By Michael Van Walt Van Praag and Marco Perduca

OUTLINE FOR A COMPREHENSIVE RESPONSE BT THE TRP TO THE DECISION OF THE COMMITTEE ON NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATION REGARDING THE TRANSNATIONAL RADICAL PARTY

In accordance with the letter of 31 July 2000, from Madame Hanifa Mezoui, Chief, NGO Section/DESA, in which the Transnational Radical Party (TRP) is asked to provide a comprehensive response to the Committee's recommendation to ECOSOC regarding its consultative status by 16 September, the TRP respectfully submits the following detailed response.

The task of responding to the Committee on Non-Governmental Organization's ("the Committee") decision is made very difficult, because in its written communications to the TRP, the Committee has not provided the TRP with any specific reasons, or conclusions, for the decision taken by the Committee on June 23, 2000. As stated in the TRP's Preliminary Response dated 18 July 2000, the TRP does not see how the inconclusive summary report of the proceedings of the 759th, 760th and 763rd meetings of the Committee can constitute the written reasons for the Committee's recommendations in the sense of paragraph 56 of Resolution 1996/31.

1. SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS

1. 1. The complaint is not supported by evidence and should therefore be dismissed

1.1.1. It will be recalled that the letter of complaint of the delegation of the Russian Federation dated May 2000 contained two charges:

the first, that TRP violated Paragraph 57(a) of ECOSOC Resolution 1996/31 by accrediting and allowing Mr. Idigov to speak and by Mr. Idigov stating that he was a representative of President Maskhadov;

the second, that TRP violated Paragraph 57(b) of ECOSOC Resolution 1996/31 by undertaking a anti-prohibitionist campaign.

1.1.2. The charges are serious, and so are the consequences: a 3-year suspension of the TRP's consultative status with ECOSOC. It is, therefore, in the TRP's view essential that the Committee, and ultimately ECOSOC, is convinced that TRP has indeed violated these provisions governing consultative status as claimed by the distinguished delegation of the Russian Federation if it is to decide to take any action against the TRP.

1.1.3. The TRP respectfully submits that the record shows that in the proceedings, which have taken place so far, no evidence has been produced to show that TRP in fact did violate these provisions as claimed by the distinguished delegation of the Russian Federation. On the contrary, evidence produced by the TRP clearly demonstrated that all charges (with the exception of Mr. Idigov's inappropriate mention that he was a representative of President Maskhadov, which TRP admitted and for which it apologised, both in Geneva, in writing in its previous responses to the Committee and orally during the questioning of TRP's representative) were ill founded. The record also shows that the Committee did not establish, conclude, agree upon or state that TRP violated either paragraph 57(a) or 57(b) of ECOSOC Resolution 1996/31. The TRP therefore earnestly submits that the complaints should logically be entirely dismissed without further delay.

1.2. Due process and fairness demand a speedy dismissal

1.2.3. Under these circumstances, TRP fails to understand how and according to what principles the Committee could have decided to punish TRP by proposing to ECOSOC the suspension for three years of TRP's Consultative Status with ECOSOC. The Committee has provided no reasons for its decision, and no reasons have been communicated to the TRP. It should again be emphasised that the Report of the proceedings of the Committee's sessions does not in fact indicate any agreed upon reasons for the final recommendation.

1.2.4. Paragraphs 104 to 200 of the Report of the Committee, which according to the letter of Madame Mezoui of 11 July form the written reasons for the Committee's decision, do not indicate which of the charges contained in the written complaint submitted by the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation or those conveyed orally by him during the course of the Committee's meeting were found by the Committee to be justified and supported by evidence and therefore to constitute a violation of ECOSOC Resolution 1996/31, paragraphs 57(a) and/or 57(b).

1.2.5. The TRP respectfully submits that it would be a violation of the basic principles of fairness and due process and of Resolution 1996/31 itself, for the Committee to recommend, and for ECOSOC to decide, to suspend TRP's Consultative Status or to otherwise punish the TRP unless the Committee and ECOSOC are convinced that the evidence shows that TRP did indeed violate Paragraphs 57(a) and 57(b) of Resolution 1996/31 and are able and willing to state precisely what actions of TRP constituted such violations, and why a particular punishment is justified in this specific case.

1.2.6. The TRP believes that if a decision is arrived at by the Committee and endorsed by ECOSOC on essentially political lines and without full regard for the above mentioned principles of fairness and due process, this will send a very wrong message to the non-governmental community and to others who believe in the validity of the United Nations' human rights bodies and mechanisms. NGOs would effectively be on notice that even in the field of human rights and social justice, they must not publicly criticise certain governments or support campaigns that such governments might not favour. It would mean that even at the Commission of Human Rights, the United Nations would seriously restrict the kind of freedom of speech, which UN instruments, such as those constituting the International Bill of Rights, seek to guarantee.

2. DETAILED RESPONSE

Without prejudice to the opinion stated above, the TRP will comply with the request of the Committee to provide it with a comprehensive response to its decision of June 23 and the relevant paragraphs of the Report of the Committee's session, forwarded to the TRP by Madame Meozoui by means of a fax on 11 July 2000.

