A sanctions review should not begin with the question “How can this designation be removed?” It should begin with the question “Do the grounds for this designation remain supportable today?”
These Review Standards establish the principles used by the International Sanctions Delisting Commission (“ISDC”) to assess whether an existing sanctions designation remains justified in light of the current evidentiary record and any material change in circumstances.
Purpose of Review
ISDC conducts independent review of existing sanctions rather than determining who should initially be designated.
The review function focuses on whether the factual, legal and contextual grounds supporting a designation remain applicable when examined against the present record.
A review may identify grounds supporting reconsideration, grounds supporting continuation of the designation, unresolved questions requiring further review, or an evidentiary record too limited to support a reliable conclusion.
Identify the official basis, stated reasons and relevant factual propositions underlying the designation.
Determine the present factual, legal, ownership, control or conduct-related position.
Separate meaningful developments from changes that do not affect the original grounds.
Evaluate the current record and determine the appropriate independent recommendation.
Review Is Not Re-Designation
ISDC does not ordinarily attempt to reconstruct the entire original designation process as though the designation had never occurred.
The starting point is the existing designation and the official reasons supporting it.
The review then asks whether those grounds continue to withstand scrutiny in light of current evidence and material subsequent developments.
The existence of new information is not enough. The information must be capable of materially affecting the continuing basis of the designation.
Core Review Standards
The review should identify, as precisely as reasonably possible, the grounds on which the relevant sanctions designation was imposed or maintained.
A review cannot meaningfully assess changed circumstances without understanding what factual or legal proposition is said to remain relevant.
ISDC should distinguish historical facts from present conditions and determine which are relevant to the continuing designation.
A change should be treated as significant only where it can reasonably affect the grounds for designation or the factual assumptions on which those grounds depend.
Conclusions should be based on the quality and weight of the available record rather than the quantity of submissions, political preference or strength of advocacy.
Material evidence inconsistent with the applicant’s position or with an anticipated conclusion should be considered rather than excluded from the review.
Official records, primary evidence, third-party submissions and ISDC analysis should remain distinguishable throughout the review.
The strength of the conclusion should not exceed the strength of the evidence supporting it.
The review must remain capable of producing an outcome different from the result requested by the applicant, funder or other interested party.
The Review Architecture
ISDC may structure a sanctions review around three analytical stages.
What factual and legal basis supported the designation when imposed or maintained?
What does the presently available evidence establish?
Do the original grounds remain materially applicable today?
Eligibility for Review
Receipt of a request does not automatically require ISDC to open a full review.
Preliminary eligibility assessment may consider whether:
- there is an identifiable existing sanctions designation;
- the relevant person or entity can be sufficiently identified;
- the grounds or context of designation can be established;
- the submission raises a reviewable question;
- there is potentially relevant evidence or changed circumstances;
- the matter falls within ISDC’s institutional scope;
- the review can be conducted consistently with applicable legal and institutional obligations.
Acceptance Does Not Predetermine Outcome
Acceptance of a matter for review means only that ISDC considers the matter suitable for substantive examination.
It does not imply that:
- the designation is believed to be wrong;
- the applicant’s evidence has been accepted as accurate;
- changed circumstances have already been established;
- ISDC expects to recommend delisting.
Changed Circumstances Assessment
Changed circumstances are central to many sanctions reviews, but the term should not be treated as a general label for anything that happened after designation.
The relevant question is whether the change materially affects the continuing rationale for the designation.
Changes in ownership structure, beneficial ownership, shareholding or other relevant economic interests.
Evidence that practical, managerial or other relevant control has changed or ceased.
Termination, alteration or restructuring of relationships that formed part of the original designation rationale.
Verified developments affecting allegations concerning conduct, participation, facilitation or support.
Court findings, procedural outcomes or other judicial decisions materially relevant to the grounds under review.
Changes in designation status, regulatory findings, government determinations or other competent-authority action.
Reliable evidence unavailable or not previously considered that materially changes the factual record.
Time may be relevant where combined with verified developments, but passage of time alone does not automatically extinguish a continuing designation basis.
Material Change Test
If this development were accepted as established, would it materially alter the present basis on which the designation is justified?
Original Grounds That Remain Applicable
A review may find that circumstances have changed in some respects while the core designation basis remains materially intact.
ISDC should therefore avoid treating any factual change as sufficient for reconsideration where the change does not affect the relevant grounds.
Partial Change
Some grounds may weaken while others remain supported.
Where a designation rests on multiple independent grounds, ISDC may evaluate each ground separately before considering their combined effect on the continuing designation.
New Adverse Evidence
A review is not limited to evidence favorable to the person or entity seeking reconsideration.
Material adverse information discovered during the review may be taken into account where relevant, appropriately verified and fairly assessed.
Burden of Presentation
A person requesting review should ordinarily provide sufficient information to identify the matter and explain the basis on which reconsideration is sought.
