New York, 15 September 2000

COMPREHENSIVE RESPONSE BY THE TRANSNATIONAL RADICAL PARTY TO THE DECISION OF THE COMMITTEE ON NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATIONS REGARDING Its consultative STATUS

In a letter of 31 July 2000, Madame Hanifa Mezoui, Chief of the NGO Section/DESA, requested the Transnational Radical Party (TRP) to provide a comprehensive response to the decision taken by the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations ("the Committee") on 23 June 2000 with respect to TRP' s consultative status and to the written reasons for that decision.

The comprehensive response is submitted herewith.

1. SUMMARY

1.1. The section of the Report of the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations (part II) ("the Report"), which was sent to the TRP by the Chief of the NGO Section/DESA (then a draft document, currently E/2000/88 (part II) paragraphs 101 to 117), does not constitute "written reasons for [the] decision" taken by the Committee in the sense of Article 56 of UNESCO Resolution 1996/31.

1.1.1. The task of responding to the Committee' s 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 23 June 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.

1.1.2. In accordance with the request of Madame Mezoui, the TRP will nevertheless attempt to respond in detail to all the allegations and issues raised in the Report.

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

1.2.1. It will be recalled that the letter of complaint of the delegation of the Russian Federation dated 16 May 2000 contains two charges:

the first, that TRP violated Paragraph 57(a) of ECOSOC Resolution 1996/31 by accrediting and allowing Mr. Idigov to speak; by Mr. Idigov stating that he was a representative of President Maskhadov; and by the propagation, in TRP' s statement delivered by Mr. Idigov, of ideas that are completely incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations;

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

1.2.2. The relevant provisions of Resolution 1996/31, article 57, state as follows:

The consultative status of non-governmental organizations with the Economic and Social Council shall be suspended up to three years or withdrawn in the following cases:

(a) if an organization, either directly or through its affiliates or representatives acting on its behalf, 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 incompatible with those purposes and principles;

(b) if there exists substantiated evidence of influence from proceeds resulting from internationally recognized criminal activities such as the illicit drug trade, money laundering or the illegal arms trade;

1.2.3. During the course of the oral proceedings, the delegation of the Russian Federation added two more allegations to the two formal charges made against the TRP:

the first allegation was that the TRP violated the principles of the Convention on the Rights of the Child;

the second allegation was that the TRP is not an NGO but a political organisation.

1.2.4. Principles of fairness and due process would have required that the delegation of the Russian Federation present these allegations in a formal and written manner and well before the meeting of the Committee. Consequently, the TRP submits that these allegations should not have been considered by the Commission in its deliberations. If considered, however, these allegations would have to satisfy the requirements of ECOSOC Resolution 1996 as stated in 1.2.2 above.

1.2.5. The TRP respectfully submits that:

the TPR' s accreditation of Mr. Idigov was in accordance with the relevant rules and procedures and TRP did not violate Paragraph 57(a) of resolution 1996/31 by accrediting him and asking him to speak on its behalf;

Mr. Idigov' s identification of himself was misguided but did not constitute a violation of Paragraph 57(a) of Resolution 1996/31;

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;

the TRP does not obtain and is not influenced by proceeds from any internationally recognised criminal activities and did not therefore violate paragraph 57(b) of resolution 1996/31;

moreover,

the TRP did not violate the principles of the Convention on the Rights of the Child;

and the TRP is an NGO which meets all the qualifications for consultative status with ECOSOC.

1.2.6. The TRP respectfully submits that the record shows that in the proceedings, which have taken place so far, no evidence, let alone substantiated evidence, has been produced to show that TRP in fact did violate Article 57(a) or (b) of Resolution 1996/31 as claimed by the distinguished delegation of the Russian Federation. On the contrary, the record shows that evidence produced by the TRP clearly demonstrated that all charges --including those added by the delegation of the Russian Federation during the Committee meeting-- were ill founded, with the exception of Mr. Idigov's inappropriate mention that he was a representative of President Maskhadov. This error the TRP admitted and it has apologised for it during the session of the Commission on Human Rights in Geneva, then in writing in its previous responses to the Committee and again orally during the questioning of TRP's representative. The apologies which TRP offered should, we respectfully submit, be accepted by the Committee. The TRP therefore earn

estly submits that the complaints should logically be entirely dismissed without further delay.

1.3. Due process and fairness demand a speedy dismissal

1.3.1. 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.

1.3.2. Paragraphs 104 to 120 of the Report of the Committee, which according to the letter of Madame Mezoui of 11 July 2000 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).