In the absence of specific reasons in the sense of paragraph 56 of Resolution 1996/31, the TRP feels obliged to respond to each section of the Report of the Committee relevant to the case of TRP and therefore to any and all charges laid against it. This at the risk of being repetitive. The TRP also re-submits, as part of this comprehensive response, its earlier submissions to the Committee, dated 18 July 2000, which comprise a separate memorandum (Annex x) as well as a statement on the right of the child presented at the 56th UN Commission on Human Rights (Annex y).

2.1. Comments on the text of the Report (Paras 104-107). Paragraphs 104 to 107 contain a description of the complaint of the distinguished delegation of the Russian Federation and a report of the initial response by the TRP to that complaint. These will be addressed first. To the extent necessary, reference will be made to other paragraphs of the Report. These other paragraphs will, however, be addressed in detail later.

2.1.1. Paragraph 104

Paragraph 104 makes the following points:

2.1.1.1. It quotes from the letter of complaint from the delegation of the Russian Federation, informing the Chairman of the NGO Committee that the TRP "had accredited a representative of the Chechen separatists and terrorists, who was given the floor at the 56th session of the Commission on Human Rights and identified himself as a "representative of the President of Chechnya in Europe and to the United Nations."

2.1.1.2. In that same letter, the paragraph goes on to state, "the Russian Federation stated that this individual was propagating, on behalf of the TRP, ideas that were completely incompatible with the purpose and principles of the Charter of the United Nations."

2.1.1.3. The letter of the delegation of the Russian Federation is further quoted as stating that "by offering its banner to those who were 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 ECOSOC res. 1996/31."

2.1.1.4. Paragraph 104 goes on to state that the Russian delegation's letter claimed that "the study of other activities of TRP showed that the recent incident in Geneva was not the sole violation by the organization of the regulations governing the relationship between the united Nations and NGOs. In its quadrennial report of 9 May 2000, TRP mentioned that, since its affiliation with the Council, it had followed issues related to international drug trafficking. The letter stressed that TRP promoted the legalization of drugs by launching civil disobedience campaigns, distributing drugs, and denouncing anti-drug legislation."

2.1.1.5. Paragraph 104 reflects the complaint of the delegation of the Russian Federation as contained in the letter of 16 May 2000, but fails to mention that the complaint alleged that TRP's campaign to promote "the legalization of drugs" constituted a violation of Paragraph 57(b) of Resolution 1996/31.

2.1.2. Paragraph 105

2.1.2.1. It appears from paragraph 105, that the complaints referred to in Paragraph 104 constituted the charges against TRP and the reasons for the Russian delegation's request that the Committee take action to withdraw TRP's consultative status.

2.1.2.2. Paragraph 105 states that the TRP was requested by the Committee to provide a written response to the complaint circulated by the Russian Federation and quoted in paragraph 104, for consideration by the Committee in June 2000.

2.1.3. Paragraph 106

2.1.3.1. This paragraph states that at its 759th meeting, on 21 June 2000, the Committee had before it TRP's response to the complaint against the organisation which was submitted to the Committee in line with the request referred to in paragraph 105.

2.1.3.2. It is further stated in paragraph 106 that, in its response, "TRP recognized to have accredited Mr. Idigov, from Chechnya who spoke about gross and systematic human rights violations, the right to self-determination, and the need to end conflict through negotiations. He also called for respect for the peace agreement reached between the government of the Russian Federation and representatives of the Chechen government in 1997."

2.1.3.3. The paragraph further states that the TRP response reported that Mr. Idigov "recalled that President Maskhadov, his government and the Parliament of the Republic of Chechnya were legitimately elected under international supervision of the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)."

2.1.3.4. According to paragraph 106, TRP stated in its response that "to TRP's knowledge, Mr. Idigov was neither a terrorist nor that he ever participated in any such activities. TRP recognized that violations of human rights had been perpetrated on both sides in the conflict in Chechnya", and that "Mr. Idigov [has] consistently called for peace and an end to violence. This is the reason why the TRP had him as a member of its delegation at Geneva."

2.1.3.5. The paragraph concludes by reporting that the TRP response states that TRP is "dedicated to the Gandhian principle of non-violence and [that] it would be unthinkable for the organization to knowingly accredit a terrorist." Such an accreditation would have been a violation of TRP Preamble to its Statute. (annex XYZ)

2.1.3.6. Paragraph 106 reflects part of TRP's response of 9 June 2000 responding to the charges on art. 57 (a) contained in the complaint lodged by the distinguished delegate of the Russian Federation.

2.1.4. Paragraph 107

In this paragraph, the TRP is reported as stating in its response (referred to in paragraph 106) that there is "no evidence of any proceeds coming to the TRP from the illicit drug trade" and that the TRP had never supported the free circulation of psychoactive and psychotropic substances. "In fact, the TRP had always supported the need to prevent the diffusion of these substances and to remedy the illegal liberalization of the drug market and the civil, political and social consequences of the deficiencies in current prohibitionist legislation. In addition, TRP underlined that the organization's drug-related activities at the United Nations had always been in conformity with the rules and regulations guiding its consultative status."; in fact, the TRP has always been invited to all meetings organised by the UN Drug Control Programme, including the UN General Assembly Special Session on Narcotics ad which it also delivered a statement and its related meetings. (Annex XCX)

