language of the resolution, which indicates only that national criminal standards of proof are inappropriate. Given the quasi-penal consequences of these measures, the standard of review must be set as high as possible, consistent with the terms of the resolution. This would require the Committee and the Office of the Independent Designations Adjudicator/ Ombudsperson to be satisfied on the material available to them that the allegation of association with Al-Qaida is at least more likely than not to be true (a “balance of probabilities” test). 102 Further, the standard must incorporate a proportionality element, if it is to meet the requirements laid down by the European Court of Human Rights in Nada v. Switzerland, 103 and as envisaged by the High Commissioner for Human Rights 104 and the Human Rights Committee. 105 Where the imposition of the measures would involve a disproportionate interference with a protected human right, the Office of the Independent Designations Adjudicator/ Ombudsperson should have power to issue a delisting decision. The Office of the Independent Designations Adjudicator/Ombudsperson should therefore be required to recommend delisting, unless she is satisfied on the material made available to her (a) that it is more likely than not that the designated individual or entity is associated with Al-Qaida, within the meaning of resolution 1989 (2011); and (b) that the imposition of sanctions constitutes a proportionate interference with the fundamental rights of the designated person or entity. 58. A further aspect of the regime that has caused concern is the indeterminate nature of the sanctions imposed on designated individuals and entities. When viewed in combination with the severity of the measures imposed, the risk that sanctions will become effectively permanent gives them the colour of a penal sanction. The General Court of the European Union has observed that due to the length of time individuals remain listed “the question of the classification of the measures in question as preventative or punitive, protective or confiscatory, civil or criminal seems now to be an open one”. 106 The Monitoring Team has also expressed the view that time limits would help to prevent the continuation of listings through inertia. Considering the need to reinforce the temporary and preventative purpose of the sanctions imposed under the 1267/1989 regime, the Special Rapporteur recommends that the Security Council should revisit proposals previously advanced __________________ 102 103 104 105 106 12-52254 See Her Majesty’s Treasury (Respondent) v. Mohammed Jabar Ahmed and others (FC) (Appellants) [2010] UKSC 2, [2010] 2 AC 534, para. 58. See Nada v. Switzerland, Case No. 10593/08, European Court of Human Rights, 10 September 2012. See A/HRC/16/50, para. 19. See CCPR/C/94/D/1472/2006 (“Sayadi and Vinck v. Belgium”), Separate Opinion of Sir Nigel Rodley. Case T-85/09 Yassin Abdullah Kadi v. European Commission, General Court (Seventh Chamber), 30 September 2010 [2011] CMLR 24, para. 150. 21