initiatives which have been on the Commission's agenda for a number of years. Now we have a controlled use of private communications as laid down by Resolution 1503. If this new source is well and carefully developed, it should make it possible for the Commission to increase its effectiveness in addressing a wider range of violations in a more evenhanded manner.

At this point let me advert briefly to one element which bears mention in this context. The role to be played by the Commission on Human Rights under these new procedures is a highly responsible, even delicate, one which will be very much affected by the manner in which the Commission goes about its task. I recall that the new procedures have been consistently and strongly opposed by the communist group of states that have and may be expected to continue to do all that they can to place empediments in the way of their development. They may also be expected to encourage states that have reason to be annoyed at the application of the new procedures to their policies to adopt positions in opposition to them. This fact reinforces the need for the Commission to adopt a highly judicious approach in its proceedings. I do not hide the fact that we have some uneasiness as to whether the Commission will be able to measure up to its responsibilities in this regard. I say this because we have noticed over the years a gradual change in the nature of the representation on the Commission. Governments unfortunately in too many cases tend to ignore the expert requirements which Members of the Commission are supposed to have. At the last session of the Commission, for example, the seats of a number of delegations were filled by relatively low-ranking members of permanent missions in New York. It is, of course, up to each government to decide how it wants to be represented on the Commission. I at this point just want to emphasize that we must make every effort to encourage high quality representation on the Commission if the Commission is to fulfill its role under Resolution 1503 in the best possible manner. In our experience, the most outstanding contributions which are made to the Commission's work invariably come from those delegations who have as their representatives persons with a background of experience and training in dealing with human rights questions. I recall that during the hearings which your Subcommittee held last fall, and which . . . resulted in your excellent Report on Human Rights in the World Community. Dr. Humphrey, former Director of Ü.N. Division of Human Rights, raised this same question. He recalled the high caliber of representation which once generally characterized the Commission on Human Rights. I do not want to make too big an issue of this point . . . but I think that when we assess the potentialities of the 1503 procedures we must keep in mind the nature of the organ which is to be the key determinant of their success or failure.

Hearings before the Subcommittee on International Organizations and Movements, Committee on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives, 93d Cong., 2d Sess., June 18, 1974. E/RES/1503 (XLVIII) is as follows:

The Economic and Social Council,

Noting Resolutions 7 (XXVI) and 17 (XXV) of the Commission on Human Rights and Resolution 2 (XXI) of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities,

1. Authorizes the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities to appoint a working group consisting of not more than tive of its members, with due regard to geographical distribution, to meet once a year in private meetings for a period not exceeding ten days immediately before the sessions of the Sub-Commission to consider all communications, including replies of governments thereon, received by the Secretary-General under Council Resolution 728 F (XXVIII) of July 30, 1959 with a view to bringing to the attention of the Sub-Commission those communications, together with replies of governments, if any, which appear to reveal a consistent pattern of gross and reliably attested violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms within the terms of reference of the Sub-Commission; 2. Decides that the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities should, as the first stage in the implementation of the present resolution, devise at its twenty-third session appropriate procedures for dealing with the question of admissibility of communications received by the Secretary-General under Council Resolution 728 F (XXVIII) of July 30, 1959 and in accordance with Council Resolution 1235 (XLII) of June 6, 1967; 3. Requests the Secretary-General to prepare a document on the question of admissibility of communications for the Sub-Commission's consideration at its twenty-third session;

4. Further requests the Secretary-General:

(a) To furnish to the members of the Sub-Commission every month a list of communications prepared by him in accordance with Council Resolution 728 F (XXVIII) and a brief description of them, together with the text of any replies received from governments;

(b) To make available to the members of the working group at their meetings the originals of such communications listed as they may request, having due regard to the provisions of paragraph 2 (b) of Council Resolution 728 F (XXVIII) concerning the divulging of the identity of the authors of communications;

(c) To circulate to the members of the Sub-Commission, in the working languages, the originals of such communications as are referred to the SubCommission by the working group;

5. Requests the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities to consider in private meetings, in accordance with paragraph 1 above, the communications brought before it in accordance with the decision of a majority of the members of the working group and any replies of governments relating thereto and other relevant information, with a view to determining whether to refer to the Commission on Human Rights particular situations which appear to reveal a consistent pattern of gross and reliably attested violations of human rights requiring consideration by the Commission; 6. Requests the Commission on Human Rights after it has examined any situation referred to it by the Sub-Commission to determine:

