PRELIMINARY RESPONSE OF THE TRANSNATIONAL RADICAL PARTY TO THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS (PART II), 18 July 2000
The Transnational Radical Party (TRP) has read with attention the copy
of the Report of the Committee on Non-Governmental Organisations (Part
II) sent by means of a fax dated 11 July and attached to a letter by Madame
Anifa Mezoui, Chief of the NGO Section / DESA.
According to the Letter of Madame Mezoui, the paragraphs 104 to 200 were
transmitted to the TRP as forming the written reasons for the Committee's
recommendation to the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) to suspend
TRP Consultative Status for a period of three years.
While the TRP understands that the report contains a summary of the proceedings
of the Committee during which it considered a complaint lodged by the
distinguished delegation of the Russian Federation, as well as the written
and oral responses provided by the TRP and the comments of some Committee
members, the TRP does not consider this to constitute the written reasons
for the Committee's recommendation to ECOSOC, for no agreed grounds are
given for the Committee's decision to suspend the TRP from its consultative
status for three years. In accordance with paragraph 56 of ECOSOC resolution
1996/31, the TRP is entitled to respond to written reasons for a Committee
decision and we therefore await receipt of such agreed reasons before
submitting our response to the Committee.
Paragraphs 104 to 200 of the Report of the Committee on Non-Governmental
Organisations do not indicate which of the charges contained in the complaint
lodged by the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation were
found to be justified and supported by evidence and which were not supported
by sufficient evidence or shown to be erroneous. It is entirely unclear
for what alleged offence the Committee decided to recommend a three year
suspension of the TRP. In its written response and oral statements before
the Committee on Non-Governmental Organisations the TRP did admit to the
impropriety of the reference in Mr. Idigov's statement before the 56th
Commission on Human Rights of his capacity as representing the President
of the Chechen Republic. The TRP had apologised during the session of
the Commission on Human Rights for this reference and for any offense
this may have caused to any Member of the UN, and did so again during
the Committee on Non-Governmental Organisations session. The TRP also
reiterates that, by inviting Mr. Idigov to speak at the session of the
Commission on Human Rights, it did not and does not endorse violent secessionist
movements or terrorist groups.
All other charges were denied by the TRP, and convincing evidence was
submitted to the Committee to substantiate those denials. Indeed, in the
course of the Committee's deliberations the Committee at no time agreed
or decided that the TRP was guilty of any of the offences other than the
transgression for which it had already apologised. The TRP is therefore
left to guess whether the three year suspension recommended by the Committee
on Non-Governmental Organisations (by consensus) is recommended on the
basis of that one transgression, or whether there are other grounds for
the decision. This information is vital for TRP to be in a position to
provide a reasoned written response to the written reasons on which the
Committee based its decision, as provided under Resolution 31/1996.
The TRP respectfully wishes to reiterate that there is no evidence of
abuse of its Consultative Status and should like to take this opportunity
to state again that it did not knowingly engage in any pattern of conduct
contrary to the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,
as stated in paragraph 57(a) of ECOSOC resolution 1996/31. Moreover, the
TRP wishes to emphasise again that it does not act, and has never acted,
under the influence of proceeds received from internationally recognised
criminal organisations in the sense referred to in paragraph 57(b) of
ECOSOC resolution 1996/31.
The TRP is also left in the dark on whether the accusations brought by
the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation in the course
of the deliberations of the NGO Committee regarding alleged support of
the TRP for paedophilia were taken into consideration by the Committee
in making its decision. The TRP categorically denies this accusation.
The TRP has never violated the principles contained in the Convention
on the Right of the Child, nor advocated violation of those principles
as alleged by the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation.
On the contrary, since Autumn 1998, the TRP has taken initiatives to expose
the existence of "sex rings" in various parts of Europe, in order to combat
crime committed by paedophiliacs and other sexual abusers of children.
It will be noted that this accusation was not contained in the written
complaint submitted by the representative of the Russian Federation to
the Chairman of the NGO Committee in advance of its 736th meeting. The
TRP was consequently never given an opportunity to formally respond in
writing to the new allegation which the distinguished representative of
the Russian Federation raised for the first time, without warning, in
the course of the Committee's 759th meeting. If this allegation is in
any way relevant to the proceedings and since reference is made to it
in paragraph 108 of the Report of the Committee on Non-Governmental Organisations
(part II), the TRP wishes to be given the opportunity to respond in writing
also to this allegation, which must be based on entirely wrong information.
As well as emphasising that it has never engaged in conduct which violates
the purposes and principles of the United Nations, the TRP would like
to note that paragraphs 116-120 of the above mentioned Report of the Committee
on Non-Governmental Organisations, containing the summary of the Committee's
proceedings, reveal that several Committee members considered the suspension
of its Consultative Status for three years to be too harsh a punishment
for its past conduct.