2.2. RESPONSE OF THE TRP to Paragraphs 104 to 107 of the Summary Report

2.2.1. The TRP's accreditation of Mr. Idigov was in accordance with the rules As stated in paragraph 106, the TRP did admit to accredit Mr. Akhyad Idigov, currently a member of the legally elected Chechen Parliament and of the TRP, to speak on its behalf at the 56th session of the Commission on Human Rights. TRP believes that it did not contravene any rules, procedures or principles governing its Consultative Status by accrediting Mr. Idigov. NGO's are permitted, and sometimes even encouraged by some members of the Commission on Human Rights to present statements that are delivered by persons directly familiar with, of affected by, situations involving human rights violations on the basis that this practice can bring new information and insights to the debate of the Commission. Given the convening of a special debate on Chechnya on 12 April 2000 at the 56th Session of the Commission, it should be mentioned here that a number of delegations representing both Member and Observers at the Commission expressed th

eir appreciation for the presence of Mr. Idigov and for his statement before the plenary.

2.2.2. Mr. Idigov's identification of himself was misguided but did not constitute a violation of Resolution 1996/31.

2.2.2.1. The TRP has also admitted that Mr. Idigov identified himself as a representative of President Maskhadov. Both Mr. Maskhadov and the TRP as an organisation have openly acknowledged that it was a mistake for Mr. Maskhadov to state that he was a representative of President Maskhadov at the session of the Commission on Human Rights because the agreed upon rules of procedure governing those sessions require that all persons speaking on behalf of observer NGO delegations speak on behalf of those organisations only and do not speak on behalf of any other entities or persons. Mr. Idigov immediately and publicly apologised for this during the course of his intervention at the Commission session itself, and the apology was accepted by the Chairperson of the session. The TRP again apologised for this inappropriate remark in its submission to the Committee on Non-Governmental Organisations (CITE) and did so again orally at the Committee's session on 21 June 2000. (ANNex transcript of the special debate)

2.2.2.2. It should be noted that this indiscretion by Mr. Idigov, for which TRP takes full responsibility, does not constitute a violation of paragraph 57(a) of Resolution 1996/31. Paragraph 57(a) requires that the Consultative Status of an NGO shall be suspended "if an organization, either directly or indirectly through its affiliates or representatives acting on its behalf, clearly abuses its status engaging in a pattern of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of he Charter of the United Nations including unsubstantiated or politically motivated acts against States Members of the United Nations incompatible with those purposes and principles." When mistakes like the one made by the TRP at the 56th Session of the UNCHR happen, the issue normally ends when the apologies of the party concerned are accepted by the Chairperson of the meeting.

2.2.3. The ideas expressed by TRP at the 56th Session of the UNCHR are not contrary to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and do not violate Paragraph 57(a) of resolution 1996/31

2.2.3.1. The allegation by the distinguished delegation of the Russian Federation that Mr. Idigov "was propagating, on behalf of TRP, ideas which were completely incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations" could, if found to be true, constitute a component of a violation of Paragraph 57(a) if it is part of a pattern of behaviour contrary to the Principles of the Charter of the United Nations. But the report faxed to the TRP on 11 July does not contain any evidence of such acts.

2.2.3.2. What were "the ideas" that Mr. Idigov "propagated" on behalf of the TRP? Let us analyse them and ascertain whether these ideas are or are not "completely incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations."

2.2.3.2.1. On 12 April 2000 on the occasion of a visit of Ms. Mary Robinson, UN High Commission for Human Rights to Chechnya, the UNCHR called a special debate on the issue. On that day, on behalf of the Transnational Radical Party, Mr. Akhiad Idigov, addressed the plenary stating that "With Ms. Robinson's visit, the full extent of Russia's violations of international law in this region of Europe became clear to the whole world."

If the Commission decided to hold a special debate at its 56th session on the question of Chechnya, the situation in that region might have been of international concern and not only the particular object of NGOs attention.

In the TRP statement it is also said that "The long duration - since 1991 - and massive scale of this process have taken on a dangerous character. For reason of their ethnic origin, Chechens are being persecuted throughout the Russian Federation, and on the territory of Chechnya they are quite simply being killed without trial, in the bombardment of towns and villages by heavy weaponry [...] This list could continue, if no action is taken at the international level to put it to an end."

TRP has always posed the question of international attention in situations in which there have been allegations of Human Rights abuses and violations, stressing the need for the rule of law at an international level; in fact, the intervention goes on saying that "Since 1991, the international community has remained silent, allowing lawlessness to prevail in this area of the world. How many more innocent victims must perish? How many more tears must be shed by children and women who have lost their homes and families? Chechen refugees are deprived even of the right to refugee status, as well as freedom of movement everywhere, including in Europe."

"The indiscriminate war and ethnic cleansing directed against the Chechen people by Russia can only be described in terms of genocide. There must be an appropriate reaction by the international community."

"The Chechen people's right to self-determination is an important element of any stability and peace in the Caucasus. We cannot avoid this key question, which lies behind Russia's every action against the Chechen Republic-Ichkeria and its people. Since 1991, in accordance with international law, laws of the Soviet Union and the Russian Federation, and the declaration on state sovereignty of 12 June 1990, Chechnya made use of its right to form its own state, as did other newly independent post-Soviet countries.

