Committee on NGOs

11^th & 12^th Meetings (AM & PM)

As Session Continues, NGO Committee Recommends Seven Organizations for Special

Consultative Status with Economic and Social Council, Roster Status for One

 

Starting the second week of its 2012 substantive session, the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations today recommend special consultative status with the Economic and Social Council for seven organizations, and roster status for another, while postponing consideration of 20 other applications, pending receipt of additional information from the civil society groups.

Established more than 65 years ago, the Committee recommends to the Council general, special or roster status, in accordance with such criteria as the civil society applicant’s mandate, governance and financial regime.  Organizations enjoying general and special status can attend the Council’s meetings and circulate statements, while those with general status can, in addition, address meetings and propose agenda items.  Roster-status non-governmental organizations (NGOs) can only attend meetings.

The 19-member Committee considered a range of diverse applications today, recommending status for national and international civil society groups dealing with conflict resolution — as in the cases of the Erevna International Peace Centre, Inc., and Mediators Beyond Boarders — and the protection and promotion of human rights, such as Captive Daughters, a Los Angeles-based NGO combating human trafficking.

In other action, it withdrew the application of the International Christian Chamber of Commerce.  Also, following a lengthy procedural debate, the Committee decided to postpone consideration, pending guidance from the Office of Legal Affairs, of the application of the Kashmiri American Council, after India’s delegate noted that the NGO had not responded to three requests for information.  The United States’ representative explained that the two individuals running the organization had been indicted for crimes in her country.

In further action, the Committee decided, following consultations that forced a suspension of the meeting, that India’s delegation would draft a letter to the Movement against Atrocities and Repression — a Switzerland-based group that aims to support and cooperate with other human rights organizations — informing the NGO of his concerns about its activities and offering a chance for the group to respond, in line with the Committee’s rules of procedure.

He said that some of the group’s members, including its founders, had been involved in hijacking Indian Airlines flights and were now settled in Switzerland, where they sought asylum and had then founded this NGO.  The Committee, therefore, decided that the letter sent to the group would set a 10 February deadline for the organization’s response.  According to Chairperson Maria Pavlova Tzotzorkova ( Bulgaria), members would return to the issue on 17 February, when the Committee would be expected to make final decisions ahead of the closure of its session.

For the second time during the session, Committee members held a lengthy debate over the application of an organization dealing with the rights of gays and lesbians, in this case the Vienna-based Homosexuelle Initiative Wien, following concerns raised by Morocco’s representative, who said the group had not provided satisfactory answers to some of the Committee’s queries.  He questioned its use of medical and scientific journals to define sexual orientation, rather than providing a legal definition that would be satisfactory for United Nations purposes.  He was also among several speakers who had questions concerning the group’s views on the age of consent, which, in Austria, was 14.

The representative of the United States countered that not only had the group answered all the Committee’s concerns, the query for it to provide a definition for sexual orientation had been discriminatory, and her delegation would particularly object to the Committee asking the organization to respond to it again.  Citing the repetitive “pestering” the NGO was being subjected to, the representative of Belgium said:  “Whether you like it or not, the High Commissioner for Human Rights has issued a report on discrimination of individuals based on sexual orientation and gender identity [so] this is an issue that is going to be discussed in the United Nations.”

The representative of Pakistan said that he respected the views of the United States and others, but stressed that Member States had the right to express their opinions without being called “discriminatory”.  Further, merely because the United States had understood the organization’s response did not mean that the Committee had to accept that as a satisfactory answer to the questions posed.

Weighing in, Chairperson Tzotzorkova said that it was clear that members were divided, on substance, and regarding the methodology for transmitting questions to organizations under consideration.  While all Member States had the legitimate right to pose questions, it was also true that each and every delegation should feel comfortable with questions that were being forwarded on behalf of the Committee.  All delegations must have a “minimal level of comfort” with such queries and members concerned should meet in informal consultations.

Taking up quadrennial reports — brief surveys of the activities of civil society groups with general and special consultative status with the Economic and Social Council, specifically regarding the support they had given to the work of the United Nations — the Committee took note of one such report, while postponing consideration of eight others, pending responses to further questions.  Those reports are contained in document E/C.2/2012/CRP.2.

Delegations also held their customary interactive dialogue with a representative NGO, here the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center, whose application will be taken up at a later date.

The Committee began its work with the election by acclamation of Mansor Ciss (Senegal) as one of its Vice Chairpersons, and Yoni Ish-Hurwitz (Israel), as Rapporteur.

The Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. Tuesday, 7 February, to continue its work.

Special Consultative Status

The following were recommended for special consultative status:

Captive Daughters — a Los Angeles-based group working to mobilize the global will to end the sex trafficking of women and children through the creation, use and distribution of educational and creative media to the general public.

e8 — a Canadian non-governmental organization working to play an active role in global electricity issues and promoting sustainable development worldwide.

Ecumenical Federation of Constantinopolitans — a group based in Athens, which works towards the strengthening of relations, the exchange of ideas and the solidarity between all world Greek Constantinopolitans and particularly the Greek Constantinopolitans of diaspora with their fellow countrymen that currently living in Istanbul.

Global Family for Love and Peace – an organization based in New York and dedicated to building a harmonious world through promoting values-based education, organizing and directing activities for young people in the field of social service, and sponsoring interfaith dialogues.

Housing Works Incorporated — a Brooklyn-based organization whose primary goal is to end the twin crises of homelessness and HIV/AIDS.

Law Council of Australia — an Australia-based group established for the purpose of achieving the following objects:  to promote and defend the rule of law and the administration of justice in the public interest; to be the national peak body to promote the interests of all Australian lawyers on national and international issues; to represent the interests of the profession on all matters within the Federal jurisdiction and on matters involving uniformity of State Laws; to promote the administration of justice and the development and improvement of law throughout the Commonwealth; to uphold the honour of the profession of the law; and to advance the science of jurisprudence.

China’s delegate noted with satisfaction that the NGO had made written statements concerning the proper usage of Hong Kong and Taiwan.

Mediators Beyond Borders — a New York-based group that brings together experienced mediators to volunteer their skills worldwide, in collaboration with local, indigenous and global partners, to improve conflict resolution capacity and support alternative approaches to expressing, negotiating and resolving interpersonal, political, economic, social, ethnic and religious differences.

Roster

The following was recommended for roster status:

Erevna International Peace Centre, Inc. (EIPC) – an ecumenical non-governmental organization, based in Cyprus, and working in the area of conflict resolution.  It also trains mediators and carries out research in conflict resolution.

Postponed

Action on the following was postponed pending responses to previously posed questions:

International Council for Human Rights — based in Brussels, this group is committed to providing assistance to the United Nations and its affiliated organs in the promotion and observance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and to work for fundamental freedoms and world peace, and to facilitate and coordinate the efforts of oppressed peoples, minorities, unrepresented peoples and nations to gain access to international law and its enforcement mechanisms for the promotion of their human rights.

International Covenant for the Protection of Journalists — a Geneva-based group whose purpose is to mobilize the idea of protection for journalists through working on an international protection media convention.  It aims at extending its work to assist media organizations under threat for their work and individual journalists to come to Geneva, meet officials, hold press conferences and side events to mobilize this important issue.

Korean Bar Association — a Republic of Korea-based group that aims to protect and ensure human rights and establish a foundation for democratic order; to promote law-abiding spirit and cultivate the legal knowledge of the public; to create and improve legal culture and promote international relations; to enhance and reform the legal system and its practice; to perform legal aid projects and improve social-welfare justice; and protect and preserve the dignity of lawyers and enhancing their professional capacity.

Action on the following was postponed after new questions were posed:

Center for Global Nonkilling — a Honolulu-based group working to promote change towards the measurable goal of a “killing-free” world by means open to infinite human creativity, following questions posed by the representative of China regarding its finances and the scope of its connection to other civil society groups.

Christian Solidarity Worldwide — an organization based in the United Kingdom which specializes in freedom of religion — as defined in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, following questions posed by the representative of China regarding its broader stated aim of “promoting Christianity”.  The representative of Morocco asked for more details about the group’s finances and also asked for clarification regarding its name, which was listed as “Christian Solidarity International” in its application.  The delegates from Sudan and Cuba also asked for more information about the scope of the organization’s work.

Defense Small Arms Advisory Council — a Virginia-based trade association of American military small arms manufacturers that aims to serve as a means of communication between its member companies and Government agencies, following questions posed by the representative of the Russian Federation regarding how it tracked whether its partners were doing business in States that had been sanctioned by the United Nations.  The representative of Venezuela asked for more information about the scope of its activities, particularly its efforts to support social and economic development.

