114 Report of the Eminent Jurists Panel on terrorism, counter-terrorism and human rights or intrusive of the various preventive measures discussed in this chapter, yet its impact can be considerable. Advances in modern technology and international cooperation also make the potential impact of listing even greater. The Panel learnt that this measure (like deportation, administrative detention and control orders) has had disastrous effects on the life and the livelihood of an individual who is listed, or who is associated with a listed organisation, as well as their families. The consequences can be legal, social, reputational, and financial. Moreover, in most countries, membership of, or association with, a listed organisation is a criminal offence that carries severe penalties. The Panel also heard of many troubling examples of individuals, and whole families, innocent and law-abiding, being caught up in harrowing situations, simply because their names resembled those of individuals on various unofficial “watch” or “no fly” lists.286 For these reasons, it is important to ensure that any listing process is undertaken with due regard to effective safeguards and eventually remedies. 5.1 Listing at the domestic level The procedures for listing, and the consequences of being listed, vary to some extent in different jurisdictions. Typically, in most if not all countries, the domestic listing of an individual is likely to result in financial sanctions and restrictions on travel. The State may confiscate assets, prevent an individual from making financial transfers, and/or restrict when and where the listed person may travel. In some countries (for example Australia)287 the designation is subject to time limits of two years (with the possibility of re-designation); elsewhere (for example, Canada and the UK), the designation is valid indefinitely, though subject to review.288 The open-ended nature of the listing process in some jurisdictions renders it likely that individuals (and organisations) are subject to a quasi-permanent deprivation of rights. Usually the decision to list an individual or organisation is taken by the executive, either alone, or in conjunction with the legislature, but with no judicial involvement.289 At several Hearings, participants criticised the arbitrary nature of such 286 See, for example, the experience of Mr Mohammed and his family when his five year old son’s name matched a name on a “security watch list”; or Mrs R and her family attempting (and failing) to attend a family wedding because of name confusions (written submission by American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, EJP United States Hearing). 287 See Section 102.1(3) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 of Australia. 288 In the UK, there is an Independent Reviewer; in Canada, the Minister is the reviewer. In both countries, the listed entity may first apply to the relevant Minister/Home Secretary for de-listing and in case of negative decisions, submit appeal against them to a judicial body. 289 The UK, the US and Australia require approval by the legislature of the regulation/schedule containing a proposed list of proscribed organisations. Canada, India and Tanzania gave the Government a unilateral power to declare a person or an organisation as terrorist, Section 83.01 of the Criminal Code of Canada; Section 35 of the 2004 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Ordinance of India; and Section 12 of the 2002 Prevention of Terrorism Act in Tanzania.