The regime is composed of a UN Security Council Committee, a "consolidated list" of people and entities it has determined as being associated with Al-Qaeda or the Taliban, and laws which must be passed within each member nation in order to implement the sanctions.

[10] Although voting for the second resolution, United Kingdom privately opposed it on account of the already dire humanitarian situation and the expectation that there would be a backlash against UN aid organizations providing relief in the country.

[11] The first resolution followed the sanctions regime imposed by the United States on 5 July 1999 by an executive order[12][13] after intelligence officials had found bin Laden-controlled money flowing through banks.

[18] The December 2000 resolution strengthened the regime and imposed additional conditions: The following month the BBC reported that the list produced by the UN of officials against whom the sanctions were to be applied was inaccurate and failed to contain any military commanders.

[25] UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights Martin Scheinin stated in 2008 that "terrorist listing procedures did not meet due process requirements of fair trial".

[26] Canadian Federal Court Judge Russel Zinn wrote in a judgement about the case of Abousfian Abdelrazik (who was listed in 2006), "I add my name to those who view the 1267 Committee regime as a denial of basic legal remedies and as untenable under the principles of international human rights.

"[27] The U.S. invasion of Afghanistan began in October 2001 following a series of ultimatums to the Taliban to hand over Osama bin Laden whom the United States asserted was responsible for the 11 September 2001 attacks.

The Taliban regime appeared to overrule a decision by an emergency meeting of Afghan clerics to ask bin Laden to leave voluntarily, and declared that it would be an insult to Islam to hand him over without any actual evidence of guilt.

This resolution allowed countries to free up funds for such individuals for the purposes of paying for food, rent, medicine, tax, legal fees, and so forth.

[31] In the United Kingdom the sanctions regime is severe enough that it has been found to apply to the wife of a listed individual who was prevented from withdrawing enough money to take her children to the swimming pool.

On 8 August 2006 the Security Council passed Resolution 1699 (2006)[38] welcoming the role of Interpol in applying the sanctions and requesting the Secretary-General to increase cooperation.

Aware of the problem of a lack of minimum standards of evidence or transparency in listing process, and given the relatively high number of individuals on the list, the United Nations Office of Legal Affairs commissioned a study on the question: "Is the UN Security Council ... obliged to ensure that rights of due process, or 'fair and clear procedures', are made available to individuals and entities directly targeted with sanctions under Chapter VII of the UN Charter?

Also a request for a hit counter – "to explore the technical modalities involved in introducing a tool to track the use of [the] website and ensure that it is fulfilling its intended purpose.