ECCHR-CONFERENCE ON TERRORISM LISTS
Exciting Controversies at Brussels ECCHR-Conference on Terrorism Lists
The one-day conference organized by the European Center for
Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR) at Free University Brussels on 20
October 2009 attracted great interest. The discussion topics clarified existing
problems and highlighted recent developments in the field, and included panels
on the listing procedures of individuals and groups, the practical experiences
of lawyers working on behalf of listed persons and groups, the issue of the
separation of the executive and judicial power, and current approaches and
reforms of the listing systems. The conference was supported by Cordaid,
Transnational Institute, Statewatch, Berghof Peace Support and Amnesty
International EU-Offices.
EU Counterterrorism Coordinator Mr. De Kerchove emphasized the administrative character of sanction measures against individuals and groups. He welcomed recent judgments by European courts on EU terrorism lists, in which the courts reaffirmed and strengthened the fundamental procedural safeguards and standards of affected persons and groups which have to be respected before putting a person or group on a list. De Kerchove also pointed out that the purpose of listing is less the freezing of assets than rather good political reasons. British lawyer Mr. Marc Muller criticized De Kerchove, particularly for the fact that he openly admitted that the explicit legislative purpose for cutting off financial transactions to support terrorist activities is not the prevailing one for the lists. He further noted that there is an insufficient distinction made between "Jihad-terrorists" and liberation movements. In particular, he considered the repressive action against Kurdish and Tamil communities in Europe as fatal.
These matters were further explored by three lawyers from Europe and North America on the next panel. They clearly presented to the sometimes very astonished conference participants the consequences of listing procedures for individuals, and the political and diplomatic reasons upon which these decisions are sometimes based. The original aim to limit support for terrorism by assets freezing and travel bans was often not the primary focus. Critics were especially vocal on the issue of the violation of fundamental human rights for political and diplomatic reasons, and noted that this further damages the rule of law. This point was referred to by the following panel, who criticized the practice of excluding the judiciary from overseeing decisions of the executive, and who cautioned against the listing of persons and groups without presenting evidence or respecting fundamental procedural safeguards. This led to the conclusion that cooperation as well as mutual control of the different powers is of utmost importance to secure balanced decisions.
The conference concluded with a panel on future perspectives and reform proposals regarding terrorism lists. It was emphasized that the entire system of listing suspected persons is highly dubious and abolishment is necessary. To control and stop suspicious financial transactions, there is sufficient legal basis in relevant criminal and criminal procedure law, as well as in European cooperation agreements. Only the referral to regular proceedings can guarantee the rule of law and fundamental human rights and secure procedural safeguards such as the right to an effective remedy and access to a court.
EU Counterterrorism Coordinator Mr. De Kerchove emphasized the administrative character of sanction measures against individuals and groups. He welcomed recent judgments by European courts on EU terrorism lists, in which the courts reaffirmed and strengthened the fundamental procedural safeguards and standards of affected persons and groups which have to be respected before putting a person or group on a list. De Kerchove also pointed out that the purpose of listing is less the freezing of assets than rather good political reasons. British lawyer Mr. Marc Muller criticized De Kerchove, particularly for the fact that he openly admitted that the explicit legislative purpose for cutting off financial transactions to support terrorist activities is not the prevailing one for the lists. He further noted that there is an insufficient distinction made between "Jihad-terrorists" and liberation movements. In particular, he considered the repressive action against Kurdish and Tamil communities in Europe as fatal.
These matters were further explored by three lawyers from Europe and North America on the next panel. They clearly presented to the sometimes very astonished conference participants the consequences of listing procedures for individuals, and the political and diplomatic reasons upon which these decisions are sometimes based. The original aim to limit support for terrorism by assets freezing and travel bans was often not the primary focus. Critics were especially vocal on the issue of the violation of fundamental human rights for political and diplomatic reasons, and noted that this further damages the rule of law. This point was referred to by the following panel, who criticized the practice of excluding the judiciary from overseeing decisions of the executive, and who cautioned against the listing of persons and groups without presenting evidence or respecting fundamental procedural safeguards. This led to the conclusion that cooperation as well as mutual control of the different powers is of utmost importance to secure balanced decisions.
The conference concluded with a panel on future perspectives and reform proposals regarding terrorism lists. It was emphasized that the entire system of listing suspected persons is highly dubious and abolishment is necessary. To control and stop suspicious financial transactions, there is sufficient legal basis in relevant criminal and criminal procedure law, as well as in European cooperation agreements. Only the referral to regular proceedings can guarantee the rule of law and fundamental human rights and secure procedural safeguards such as the right to an effective remedy and access to a court.