Dharma Drum Mountain Buddhist Association — a New York-based organization committed to serving humanity by working to relieve various forms of human suffering — physical, emotional and spiritual — and to support programmes which protect the natural environment, after China’s delegate had questions about how it distributed and used its finances.

Foundation for GAIA — a group based in the United Kingdom which worked for humankind’s partnership with nature in protecting the complex life-support system of the planet, to develop clean energy sciences and to move towards a new ecological economic and social system that makes a clear distinction between wholesome and cancerous forms of growth.  China’s representative said that the organization’s application contained references to “ Tibet, China”, and requested clarifications on its position regarding China’s sovereignty.  In the meantime, he hoped that such discrepancies in its application could be corrected quickly.

Freedom Now — a Washington-based group working to free prisoners of conscience through focused legal, political, and public relations advocacy efforts following questions posed regarding the scope of its activities from the representatives of China, Cuba and Venezuela.

Homosexuelle Initiative Wien — Austria’s oldest leading gay and lesbian association active in fighting for the human rights of gays and lesbians, combating all forms of discrimination based on sexual orientation, and working for equality and equal rights of gay men and lesbian women in all areas, following Senegal’s query regarding whether the group planned in the future to expand its activities beyond the national level and, if so, to what countries.  The representative of Morocco questioned the group’s use of medical and scientific journals to define sexual orientation.  He said that the United Nations used legal documents to provide definitions, particularly in line with the views of the Organization.  Could the organization do the same?  The group was trying to justify homosexual behaviour with arguments.

The representative of the United States recalled that the Committee had asked the organization to provide “an internationally recognized scientific or legal definition”.  Its response was “precisely on point”.  She believed that even posing the initial question had been discriminatory, and her delegation would particularly object to the Committee asking the organization to respond again.  She said that the group had also provided detailed answers to other questions, including the age of consent and marriage age.  If additional questions needed to be posed, she asked that they be reformulated so they did not appear discriminatory.

The representative of Belgium added that the group had been the victim of unfair treatment and had been subjected to “ridiculous or repetitive questions”.  He thought it was about time the Committee scrutinized its questions.  The group had provided detailed answers to the questions that had been asked.  “I think it’s about time we stop pestering the NGO with repeated questions,” he said, adding:  “Whether you like it or not, the High Commissioner for Human Rights has issued a report on discrimination of individuals based on sexual orientation and gender identity and this is an issue that is going to be discussed in the United Nations.”  Moreover, the Secretary-General had, on 29 January made a statement to African leaders in which he had noted that one form of discrimination ignored or even sanctioned by some States for too long was discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.  The delegate said that, while he understood that some reacted in a sentimental way to the issue, Belgium did not:  his delegation could calmly and frankly say it was ready to recommend status for the group now.

Agreeing, the representative of Israel said that if Morocco’s representative was seeking a definition of sexual orientation acceptable to the United Nations, he knew very well that there wasn’t one.  That was not because there should not be, but because Member States had not agreed on the matter.  Moreover, those delegations asking for definitions of sexual orientation or “homosexual acts” seemed to know very well what those acts were when they criminalized them, so to ask the NGO for a question to which there was no answer seemed discriminatory.

The representative of Pakistan said that the Committee was again getting into an unnecessary discussion.  He respected the views of the United States and others, but he would stress that all member States had the right to express their opinions without being called “discriminatory”.  Moreover, just because the United States understood the organization’s response did not mean that the Committee had to accept that as the only answer to the question posed.  He said that there were countless medical definitions of sexual orientation.  He added that when the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Secretary-General had spoken about sexual orientation, they were speaking in their personal capacities, not on behalf of the United Nations.

Taking the floor again, Morocco’s representative said that, since the organization had talked about internationally recognized human rights, there was a need for the group to clarify it.  Morocco was against discrimination.  Yet, consultative status should not be given based on the intentions of certain individuals; it should be based on the group under consideration being able to give palpable proof of its intentions.

Senegal’s representative urged the Belgian delegation to re-read the responses to the questions posed, especially regarding the group’s “political lobbying” at the Federal level.

The representative of Sudan said that every member of the Committee had the legitimate right to ask questions to organizations seeking status with the Economic and Social Council.  He asked for more details about the group’s sources of income, including that provided by Governments.

The United States reminded delegations that questions were to be posed on behalf of the Committee, so members would have to come to an agreement on what questions would be posed and what the language would be.  She also recalled that human rights were universal and there was no need for a definition of who the members of the organization were, because they were people, and the United Nations must work in line with the tenets of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action.

