Monitoring Policy Making at the United Nations |
| ||||||||||||
NGOs Human Rights Groups' Letter to
Ambassador Fulci of Italy
July 27, 1999
His Excellency Francesco Paolo Fulci
President, Economic and Social Council
Permanent Representative of Italy to the United Nations
Permanent Mission of Italy to the UN
New York, New York
Your Excellency:
We are writing in reference to the draft decision II submitted to the Economic and Social Council contained in the Report of the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations on its 1999 session (New York, 1-18 June 1999) contained in document E/1999/109, dated 15 July 1999. That draft decision reads: "The Economic and Social Council decides to withdraw the consultative status of the non-governmental organization Christian Solidarity International." We believe that action on this proposal by the current session of ECOSOC would disregard the procedural requirements of Resolution 96/31 governing withdrawal of consultative status. We therefore respectfully request that the members of ECOSOC return the proposal in draft decision II to the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations with a request that the Committee pay due regard to the requirements of 96/31 governing withdrawal of consultative status before forwarding such a draft to ECOSOC.
It is our understanding that the withdrawal of consultative status is to follow a procedure specified in Part VIII (paragraphs 55-59) of ECOSOC Resolution 96/31. In that document, paragraph 55 states that in cases where the Committee had decided to suspend or withdraw consultative status "The non-governmental organization concerned …shall have an opportunity to present its response for appropriate consideration by the Committee as expeditiously as possible." Withdrawal is triggered in several circumstances outlined in paragraph 57, a portion of which states:" 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…"
During the negotiations on Resolution 96/31, some of our organizations were consulted by governments at sessions convened at UN headquarters to discuss the appropriate language concerning revocation of status. At the time, many governments were concerned that a single act of bad judgement or an inappropriate act contrary to the purposes and principles of the Charter are not enough to warrant withdrawal of consultative status. Instead, it was agreed, it would be necessary to show a pattern of actions representing an organization's operating procedures. As a result, language referring to "a pattern of acts" was adopted by ECOSOC in Resolution 96/31 as one of the conditions justifying withdrawal. In addition, concerns about the importance of providing organizations so charged with an opportunity to engage in a full and fair review were also raised and reflected in the resolution. Because of the need to provide reliable and authoritative information from such non-governmental organizations, and for a responsible and knowledgeable official of the organization to be present, the resolution did not stipulate a specific time period, referring instead to a response "as expeditiously as possible."
We note that, near the end of the discussion at the June 1999 Committee on NGO meeting, the representative of Chile stated that "it is very important for this Committtee to observe what is called legally "due process" …I know that this is a very serious matter, but we have had other matters which are just as serious in former years. ... Adequate time was given to NGOs to give responses. … Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, we have not had the opportunity to hear the representatives of this organization…"
When a member state requested that a representative of the UN legal office be present to assist with some of the questions that arose in course of the voting on this decision, the Chair refused. Instead, member states were asked to advise the speaker.
The representative of France stated that "before we do take a decision, we would have liked to have all the necessary provisions of the Resolution—and more specifically to hear from the relevant NGO…," arguing that on a serious matter of this sort, a decision not be taken "before we have exhausted the rules which we have available to us."
From these comments, it is clear that the non-governmental organization in question did not have an opportunity to respond to the complaint before the Committee.
We appeal to you, as President of the current session of ECOSOC, and to the representatives of member states serving on ECOSOC, to show respect for the procedures concerning NGO status approved by ECOSOC in Res. 96/31 by returning the draft decision to the Committee on NGOs with the request that the Committee pay due regard to the requirements of 96/31 governing withdrawal of consultative status.
With assurances of our highest respect,
Sincerely yours,
Iain Levine
Amnesty InternationalJames Paul
Fedération Internationale des Ligues des Droits de l'HommeLaurie Wiseberg
Human Rights InternetReed Brody
Human Rights WatchKarin Ryan
Human Rights Program, The Carter CenterCatherine A. Fitzpatrick
International League for Human RightsFelice Gaer
Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human RightsStefanie Grant
Lawyers Committee for Human Rights
Sent via Fax
More Information on NGOs
