RESPONSE BY THE TRANSNATIONAL RADICAL PARTY

TO THE COMPLAINTS BROUGHT BY THE DELEGATION OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION BEFORE THE COMMITTEE OF NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

1. The Transnational Radical Party

The Transnational Radical Party (TRP) is an international organisation, which believes in the international rule of law and in the enforcement of democracy, and carries out its campaigns through non-violent initiatives. Since 1995, TRP enjoys Category General Consultative Status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations.

2. The Complaint

The distinguished representative of the Russian Federation, by means of a letter dated May 2000, expressed grave concern to the Chairman of the Committee on Non-Governmental Organisations (NGO) about the activities of the TRP, and requested that the Committee withdraw the TRP's Consultative Status on the basis of ECOSOC resolution 1996/31. The complaint, as stated in the said letter, consists of two charges:

- the first charge concerns a statement made by Mr. Akhyad Idigov on behalf of the TRP to the 56th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR). The complaint alleges that Mr. Idigov, "on behalf of the TRP [...] was propagating the ideas which are completely incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations." The complaint states that "by offering its banner to those who are responsible for widespread taking of hostages, slave labour and slave trade, burglaries, torture and summary executions, the TRP seriously violated its consultative relations with the ECOSOC, as stipulated in paragraph 57(a) of the ECOSOC resolution 1996/31." Paragraph 57(a) states that consultative status of an NGO shall be suspended if the organisation "clearly abuses its status by engaging in a pattern of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations including unsubstantiated or politically motivated acts against Member States of the United Nations incompatib

le with those purposes and principles."

- The second charge concerns the activities of TRP contained in its quadrennial report (E/C.21200012 of May 9,2000) related to TRP's efforts regarding drug trafficking. The distinguished representative of the Russian Federation contends that the anti-prohibitionist campaigns of the TRP "clearly fall under the provisions contained in paragraph 57(b) of the ECOSOC resolution 1996/31." Paragraph 57(b) refers to the existence of "substantial evidence of influence from proceeds resulting from internationally recognised criminal activities such as the illicit drugs trade, money-laundering or the illegal arms trade."

3. Response of the Transnational Radical Party

The Transnational Radical Party (TRP) has read with great attention the letter from the distinguished Representative of the Russian federation, Mr. Alexey Rogov, transmitted to us by Madame Hanifa Mezoui, the Chief of the Non-Governmental Organisations Section. The TRP respectfully submits that it has not abused its Consultative Status, because it did not knowingly engage in any acts which are contrary to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, as stated in paragraph 57(a) of ECOSOC resolution 1996/31. The TRP moreover submits that it does not and has not acted under the influence of proceeds resulting from internationally recognised criminal activities in the sense referred to in paragraph 57(b) of ECOSOC resolution 1996/31. The TRP consequently requests the Committee on Non-Governmental Organisations not to take any action against the TRP, which would affect its consultative status with ECOSOC.

Below, TRP explains its position in some details.

The Statement Presented to the 56th Session of the UN Commission on Human Rights

With respect to the statement presented by the TRP during the 56th session of the Commission on Human Rights, the TRP wishes to make the following observations: Mr. Idigov spoke on behalf of the Transnational Radical Party. He was fully accredited in accordance with the rules for accreditation. He spoke about gross and systematic human rights violations, the right to self-determination, and the need to end the conflict through negotiations. He called for respect for the peace agreement reached between the government of the Russian Federation and the representatives of the Chechen government in 1997, and recalled that President Maskhadov, his government and the parliament of the republic were legitimately elected under international supervision of the OSCE. Mr. Idigov also called for the establishment of an international commission of inquiry on human rights in Chechnya. He, and therefore the TRP, stated nothing and acted in no way that was inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations.

Mr. Idigov is a well-known politician. He was a member of the Chechen parliament and its Chairman until the 1997 elections. In those elections he was once again elected to Parliament and became the Chairman of its Foreign Affairs Committee. The TRP, being an NGO with a primary focus on parliamentary action world-wide has members, like Mr. Idigov, and close collaborators among parliamentarians of many countries and regions. Mr. Idigov's participation in the 56th Geneva Commission was intended to present to the Commission the views of the TRP from a representative of a people affected by a human rights situation of TRP's concern. Mr. Idigov may have created the impression that he was representing others than the TRP in his statement. This is regrettable and incorrect. He was speaking solely on behalf of the TRP. However, as a Chechen, and a Chechen elected leader, he was of course also as a voice of his people. This is why many delegates to the Commission expressed their appreciation that he had been able to s

peak.