The provisions of Resolution 31/1996 which require that the NGO accused
of wrongdoing be given written reasons for the Committee's decision and
be permitted to respond to these in writing reflect fundamental principles
of fair trial. Suspension of Consultative Status of an NGO is a very serious
and severe measure, which can greatly affect the work of an NGO such as
ours. It is, therefore, only fair and reasonable that we be given a full
opportunity to respond to a reasoned decision of the Committee in time
for consideration of the case by ECOSOC.
The TRP remains at the Committee's full disposal and hopes to receive,
at the Committee's earliest convenience, the written reasons for its recommendation
to ECOSOC in order to be able to respond in writing, in accordance with
paragraph 56 of ECOSOC resolution 1996/31.
SEPARATE MEMORANDUM
With regard to the issue of paedophilia raised by the distinguished delegate
of the Russian Federation during the questioning of the representative
of the TRP, and included in paragraph 108 of the Report of the Committee
on Non-Governmental organisations, TRP wishes to make the following preliminary
remarks.
The TRP believes in combating the crime of paedophilia. It has taken initiatives
to expose criminal activities in Europe in this regard as well as to explore
ways to combat the crime in a manner that would truly protect children
from abuse. The TRP believes that present measures taken by a number of
governments, for example with respect to the internet, are misconceived
primarily because they fail to protect the children most at risk or to
punish the real culprits. 98% of cases of sexual abuse of children are
committed by family members or persons close to the child. These are the
cases that must be addressed and the perpetrators that must be prosecuted.
All too often children are left unprotected and victimised precisely because
the police and the courts are reluctant to believe children who claim
they are being abused by persons they know. The TRP contributed a statement
before the 56th Commission on Human Rights, under Item 13 (rights of the
child) delivered by a woman who, as young girl, was a victim of sexual
abuse, calling attention to the unwillingness of some legal systems in
Europe to adequately deal with this issue. We attach the text of this
intervention (annex 1.)
At this session of the Commission, a delegation from the TRP, which included
the Hon. Oliver Dupuis, MEP, Secretary General of TRP, Marco PerDuca,
TRP UN Representative, Mrs. Regina Louf, a former victim of sexual abuse
and child prostitution and Douglas Deconick a Flemish Journalist, met
with Ms. Ofelia Calcetas-Santos, Special Rapporteur on the sale of children,
child prostitution and child pornography, to discuss matters pertaining
to the "Report on the mission of the Special Rapporteur to Belgium and
the Netherlands on the issue of commercial sexual exploitation of children
(30 November-4 December 1998)". At the meeting the delegation presented
a dossier to Ms. Calcetas Santos, (see annex 2 for the index of the dossier,
which can be downloaded at www.radicalparty.org/belgium/index.htm).
(Annex 1)
56th UN Commission on Human Rights
Statement issued under item 13 (right of the Child)
Delivered by Ms. Regina LOUF
My name is Regina Louf and I speak on behalf of the Transnational Radical
Party
· We have the right to be not believed as we talk about sexual abuse,
in group and organised in Europe. · We have the right to see how the press,
politicians and our justice system laughs about our testimony. How they
twist our words and make our testimony ridiculous. · We have the right
to see how the lawyers of the abusers are assisted by incompetent judges,
burned out police officers and psychiatrists who just like to prove that
children are easily lying. · We have the right to be silent and to be
happy because we - the children of Europe - have food and education. The
abuse and terror, neglecting and sexual abuse is hidden well behind the
walls of our homes and our country. · We have the right to realise, although
we have testified, our abusers can live again in our home, our street
or neighbourhood. They are not punished because they are intelligent,
successful adults and we are treated as children with an overdose of imagination.
· We have the right to see our pornographic photographs, taken by our
abusers, are published on internet, all around the world, without a proper
system to punish the ones who put it there - because the governments of
Europe neglect the problem. · We have the right to laugh and look normal,
because otherwise the abusers torture our sister, friends or animals.
If we alarm somebody, so they say, we are responsible for their torture
and punishment. So we believe them, because we experienced the reality
of their threats. · We have the right to suffer invisibly and isolated
in a war that only exists in the Philippines - where child prostitution
is wide on the open. According to our politicians and justice system child
prostitution is not visible - so not existing at all. · We have the right
to have no rights at all, because we have to survive under the threat
of our intelligent and well adapted abusers - and if we have the courage
to speak, no one helps us to protect us from our abusers. · We have the
right to be not heard by the judges in a courtroom. Children have no voice
at all in our justice system. · We have the right to feel guilty, because
we didn't have the power to help other victims. They - from generation
to generation - have no voice in the western society. Only the normal
children, supported by their normal family have the chance to speak out
and are shown to the world. · We have the right to be confronted with
little mistakes we made, like the colour of the car we were drove by night,
when we get to a sex party. If we make one mistake, the police, judges
and lawyers found our testimony worthless. · We have the right to see
the abusers can start all over again, how they are re-honoured or get
free therapy - while we have to suffer and pay our therapy without any
chance for recognition. · We have the right to be treated with no respect
for ourselves, our testimony and our trauma's, just like the way our judges
and politicians treat child abuse, pornography and prostitution, as non
existing, wild story's. Urban legends. These are the rights that children
of sex rings get in Belgium and Europe. Sometimes we see our abusers on
television, just denying the fact that they abuse children in any way.