1.3.4. 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.

1.3.5. The TRP believes that if a decision is arrived at by the Committee and endorsed by ECOSOC without regard to basic 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 are not allowed to 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 23 June 2000, 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 1) as well as a statement on the right of the child presented at the 56th UN Commission on Human Rights (Annex 2).

2.1. THE TEXT OF THE REPORT (PARAS 101-104).

Paragraphs 101 to 104 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 101

Paragraph 101 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 101 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 101 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 102

2.1.2.1. It appears from paragraph 102, that the complaints referred to in Paragraph 101 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 102 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 101, for consideration by the Committee in June 2000.

2.1.3. Paragraph 103

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 102.

2.1.3.2. It is further stated in paragraph 103 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 103, 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 3)

2.1.3.6. Paragraph 103 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 104

In this paragraph, the TRP is reported as stating in its response (referred to in paragraph 103) 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 at which it also delivered a statement and its related meetings. (Annex 4)

2.2. RESPONSE OF THE TRP TO PARAGRAPHS 101 TO 104 OF THE REPORT

2.2.1. The TRP's accreditation of Mr. Idigov was in accordance with the rules.

As stated in paragraph 103, the TRP recognised that it did 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, or 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 Members and Observers at the Commission expressed their appreciation for the presence of Mr. Idigov and for his stateme

nt before the plenary.

2.2.2. The TRP did not violate Paragraph 57(a) of resolution 1996/31 by accrediting Mr. Idigov and asking him to intervene on its behalf.

2.2.2.1. 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."

2.2.2.2. 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 founding principles to have a violent individual speaking on its behalf.

2.2.2.3. 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, the TRP would not have accredited Mr. Idigov to the 56th UN Commission on Human Rights.

2.2.2.4. Some 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.

2.2.2.5. 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.

2.2.2.6. 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. A. 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 January 6 of this year (enclosed as Annex 5). In that article, he calls for "international law [to] be applied and enforced uniformly and without discrimination. This," he writes, "more than any appeasement, will contribute to global peace and stability."

2.2.2.7. Mr. Idigov and other elected Chechen leaders have been received by governments of many democratic countries, because they too believed that it was important to hear what they have to say. Most recently, Mr. Idigov was in the U.K., France, Italy, Belgium, the United States and Germany to seek support for a negotiated peace. TRP believes in the importance of hearing differing views and of making them heard in such important venues as the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. Of course people may disagree with the views expressed. Nevertheless, it is important to hear all views when important issues such as war and human rights violations are concerned.

2.2.2.8. The TRP believed in the need to raise the issue of human rights violations perpetrated against the Chechen people as part of the armed conflict there. Mr. Idigov' s firsthand experience of the situation in Chechnya, his representative character and his support for a negotiated peace, made him an appropriate speaker to raise the matter on behalf of the TRP at the UNCHR.

2.2.2.9. If no Chechens would be 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. 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 as a member of its delegation to the Commission on Human Rights. To date no concrete elements of such evidence have been presented to the attention of the Committee.

2.2.2.10. 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.

2.2.2.11. Mr. Idigov 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. The TRP endorses these views, and therefore believes that it was appropriate to invite Mr. Idigov to present them to the UNCHR on behalf of the TRP.

2.2.2.12. It should again be noted that the TRP was not the only participant at the Session of the Commission on Human Rights, that raised the issue of human rights in Chechnya. In fact, numerous UN Member States and NGOs intervened on the subject, some more forcefully than TRP. Partly as a result of all these interventions, a resolution was in fact adopted by a large majority of Commission Members on the situation in Chechnya at the 56th session of UNCHR

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

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

2.2.3.1. The TRP has admitted that Mr. Idigov identified himself as a representative of President Maskhadov. Both Mr. Idigov and the TRP as an organisation have openly acknowledged that it was a mistake for Mr. Idigov 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. After a point of order made by the Russian delegation, 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, and did so again orally at the Committee's session on 21 June 2000. (Annex 6,

transcript of relevant parts of TRP's intervention, tape available upon request)

2.2.3.2. 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. This was also the case for TRP.

2.2.4. 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

2.2.4.1. 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 does not contain any evidence of such acts.

2.2.4.2. 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."

2.2.4.2.1. 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 TRP, 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."

Since the High Commissioner visited Chechnya and the Commission decided to hold a special debate at its 56th session on the question of Chechnya, the situation in that region was clearly one of international concern and not only the particular object of NGOs' attention.

