116 Report of the Eminent Jurists Panel on terrorism, counter-terrorism and human rights continue to rely on the goodwill of a State, and has no possibility of directly petitioning the Committee.293 The decision to remove someone from a list is essentially a political one, in that it is taken by consensus by the Sanctions Committee whose membership corresponds to that of the Security Council, allowing any Member State the power to veto a de-listing decision. There is no option for independent review. Once listed by the UN, there is no time-limit to the listing, and de-listing will prove extremely difficult, since it requires the agreement of all five permanent members. While the UN is not itself party to human rights treaties, its Member States are bound by such treaties. Member States of the UN (including members of the Security Council), and the Security Council itself, are bound by international law, including the obligation to respect fundamental human rights, as reflected in conventional and customary international law. Moreover, the inclusion on one list (such as the UN list) then has consequences for listing at the level of domestic lists and, in some cases, regional lists. The Panel received virtually uniform criticism of the system as it presently operates. The UN sanctioning lists is seen as arbitrary, and this then causes difficulties for Member States if they try to abide by UN procedures. On the one hand, States have their domestic and international human rights obligations, and on the other hand, their obligations to implement decisions under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. The contradiction leaves States open to legal challenge. In this regard, the Panel welcomes a recent landmark decision294 of the European Court of Justice, which ruled that the implementation within the EU of listings by the Security Council have to be measured for their full compliance with human rights law. The Court found that the EU Council decision implementing the Security Council listings in their current format violates the right to defence (especially the right to be heard), and the right to an effective judicial review. At the time of writing the UN Human Rights Committee equally held Belgium295 to be in violation of its obligation under the right to freedom of movement, and the right to privacy and reputation, in their implementation of the Security Council lists. This was the case, even though Belgium had requested in vain that the individuals concerned be de-listed. Clearly these developments underline the urgent need to reform listings under the UN Security Council. At the European Union level serious concerns were voiced also in relation to its own counter-terrorism lists (which complement those lists merely implementing the 293 In 2007 the procedure was somewhat improved by the establishment of the “focal point” within the Sanctions Committee. Listed individuals or entities may now submit to the “focal point” a de-listing request for forwarding to the designating government(s) and to the government(s) of citizenship and residence. In the absence of opposition or notification by these governments that they are taking action on the request, the “focal point” will forward copies of the de-listing requests to all members of the Sanctions Committee. 294 See Court of Justice of the European Communities, Judgment of 3 September 2008, Kadi and Al Barakat International Foundation v. the Council of the European Union; Joint cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05. 295 UN Human Rights Committee, Views of 9 December 2008, Sayadi and Vinck v. Belgium, UN Doc. CCPR/C/94/ D01472/2006, No. 1472/2006, para. 10.1 et seq.