The suggestion that Mr. Idigov is a terrorist or represents a terrorist organisation seems incorrect to us. Mr Idigov has, to our knowledge, not taken part in armed hostilities, let alone terrorist activities, taking of hostages, slave labour, slave trade, burglaries, torture or summary executions. The TRP does not dispute that serious violations of human rights have been perpetrated on both sides in the conflict in Chechnya. But this does not necessarily implicate Mr. Idigov in those violations. Mr. Idigov has consistently called for an end to violence and for peace, and came to Geneva to present those views. In the past also, Mr. Idigov was a key member of the team that negotiated peace with the Russian Federation in 1997. Thus, far from being a terrorist, Mr. Idigov is a man who has a track record of working for peace. If Mr. Idigov inappropriately identified himself in delivering his statement, the TRP apologises for this. The TRP submits, however, that in accrediting Mr. Idigov and inviting him to speak

on behalf of the NGO, the TRP has not acted contrary to the Charter of the United Nations, which calls for peace, self-determination and human rights. More specifically, the TRP has not and has had no intention to commit unsubstantiated or politically motivated acts against a Member State of the UN, in casu, the Russian Federation, incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter. The TRP fails to see how the statement made by Mr. Idigov on behalf of the TRP could be interpreted as propagation of "ideas which are completely incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations" as stated in the letter of the distinguished Representative of the Russian Federation. The TRP is an organisation dedicated to the Gandhian principles of nonviolence. This is clear even in the symbol of the TRP, which bears a portrait of the Mahatma Gandhi. The TRP does not condone violence from any quarter, whether governmental or non-governmental. The TRP has consistently campaigned for valu

es of peace, human rights, self-government and international justice. It would be unthinkable for the TRP to knowingly accredit a terrorist or the representative of a terrorist organisation to represent it. The TRP hopes the above explanation has removed any concerns that it might have abused its consultative status under paragraph 57(a) of ECOSOC resolution 1996/31, since the TRP did not engage in "a pattern of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations."

Anti-prohibitionist advocacy

The TRP submits that there is no evidence at all of any influence of proceeds from illicit drug trade, as suggested by the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation. As demonstrated below, the TRP has never supported, nor promoted, through its campaigns the 'free circulation' of psychoactive and psychotropic substances; on the contrary, the TRP has always affirmed the need to prevent the diffusion of these substances, and to remedy the 'illegal liberalisation' of the drug market and the devastating civil, economic, political and social consequences deriving from the ineffectiveness of current prohibitionist legislation. The TRP's anti-prohibitionist engagement has always and solely focused on questioning the juridical validity and political effectiveness of prohibitionist laws. It has revealed, on the one hand, that punishing personal drug use is incompatible with the "no crime without a victim" principle of liberal laws. On the other hand, the TRP has shown that the results of repressive polici

es are at variance with their stated objectives, and that prohibition actually increases the production and the illicit spread of banned substances while strengthening the "political", economic and social power of criminal organisations. It is this outcome which the TRP has always strongly opposed. TRP drug-related activities at the UN have always been in conformity with the rules and regulations of the Consultative Status, and have never created a problem neither to the Commission on Narcotic Drugs, which has often allowed TRP to take the floor during the last three years in Vienna, nor to the Committee of the Whole of the UN General Assembly Special Session on Drugs of 6 - 8 June 1998, before which the TRP took the floor on behalf of a number of other NGOs.

A number of States, members of the United Nations and signatories to the International Convention on Drugs, have partially succeeded in achieving what the TRP has been proposing and promoting in terms of 'drug policy' for decades: the decriminalisation of drug use, the controlled sale of 'soft' drugs, and the free distribution by the health service of heroin to addicts. The results of those policies testifies not only to the positive outcome that can be obtained with a policy of legalisation, but also to the fact that non-repressive instruments and laws are the ideal means for shrinking the expanding illegal drug market. How can advocacy of policies successfully adopted by UN Member States be considered cause for suspending the consultative status of an NGO? The advocacy for the legalisation of drugs, therefore, aims to achieve the legal regulation and control of a phenomenon that current "prohibitionist" legislation has been unable to deal with, and which is having more and more serious repercussions at the

health, social and criminal level. In this regard, the TRP proposes that a reform be introduced with respect to drugs that are presently banned, similar to the one adopted between World War I and II by the United States and by various European countries, to counter the disastrous effects of Prohibition and the crime it engendered.