The representative of Morocco said that the demand for consent on questions to be transmitted to an NGO was new to him.  The Committee had done so regarding a group that was questioning Morocco’s sovereignty, but if members had to go through such an exercise every time it posed questions to an organization, the Committee’s work would become hopelessly backed up.

Speaking as an observer, Austria took the floor in support of the organization.  Austria was convinced that it would provide invaluable support to the work of the United Nations and her Government fully supported its application.  She would appreciate it if the questions posed to the organization would be posed on behalf of the Committee.  She recalled that the Committee’s founding mandate stated that it should take into consideration the “full spectrum” of civil society groups.  Austria was aware of the existing difference of views, but did not believe the Committee was the forum to negotiate such issues, nor had it been established to do so.  The organization in question was working to counter discrimination against gays, lesbians and transgender persons.  She said that the organization and its activities were in full conformity with Austrian laws.

The representative of the observer delegation of the Holy See said he was very concerned about speculation in the organization’s application regarding the age of consent “imposed” by the Vatican.  In fact, the Vatican did not have its own Criminal Code.  The Government of Italy governed codes on sexual consent.  Such a law did not exist in the Vatican.  Canonical law only considered the age of marriage, and even then, it was not set at the age of 12, as implied by the organization.  The statements were factually and legally incorrect, casting doubt on the seriousness with which the organization took the Committee’s rules and procedures.  The group was engaged in a defamatory attack against the Vatican, and he asked that the incorrect information included in its application be amended.

Weighing in on the matter, the Committee’s Chair, MARIA PAVLOVA TZOTZORKOVA ( Bulgaria) said that she had drawn the conclusion that there was a clear division among members, on substance and regarding the methodology for transmitting questions to organizations under consideration.  While it was the legitimate right of member States to pose questions, it was also true that each and every delegation should feel conformable with questions that were being forwarded on behalf of the Committee.  All delegations must have a “minimal level of comfort” with such questions, and members concerned should meet in informal consultations.  The Secretariat was prepared to assist delegations in reaching a compromise.  She said that the Committee would certainly have to return to the issue during its discussions on working methods.

China’s representative noted that it was his delegation’s belief that when a question was posed by one member of the Committee, it was put forward on behalf of the entire body.  While he appreciated the need for members to discuss certain controversial matters, if the Committee was forced to discuss such matters at length on every application, its work would be seriously impacted.  Sudan’s speaker raised similar concerns.

ANDREI ABRAMOV, Chief of the NGO Branch, said the Committee’s past practice had been that questions not challenged by any member of the Committee went forward without review.  Those that had raised doubts among other members were modified by mutual consent of the delegations concerned.  If other Committee members wished to review the final formulation of the questions concerned before they were transmitted to an organization, then that was arranged.

The representative of Morocco feared that, once such consultations became a practice in the Committee, “all the work will be blocked”.  How would the prerogatives of Committee members to ask questions be balanced against the rights of those that might oppose such questions?

Ms. TZOTZORKOVA said that the concerned delegations should get together and discuss the questions that would be put to Homosexuelle Initiative Wien.

Human Rights Now — a Tokyo-based organization established by lawyers, former United Nations officials, scholars, and other human rights activists to achieve, protect and promote the human rights of people worldwide, with a special focus on Asian countries.

China’s representative said the NGO’s response to a question raised stated that the organization had taken part in a legal scholar and judges meeting in China.  The delegate asked for more detailed information on the NGO’s participation at this forum.

The International Association of Genocide Scholars, Inc — based in Ireland, this organization seeks to further research and teaching about the nature, causes, and consequences of genocide, and advance policy studies on prevention of genocide.  A central aim of the Association is to draw academics, activists, artists, genocide survivors, journalists, jurists, public policymakers, and other colleagues into the interdisciplinary study of genocide, with the goal of prevention.

Turkey’s delegate said the NGO provided a membership list; however, that list had contained a number of organizations.  The application form stated that the NGO had no member organizations.  He asked for clarification.

Sudan’s delegate asked the NGO to clarify the source of its information on events in Darfur.  The report of a commission of inquiry had concluded that there had not been ethnic cleansing in Darfur.  He requested that the NGO correct the information it had submitted.  He also asked for a list of African countries where the NGO conducted activities and whether the group had links with organizations in Sudan and in the region.

International Dalit Solidarity Network — a Denmark-based group working on a global level for the elimination of caste discrimination and similar forms of discrimination based on work and descent.