This does not require ISDC to accept the applicant’s characterization of the evidence or restrict the review to materials selected by the applicant.
No Mechanical Burden of Proof
ISDC’s independent review is not necessarily identical to judicial proceedings and does not automatically apply a courtroom burden of proof unless a particular legal framework requires one.
Instead, the review should communicate the strength, limits and uncertainty of the available record with sufficient precision to support the recommendation reached.
Uncertainty
Uncertainty is an analytical result, not necessarily a defect.
Where the record does not permit a reliable conclusion, ISDC should not resolve the uncertainty merely because a binary answer would be more convenient.
Where the evidentiary record supports only a limited conclusion, the recommendation should remain equally limited.
Permitted Review Outcomes
An independent review should remain open to more than one legitimate outcome.
Used where the current record supports the conclusion that the material grounds for continuing the designation no longer remain sufficiently applicable.
Used where the current evidentiary record continues to support the material grounds underlying the designation.
Used where potentially material issues remain unresolved and further evidence, verification or legal analysis is reasonably required.
Used where the record does not provide a sufficient basis for a reliable recommendation in either direction.
Recommendation Is Not Legal Effect
An ISDC recommendation does not itself remove, suspend, amend or maintain a sanctions designation.
Formal sanctions decisions remain with the competent authorities possessing the relevant legal power.
ISDC’s role is to provide an independent, structured assessment for consideration within those processes.
Review Integrity
The process must remain capable of contradicting the party who requested it.
A review should not exclude relevant adverse evidence merely because it weakens the requested outcome.
Funding of legitimate review costs must not purchase the recommendation.
Interested-party submissions must remain distinguishable from independent findings.
Material uncertainty should be disclosed rather than concealed behind categorical language.
A favorable review outcome should be supported by the same evidentiary discipline applied to an unfavorable one.
Review standards should not be altered case by case to produce a preferred result.
Review Versus Advocacy
ISDC may publish findings that support reconsideration of a designation. That does not convert the institution into an advocate for every person seeking delisting.
Advocacy begins with the desired outcome and seeks arguments supporting it.
Independent review begins with the evidentiary question and permits the outcome to follow from the answer.
If the evidence ultimately supports maintaining the designation, could ISDC reach and publish that conclusion?
Review of Official Grounds
ISDC should identify the official reasons for designation with sufficient precision to avoid reviewing a materially different allegation from the one actually relied upon by the competent authority.
Where the designation grounds are broad, incomplete or difficult to identify, that limitation should itself be reflected in the analysis.
Legal Framework
The significance of evidence may depend on the legal or administrative criteria applicable to the designation.
ISDC may therefore examine relevant legislation, regulations, official guidance, judicial decisions and procedural rules where necessary to understand whether the facts presently established remain legally significant.
Source Verification
Material factual propositions should be assessed consistently with the ISDC Evidence Standards.
The review should distinguish between:
- what an authority has officially stated;
- what documentary evidence establishes;
- what an interested party alleges;
- what independent sources corroborate;
- what ISDC concludes from the combined record.
Right to Provide Relevant Information
Persons materially affected by a review may, where appropriate, provide documents, explanations or responses relevant to the assessment.
Providing information does not create an entitlement to control the review, require acceptance of the material, or approve the final publication.
Review Completeness
A review does not require every conceivable factual issue to be resolved.
It should, however, address the issues material to the recommendation and avoid relying on unresolved assumptions where those assumptions are central to the outcome.
Material Omissions
A review may be incomplete where it excludes information that could reasonably alter the interpretation of a material issue.
Editorial brevity does not justify omission of evidence necessary to understand why the recommendation was reached.
Consistency Across Cases
Comparable evidentiary and analytical questions should, where reasonably possible, be approached through consistent standards.
Consistency does not require identical outcomes because cases may differ materially in facts, law, evidence and procedural context.
Subsequent Review
Publication of a recommendation does not permanently close the factual record.
Material new evidence, official developments or subsequent changes in circumstances may justify further review.
Final Quality Review
Before publication, a substantive ISDC review should be capable of answering the following questions:
- Are the original designation grounds sufficiently identified?
- Is the present factual record clearly distinguished from the historical record?
- Are claimed changed circumstances materially relevant?
- Are principal factual propositions supported by appropriately weighted evidence?
- Has material contrary evidence been considered?
- Are unresolved uncertainties visible in the analysis?
- Is the recommendation proportionate to the evidence?
- Could the same standards have produced a different outcome if the evidence pointed in the opposite direction?
Does the recommendation follow from the record — or has the record been arranged to follow the recommendation?
We do not decide who should be sanctioned. We examine whether sanctions should continue.
A credible review therefore requires a process capable of confirming, questioning or rejecting the continuing basis of a designation according to the evidence actually available.