2.2.4.2.2. In the TRP statement it is 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. Russia, worthy successor to the Soviet Union, continues the bloody epic it began in Afghanistan, passing through Lithuania, Krabakh, Azerbajan, Kazakhstan, Fergana, Tajikistan, Moldova, Abkhazia, Ingushetia, Chechnya.... This list could continue, if no action is taken at the international level to put it to an end."

TRP has always drawn attention to allegations of Human Rights violations and has consistently stressed the need to address these abuses through the rule of law at the international level. Many of the situations listed were matters of concern to TRP in the past, because of the violations of human rights which occurred there.

2.2.4.2.3. The intervention goes on to regret 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." Indeed, compared to situations elsewhere in the world, very little attention has been paid internationally to situations such as those which occurred in Georgia and later Abkhazia in 1991 to 1993, in Ingushetia in 1992, in Transnestia (Moldova) and the others mentioned in the list, especially Chechnya. It will be recalled, for example, that it took a very long time before the United Nations issued any statement on the grave situation in Chechnya when war had broken out in 1994.

2.2.4.4. The statement expresses the opinion that "[t]he 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" There has been much discussion recently at governmental and non-governmental levels on the issue of genocide and on the need to punish perpetrators of this crime. The issue is one of great concern to the UN, and therefore calling attention to it can not be in violation of the United Nations charter. In fact, genocide is one of the crimes specifically covered by the statute of the two existing UN International Criminal Tribunals and of the proposed International Criminal Court, which statute has been recently signed by the Government of the Russian Federation. Genocide is an issue that must be addressed internationally. If an NGO or a government believes that acts of genocide or acts that can be described in terms of genocide have been committed, it has an

obligation to draw attention to this.

2.2.4.5. The statement goes on to state: "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."

Chechens, as do many other peoples, claim the right to self-determination as this is enshrined in the Charter of the UN and in the International Bill of Rights. Chechens tried to implement what they consider to be their right, and it is this, more than anything, which has caused the two wars there since 1994. Chechens have experienced that their very existence as a people has repeatedly been threatened since the region was conquered by the Tsarist Russian Empire. The present situation is an extension of this historical experience. The principle of self determination is one of the fundamental pillars of the Charter of the UN and is prominently recognised as a right of all peoples in the first article common to both International Human Rights Covenants. One may argue over definitions and applicability to specific cases, but expressing the opinion that a specific people possesses that right can certainly not be deemed to be "completely incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United N

ations."

2.2.4.6. The statement continues: "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.

"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."

TRP and Mr. Idigov are not the only ones who assess the situation in these grave terms. Many reputable commentators have expressed similar sentiments in the international and national press, as have representatives of UN Member States. The treaty of peace which was signed in 1997 should have formed the basis for relations between the two parties for a period of up to five years. In that agreement international law, including the principle of self-determination, have a prominent place.

2.2.4.7. The statement ends with the appeal: "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."

This appeal for negotiations and an active involvement of the international community, as happened in 1997, to monitor the initiation of a peaceful political solution to the bloody conflict between the parties in line with the May 12 treaty, can hardly be contrary to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. The Charter is, if anything, a call for states to settle differences through peaceful means and, where necessary, with the involvement of the international community. The very fact that the UNCHR held a special session on the situation in Chechnya, as stated above, is evidence enough of this.

2.2.4.8. From the above analysis, it must be concluded that nothing in the above mentioned statement could be construed to constitute propagation of ideas that are "completely incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations." Although TRP can well understand that some Member States may not agree with the views expressed in the statement, and although TRP acknowledges that strong language was used, it is convinced that the Committee will see that the statement was not an unsubstantiated or politically motivated act against a member state of the UN, nor is any part of it in violation of the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter.

2.2.4.9. 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), has a UN Member State considered a TRP statement presented to the UNCHR or any other UN body, to be in violation of the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. There have been other strong statements which have provoked reactions, but these have been expressed, as is the usual practice, in the context of a Member State' s right of reply

2.2.4.10. Finally, even if the statement or parts of it had been found to be incompatible with some purposes and principles of the UN Charter, 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".

2.2.5. The TRP does not obtain and is not influenced by proceeds from any criminal activities and did not, therefore, violate paragraph 57(b) of Resolution 1996/3.

2.2.5.1. In its letter of 16 May 2000, the distinguished delegate of the Russian Federation alleges that the TRP anti-drug and anti-prohibitionist activities constituted a violation of article 57 (b) of ECOSOC resolution 96/31. 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 obtained any funds from illicit international drug trafficking, nor has it obtained funds from organisations involved in such illicit trafficking, as alleged or implied by the distinguished delegate 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 a serious accusation. This complaint should therefore be dismissed.