"This was aimed at providing, through the international community, security for the Chechen people, denied by Russia for 400 years, by means of periodic deportations and wars every 40-50 years. This right of the Chechen people is still being denied here today, and, if this continues, it can only lead to the complete annihilation of the Chechen people."

The TRP, like many other NGOs, has often used strong language in its statements to denounce certain specific human rights situations. Never before 16 May 2000 (date of the communication of the Russian complaint), neither at the UNCHR nor at any other UN assembly, a concerned UN Member State has considered a TRP statement as a violation of the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. There has been occasion of other strong statement, which, as the practice at the UNCHR, have been countered in the Countries' right of reply.

"It must be noted that on 12 May 1997, following the last Russo-Chechen war of 1994-96, Russia signed a peace and coexistence treaty with the Chechen Republic-Ichkeria, whose main principle was the establishment of relations on the basis of international law. Russia immediately broke the terms of the agreement, blocking Chechnya off from the rest of the world and creating the conditions for the development of the situation we see today."

TRP's appeal to the international rule of law was based on events happened and documented but inter-governmental organizations and not on any specific political campaign targeting the Russian Federation.

"The Russian authorities did their utmost to cultivate fear among the peoples living within their borders, to justify war against the Chechen people, to win the 2000 presidential elections, and also to block the economic interests of western countries attempting to bypass Moscow.

"In order to attain peace, it is essential that negotiations begin, under strict international monitoring as a guarantor for agreements reached. Negotiations can only be effective with the authorities legally elected in 1997 under the leadership of President Aslan Maskhadov. Any other means would not express the will of the Chechen people and would be doomed to failure."

The intervention ended calling for an active involvement of the international community, as happened in 1997, to monitor the initiation of a political peaceful solution of the dispute between the interested parties.

2.2.3.3. From the above analysis, the TRP concludes that nothing in the above mentioned statement can constitute an unsubstantiated or politically motivated act against a member state of the UN, nor it can be inscribed in a pattern of activities contrary to the principles of the UN Charter.

2.2.3.4. Moreover, even if they had been found to be incompatible with these purposes and principles, the propagation of these ideas would still not constitute a violation of Resolution 1996, paragraph 57(a), since they cannot be considered as constituting a "pattern of acts".

2.2.4. The TRP did not violate Paragraph 57(a) of resolution 1996/31 by accrediting Mr. Idigov

2.2.4.1. The distinguished delegate from the Russian Federation claimed that the TRP seriously violated its consultative relations with ECOSOC as stipulated in paragraph 57(a) of resolution 1996/31 "by offering its banner to those responsible for widespread taking of hostages, slave labour and slave trade, burglaries, torture and summary executions."

2.2.4.2. As stated in the Response of TRP to the Complaint 9 June 2000 and recorded in the Report of the Session of the Committee in paragraph 106, "to TRP's knowledge, Mr. Idigov was neither a terrorist nor had he ever participated in such activities. TRP recognized that violations of human rights had been perpetrated on both sides in the conflict in Chechnya. Mr. Idigov has consistently called for peace and an end to violence, this is the reason why he was sent to Geneva." As also stated above, The TRP is "dedicated to the Gandhian principle of non-violence and it would be unthinkable for the organization to knowingly accredit a terrorist" it would have been a violation of its funding principles to have a violent individual speaking on its behalf.

2.2.4.3. TRP is not aware of any evidence that Mr. Idigov has ever been involved in the taking of hostages, slave labour and slave trade, burglaries, torture or summary executions. If TRP had been aware of any such evidence, it TRP would not have accredited Mr. Idigov to the 56th UN Commission on Human Rights.

2.2.4.4. Acts such as those listed by the delegation of the Russian Federation indeed appear to have taken place in Chechnya and neighbouring regions. There is much speculation and contradictory information about the responsibility for many of these acts. Some have undoubtedly been perpetrated by Chechens, some by Russian forces, some by others. TRP unreservedly condemns these kinds of acts, regardless of who perpetrates them.

2.2.4.5. Mr. Idigov is a member of the Chechen Parliament but not of the administration of President Maskhadov. He was elected to his seat in democratic elections held under an agreement with the government of the Russian Federation and monitored by international observers of the OSCE, of which the Russian Federation is also a member. Mr. Maskhadov himself was of course also elected in those same elections. Both the President and the Parliament of Chechnya were recognised by the government of the Russian Federation and by the OSCE and members of the international community as legitimate representatives of Chechnya, regardless of differences of opinion on the exact status of the region.

2.2.4.6. To TRP's knowledge, Mr. Idigov has consistently been opposed to the war and has expressed this opposition. He has supported the peace agreement reached between Mr. Maskhadov and President Boris Yeltsin in 1997, and has repeatedly called for its implementation. This is also evident from an op-ed article published in the Los Angeles Times on (DATE, enclosed as Appendix).

In that article, he states

2.2.4.7. Mr. Idigov and other elected Chechen leaders have often been received by governments of many democratic countries, because they too believed that it was important to hear what they have to say. TRP believes in the importance of hearing differing views and of making them heard in such important venues such as the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.

2.2.4.8. The TRP believed in the need to raise the issue of human rights violations perpetrated against the Chechen people by and during the course of the armed conflict there. Having Mr. Idigov first hand experience of the situation in Chechnya, he was considered to be the most appropriate voice, on behalf of the TRP, to raise these issues for the organisation at the UN.

