Assessing Damage, Urging Action decisions, and the absence of any clear criteria for listing.290 A common concern was the fact that many listed organisations are Muslim, and this raised questions as to the potentially discriminatory application of this sanction. Individuals and groups alleged possible bias in the decision-making, and were concerned at the creation of an overall perception of particular communities being targeted.291 In those instances where the criteria for listing are in the public domain, they appear broad. In Australia and the UK, for example, there has been much debate about the ambit of listing which involves individuals or organisations that “glorify” or “advocate” terrorist acts.292 Here and elsewhere (especially in countries with a long tradition of restricting political dissent), the risk is great that people who are doing nothing more than expressing “unpopular” opinions will be caught up in the net of supposed supporters of terrorism. Affected persons or entities are rarely given an effective opportunity to challenge their designation – before or after being designated. Even in situations where legal provisions exist to allow an appeal or review against listing before a judicial body, the remedy is often limited, with the aggrieved person having little or no opportunity to challenge facts, or the proportionality of the measure. Like other preventive mechanisms, the appeal process is characterised by secrecy, allowing for non-disclosure of key materials. Since the original information is often based on secret intelligence, or may originate from an earlier international listing decision (see on), individuals and organisations have few remedies. 5.2 Listing at the international level The processes of domestic and international listing are greatly intertwined. On the positive side, transnational terrorism needs coordinated responses. On the negative side, attempts at coordination can compound serious errors made at the outset, and the risks to individuals and organisations expand exponentially. As the seriousness of the potential risk of abuse increases, human rights law would require a similar increase in safeguards; this is not currently the case. It is disturbing to report that there is not due process in the listing procedures carried out by the United Nations. Belatedly, some incremental changes have been introduced in response to criticism, including for example a requirement for subsequent notification that the individual or entity has been listed, and the provision of a “statement of the case” outlining allegations against them. There are however no effective means for challenging a listing decision once made because, despite some reforms, the listed individual or entity seeking de-listing or exemptions must 290 See in particular written submissions from: the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, the Australian Muslim Civil Rights Advocacy Network and the Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association at the US, Australian and Canadian Hearings respectively. 291 Such concerns were voiced most prominently at the EJP Hearings in Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom and the European Union. 292 Section 21 of the UK Terrorism Act 2006 (c.11); Section 102.1 of the Criminal Code of Australia. 115