2.2.5.3. In the interest of full disclosure, the TRP has nevertheless presented documented evidence of the nature of its anti-prohibitionist activities, thereby demonstrating that these activities have always had as their sole objective "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," as stated in paragraph 104 of the Report of the Committee. Contrary to the allegations made, the objective of TRP' s anti prohibitionist campaign has never been to promote the diffusion of these substances.

2.2.5.4. As pointed out orally by the TRP representative on 22 June 2000, but not reported in the Report of the proceedings, the TRP is inspired by the principles of Gandhian non-violence and his concept of civil disobedience. It tries, therefore to conduct campaigns on issues it believes in line with this thinking. The TRP has an antiprohibitionist approach to various issues, not only to drugs. The TRP, for example, believes in freedom of speech and actively condemns censorship and campaigns against it. The TRP believes in the right of people to marry and divorce, and campaigned in favour of that point of view also.

2.2.5.5. With respect to drugs, the TRP has criticized the way in which most governments have dealt, and continue to deal with the issue of narcotics and has expressed its disagreement with some important provisions of the international conventions on narcotics. Its main criticism is that these government policies and international conventions are not effective in preventing the illicit spread of narcotics and the activities of the narco-mafias that profit from it. The TRP has never referred to the current international legislation as "anti-drug laws" because it believes the present legislation is not truly "anti-drug" since it is not effective in preventing the illicit spread of narcotics. TRP' s own proposals also aim to counter this criminal and dangerous activity.

2.2.5.6. As stated in its first written response, dated 9 June 2000, not a single member of the TRP has been held in custody for acts of civil disobedience. Contrary to the allegations of the distinguished delegate of the Russian Federation presented on 22 June 2000 during the questioning of the TRP Representative (but not contained in E/2000/88 (Part II)), none of the individuals involved in the demonstrations in Rome and Milan (to which the Russian Federation delegate referred) were never found guilty of any of the charges suggested by the delegate of the Russian Federation. Of particular interest is the case of one of the participants, Mr. Marco Pannella, whose case was dismissed by the court, which cited extenuating circumstances never used before in such cases by any Court in Italy. In discharging Mr. Panella, the Court decided that Mr. "Marco PANNELLA should 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 v

alue." (See Annex 7 for the complete paragraph, and Annex 8 for the decision to decriminalize non-violent drug-related offences by the Italian Court of Cassation.)

2.2.5.7. 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 while and others disagree or oppose the solutions we propose and the methods we employ to focus attention on the issue. But holding a different opinion on how to effectively combat the illicit trade in drugs does not constitute a violation of Article 57(b) of Resolution 1996/31.

2.2.5.8. This point was also made by some of the Members and observers at the meeting of the Committee. The Report cites one such Committee Member as pointing out that his government did not share the drug policy proposed by TRP but that other European governments did. He added that "advocating the legalization of drugs was not a violation of resolution 1996/31." (Report paragraph 105).

2.2.5.9. For the reasons stated above, the TRP submits that the allegation that TRP violated paragraph 57(b) of Resolution 1996/31 is baseless, and should therefore be withdrawn or dismissed.

2.3. PARAGRAPH 105 and 106 OF THE REPORT

2.3.1.Paragraph 105 of the Summary Report contains two new allegations presented by the distinguished delegate of the Russian Federation during the course of the oral debate at the 759th, 760th and 763rd meetings. The first concerns alleged violations by the TRP of the principles contained in the Convention on the Rights of the Child as well as other relevant international instruments by waging "an international campaign against prevention of paedophilia and child pornography on the Internet" The second is the allegation that TRP is not in reality a non-governmental organisation, but a political organisation.

2.3.2. Paragraph 105 also reports on comments by Committee Members regarding the issues raised earlier: one member stated that advocating the legalization of drugs was not a violation of resolution 1996/31 and that evidence should be provided to support the allegation that TRP advocated illegal trafficking of drugs and that evidence should be provided to support the allegations that the organization was dealing with paedophilia and child pornography.

2.3.3. Paragraphs 105 and 106 of the Report contain statements to the effect that a number of delegations, including Committee members, were of the opinion that the TRP' s response was satisfactory. According to the report, "one Committee member pointed out that the TRP has admitted to its misconduct and has apologized for it." Some other delegations reportedly "believed that an apology was not sufficient, particularly if the organisation was guilty of committing such acts as those mentioned by the delegation of the Russian Federation."

