back to International

BLATANT VIOLATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS

CONTENTS:

Foreword
Introduction
I. Previous History
II. Free and General Elections in Suriname 
III. Intervention in the Republic of Suriname’s Internal Affairs
IV. Government of Suriname’s view
V. Infringement of Treaties Resolutions and Protocols
Ending

MEMORANDUM OF PROTEST
TO THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE NETHERLANDS AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FOREWORD

Clean Files Tribunal, a non-governmental organization operating internationally, was established in 1988 in the Netherlands.

This organization representing well the ideas of the Surinamese people has as its main objective:

1. guarding, protecting and promoting fundamental rights ,such as privacy , dignity and national integrity of the Surinamese nation and her democratically elected political leaders ,whatever their political school , and or that of Surinamers

2. promoting welfare and well-being of Surinamese people in- and outside Suriname

3. guarding, protecting and promoting the relationship between the Netherlands and Suriname on the basis of mutual respect and profit

4. guarding, protecting and promoting friendship between the Surinamese and Dutch peoples

As a consequence of its objective Clean Files has the following key tasks:
safeguarding Suriname against any form of patronizing 
securing the right of freedom of choice of the Surinamese people in the broadest sense of the word

The objective and the key tasks require Clean Files Tribunal to study deeply- and if necessary link up actions with- all cases in which Suriname and Surinamers are stigmatized and drawn into a criminal sphere and in which there could be legal inequality and violation of the principles employed by the United Nations. 

Le Hague April 5, 2005

For Clean Files Tribunal
The executive committee
Drs. Sonny Badal (Chairman)
Dr. Edmund Volkerts ( Vice Chairman) 
Roy Raymond de Miranda ( Secretary-general)


INTRODUCTION

“The Netherlands will not be placed easily in front in the row of nations with a historic conscience”, this is what Frank Martinus Arion, an Antillean, said on the Conference of the Royal Dutch Historic Society held on 17 and 18 November 2000 in the Tropeninstituut in Amsterdam. This conference discussed the history of Slavery of the Netherlands.

The lack of historic conscience of large parts of political Le Hague is still topical and evident, seen in the light of the above quote. The Netherlands, at least large parts of political Le Hague and also many representatives of the Dutch Press and Media Institutes still adopt an attitude towards the sovereign Republic of Suriname, having been politically independent since November 25, 1975, as if it were their colony. Inconvenient and undesired intervention in the Republic of Suriname’s internal affairs apparently meant to permanently exert their influence as they please is a heavy burden weighing down on the development of Suriname.

It is undeniable and evident that the Netherlands wishes to financially and economic safeguard its interest in Suriname, and recently also on Caricom level. Hence the Netherlands will do all it can to globally exert its influence so as to mobilize powers to be against a Suriname led by politicians and governments unacceptable to the Netherlands. Those who do not pursue the social policy the Netherlands desires are either undermined in their policy objectives or combated by fire and sword with deceitful and shameful means.

Large parts of political Le Hague are not bothered by any feeling of shame and the lack of historic understanding when they once again rebuke internationally the sovereign Republic and her political leaders. It so happened that the then Dutch government was co-responsible for deposing the democratically elected government of Aaron by means of a constitutional revolution.

Successive governments of the Netherlands as well as entire political Le Hague have never veiled this theme and also not denied this historic fact. 

Clean Files Tribunal places a high value on putting the apparent participation of the Netherlands in this matter in a credible way by citing the following from its policy plan

That political Le Hague indeed illegally interferes in Suriname’s internal affairs and that this policy influences among other things the independence of the magistrature in the Netherlands may be illustrated by the following: 
On December 5, 1997 VPRO-radio announces that some ex-employers of the Military Intelligence Service (M.I.D.) have destroyed ‘accidentally ‘the archive of this body. This archive – as reported explicitly by VPRO - housed all information with respect to the Netherlands’ participation in the military coup in Suriname in 1980. 
At the same time all information about the efforts of the Netherlands to have Bouterse disappear from the political floor, landed in the waste paper basket. 

An official stated- as a result of this incident- that the chance has gone by to investigate the historic role of the Netherlands in political developments in Suriname and to point out the guilty party. The political and military authorities that ordered colonel Valk, military attaché to the Embassy of the Netherlands in Paramaribo by the time of the coup d' état in 1980 can sleep well and further keep out of it.

