Here is more information about the list that Abdelrazik is on and has kept him from flying home from Sudan.
That a body supposedly representing human rights has a list such as this is disgusting. The list is a legal abomination. People can have their assets frozen and their freedom of movement restricted without any hearing or ability to challenge evidence. I am surprised that more is not written about this. I suppose anyone who criticised the list would be charged with being soft on terrorism. Lucky I don't have many assets to freeze if I make the list!
Some countries are more likely to enforce the regulations associated with the list than others. In fact I would suspect that in some countries some of those named are probably not worried at all about their names being on the list. On the other hand innocent people may be on the list as the result of false intelligence and incompetent and overzealous intelligence agencies such as the CSIS and the RCMP.
This is from Global Policy.
The Black Hole of a UN Blacklist
By David Crawford
Wall Street Journal
October 2, 2006
Governments around the world have drawn criticism for some extrajudicial steps taken to corral suspected terrorists, from secret prisons to surreptitious abductions to deportations that could lead to torture or execution. Meanwhile, a program overseen by the United Nations Security Council has stripped hundreds of people of assets and international-travel rights -- and even the right to earn a salary or buy groceries -- without so much as a hearing, let alone trial or appeal. Apart from suspects' lawyers and a European human-rights watchdog, the program has drawn little scrutiny.
Today, 359 people are on this blacklist created by Security Council Resolution 1267. No court process is involved in adding someone to the list, nor is it debated by the council's member states. Those added have no right to present exculpatory evidence to Security Council members, nor any right of appeal.
Cutting Off Funding
The U.S. and other governments say these sanctions are an important weapon in the fight against international terrorism, cutting suspects off from the money they need to communicate and operate, either from jail or when the law would otherwise let them go free.
Opponents say the program has lost its original purpose and is used by governments to evade due process in pursuit of alleged terrorists and their accomplices. Critics also decry the opportunity for governments to abuse the system by framing dissidents and others who draw official disfavor. "This isn't about preventing terrorism. This is punishment without trial," says German lawyer Gül Pinar, who represents several people in Germany who are on the U.N. list.
A Security Council report in March aired concerns about how effective the program has been against terrorism. In a letter to the panel's president, the chairman of the committee that oversees the list cited inconsistent enforcement among nations, noting many suspects continue to cross borders. Resolution 1267 was passed in 1999 to pressure Afghanistan's Taliban rulers to hand over Osama bin Laden after Washington accused him of masterminding the 1998 bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa. Rather than impose broad economic sanctions, which would hurt the Afghan population, the Security Council aimed to isolate and punish Taliban leaders. A year later, the restrictions were applied to Mr. bin Laden and some of his associates.
Since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the U.S., Resolution 1267 has been used against a much wider group, including suspected and convicted al Qaeda operatives and their networks. Some people on the U.N. list have been tried and convicted of terrorist-related offenses and are in jail. Some, like Mr. bin Laden, are or were fugitives. Others inhabit a grayer zone.
Take Saad al-Fagih, whom Saudi Arabia accuses of complicity in an attempted assassination and of helping to buy the satellite phone Mr. bin Laden used to direct the embassy bombings. Mr. Fagih has never been charged with a crime in the United Kingdom, where he lives. His designation on the U.N. list "is a critical part of the international campaign to counter terrorism," according to a U.S. Treasury Department statement. Two cellphones chirp constantly as Mr. Fagih, a Saudi citizen, pilots a Honda Civic through busy London traffic en route to a four-bedroom townhouse in a tony neighborhood of northwest London. The home, like the car and the phones, is in his wife's name. Mr. Fagih denies any ties or past dealings with Mr. bin Laden: "If it were true, why haven't I been charged?" he asks.
Heino Vahldieck, the head of intelligence in Hamburg, Germany, says administrative pressure, such as 1267 sanctions, is used against men like Mr. Fagih when circumstantial evidence tying them to terrorism is considered overwhelming but criminal prosecution is difficult or impossible. "We need to be creative," he says.
Although most of the list's designated Taliban supporters are Afghan nationals, those accused of al Qaeda links are more diverse, including at least one U.S. citizen, three Britons, two Germans and five Saudi Arabian citizens. The blacklist includes at least 35 Tunisians, five Moroccans, 10 Egyptians and 77 individuals of indeterminate nationality, according to the U.N.'s official 1267 sanctions list.
Sanctions Survive Acquittal
Last year, a court in Hamburg found Abdelghani Mzoudi -- a Moroccan student and former roommate of three Sept. 11 pilots -- not guilty on all charges of logistical support for those hijack attacks. Despite the acquittal, Mr. Mzoudi, who returned to Morocco after his trial, remains sanctioned under 1267 for his alleged support of al Qaeda.
Mamoun Darkazanli, who lives in Hamburg, was designated under 1267 in October 2001, shortly after he told police he spent Sept. 11 watching television with a man who later admitted -- under interrogation in Syria -- that he recruited three pilots for the attacks. Mr. Darkazanli, whose lawyer notes her client has never been convicted of a crime, was left destitute when banking restrictions made it impossible to run his import-export business. He survives on welfare payments authorized by the Security Council.
This year, the Council of Europe, an intergovernmental human-rights watchdog, said in a report requested by the U.N. that the 1267 process doesn't comply with Europe's convention on human rights because it provides no protection against arbitrary decisions and has no mechanism to review the accuracy of allegations governments make. Those targeted have no recourse against national governments, which can simply say they are bound to follow the dictates of the Security Council.
The procedure to designate someone an al Qaeda or Taliban supporter is simple. A government submits a name to the Security Council's 1267 committee, which circulates it among the 15 council members, along with supporting details. There are no formal standards of evidence required for designation, a diplomat involved in the process said, adding. "The 1267 committee is not a court. This is a political process."
Delistings Are Few
If no objection is made within five days, the person is added to the list. Their assets -- from bank accounts to private debts to prison-canteen funds -- are frozen and they lose the right to travel internationally. "Silence means, 'Yes, the sanction is confirmed,' " a U.N. spokeswoman said. Most sanction requests have been approved without challenge, although nine people have been delisted. Individuals don't get a hearing and can't submit evidence to refute the allegations. Nor can they apply to be delisted -- only a government can on their behalf.
Mr. Fagih says "nobody contacted me about the allegations" when his name went before the 1267 committee in 2004. He eventually learned of Saudi Arabia's charges, and the Security Council sanctions, from the British foreign office. His name was proposed by Saudi Arabia, which alleged that in 2003 Mr. Fagih received $1 million from a man who later confessed to plotting the assassination of the Saudi crown prince, according to the Treasury Department. Mr. Fagih denies involvement in the alleged plot and says he was targeted for organizing peaceful human-rights demonstrations.
Nawaf Obaid, a Saudi security adviser at the kingdom's London embassy, says he investigated Mr. Fagih's case for three years and the charges against him are "rock solid." Saudi Arabia hasn't applied to extradite Mr. Fagih, because the U.K., like other European Union countries, refuses to extradite suspects to countries where they would face the death penalty, Mr. Obaid says.
Despite the U.N. sanctions, Mr. Fagih continues to broadcast from London for Al-Islah TV, a Saudi dissident television station that aims to overthrow the royal family. He says the impact of the U.N. sanctions on his life has been negligible. "Nothing has changed," says Mr. Fagih, while serving tea and cakes from a silver tray in his office. Joking, he adds: "Except I can't buy a tank."