2.4. RESPONSES OF TRP TO ISSUES RAISED IN PARAGRAPHS 105 AND 106

2.4.1. The TRP did not violate principles of the Convention on Rights of the Child.

2.4.1.1. The distinguished delegate of the Russian Federation claimed that the TRP had violated the principles contained in the Convention of the Right of the Child as well as other relevant instruments. It should be noted that neither in Paragraph 105 of the Report nor in the rest of the document faxed to the TRP on 11 July 2000, is there any specification of which principles of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and which provisions of "other relevant instruments" were violated by the TRP.

2.4.1.2. The TRP re-iterates that it is strongly opposed to all forms of sexual abuse and exploitation of children and that it is actively engaged, and has been for some time, in campaigns to prevent such abuse and to punish the abusers.

2.4.1.3. The TRP' s commitment to the principles contained in the Convention on the Rights of the Child are also evident from the organisation' s intervention at the 52nd session of the Sub-Commission on the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights of August 2000, under Agenda Item 11 "situation regarding the promotion, full realisation and protection of the rights of children and youths in respect of female genital mutilation (FGM)." (Annex 9). Moreover, on 15 August 2000, stressing the fact that, according to the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), art. 24, subsection 3, member states are legally bound to protect girls against the practice of FGM, and that they should therefore work towards the elimination of this act altogether, the TRP hosted the showing of a film on the subject for Delegates, NGOs and the press. The video was presented by Dr. Olayinka KOSO-THOMAS of Nigeria, a resident of Sierra Leone, and Vice-President (Anglophone) of the Inter-African Committee on Traditional Practices Affe

cting the Health of Women and Children. The documentary by Esther HELLER was about the health risks associated with the practice of FGM.

2.4.1.4. The TRP contributed a statement before the 56th Commission on Human Rights, under Item 13 (rights of the child) delivered by Ms. Regina Louf, a woman who, as young girl, was a victim of sexual abuse. In that statement (Annex 2), she called attention to the unwillingness of some legal systems in Europe to adequately deal with this issue. The Report only reflects a small part of TRP' s response with respect to allegations concerning paedophilia and child pornography and does not, for example mention this intervention.

2.4.1.5. At the same session of the Commission, a delegation from the TRP, that included the Hon. Oliver Dupuis, MEP, Secretary General of TRP, Mr. Marco PerDuca, TRP UN Representative, Mrs. Regina Louf, and Mr. 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, (Annex 10, for the index of the dossier www.radicalparty.org/belgium/index.htm.)

2.4.1.6. 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.

2.4.1.7. The opposition of the TRP to proposed legislation in Italy prohibiting the use of the internet for the publication of pornographic and paedophiliac materials and information can not in any way be construed as support for paedophilia or child pornography, nor as constituting a violation of the principles of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Quite the contrary. The TRP is conveying two strong messages with this campaign: the first is the message of free speech: that you do not fight a crime by preventing free speech. The internet is one of the most important tools of communication in today' s world, and should not, in principle, be subjected to censorship. The second message, is that sexual abuse of children is a serious crime which should be tackled in earnest: this is not done by censorship of the internet, but by tackling the source of the crime, the abuser. As stated above, research has shown that the abusers are not persons who have come into contact with children through the internet, b

ut that in 98% of the cases they are persons with family ties or who are otherwise close to the children they abuse. This is the situation that must be addressed. Of course it is more comfortable to deal with the impersonal "internet" than with something which affects or implicates so many individuals, even in the highest political circles. Yet, until it is tacked at its root, which is what TRP advocates, children will continue to be the victims. That is the point TRP is making and we fail to see how this can be construed as supporting paedophilia or violating the principles of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which the TRP fully supports. See also TRP Interview of 09.09.00 in the Financial Times (Annex 11).

2.4.2. The TRP is an NGO that meets all the qualifications for Consultative Status with ECOSOC.

2.4.2.1. The distinguished delegate of the Russian Federation alleged 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. No evidence is presented in the report to substantiate this allegation.

2.4.2.2. At the time of the TRP's application for Consultative Status with ECOSOC, in May 1994, TRP had to present in both written and oral form considerable evidence of the nature of the organisation, its non-governmental status, and its qualifications for obtaining Consultative Status with ECOSOC. The TRP provided the Committee with a large amount of information and fully satisfied Committee Members of its qualifications to obtain the highest category of Consultative Status. Those files are available to the members of this Committee, should they have any doubts as to the nature of the TRP and its qualifications to have Consultative Status with ECOSOC.

