Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Credo Mobile

HOME

ABOUT US

OUR ISSUES

Federal Budget

Information & Access

Regulatory Policy


PRESS ROOM

ACTION CENTER

PUBLICATIONS

THE WATCHER

OUR BLOGS


SIGN UP

Receive news, updates, and alerts!

DONATE

Help support our work


OTHER SITES

FedSpending.org

RTK NET

NPAction

Working Group on Community Right-to-Know

Citizens for Sensible Safeguards

Open the Government

OMB Watch Logo

Promoting and protecting nonprofit advocacy for a stronger democracy

Home :  Nonprofit Issues :  Advocacy Blog : 
Advocacy Blog:     

Advocacy Blog


Wednesday, November 14, 2007

Council of Europe Disapproves of Terrorism Blacklist Standards

The Washington Post has addressed a Council of Europe report, Europe's leading human rights watchdog organization, approved by their Legal Affairs Committee criticizing the way the United Nations and the European Union blacklist terrorist suspects. The report states that the method used to sanction individuals and organizations does not include any "procedures for an independent review of decisions taken, and for compensation for infringements of rights. Such a procedure is totally arbitrary and has no credibility whatsoever." The committee recommends that those who are sanctioned be allowed a fair trial with the ability to see the evidence against them, within a reasonable time and compensation for wrongful designation as a terrorist. Just as in the United States, cases are being taken to court, but the problems with the underlying regulations and laws have not been addressed.

The council's actions serve as recommendations to members of the 27-nation European Union. Approximately 370 individuals and 60 organizations worldwide have been blacklisted by the U.N. Security Council or the European Union, the investigation found. In addition to the freeze on their finances and the prohibition on travel, they have little recourse for getting delisted, according to Dick Marty, a Swiss legislator who led the investigation. . . . "The person or group concerned is usually neither informed of the request, nor given the possibility to be heard, nor even necessarily informed about the decision taken -- until he or she first attempts to cross a border or use a bank account."



Posted by Amanda Adams



Entries by Theme

All Themes

Faith-Based Initiative

Elections and Issue Advocacy

Church Electioneering

Nonprofit Accountability

Charitable Giving

Speech and Lobbying Rights

Grants Streamlining

Charities and Security

General

Nonprofit Voter Mobilization

Most Recent Entries for Advocacy Blog

Gary Bass Featured in Philanthropy News Digest on the Support of Nonprofit Advocacy

Court Ruling Shows Surveillance Bill Flaws

Court Rules in Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation Case

Colorado Priests Not Allowed to Make Donations to Candidates

SpeechNow.org Denied Preliminary Injunction

Forms and Instructions for LD-203 Released

TIGTA Releases Audit of Political Activities Compliance Initiative (PACI)

Senate Holds Off on FISA

Internet Evangelist Ready to Challenge IRS Investigation

Voter ID Lawsuits Filed in Indiana

Archived Entries for General

July

June

May

April

March

February

January

December, 2007

November, 2007

October, 2007

September, 2007

August, 2007

July, 2007

May, 2007

April, 2007

March, 2007

February, 2007

January, 2007

December, 2006

November, 2006

October, 2006

September, 2006

August, 2006

July, 2006

June, 2006

April, 2006

November, 2005

October, 2005

September, 2005

July, 2005

June, 2005

May, 2005