This industrial accident’ also withhold the Public Prosecutor from investigating the way in which the Dutch Intelligence and security service have acted in undermining the administration of the state and its political institutes.

That the Netherlands acted contrary to Chapter I section 2 paragraph 4 of the United Nation’s Charter (“in their international relations all members should refrain from intimidating with or using violence against territorial integrity or the political independence of a nation ,and from all other conduct incompatible with the objectives of the United Nations.”) does not prevent large parts of political Le Hague from keeping to intervene at any time, blatantly and undesired, in the Republic of Suriname’s internal affairs.


I. PREVIOUS HISTORY

The leader of the constitutional revolution of February 25, 1980, initiated by the Netherlands is placed in the centre of this Dutch neo-colonial policy, or better said in their crusades. This phenomenon, mister Desire Delano Bouterse, who actually started decolonization of the Republic of Suriname, formed as early as 1981 and annoyance for the Netherlands which found itself hampered in further continuing its neo-colonial policy of exploitation.

The military that came into power and operated under leadership of the above-mentioned Bouterse and the successive civilian governments appointed by them chose for nationalistic objectives in developing the Republic of Suriname.

Collaboration with other countries based on mutual benefit and respect was the then used motto, and up to the present day this has been the policy advocated by mister Bouterse and his National Democratic Party. As a matter of fact this political strategy clashed with the policy the Netherlands had scheduled for Suriname up to then; a policy primarily based on own profit.

Political Le Hague subtly organized from the Netherlands, but also internationally conspiracies and matchless machination against successive leaders of Suriname displeasing her. This seriously harmed and stagnated the development of the Republic of Suriname, and it created an atmosphere for many bloody dissensions. The Netherlands even went so far as to launch an extensive and costly judicial operation (the so-called COPA investigation) against mister Bouterse.

In 1999 the so-called COPA proceedings resulted in an anticlimax. Of the seven charges of drug smuggling in which the accused would have played a prominent role, the court in the Netherlands considered in two terms that there were no grounds for sentencing. On noticing this judgments, the Dutch judicature added a new charge to the series of indicts.

It concerned the smuggling of 474 kilograms of cocaine that would have been transported with a sailing boat from Suriname to Stellendam in the province of South Holland. For this litigious charge mister Bouterse was sentenced to 11 years imprisonment by the court of justice in Le Hague in 2000.

The article “Small bomb under the case Bouterse“ published in the weekly Vrij Nederland of November 22, 2004 has it that a crown witness, Patrick van Loon, a Belgian , was heard in this case. He later on appeared to be extremely deceitful.

In the above- mentioned weekly Vrij Nederland it is made clear that the false statement of evidence has come from a deal between the Public Prosecutor (the state attorney Evert Harderwijk) and the deceitful witness Patrick van Loon. This article also makes clear that he, van Loon, has never ever done business with mister Desire Delano Bouterse. The bluntness of this case is that the then Minister of Justice, Mr. Korthals signed the deal in question.

It has been said already; despite of the fact that it helped the then sergeant DD Bouterse to take over power in 1980, the Netherlands has executed a political vendetta against him and the political party he leads. This vendetta strongly reminds of the methods the Netherlands employed during times of slavery against rebelling slaves (Maroons).

To begin with, the Republic of Suriname ever has to fear political provocations, agitation and aggression of global extent used against her by political Le Hague, except for those periods in which governments that pleased the Netherlands are in power. It goes without saying that as a result of this there cannot be political and socio-economic stability in the Republic of Suriname during a long succession of years.

As for the political process, to substantiate to what extent the Hague politics disregards the separation of powers, we have the honor to quote from the policy plan of Clean Files Tribunal in addition to what we have stated here above:

HP (Haagse Post) De Tijd also publishes on December 5, 1997 an article with the spicy question: “have independent district attorneys now become a continuation of politics?”
This question has been posed as a result of the power of the Minister of Justice to give directions in a bill with regard to reorganization of the Public Prosecutor, a bill that has passed meanwhile without any problem in the Lower House of the Dutch Parliament.
The power means among other things that the minister can give directions in individual trials and even may decide if there is prosecution or not. Attorney General Ficq of the district of Amsterdam says the following about this
That is the everlasting discussion: is the Public Prosecutor part of the executive branch or of the judicial? But it is a false opposition . We are both: the one is complementary to the other. We are not independent judges, but operate at the intersection of administration and magistracy.