Sometimes we see and prove our police officers even falsify our testimony
to show that sex rings don't exist and survivors only want attention.
· Fact : one on eight girls is sexually abused - one on ten boys is sexually
abused. I am one of them. And even when my pimp admitted to the police
his crimes against me - during the age of twelve till sixteen - one justice
officer told the press in my country that I was the one to blame: Because
I had at twelve years old, almost a full grown and female body - and I
was in love with the man who prostituted me. My testimony is now used
in Belgium to repress all other victims of organised child abuse.
(Annex 2)
Index of documents delivered to Ms. Calcetas Santos, Special Rapporteur
on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography
Brussels, 29 June 2000
"DE BAETS E BILLE COMPLETELY ACQUITTED. THE GENDARMERIE MUST NOW ALLOW
THEM TO CONTINUE THE INQUIRY FROM THE POINT THEY WERE FORCED TO STOP".
Declaration of Olivier Dupuis, Member of the European Parliament and Secretary of the Transnational Radical Party.
17-05-00 - European Parliament/Urgent Written query about the application of common action about the struggle against the sale and sexual exploitation of children presented by Marco Cappato
Bruxelles, le 2 mai 2000
-AFFAIRE NIHOUL-DUTROUX : LETTRE AUX DEPUTES EUROPEENS (4)
-suite "l'Intervention de Regina Louf à la Commission des droits de l'Homme
des Nations unies à Genève" (12 avril 2000)
Geneva, April 12th 2000 - United Nations Commission on Human Rights
Ms. Regina LOUF of Belgium, member of the Radical Delegation to the Geneva
Commission, presented her personal case as the victim of a sex ring active
in Belgium in systematically abusing, torturing and murdering children.
In her statement, under item 13 (rights of the Child), before the plenary,
Ms. LOUF - a victim herself since the age of two - denounced the total
lack of rights for children and the lynching she had to and is still suffering
for having become an outspoken witness of the existence of such a criminal
organization by the overwhelming majority of the national media, politicians
and the judiciary.
30.03.00 - CRIMES LIES A LA PEDOPHILIE : LE PARLEMENT
EUROPEEN DEMANDE LA CREATION D'UNE COMMISSION D'ENQUETE
Bruxelles, le 29 mars 2000 - Parlement européen
RAPPORT KLAMT: LUTTE CONTRE LE TOURISME SEXUEL IMPLIQUANT DES ENFANTS
- INTERVENTION D'OLIVIER DUPUIS
Bruxelles, le 28 mars 2000
AFFAIRE NIHOUL-DUTROUX : LETTRE AUX DEPUTES EUROPEENS (3)
- "Les Dossiers X Ce que la Belgique ne devait pas savoir sur l'affaire
Dutroux"
Bruxelles, le 1er mars 2000
AFFAIRE NIHOUL-DUTROUX: LETTRE AUX DEPUTES EUROPEENS (2)
- LETTRE DES ENQUÊTEURS DE BAETS ET BILLE AUX DÉPUTÉS EUROPÉENS
Strasbourg, le 14 février 2000
AFFAIRE DUTROUX- NIHOUL: LETTRE AUX DEPUTES EUROPEENS (1)
- LE MAL AU DOS DU ROI
Les secrets de la Belgique sont des secrets de Polichinelle : sitôt révélés,
sitôt éventés.
07.02.00: European Parliament- Queries on Article 6 and 7 EU Treaty : Query of Olivier Dupuis to the Commission
11.10.99: Parlement européen - Question
Articles 6 et 7 / Heure des questions au Conseil: question d'Olivier Dupuis
Bruxelles, le 2 février 2000 - Parlement européen
DEBAT SUR LA FORMATION DU GOUVERNEMENT EN AUTRICHE - INTERVENTION D'OLIVIER
DUPUIS
01.02.00 - AUTRICHE: QUE DES PAYS COMME LA FRANCE, LA BELGIQUE ET L'ITALIE SOIENT PARMI LES PASDARANS DE LA CROISADE ANTI-HAIDER EST POUR LE MOINS SINGULIER
12.01.00 - AFFAIRE DUTROUX-NIHOUL: MICHEL NIHOUL ETAIT-IL PRESENT OU NON A BERTRIX AVEC DUTROUX ET C.IE LA VEILLE DE L'ENLEVEMENT DE LAETITIA? SI OUI, POURQUOI N'EST-IL PAS INCULPE?
17.12.99: European Parliament- Queries on Article 6 and 7 EU Treaty/ Question time of the month of January . Question presented by Olivier Dupuis to the Commission / 20.01.00 Answer of the Commission
11.10.99: Parlement européen - Question
Belgique/Légalisation des pots-de-vin: question écrite d'Olivier Dupuis
à la Commission / 08-11-99 Réponse du Commissaire M. Bolkestein