2.4.2.3. TRP is not a political organisation. Paragraph 109 of the Summary Report accurately reflects the answers given by the TRP Representative and therefore we feel it appropriate to include them here in this comprehensive response with a comment in parenthesis "The representative of the organization responded that no member of the organization had ever run for public office (under the banner of the TRP). 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."

2.4.2.4. TRP therefore submits that the status of TRP should not be at issue here. TRP, moreover, submits that even if the allegation made by the distinguished delegate of the Russian Federation were shown to be true (although no evidence is reported in the Report) this would not constitute a violation of ECOSOC Resolution 1996/31and is therefore not of relevance to the particular case before the Committee.

2.4.3. TRP' s apology with respect to Mr. Idigov's identification of himself is not an admission of misconduct with respect to any other allegation made.

2.4.3.1. According to the report, "one Committee member pointed out that the TRP has admitted to its misconduct and has apologized for it." Some other delegations reportedly "believed that an apology was not sufficient, particularly if the organisation was guilty of committing such acts as those mentioned by the delegation of the Russian Federation."

2.4.3.2. As stated earlier, the TRP admitted to the inappropriateness of Mr. Idigov's statement before the UNCHR in so far as he said that he was the representative of President Maskhadov, since he was clearly speaking on behalf of the TRP (which he also expressly stated at the start of his intervention and after a point of order was made by the delegation of the Russian Federation in Geneva.) TRP again apologised for this in its written preliminary response to the Committee, and repeated this once again during its oral presentation before the Committee in June of this year.

2.4.3.3. The TRP has not admitted to any misconduct other than that referred to in the previous paragraph (2.4.3.2.). On the contrary, the TRP has extensively presented evidence to show that it is not guilty of any of the other allegations made by the distinguished delegate of the Russian Federation.

2.4.3.4. The view of some delegates reported in Paragraph 106 and quoted above, that an apology was not sufficient "particularly if the organisation was guilty of committing such acts as those mentioned by the delegation of the Russian Federation" is puzzling and begs the following questions:

a. does the Committee consider the apologies given by the TRP for Mr. Idigov's inappropriate self-identification to be sufficient with respect to that specific infraction of the rules?

b. does the Committee consider that sufficient convincing evidence was presented to it to fully substantiate the allegations made by the distinguished delegate of the Russian Federation to justify a "guilty as accused" verdict of the Commission?

In our view, the first question must be answered in the affirmative, as this is consistent with past practice of the UNCHR and of the Committee itself. In our view the second question must be answered in the negative, because nothing in the Report suggests that any evidence was presented by the delegation of the Russian Federation to substantiate the charges against the TRP brought by that delegation. On the contrary, much evidence was presented by the TRP to demonstrate its innocence and the invalidity of the claims against it.

2.5. COMMENTS TO PARAGRAPHS 107 TO 109

2.5.1. Paragraph 107

2.5.1.1. Paragraph 107 contains a report of the answers provided by the TRP Representative to the questions posed by the Members of the Committee on 21 June 2000. In this paragraph it is stated that 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." Thus far it is accurate. But the paragraph goes on to quote the TRP representative as stating that "The Chechen Platform never supported secession or independence for any province in any part of the world." Contrarily to what is contained in this paragraph of the report the TRP Representative did not make any mention on the Chechen platform nor did he elaborate on any viewpoints other than those of the TRP.

2.5.1.2. While it is true, as stated in Paragraph 107, 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 the reform of drug laws as well as the fight in international crime and reform", it is not accurate to say that the TRP Representative used the term anti-drug laws as reported in that paragraph. In fact, as stated above in 2.2.5.5, the TRP has never used "anti-drug" as an adjective for drug-related laws, consequently the rest of that sentence in Paragraph 107 does not appear to make sense.

2.5.2. Paragraphs 108 and 109

2.5.2.1. Paragraph 108 reports 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 wondered if it was the policy of NGOs to conduct such activities." It should be noted that following the Committee meeting at which these concerns were raised, the TRP immediately thoroughly checked its website for any inappropriate links. Any links to groups that advocated the use of violence have been removed and a disclaimer has been posted in the section relating to minorities, making clear that the TRP is not responsible for the content of any site linked to its website, and that it does not endorse the ideas expressed in that section. The listing is made for informative purposes only. Copies of the new WebPages were given to concerned delegations in New York the following day. (Annex 12).