2.2.4.9. TRP was not the only participant at the Session of the Commission on Human Rights, which raised the issue of human rights in Chechnya. In fact, numerous countries' delegations, as well as dozens of other NGOs, some more forcefully than TRP did delivered their interventions on the situation in Chechnya. Partly as a result of all these interventions, a resolution was in fact adopted by a large majority of the Commission Member States on the situation in Chechnya before the conclusion of the 56th session.

2.2.4.10. If no Chechens were permitted to raise their voices in such a forum on the pretext that any Chechen leader is a terrorist, the cause of human rights would be done a disservice.

2.2.4.11. Yes, Mr. Idigov, and therefore the TRP, believes that the war against Chechens is wrong and that it should be stopped. He is also opposed to all human rights violations, regardless who perpetrates them, but he also believes it is his duty to speak out on the violations visited upon his own people, the Chechens, by Russia. These are opinions, which he is entitled to hold and to express, and which NGOs and others are entitled to listen to and to endorse.

2.2.4.12. The TRP reiterates that if there is evidence of which it is unaware, which should prove that Mr. Idigov has indeed been involved in hostage taking, slave labour and slave trade, burglaries, torture and summary executions, them the TRP will offer its sincere apologies for having invited Mr. Idigov to participate in its delegation to the Commission on Human Rights. To date no concrete elements have been produced to the attention of the Committee.

2.2.4.13. The TRP does not, however, believe that advocacy of a particular political and human rights cause, and the holding of a political office in the parliament of a country or region should be sufficient cause to brand an individual as responsible for any and all acts committed in that same region, even if some may have been committed by persons affiliated to its government or armed forces. The TRP believes in the general principle of individual responsibility.

2.2.4.14. For all the reasons stated above, the TRP submits that it did not violate Resolution 1996/31 paragraph (a) for the simple act of accrediting and requesting Mr. Idigov to address the Commission on Human Rights at its the 56th session.

2.2.5. The TRP did not violate paragraph 57(b) of Resolution 1996/31.

2.2.5.1. Paragraph 57(b) states that the Consultative Status of an NGO should be suspended or withdrawn if "there exists substantiated evidence of influence from proceeds resulting from internationally recognized criminal activities such as the illicit drugs trade, money laundering or the illegal arms trade".

2.2.5.2. The TRP has never ever any obtained funds from illicit international drug trafficking organizations, as alleged by the distinguished delegation of the Russian Federation. In fact, neither the Russian Federation nor other members or observers of the Committee on NGOs presented any evidence to substantiate such an accusation.

2.2.5.3.On the contrary, the TRP presented documented evidence of the nature of its anti-prohibitionist activities, thereby demonstrating that these activities have always had as their main and sole objective not to promote but, as stated in paragraph 107 of the Report of the Committee, "to prevent the diffusion of the [psychoactive and psychotropic] substances and to remedy the illegal liberalization of the drug market and the civil, political and social consequences of the deficiencies in current prohibitionist legislation."

In its letter of 16 May 2000, the distinguished delegate of the Russian Federation alleges that the TRP anti-drug activities constituted a violation of article 57 (b) of ECOSOC resolution 96/31. As pointed out orally by the TRP representative on 22 June, but not reported in the Summary of the proceedings, besides being inspired by the principles of Gandhian non-violence in its civil disobediences the TRP has an antiprohibitionist approach to various issues, it believes in freedom of speech, it condemns censorships and on drug-related issues has often criticized the way in which world governments have dealt, and are dealing, with the issue of narcotics. It must be stated clearly though, that despite its radical disagreements with the international conventions on narcotics, the TRP has never called the current international legislation "anti-drug laws". Knowing the difficulties that one organization can encounter in presenting such a peculiar viewpoint, the TRP has always stressed the prohibitionist side of th

e matter, but has never used the term "anti-drug", because also TRP proposals aim at countering the illicit spread of narcotics and the narco-mafias that profit from it.

As stated in its first written response dated 9 June 2000, not a single member of the TRP has been held in custody for his or her civil disobediences, contrarily to what stated by the distinguished delegate of the Russian Federation on 22 June 2000 during the questioning of the TRP Representative, and not contained in the report faxed to the TRP on 11 July 2000, all the individuals involved in the demonstrations in the cities of Rome and Milan, Italy, have been tried, but never found guilty of the charges presented by the Russian Federation. In particular, one of the participants, Mr. Marco Pannella, was discharged with extenuating circumstances never used before by any Court in Italy on similar cases. In fact the sentence says that Mr. "Marco PANNELLA can be granted the extenuating circumstance provided for by Art. 62 no. 1 of the Penal Code, because the motives for his action were of great social value" See annex XSKS for the complete paragraph.

Moreover, several other demonstrations organized or endorsed by the TRP lead to a decision of the Court of Cassation in 1997, in which it is stated that "Not only the contemporaneous purchase of drugs for personal use by all the members of a group, but also drugs being purchased by only some of the members of a group on behalf of the others and then divided up, can be classified as an administrative offence under Art. 75 of Presidential Decree no. 309 of 9 October 1990, but not as the crime provided for by Art. 73 of said Presidential Decree." Court of Cassation, Combined Criminal Divisions, sentence pronounced on May 28, 1997, Public Prosecutor in office, Mr. Iacolare.

