Rare defeat for US in S African 'al Qaeda' case

LONDON, Jan 29 (Reuters) Two South African Muslim men whom Washington accuses of financing al Qaeda have escaped being placed on a UN terrorism blacklist, but their reprieve may only be temporary.

The case of Junaid and Farhad Docrat shines a rare light on a secretive UN sanctions regime which, despite reforms last month aimed at making the system fairer, can still freeze people's assets without telling them why.

The two cousins escaped an international travel ban and worldwide freeze on their assets because their government last week blocked a US proposal to place them on the UN al Qaeda and Taliban sanctions list.

But they will be vulnerable to any new US attempt from next year, when South Africa ends its term on the UN Security Council and loses its place on the 15-member sanctions committee, where any member can veto a listing.

Critics argue the system is unfair because it is a matter of chance whether a suspect's government is on the Security Council at the time their case comes up.

It is also highly politicised, they say, because governments may be tempted to back UN sanctions against their domestic opponents, even when the evidence of terrorist links is slim.

''The whole system is wrong because it relies totally on political discretion,'' said Iain Cameron, a law professor who has compiled critical reports on the sanctions regime for the Swedish government and the Council of Europe.

The Docrats were also fortunate in that word of their case leaked out, enabling their lawyer to mount an effective publicity campaign.

Most cases remain secret until the suspects' names appear on the UN list, which currently contains 362 individuals. Once on the list, it is very hard to get off -- since 2002, only nine people have managed to get their names removed.

REFORM STEPS Richard Barrett, coordinator of the monitoring team that assists the UN sanctions committee, said it had responded to concerns about fairness by introducing reforms last month.

People who believe they have been wrongly sanctioned can now complain directly to the UN Secretariat, instead of having to persuade their government to take up their case.

But he acknowledged that it was still up the state that proposed the listing to decide whether any of the evidence can be released outside the sanctions committee. It may refuse, especially when the case is based on secret intelligence.

''It may be that not one line of it is releasable,'' said Barrett. ''There's still no right of the individual to see all that information unless the country submitting it agrees that it's OK to release publicly.'' In the South African case, Washington did go public last Friday, alleging both the Docrats had channelled funds for the benefit of al Qaeda. It ordered a freeze on any US assets they hold, and banned Americans from doing business with them.

The step may be partly symbolic, because the Docrats' lawyer said they had no US funds. But it may deter other companies, including South African ones, from doing business with the men, for fear of falling foul of Washington themselves.

When it comes to the UN blacklist, some lawyers say they have tried and failed for years to find out what their clients are accused of.

''All the time you're being told: 'We're not giving you everything because so much of it is classified, and we can't possibly reveal all of this','' said a lawyer for a West Asian man listed by Washington after the September 11 attacks.

''You never actually get to discover what all the evidence against your client is.'' REUTERS BDP BST2025