Assessing Damage, Urging Action If control orders are to be used, it is also essential to build in appropriate safeguards. The Panel believes that there are many important safeguards missing in the control order system currently in operation in places like Australia and the UK: • the evidentiary standard required is often low – that of “reasonable suspicion”; • there is a limited ability to test the underlying intelligence information; • there are no definite time-limits and the orders can last for long periods; • there are limitations on effective legal representation and to legal counsel of one’s own choosing; • the right to a full fair hearing (guaranteed in both civil and criminal proceedings) is denied. Such safeguards are all the more important given that criminal sanctions often flow from the currently flawed procedures. The Panel expressed reservations about “alternative” safeguards that have been developed, such as the system of special advocates. The Panel shares the view expressed by Lords Woolf and Bingham (cases cited earlier) in proceedings in the House of Lords to the effect that the procedure puts the affected person “at a grave disadvantage”. While recognising that the introduction of special advocates was intended to compensate for other procedural limitations, and also that there is a strong tradition of an independent judiciary in the UK, the Panel believes that this is an important and worrisome departure from normal practice. d. Listing It was clear to the Panel that the practice of listing individuals and organisations has given rise to human rights violations and that, where they exist at all, the procedural safeguards are inadequate. At the time of writing, there is a move to reform the UN sanctioning system on the proposal of a number of Member States. Such reforms are long overdue in the light of consistent criticism by human rights bodies, including the Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Terrorism. The Panel supports any proposals that would ensure full compliance with international human rights law, in particular the introduction of a genuinely independent judicial or quasi-judicial complaint mechanism, a clear listing and de-listing process, and strict time-limits for listing decisions. 121