* * *

The TRP has used various methods to promote the legalisation of banned drugs:

- Campaigns to raise awareness and to launch proposals regarding drug policy and legislation (in 1989 the TRP founded the Ligue Internationale antiprohibitionniste - International Anti-Prohibitionist League) which, among other activities, drew up the international report entitled 'Questioning Prohibition,' published in 1994, copies can be available upon request);

- Referenda (through a referendum promoted by the TRP in Italy in 1993, Italian citizens were able to repeal the laws that criminalised drug consumption and prohibited certain forms of pharmacological treatment for heroin addicts, especially methadone therapy that is now widely adopted both in Europe and the United States);

- Popular legislative proposals (in 1994 the TRP presented in the Italian Parliament a popular bill for the legalisation of 'soft' drugs and the controlled distribution of heroin), and active support for political and parliamentary initiatives undertaken by other political groups;

- The documentation and denouncement, also through judiciary initiatives, of the violation of the drug user or addict's right to health and cures, with particular reference to citizens who were in prison and/or living with HIV/AIDS;

- Civil disobedience initiatives aimed at denouncing politically and contesting juridically the paradoxical results obtained by jurisprudence through the application of 'prohibitionist' laws.

* * * *

The civil disobedience initiatives undertaken in Italy between 1995 and 1997, which consisted in the distribution of small quantities of a 'soft' drug (cannabis derivatives) to the public and of which the legal authorities and the police were notified beforehand, were carried out within the above framework. Contrary to what is stated in the letter of the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation, the TRP has never organised, promoted or supported the distribution of drugs through the mail. The aim of the civil disobedience initiatives, which can be verified from available documentation and from the decisions of Italian Courts, was neither the promotion nor the encouragement of drug consumption (all the defendants either had such charges dropped or were acquitted), nor the sale of banned drugs (none of the people involved was ever charged with selling drugs for profit), but the free distribution to the public of small quantities of a 'soft' drug, hashish, to contest the fact that, legally, the me

re distribution without profit of drugs is equated with the sale of drugs, and therefore with illicit earnings, which is a completely different form of behaviour and a crime that has extremely serious consequences at the social level.

* * * *

Hence, there can be no doubt as to the purely demonstrative, i.e., "political" and not criminal nature of the TRP civil disobedience initiatives. The above mentioned initiatives consisted in the symbolic violation of a law, and certainly not in organising the illegal sale of banned substances. All initiatives were undertaken with the specific purpose of incriminating the leaders of the TRP in order to contest, also in the law courts, the fallacy of equating 'free distribution' with the sale of drugs. This course of political action was undertaken in the belief, which proved to be completely accurate, that subsequent developments in drug jurisprudence would rectify some of the aberrations in the legislation. In fact, it was the Court of Cassation (and not the Parliament) in Italy that 'de-criminalised', in its 28.05.97 sentence, the free distribution of drugs, a similar act to the one which the TRP activists were accused of. It should also be noted that the courts expressly recognised the extenuating circumst

ances, due to the fact that the TRP activists actions were 'motivated by lofty human and social values.' (all Courts' sentences available upon request).

* * *

In conclusion, the TRP respectfully submits that its activities to prevent the illicit trade in drugs and the devastating consequences of this increasingly dangerous phenomenon could not justify the suspension of the TRP's consultative status on the basis of paragraph 57(b) of the ECOSOC resolution 1996/31.

Lastly, in his letter to the Chair of the Committee on NGOs, the distinguished delegate of the Russian Federation stated, annexing the webpage of another organisation called CORA, that the TRP has denounced "anti-drug legislation as 'a crime'". As can be retrieved from the internet at www.agora.stm.it/coranet, The CORA - Antiprohibitionist Radical Co-ordination - is an independent anti-prohibitionist organisation, which, at its Brussels 1998 Congress, adopted a motion to become federated with the TRP, to pursue specific objectives and co-ordinate joint campaigns.Representatives of the TRP will be very pleased to remain available to provide any additional information and respond to inquiries on any of the above issues.

PAGE 7