This exercise had been necessary to at least indicate that the proceedings against mister Bouterse; appeared to be politically inspired and that the distance between minister and the magistracy is extraordinary relative.
The district attorney, Holhuis, explains that the decision to prosecute mister B (read: Bouterse), residing in P (read: Paramaribo) in the country of S (read Suriname) has been taken in absolute agreement with the Minister.
What happened hereafter is a problem of execution in which interests of outside criminal law also have played a role.
It thus seems as if the so-called separation of powers in the constitutional state of the Netherlands can sometimes be placed under the heading: constitutional fiction.

As for the international order to signal and trace mister Bouterse, the Republic of Suriname opposed successfully on March 20, 1998 by means of submitting a Memorandum that was orally elucidated in Lyon. As a result of this Memorandum and after having set up a searching inves tigation Interpol International has found that with its request the Netherlands acts against article 3 of the Interpol charter which forbids nations amongst other things to have persons prosecuted on the ground of political motives. Because the judgment of Interpol International further reads: ‘ the dispute between mister Bouterse and the Netherlands is one of a political nature, and moreover between two nations. Interpol International has set aside the challenged order of tracing and has advised all affiliated 178 member states to do the same.

But while the Netherlands had to digest this sore blow, it did not hesitate to still get organized, by means of concluding new extradition treaties with separate Interpol member states, orders to signal and trace mister Bouterse with those countries located on the mid- and transatlantic flying route. As a consequence of this mister Bouterse has been isolated practically from the whole world.


II. FREE AND GENERAL ELECTIONS IN SURINAME

On May 25, 2005 free, general and secret elections will be held for the bodies representing the people in the Republic of Suriname.

In the preparatory phase of this extremely import moment coalitions have been formed to enter elections in groups. The National Democratic Party, led by the Member of Parliament Desire Delano Bouterse forms one of the few exceptions to this. The National Democratic Party enters the coming elections alone (not in a group of parties) and practically all polls show that it is the largest party, ever growing.

This development does not stand on its own. According to the Registration office preparing the elections in Suriname, the National Democratic Party with its 64.000 registered members, is by far the biggest political factor participating in the election of the Republic of Suriname. On establishing this fact the reader should consider that 334.000 people entitled to vote live in the Republic of Suriname.

Furthermore recently held political manifestations of the National Democratic Party show that the electorate tends to support this party ever more. For example, a mass meeting on February 5, 2005 in the relatively small district of Nickerie, brought together 500 people. On February 26 next - by Surinamese standards - a historical climax was reached in Paramaribo when ample 25,000 people came to a mega manifestation.

Viewed against these backgrounds, it is morally ethically and according to international law condemnable and unacceptable that the way in which particularly the Netherlands exerts its influence on these elections should be to the detriment of the National Democratic Party. This is particularly done in an extrapolation directed at the Chairman of the above mentioned party. Only for prestigious reasons the Netherlands - in this dispute - has been guilty for 24 years now of violating all norms and values serving as a guiding line in a civilization.

Indeed, this same reproach holds for the United States of America to a lesser extent and for a shorter period of time, but when it comes to violating International Treaties, Resolutions and Protocols the US should not be blamed less. Clean Files Tribunal is convinced that the United Sates of America has already been misled by the Netherlands.


III. INTERVENTION IN THE REPUBLIC OF SURINAME'S AFFAIRS

Apart from the traditional intervention in Suriname‘s internal affairs, at present particularly the coming free and general elections of May 25 are influenced directly by various politicians from the Netherlands.

In the months of January and February the Minister of Developing Cooperation and parliamentary delegation of the latter country visited the Republic of Suriname one after the other. The Minister as well as the various members of Parliament belonging to the delegation openly made straight remarks containing undisguised advices on how to vote.

Furthermore, completely against all ceremonial rules, they have had a secret conference with an ex party member and current political enemy of mister Bouterse who is either not a Member of Parliament. This is the ex President of the Republic of Suriname drs Jules Wijdenbosch, who had been shunned by the Netherlands as if he had been a pariah when he was in service. 