India’s delegate inquired about the financial statement, asking the NGO to explain its €280,000 surplus, alongside the 2009 through 2011 financial statements.

Belgium’s delegate said she noticed the NGO had been on the list since 2008, and was among the oldest NGO applications.  More than 56 questions had been asked so far, many repetitive in nature.  She hoped there would be an agreement on this application.

International Federation of Liberal Youth — a Belgium-based group that is an umbrella organization for liberal and student youth organizations worldwide that provides a forum for cooperation, exchange of resources and ideas, and intercultural learning between liberal youth organizations.  The NGO is oriented towards the promotion of active citizenship, respect for human rights and the rule of law.  The work of the International Federation is done within the framework of its basic values:  freedom; democracy; responsibility; social justice; equal opportunities; and tolerance.

Nicaragua’s representative said question 16 had requested a membership list for the organization.  She asked for clarification on the members in Latin America and the types of projects taking place in the region.

Cuba’s delegate said the NGO’s website includes providing information and news.  She asked about the criteria of sources for these sections.

Belgium’s delegate said she supported the Belgium-based NGO.  There were still concerns, she said, pointing out that this group was also among the oldest applications before the Committee.

China’s delegate said the NGO was well known, and he would prefer that the group corrected the terminology about which his country had a concern.

International Partnership for Human Rights — a Brussels-based NGO committed to promoting human rights worldwide.  It acts to empower local civil society groups working on behalf of human rights in different countries and assists them in making their concerns heard at the international level.

China’s delegate requested details of the group’s activities in 2011.

Venezuela’s delegate asked about new projects the NGO had undertaken to protect minorities in Eastern Europe.

International Prison Chaplains’ Association — based in Canada, this group promotes human rights, especially freedom of religion, for prisoners all over the world, and is committed to implementing peace and justice and affirming the obligations for all countries to adopt all the standards recommended by the United Nations.

China’s delegate requested that the NGO provide a list of activities carried out over the past two years.

International Senior Lawyers Project — a New York-based NGO that enlists the resources of highly skilled and experienced attorneys and law firms from around the world to advance the rule of law, human rights and equitable economic development.

China’s delegate noted that the NGO’s website referred to Hong Kong as a country name and requested that it be listed properly according to United Nations rules.

Iran Human Rights Documentation Center — a United States-based group that aims to establish a comprehensive and objective historical record of the human rights situation in Iran since the 1979 revolution, and on the basis of that record, establish responsibility for patterns of human rights abuses; to make the record available in an archive that is accessible to the public for research and educational purposes; to promote accountability, respect for human rights and the rule of law in Iran; and to encourage an informed dialogue on the human rights situation in Iran among scholars and the general public in Iran and abroad.

Action on the application was postponed after questions were posed during an interactive session.

John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation — a United States-based group that supports creative people and effective institutions committed to building a more just, verdant, and peaceful world.  The Foundation works to defend human rights, advance global conservation and security, make cities better places, and understand how technology is affecting children and society.

China’s delegate requested that the NGO correct the status of Taiwan and Hong Kong on its website.

Lawyers for Lawyers — an Amsterdam-based group that has committed itself to enable lawyers worldwide to practice law in freedom and independence.  The group actively supports lawyers who are hindered or threatened in practicing law.

China’s delegate said the NGO stated its biggest challenge was to find reliable partners, and she wondered how the group accomplished this.

The delegate from Cuba asked for further information and examples of work done in other countries.

Interactive Dialogue

When the Committee turned to its interactive segment with NGO representatives, it heard first from a member of Iran Human Rights Documentation Center, a United States-based group that aims to establish a comprehensive and objective historical record of the human rights situation in Iran since the 1979 revolution, and on the basis of that record, establish responsibility for patterns of human rights abuses; to make the record available in an archive that is accessible to the public for research and educational purposes; to promote accountability, respect for human rights and the rule of law in Iran; and to encourage an informed dialogue on the human rights situation in Iran among scholars and the general public in Iran and abroad.

The organization was asked to respond to questions posed earlier by Nicaragua’s delegate, who asked for the manner in which the organization gathered its information, as well as the sources, given that the group did not have a presence in Iran.

The United States’ delegate said, in a letter, the group had indicated that it gathered information from individuals, and assessed the reliability of information from public information sources.

Again taking the floor, Nicaragua’s delegate wanted to know the selection criteria for the information the Center acquired.