[[add references here to specific documents that will be enclosed to show the assertion made in the above paragraph]]

2.2.5.4. Today's international anti-drug regime and the prohibitionist legislation of most countries have demonstrably failed. We may differ on ways to improve or change this situation. We understand that some support and others disagree or oppose the solutions we propose and the methods we employ to focus attention on the issue. We fail to understand, however how any such difference of opinion could justify an accusation that TRP promotes illicit drug trade and profits financially from it, when neither assertion is true.

2.2.5.5. It must be concluded, therefore, that the charge that TRP violated paragraph 57(b) is baseless, and should therefore be withdrawn or dismissed.

2.2.6 Paragraph 108

2.2.6.1. In paragraph 108 of the Committee report it is stated that at the 759th, 760th and 763rd meetings several delegations participated in the debate on the Consultative Status of the TRP and that the Russian Federation noted that the TRP had violated the principles contained in the Convention of the Right of the Child as well as other relevant instruments, waging a campaign against the prevention of paedophilia and child pornography on the "internet". Now if it is true that the distinguished delegate of the Russian Federation alleged the violation of the Convention on the Right of the Child, to the best of TRP's knowledge, no other accusations regarding other international instruments were made neither by the Russian Federation nor by any other member of the Committee. In fact, neither in that paragraph nor in the rest of the document faxed to the TRP on 11 July 2000, it is explained which principles of other international instruments were violated by the TRP. In addition the distinguished delegate of t

he Russian Federation said that the TRP "was not a non-governmental organization, but a political party" adding new accusations to the allegations contained in the original complaint lodged in May 2000. Even if proven to be true, but no evidence is presented in the report, they do not constitute a violation of ECOSOC Resolution 1996/31.

Paragraph 108 also contains the view of other delegations that considered appropriate TRP acknowledgement of the misleading presentation of Mr. Idigov and considered TRP apologies to be appropriate. That same delegation stated that, despite the fact that his government "did not share the drug policy proposed by the organization [TRP], but other European States did. Advocating the legalization of drugs was not a violation of resolution 1996/31. The member asked whether the organization advocated illegal trafficking of drugs and expressed the opinion that the Committee should be provided with evidence of this as well as evidence that the organization was dealing with paedophilia and child pornography."

Paragraph 108 constitutes an example of how it is difficult to respond to what is considered to contain and constitute the written reasons for the Committee's decision. On one hand we have a Member State view point in which serious allegations are made on an issue (in this case a new charge, the paedophilia one) and on the other we find references of another Member State's positive comments and questions on one of the issues contained in the original complaint.

2.2.7. Paragraph 109

Paragraph 109 is, again, a clear example of how inconsistent the whole document is in fact it says "A number of delegations felt the organization's response was satisfactory. Some others believed that an apology was not sufficient, particularly if the organization was guilty of committing such acts as those mentioned my the delegation of the Russian Federation." Different opinions are reported, the first in favour of TRP response the second against, but the latter were introduced by a "if". So, once again, there is no certainty, no evidence that the TRP has been proven guilty of the acts mentioned by the Russian Federation.

2.2.8. Paragraph 110

Paragraph 110 contains the answers of the TRP Representative to the questions posed by the Members of the Committee on 21 June 2000. The TRP Representative "reaffirmed that Mr. Idigov, the representative accredited by the organization, never sided with any separatist group. [Mr. Idigov] had been one of the leaders of the negotiating team, along with the Russian Government, that reached the peace accord in 1997." Contrarily to what contained in this paragraph of the report the TRP Representative did not make any mention on the Chechen platform or did not elaborate on any viewpoints other than TRP's. While it is true that the TRP Representative "confirmed the position of his organization mentioned in the letter addressed to the Committee [and that] he stated that TRP's policies were aimed at reform of drug laws as well as the fight in international crime and reform (sic!), it is not accurate to say that the TRP Representative used the term anti-drug laws as reported in paragraph 110; in fact, as stated above i

n 2.2.5.3. the TRP has never used "anti-drug" as an adjective for drug-related laws, therefore the rest of that sentence does not make sense as stated in paragraph 110.

On the issue of paedophilia, paragraph 110 contains only a portion of the answers and explanations given by the TRP Representative in his questioning before the Committee on 21 June 2000. While all the quotes regarding the co-hosting in 1998, at the European Parliament of a conference on the matter with the participation of victims, witnesses and journalists, and the organization of another conference always in 1998 in Rome on paedophilia and the internet are correct and accurate, the last line of paragraph 110 in which it is stated that "the organization emphasized that they do not support paedophilia" should have been integrated with mentions to the fact that the TRP at the 56th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights, delivered a statement on the right of the child. The intervention was made by Ms. Regina Louf a former victim of sexual abuse when minor.

To elaborate on the issue of paedophilia, the TRP is of the opinion that its position outlined in the separate memorandum attached to its preliminary response of 18 July 2000 should become part of this comprehensive response.

2.2.8.1. (SEPARATE MEMORANDUM attached to the Preliminary Response of the TRP to the Committee of 18 July 200)

With regard to the issue of paedophilia raised by the distinguished delegate of the Russian Federation during the questioning of the representative of the TRP, and included in paragraph 108 of the Report of the Committee on Non-Governmental organisations, TRP wishes to make the following remarks.