This the umpteenth proof of the Netherlands’ taking advantage of electoral sentiments existing within the Surinamese society. Hence Clean Files Tribunal completely categorized this deed under the heading of rabble- rousing towards the National Democratic Party and its political leader, and above all it must be seen as an effort to influence the electorate. The following document to be published in full is a striking example of how far and shameless representatives of the Dutch Parliament can go and are in their paternalistic intervention.

Lower house of the Dutch parliament 2. Year of meeting 2004-2005. Questions posed by members of the House 2040510320.
Questions of member Brinkel (CDA) about elections in Suriname for the minister of Home Affairs (contributed March 10, 2005).

1. Do you know that the Ambassador of the United States to Suriname, Mrs. Marsha Barnes, has warned not to vote for the National Democratic Party (NDP) of Desi Bouterse?
2. Do you know that she has said that the United States and other nations think it will be difficult to cooperate with Suriname if Desi Bouterse will be president, and does she mean that the Netherlands is also included in other nations?
3. Did the American government have contact with the Dutch government before the ambassador said this?
4. What will be the consequences for the relationship between Suriname and the Netherlands if Desi Bouterse would be elected?
5. Which role does the fact that the Netherlands has invested hundreds of millions Euros in developing Suriname in the past few years play on weighing the possible results for the mutual relations between the Netherlands and Suriname in the event of Bouterse’s being elected President?

Trouw, March 9 last 0405tkkv204510320 SDU Publishers Le Hague 2005 Lower House, year of meeting 2004-2005, Questions.

Meanwhile as remarked earlier in this memorandum, the United Stats has openly declared itself enemy of one of the candidates for the presidency; it has done this apparently at the instigation of the Netherlands. This attitude shows a close alliance with the Netherlands, but for example also the politically inspired conviction of mister Bouterse in the Netherlands.

On interfering in Suriname’s internal affairs and directly influencing the Surinamese electorate, they explicitly warn against and threaten with negative effects for the Republic of Suriname should the earlier mentioned mister Bouterse or his parting come into power.

This ramble-rousing and blatant violations of international treaties and other written agreements to which the civilized world has committed itself, are full out condemned and opposed by large parts of the Surinamese people, but in any case by Clean Files Tribunal. 


IV. GOVERNMENT OF SURINAME'S VIEW

As a result of particularly the statements made by the American Embassy in Suriname the Surinamese government, requested to react, gave the following answer :” this is not a matter on which the government should react, but it is more an affair between mister Bouterse and his NDP at the one hand and foreign powers at the other hand “, at least words of similar meaning. Should there be a reaction, it would be a matter of the National Democratic Party; this is what the Venetiaan administration further said. 

This incomprehensible and non-nationalistic approach is at odds with the judgment of INTERPOL INTERNATIONAL in Lyon France (see chapter I p. 6).

Due to pure opportunistic reasons the Suriname’s government chooses to accept without any form of protest this violation of internation al law and humiliation of the sovereign Republic of Suriname in particular.

Clean Files Tribunal condemns this feeble and short-sighted attitude of the Venetiaan administration and most vigorously calls all patriotic Surinamers wherever they may be in the world to have their protest heard in Suriname in some form or other. Clean Files Tribunal wishes to emphasize that these blatant violations against the right of self-determination of the Republic of Suriname in general and that of the Surinamese people in particular will no longer be tolerated.

In a projection on the role of the Netherlands and the United States of America Clean Files Tribunal emphatically states the following:

With their patronizing and pure intervention in the sovereign Republic of Suriname’s internal affairs, both the Netherlands as well as the United States not only violate International Treaties and Resolutions of the United Nations, but as far as the latter state concerns also the Protocols signed by itself.