The delegate from the Russian Federation said NGOs should be independent and objective and should be focused on negative and positive events.  The work of the organization should be aimed at helping States resolve situations.  He would like to have more information on human rights in Iran and about positive developments there.

Cuba’s delegate said looking at the website, the group said it only works on matters about Iran, but there is also information on work in other countries.  She asked how that information was selected.

Responding to Nicaragua’s query, the organization’s representative said they used the term “Islamic Republic of Iran”.  She noted that by-laws of her organization had been revised to name “ Iran”.  Asked how information was collected, she said the group was open to getting information from anywhere, including individuals in and outside of Iran, and victims of human rights abuses.  She said that included anyone who had been a witness, alleged perpetrator, or others.

Turning to the Russian Federation’s question about whether or not the group focused on positive human rights work, she said her organization dealt with facts.

On Cuba’s question asking whether the group endorses the views of Governments that sponsored it, she said funding does not come with any strings attached.  She said that prior to heading the Center, she was a defence counsel in the International Criminal Court concerning the former Yugoslavia and Kenya.  There had been a proliferation of groups aimed at documenting human rights cases in Iran in recent years.  Hers was a group that had a fact-finding mission.

Cuba’s delegate asked for further clarification on her actual question, about the group’s website.

The Center’s representative said the group was based in New Haven, Connecticut, with a small staff.  She said she did not understand the question.

Cuba’s delegate said the website contained references from many continents lists of other organizations, and asked about the selection criteria for including organizations and documents.

The Center’s representative said there were no standard criteria, other than when an issue was related to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Sudan’s delegate asked for further details on the member’s experience with the International Criminal Court and Kenya.

She responded saying that the Center had no activities in Kenya, and that she had referred to the International Criminal Court, since that was her job prior to heading the Center.

The delegate of Venezuela asked about the board membership and about the decision-making process in the Center on activities undertaken and information to be disseminated.

She said there were 15 board members, who were not involved in the day-to-day operations.  The board’s primary function was fundraising.  Turning to decision-making, she said it depended on the information the Center received.

China’s delegate said the Center’s aims were protecting and promoting human rights in Iran.  Last year marked the twentieth anniversary of the declaration of the right to development.  In the absence of any contact with the Iranian Government, what had the Center done to promote and protect the rights of the Iranian people? he asked.

She said the Center was very open to talking to the Iranian Government.  The Center was seeking to expand programmes, including the intersection between human rights and public health.

Venezuela’s delegate asked about names of the executive board, and asked for details on conversations with the Iranian Government, which were mentioned earlier by the Center’s representative.

The Center’s representative said two newly elected board members had joined in recent months.  Regarding Iranian government officials who had contacted the Center, she said they had done so discreetly.  Former government officials had contacted the Center, which could be seen on the Center’s website.  They included former President Abulhassan Bani Sadr.  Once the Center was free and at liberty to publish other correspondence, she would do so.

The delegate from the Russian Federation said she had not answered his question.  He had originally asked if she had seen any positive experiences.  He came from Moscow and he could see that 10 kilometres from New York City there were 20,000 people living outdoors and were homeless.  He asked if there were similar cases existing in Iran.  He also asked if there were positive experiences in the Center’s dealings with Iran.  What she had said on the work of defending human rights was positive.  However, he hoped the interpretation during the meeting was good enough for her to get the thrust of his questions now.

The Center’s representative said she was happy to answer all questions.  She had given to his colleague the revised copy of the Center’s by-laws.  After she took over as executive director, she had revised the direction of the Center to examine human rights violations before 1979.  Regarding his question on positive developments in Iran, she invited the Russian Federation delegate to read a forthcoming report to be issued by the Center 30 March.  She said the Center was concerned with facts, not with positive or negative connotations.

Iran’s delegate, as an observer to the Committee, responded to the Center’s representative’s statements.  He first said former President Bani Sadr had fled the country and should be considered as a terrorist.  The Center’s representative was a lawyer and must be aware that Internet conversations were not admissible in court.  Telecommunications and the new world were a reality, but they were not proof.

He said that the Center seemed to consider itself an international organization, yet it was working on only one country.  Also, an organization seeking status must operate with the same principles and spirit of the United Nations.

The Center’s representative agreed with the Iranian delegate’s statement that some Internet correspondence was inadmissible.  However, the Center was not preparing for a court case.  The Center’s main source of information was global, including in Turkey and Iraq.  She said the Center would like to organize a mission to Iran, but had not been given permission to do so.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record