2.5.2.2. Paragraph 108 further reports that "Another delegate found an article 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 quote accurately summarises the relevant questions posed at that session of the Committee, but the Summary Report fails to include the response given by the TRP representative to those questions. The TRP representative 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.

2.5.2.3. Paragraph 108 contains the summary of one other question put to the TRP representative but omits to provide a summary of the TRP representative's answer given at the 762nd meeting of the Committee. We feel that it should be included in this comprehensive response to better explain TRP's approach to international affairs and human rights. The question regarded TRP' s "legislative capacities." As is true for a number of other organisations registered in Italy, the TRP, in 1994, participated in the presentation of several popular bills on drug-related policies and on HIV/AIDS. A popular bill is a daft law proposed by a group of private citizens that needs to be endorsed by at least 50,000 eligible Italian voters in order for it to be presented to the competent parliamentary committees for eventual discussion in the Chamber of Deputies. From this brief explanation it is clear that presenting a popular bill in Italy in this manner does not entail legislative capacities.

2.5.2.4. The last question referred to in Paragraph 108 is that posed by the distinguished delegate of the Republic of India, who queried certain references in a document found on the TRP website concerning secessionist insurgencies in India, which, according to that delegate, "were not based on facts and reflected the organization's lack of respect for the principles of the Charter." The Summary report states that the TRP representative responded that he was not aware of such references on the website. As stated above (in 2.5.2.1.) the website has since been checked and reformed to ensure that the TRP is not perceived to endorse any inappropriate statements made by other organisations or groups and does not associate itself with any form of advocacy for the use of violence. As accurately reported in Paragraph 109 of the Summary Report, the TRP representative "stressed that the organization did not support secessionism or overthrowing of a government through violence in any specific region of the world." Thi

s remains the position of TRP.

2.5.2.5. The TRP does not believe that any of its information or materials reflect disrespect for the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

2.5.2.6. Paragraph 109 further reports the answer given by the TRP Representative with respect to the alleged "political" nature of the organisation. This has already been addressed under 2.4.2 above.

2.6 COMMENTS TO PARAGRAPHS 110 TO 117 CONCERNING THE DECISION OF THE COMMITTEE

2.6.1. The Paragraphs 110 to 117 reflect the discussion concerning the decision taken by the Commission with regard to the request of the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation that the Consultative Status of the TRP be withdrawn.

2.6.2. Paragraphs 110 to 112

Paragraph 110 of the Report states that on 23 June one Committee member "understood that there was a very strong desire within the Committee to take a decision on the withdrawal of consultative status by consensus." The paragraph then goes on to say that "however, if consensus was not possible in the case in question, [the same member] suggested that the Committee should vote for a three-year suspension of the organization' s consultative status." In Paragraph 111 it is then reported that the representative of the Russian Federation stated that his delegation "had requested the withdrawal of status of the organization, as the NGO had violated the principles regulating its relationship with the United Nations." The report then quotes the same representative as concluding "however, it will join the consensus and support suspension for three years of the consultative status of the organization. The action would send a clear message that all NGOs should comply with the principles of resolution 1996/31 and with t

he provisions of the United Nations Charter." Paragraph 112 then simply reports that "The Committee recommended the suspension of the consultative status of the organization for three years."

2.6.2.1. There are obvious contradictions within these paragraphs with respect to the understanding on whether a consensus or vote led to the recommendation for a three year suspension. We understand, however, that the decision was reached by consensus.

2.6.2.2. What is striking and important about these three paragraphs is that they reveal nothing at all about the reason or reasons for the decision to recommend a three year suspension of TRP' s consultative status. The distinguished representative of the Russian Federation is reported as stating that "the NGO has violated the principles regulating its relationship with the United Nations." Which principles has TRP violated? Which of the allegations put forward by the delegation of the Russian Federation in its letter of 15 May 2000 were found by the Commission to have been substantiated with facts, admissions, evidence? Which had been found to be without foundation and dismissed? From the Report thus far, these questions remain entirely unanswered.

2.6.3. Paragraphs 113 to 117

If the paragraphs 110 to 112 do not provide the reasons for the decision of the Committee, the remaining paragraphs of the Summary Report relating to the TRP (Paragraphs 113 to 117) shed no more light on it. If anything, those paragraphs suggest that no decision should have been reached, because there was no agreement among the members of the Committee on whether TRP had violated any relevant provisions of the resolution governing the organisation' s consultative status. Indeed, the Report makes clear that no evidence was presented, much less accepted, to show that the TRP violated resolution 1996/31.