The TRP believes in combating the crime of paedophilia. It has taken initiatives to expose criminal activities in Europe in this regard as well as to explore ways to combat the crime in a manner that would truly protect children from abuse. The TRP believes that present measures taken by a number of governments, for example with respect to the internet, are misconceived primarily because they fail to protect the children most at risk or to punish the real culprits. 98% of cases of sexual abuse of children are committed by family members or persons close to the child. These are the cases that must be addressed and the perpetrators that must be prosecuted. All too often children are left unprotected and victimised precisely because the police and the courts are reluctant to believe children who claim they are being abused by persons they know. The TRP contributed a statement before the 56th Commission on Human Rights, under Item 13 (rights of the child) delivered by a woman who, as young girl, was a victim of

sexual abuse, calling attention to the unwillingness of some legal systems in Europe to adequately deal with this issue. We attach the text of this intervention (annex 1.)

At this session of the Commission, a delegation from the TRP, which included the Hon. Oliver Dupuis, MEP, Secretary General of TRP, Marco PerDuca, TRP UN Representative, Mrs. Regina Louf, a former victim of sexual abuse and child prostitution and Douglas Deconick a Flemish Journalist, met with Ms. Ofelia Calcetas-Santos, Special Rapporteur on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, to discuss matters pertaining to the "Report on the mission of the Special Rapporteur to Belgium and the Netherlands on the issue of commercial sexual exploitation of children (30 November-4 December 1998)". At the meeting the delegation presented a dossier to Ms. Calcetas Santos, (see annex 2 for the index of the dossier, which can also be downloaded at www.radicalparty.org/belgium/index.htm; se also a translation of an interview of the TRP Secretary, the Hon Olivier Dupuis, annex XXX).

2.2.8.2. To further present TRP approach to the principles contained in the Convention on the right of the Child, the TRP respectfully submits that at the 52nd session of the Sub-Commission on the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights of August 2000, it delivered a statement on Statement on item 11 "SITUATION REGARDING THE PROMOTION, FULL REALISATION AND PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS OF CHILDREN AND YOUTHS IN RESPECT OF FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION (FGM)." (see annex XXX). Moreover, on 15 August, stressing the fact that, according to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), art. 24, subsection 3, member states are legally bound to protect girls against the practice of female genital mutilation (FGM) and should work towards the elimination of this act altogether, the TRP also hosted a projection for Delegates, NGOs and the press on the topic. The showing was presented by Dr. Olayinka KOSO-THOMAS of Nigeria, a resident of Sierra Leone, and Vice-President (Anglophone) of the Inter-African Com

mittee on Traditional Practices Affecting the Health of Women and Children. The video by Esther HELLER was about the health risks associated with the practice of FGM.

2.2.9 Paragraph 111

2.2.9.1.Paragraph 111 states that "a number of delegations questioned the website of the organization" and that "one delegation said that the site gave direct links to clandestine organizations that threatened the sovereignty of his country and wandered if it was the policy of NGOs to conduct such activities (sic!)." After those concerns were raised, the TRP has restructured its website, deleting links to groups that advocated the use of violence and posting a disclaimer in the section on minorities in which it is said that the TRP was not responsible for the content of the linked sites and that it did not endorse the ideas expressed in that section. The listing was made for informative purposes only. Copies of the new webpage were given to concerned delegations the following day.

2.2.9.2. The remaining part of paragraph 111 states that "Another delegate found on the site that 'threatened to bring down the regime of Communist China'. In addition the article mentioned that the search for freedom in that country meant that the Communist Party must be overthrown. He wondered whether the organization was involved with any organization that sought to topple a member state." This is an accurate summary of the questions occurred in that session of the Committee, but fails to include the response given by the TRP representative, who stressed the fact that the article in question was an interview with a Chinese political dissident, and not a statement by the TRP as such, and that neither that dissident, nor the TRP were involved in any movement to overthrown the government of China. There paragraph goes on failing to include other answers of the Representative of TRP.

2.2.9.3. Paragraph 111 does not include some of the answers given by the Representative of the TRP at the 762nd meeting of the Committee. We feel that they should be included in this comprehensive response to better explain TRP's approach to international affairs and human rights. The two points regard an answer to the question posed by one delegation regarding 1) TRP "legislative capacities"; 2) a question by posed by India:

1) Like any other interested organization registered in Italy, the TRP, in 1994, participated in the presentation of several popular bills on drug-related policies and HIV/AIDS. A popular bill is a law drafted by a group of private citizens that, if endorsed by at least 50,000 eligible voters Italians, can be presented to the competent parliamentary committees for eventual discussion at the Chamber of Deputies;

2) the delegate of India, following the answer provided by the Representative of the TRP stated that certain references in a document found on the TRP website, "were not based on facts and reflected the organization's lack of respect for the principles of the Charter." No other mention or evidence in contained in para 111 on that matter, nevertheless, the TRP is of the opinion that "lack of respect for the principles of the UN Charter" does not necessarily means violation of it and therefore of ECOSOC resolution 1996/31.