The Protocol of Washington dated December 14, 1992 was ratified by the United States on June 7, 1993, and to make this report complete we quote it here:

A-56 PROTOCOL OF AMENDMENTS TO THE CHARTER OF THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES "PROTOCOL OF WASHINGTON"
1. Mexico:
(Declaration made at the time of adoption)
The Delegation of Mexico requests for the record that the following statement by the Government of Mexico be appended to the corresponding Protocol of Amendment:
'The Government of Mexico reiterates it’s bent for and commitment to democracy based on the strictest respect for and adherence to the principles of non-intervention and self­-determination. Mexico has reacted swiftly and firmly to disruptions of the constitutional order on numerous occasions in the past but remains convinced, nonetheless, that democracy is a process which comes from the sovereign will of the people, and cannot be imposed from outside.
Mexico is categorically opposed to any attempt to disrupt the constitutional order in any country and further expresses a deep commitment to democracy and the amelioration of our political systems. It insists, however, that it is unacceptable to give to regional organizations supra-national powers and instruments for intervening in the internal affairs of our states.

The Government of Mexico maintains that the preservation and strengthening of democracy in our region cannot be enhanced through isolation, suspension or exclusion, and hence believes that the wording on suspension of member states as approved here today, has changed the original purpose of our Organization. Mexico is opposed to the punitive character ascribed to the OAS and reaffirms its conviction that cooperation and dialogue are the most effective means of resolving internal conflicts within states or conflicts between states. Consequently, the Government of Mexico is placing on record its opposition to these amendments to the charter as approved at the XVI Special Session of the General Assembly."

Against the background of this text the intervention of the United States in question should be thus seen as an incomprehensible deed of aggression and, what is more, it conflicts with the Protocol bearing the name of its capital and signed by it. 

V. INFRINGEMENTS OF TREATIES, RESOLUTIONS AND PROTOCOLS

Considering the fact that the Dutch politicians have also persuaded the United States cunningly to interfere in the sovereign Republic of Suriname’s affairs, this memorandum to protest will certainly be presented to all important international actors operating in the field of Treaties, Resolutions, Protocols and Charters. Furthermore international publicity will be given to these despicable actions of the Netherlands and the United States of America by means of the press and media.

The following is at issue respectively:
1. The Protocol of Washington of December 14,1992, signed by the United States of America and almost all states in South America and the Caribbean, dealing with the non-intervention in internal affairs of sovereign states and explicitly when it concerns free, secret and general elections; 
2. The UN Resolution A/RES/50/172 99th plenary meeting 22 December 1975 50/172. Respect for the principles of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of States in their electoral process; 
3. THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS Chapter 1, ex section 1, paragraph 2, saying: “ Developing between nations friendly relationships, founded on respect for the principle of equal rights and of self-determination for nations, and taking other appropriate measures to strengthen peace everywhere in the world.
4. UN International Treaty with regard to civil rights and Political rights. Ratified and signed DONE in San Francisco, June 26,1945
Article 25.
Each civilian has the right and has to be given the opportunity, without making the distinction as meant in section 2 and without groundless restrictions,:
a) to participate in the discussion of public affairs, either directly or by means of freely elected representatives
b) to vote and to be elected by means of reliable periodical elections held by virtue of general and equal right to vote and by secret ballot, as a result of which free expression of the will of the electorate is ensured. 
5. UN CHARTER ex section 2 paragraph 4, reading: “ In their international relations all members should refrain from threatening with or using force against the territorial integrity of the political independence of a state, and from any other conduct incompatible with the objectives of the United Nations
6. International Treaty with regard to Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of the United Nations Part I Section 1 Paragraph 1.
All nations have the right of self-determination. By reason of this right they decide in complete freedom their political status and they freely aim at their economic, social and cultural development.

Furthermore, in taking further steps, Clean Files Tribunal will refer to the UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, speaking plain language in Section 21 paragraph 1and 2:
Paragraph 1. Everyone has the right to participate in the government of his country, directly or by means of freely elected representatives.
Paragraph 2. The will of the people will be the basis for the authority of the government; this will shall be expressed in periodical and fair elections to be held by virtue of general and equal right to vote and by secret ballot or under a procedure also ensuring freedom of voting.

It appears to Clean Files Tribunal, referring to the amount of evidence, that the Netherlands as well as the United states of America have been guilty of serious violations of human and civil rights liable to procedures of complaints at:
The UN Committee for human rights in which will be referred to Section 1 of the First Facultative Protocol belonging to the international Treaty with regard to Civil and Political Rights
The Organization of American States
The Organization of Non-Aligned States

Furthermore will be informed all governments with which Suriname have relationships and the hereunder following organizations:
The Caricom
The Andes Pact
He Arabic Alliance
The FTAA
Asian states
The executive committee of the European Union


ENDING

Clean Files Tribunal does not intent to produce this memorandum in accordance with common models, as the cause for particularly the role of the United States of America requires an in-depth elucidation. 