2.6.3.1. The representative of France said resolution 1996/31 was explicit "and that the measure of suspension was a severe one out of proportion to the misdemeanour."(Paragraph 113) It must be assumed that the "misdemeanour" referred to is the self-identification of Mr. Idigov as the representative of President Maskhadov, since no other "misdemeanour" has been admitted or proven in the course of the proceedings. Normally an apology is accepted as sufficient for such a mistake.

2.6.3.2. The representative of Germany is quoted at length in the Report (Paragraph 114), in the first place stating that Germany fully subscribed to the statement of the French delegation and then he is reported as stating that his delegation "joined the consensus with reservations" and "hesitantly" because of its support for the principle that the Committee' s decisions should be taken by consensus. The German delegation explained that the case of TRP was "not exhaustively discussed in the Committee" and that the Committee had "no opportunity to verify any information on the new allegations which were put forward only yesterday." Germany also emphasised that since the TRP "had offered its apologies concerning the misbehaviour of one of their delegates, both in writing and orally ... [and] the representative of the NGO answered very well and convincingly to the questions of this Committee ... the punishment of suspending the consultative status for 3 years seems very harsh to us."

2.6.3.3. Next, the representative of the United States is quoted (paragraph 115) as stating that his delegation "dissociate ourselves from the consensus on this matter." The U.S. representative repeated that the TRP had apologized in writing and orally for errors in Mr. Idigov's statement and that the TRP had taken corrective measures to correct other errors acknowledged by its representative in the course of the discussion. (reference is presumably to the concerns raised regarding TRP' s internet site). The representative went on to say with respect to Russia's allegations of involvement in drug trafficking, that his delegation believed "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."

2.6.3.4. Finally, two observer delegations made comments: the first (reported in Paragraph 116) stated 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." The second (reported in Paragraph 117) "questioned whether there had been a pattern of abuses by the organization in violation of the principles of the Charter."It will be noted that such a pattern must be shown for suspension under Article 57(a) of Resolution 1996/31.

2.6.4. The above comments with respect to the decision of the Committee are the only ones included in the Report. All of these comments are critical of or opposed to the decision to suspend the TRP' s consultative status. None of them agree with or support the decision. No statements with respect to the decision (except for the request to withdraw the status by the representative of the complainant, the Russian Federation) were reportedly made. Therefore the Summary Report sheds light only on the reasons why the TRP' s consultative status should NOT be suspended. It gives no clue as to the reasons why its status should be suspended

3. CONCLUSION

3.1. In her letter to the representative of the TRP, Mr. PerDuca of the 11 July 2000, the Chief of the NGO Section, Ms. Hanifa Mezoui stated that the paragraphs of the Report of the Committee discussed above (paragraphs 101 to 117) "contains and constitutes the written reasons for the Committee's recommendation to ECOSOC" regarding the suspension of TRP' s consultative status. The letter goes on to accurately inform Mr. PerDuca that "pursuant to paragraph 56 of ECOSOC resolution 1996/31, the organization having been given written reasons for the decision taken by the Committee "shall have an opportunity to present its response for appropriate consideration by the Committee as expeditiously as possible."

The above discussion makes clear beyond any doubt, that in fact the Report does not contain the written reasons in the sense of paragraph 56 of resolution 1996/31, for the decision to suspend the consultative status of TRP for three years. Consequently, the TRP has not been given an opportunity to respond to those written reasons. Therefore the requirements of resolution 1996/31 have not been met.

3.2. Despite the lack of compliance with resolution 1996/31, paragraph 56, on the part of the UN, the TRP has attempted to analyse the entire Report sent to it by Ms. Hanifa Mezoui, and to provide the Committee with as comprehensive a response or commentary the TRP could provide to such an inconclusive document. This analysis can, in our opinion only lead to one conclusion:

the Committee lacks the evidence to decide that the TRP has violated Articles 57( a ) or ( b ) of ECOSOC resolution 1996/31. The Report shows that the allegations put forward by the representative of the Russian Federation, all of them, with the exception of the error in Mr. Idigov's statement before the 56th session of the UNCHR, are unsubstantiated and, therefore remain allegations and nothing more.

3.3. The TRP fails to see how the recommendation of the Committee, contained in Paragraph 112 of the Report can stand.

The TRP therefore respectfully requests the Committee, as it considers this response and reviews the case (as Paragraph 56 of Resolution 1996/31 would require when the Committee receives a response to written reasons for the decision), to decide to accept the apologies offered by the TRP for the error its delegate committed in the course of the 56th session of the UNCHR and to dismiss the remainder of the case entirely.

1