2.2.10. Paragraph 112

2.2.10.1. Paragraph 112 accurately reflects the answers given by the TRP Representative and therefore we feel it appropriate to include them here in this comprehensive response "The representative of the organization responded that no member of the organization had ever run for public office. Individuals who joined the organization never used its platform to run for public offices. Member of the Italian Parliament did belong to the organization, however, accreditation and official status was decided on a case-by-case basis by the Board of Directors. If individuals chose to violate the organization's policy of non-violence, it usually distanced itself from them. On the website issue, he stressed that the organization did not support secessionism or overthrowing of a government through violence in any specific region of the world".

2.2.11. Paragraph 113

2.2.11.1. According also to the outcome of the Committee's deliberations at its 763rd meeting, the TRP have the sense that Para 113 does not accurately report what proposed at that Committee meeting. And that is clearly evident from what contained in the Paragraph 114.

2.2.12. Paragraph 114

2.2.12.1. As stated in paragraph 2.2.11.1 of the present document, para 114 of the Committee's Report is in contradiction with paragraph 114 of the same report; in fact para 114 reads "The representative of the Russian Federation said that it requested the withdrawal of status of the organization, as the NGO had violated the principles regulating its relationship with the United Nations, however, it will join the consensus and support suspension for three years of the consultative status o the organization.", which to TRP's mind, means the exact opposite of what stated in the previous paragraph.

2.2.12.2. As for the last part of Paragraph 114 "The action would send a clear message that all NGOs should comply with the principles of resolution 1996/31 and with the provisions of the United Nations Charter." the TRP believes that what could seem an explanation to the reasons why the Committee would have agreed upon a 3-year suspension, remains a statement made by a Committee member never re-presented as a common position of the totality of the rest of the Committee. That is clear from the last five paragraphs of the report.

2.2.13. Paragraph 115

2.2.13.1. What stated in paragraph 115 "The Committee recommended the suspension of the consultative status of the organization for three years." is immediately contradicted by the rest of the Report.

2.2.14. Paragraph 116

2.2.14.1. In Paragraph 116 of the Report, the recommendation of the Committee is immediately questioned by the representative of France who in fact states that "ECOSOC res. 1996/31, which regulated the relationship between non-governmental organizations in consultative status with the Council and the United Nations, was explicit and that the measure of suspension was a severe one out of proportion to the misdemeanor." France's doubts are echoed in paragraph 117 by another delegation.

2.2.15. Paragraph 117

2.2.15.2. To better present the difficulties encountered in responding to the Committee's report the TRP considers, at this stage to paste here Paragraph 117 in its entirety "The representative of Germany made the following statement:

"First of all, Germany would like to fully subscribe to what the French delegation just has said. Mr. Chairman, you will have noted that may delegation joined the consensus about the suspension of the consultative status of TRP. Generally, I would like to express that we joined the consensus with reservations. We do not think that the case of TRP has been exhaustively discussed in this Committee. Especially, we had no opportunity to verify any information on the new allegations which were put forward only yesterday.

My delegation wants also to state that TRP offered its apologies concerning the misbehavior of one of their delegates, both in writing and orally. Furthermore, my delegation wants to share our view with the other delegates that the representative of the NGO answered very well and convincingly to the questions in this Committee. Under this circumstances, the punishment of suspending the consultative status for 3 years seems very harsh to us.

We do share most delegations' views, however, that this Committee should act by consensus decisions. We do acknowledge the flexibility of some delegations in this issue. It is in light and after consultations with all parties concerned that we joined consensus. We do it hesitantly though."

2.2.16. Paragraph 118

2.2.16.1. I addition to what contained in Paragraph 116 and 117, Paragraph 118 states "The representative of the United States made the following statement:

"My delegation wishes to state that we dissociate ourselves from consensus on this matter. We believe that the penalty of three years is too harsh. The organization apologized in writing for errors in Mr. Idigov's statement and a representative has come before us and apologized once again. The representative of the Transnational Radical Party has also acknowledged errors in other information discussed before the Committee, and ha taken corrective actions to resolve those errors.

Regarding the portion of the complaint that alleges that the TRP is involved in drug trafficking, we believe that the organization does not engage in what one may describe as a profit motivated criminal enterprise. Their activities, though unusual, are best described as publicity stunts."

2.2.17. Paragraph 119

2.2.17.1. The last two paragraphs, which contain the views of two observer delegations seems to follow the points made by France, Germany and the United States in questioning the type of punishment in fact, paragraph 119 reads "An observer delegation noted that it did not appear that the complaints against TRP constituted a violation of the ECOSOC resolution 1996/31. The purpose of having NGOs in consultative status was to afford them an opportunity to make statements, however critical of Member States they might be.

2.2.18 Paragraph 120

2.2.18.1. As stated in above, the Report ends with Paragraph 120 in which "Another observer delegation questioned whether there had been a pattern of abuses by the organization in violation of the principles of the Charter."

2.3.1 Conclusions

After a careful consideration of the Report of the Committee, which contains and constitutes the written reasons for its recommendation to the ECOSOC, and a paragraph by paragraph analysis, substantiated by annexes and evidence of TRP behavior at the UN, the TRP respectfully concludes, that the charges that TRP violated paragraph 57 (a) and 57 (b) or the principles contained in the Convention on the Right of the Child are baseless, and should therefore be withdrawn or dismissed.

1