Indeed, it is our conviction that the causal connection between what happened in the past between the Netherlands and mister Bouterse and the measures taken now against the sovereign Republic of Suriname could not be judged correctly, at least not completely by both the United States as well as the rest of the civilized world.

The United States of America have ever lived in a peaceful coexistence with its hosting country up to May 2003 the first time when an Ambassador of the United States - acting in conflict with diplomatic norms - openly interfered in the Republic of Suriname’s affairs on the Surinamese Television.

Clean Files Tribunal and the majority of the Surinamese society - according to soundings taken by the former - therefore very much regret this sudden and completely unnecessary change in the attitude of the United States.

The Surinamese people and the most accused amongst it the Netherlands syndrome, Bouterse, have always been able to react adequately and effectively against the shameful attitude and actions of large parts of political Le Hague and the successive Dutch governments.

Grown accustomed to this attitude and also the negative treatment towards Suriname which would be a robbers’ den, the conscious Suriname passes the Netherlands with dignity. We here quote literally the present chairman of the Dutch Parliament, mister Frans Weiszglasz and the former floor leader of the VVD, mister Frits Bolkenstein who utterly unfounded continued with their insults by calling the then government of Suriname a robbers’ den.

The flag of Suriname shown in the program NOVA on the Dutch Television with a white substance picturing cocaine was another shocking example of the disdain the Netherlands displays towards the Surinamese Entity.

The infamous machinations of the Netherlands have indeed had a disruptive influence on the development of the Republic of Suriname and the elevation of the Surinamer as such, but hesitatingly processes have still started that will improve the country and its people. Part of these processes are the coming elections in which state and people of Suriname desire to take their own destiny in hand, unhindered by whomever.

Apart from all written in this Memorandum, Clean Files Tribunal calls on the Netherlands particularly to contemplate – against the background of the following – on its almost criminal acting.

Considering the previous history of our both peoples that has known bizarre low points.
The period of slavery, indentured labor and the colonial government of Suriname bringing little welfare - material as well as immaterial - for Suriname. 
The fact that Surinamese laborers without ever having sabotaged or slackened have worked in the bauxite mine day and night to produce ore necessary for making aluminum to fabricate airworthy fighter aircrafts, with which the then oppressors of a large part of Europe were forced to give in.
The fact that Suriname did not hesitate in the dark days of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to successfully deploy her own sons in the fight for democracy; the world service announced this deployment as follows: “Crack Dutch West Indian Troops, Smash Enemy Lines at Balikpapan”. 
The present less rosy position of Surinamers in the Dutch society and the relation between Surinamer and the Netherlands which has been running backwards now for years and consequently that between Surinamers and the Dutch.

Considering that this does not do justice to the common history of and the relation brought about between the Dutch and the Surinamese nation.

Concluding that the Netherlands should cease pursuing its policy of agitation, blackmailing and machination towards Suriname on the shortest term, and above all having political conscience awaken from the mausoleum of arrogance and laziness now and forever.

Clean Files Tribunal expresses the hope that this memorandum and the way it will be used may lead to an in-depth contemplation within large parts of political Le Hague, as well as large parts of the Dutch Press and Media.

Clean Files Tribunal calls on the United States of America with great force to take thorough notice of the content of this memorandum, but above all to imbibe the actual non-white colored history linking the states of the Netherlands and Suriname and their peoples, and to return to its democratic principles of non-intervention in the Republic of Suriname’s internal affairs.

The United States should realize that not only the Netherlands is an ally of it, but - from a historic as well as a current perspective - also the Republic of Suriname with all the political actors operating within her boundaries, inclusive of mister Bouterse and his National Democratic Party.

In the light of this Clean Files Tribunal makes an urgent appeal to the entire civilized global society to help create – with a view on the short time left to the general, secret and free elections in Suriname on May 25, 2005 - on a shortest possible term those conditions doing justice to all International Treaties, Resolutions and Protocols as agreed on by on UN member states, and not in the least all that has been taken into account in this Memorandum of Protest.

back to International