(a) Whether it requires a thorough study by the Commission and a report and recommendations thereon to the Council in accordance with paragraph 3 of Council Resolution 1235 (XLII);

(b) Whether it may be a subject of an investigation by an ad hoc committee to be appointed by the Commission which shall be undertaken only with the express consent of the state concerned and shall be conducted in constant cooperation with that state and under conditions determined by agreement with it. In any event, the investigation may be undertaken only if:

(i) All available means at the national level have been resorted to and exhausted;

(ii) The situation does not relate to a matter which is being dealt with under other procedures prescribed in the constituent instruments of, or conventions adopted by, the United Nations and the specialized agencies, or in regional conventions, or which the state concerned wishes to submit to other procedures in accordance with general or special international agreements to which it is a party.

569-769-75-12

7. Decides that if the Commission on Human Rights appoints an ad hoc committee to carry on an investigation with the consent of the state concerned: (a) The composition of the committee shall be determined by the Commission. The members of the committee shall be independent persons whose competence and impartiality is beyond question. Their appointment shall be subject to the consent of the government concerned;

(b) The committee shall establish its own rules of procedure. It shall be subject to the quorum rule. It shall have authority to receive communications and hear witnesses, as necessary. The investigation shall be conducted in cooperation with the government concerned;

(c) The committee's procedure shall be confidential, its proceedings shall be conducted in private meetings and its communications shall not be publicized in any way;

(d) The committee shall strive for friendly solutions before, during and even after the investigation;

(e) The committee shall report to the Commission on Human Rights with such observations and suggestions as it may deem appropriate;

8. Decides that all actions envisaged in the implementation of the present resolution by the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities or the Commission on Human Rights shall remain confidential until such time as the Commission may decide to make recommendations to the Economic and Social Council;

9. Decides to authorize the Secretary-General to provide all facilities which may be required to carry out the present resolution, making use of the existing staff of the Division of Human Rights of the United Nations Secretariat;

10. Decides that the procedure set out in the present resolution for dealing with communications relating to violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms should be reviewed if any new organ entitled to deal with such communications should be established within the United Nations or by international agreement.

(Footnotes omitted.)

Chapter 4

STATE REPRESENTATION

§ 1 Diplomatic Missions and Embassy Property

Accreditation

On December 12, 1974, the Department of State sent a note to the Chiefs of Mission in Washington setting forth the U.S. requirements for accreditation of foreign diplomatic officers assigned to the United States, and for the registration of nondiplomatic staff in the employ of diplomatic missions. The U.S. note said, in pertinent part:

The Department of State has observed that the criteria for diplomatic accreditation have not in the past been clearly recognized by all foreign missions in Washington. In order that the policy of accreditation may be uniformly a matter of record to all missions, these criteria are set forth as follows. Each diplomatic officer must (1), possess a recognized diplomatic title; (2), be the holder of an A-1 nonimmigrant visa; (3), devote his official activities full-time to diplomatic duties; and (4), with the exception of designated senior financial, economic and commercial positions in New York City, reside in the Washington, D.C., area.

By way of further explanation of the third listed criterion, the Department wishes to stress the importance placed on the nature of a diplomatic officer's functions while in the United States and to make clear that it will not in the future be able to consider for accreditation any person who is, or during the assignment in the United States will be, a student or trainee at or with any college, university, vocational school, military institution, or private or governmental foundation, or engaged in any other pursuit which would supersede regular and accepted diplomatic functions. In the past some governments have selected officials for assignment to the United States who, following arrival and subsequent accreditation as diplomats by the Department of State, have entered upon an intergovernmental military training course or been assigned for training at a private research institution. This practice will not be authorized in the future. Each mission should notify the Department, and return appropriate credentials, when any of its officers terminates his diplomatic duties to engage in academic pursuits.

The Chiefs of Mission are also informed that the same general criteria apply in the acceptance of individuals as members of the nondiplomatic staffs entitled to certain privileges, exemptions and

immunities. They must (1), possess A-2 or A-3 visas; (2), be performing full-time duties with the diplomatic mission; and (3), reside in the Washington, D.C., area.

Dept. of State File No. P74 0139-0958.

Ambassadorial Functions

Public Law 93-475, 88 Stat. 1439, the Department of State/United States Information Agency Authorization Act, approved October 26, 1974, includes in Section 12 a statement of the authority and responsibility of U.S. Ambassadors. Section 12 amends 22 U.S.C. 2680a (1956) by adding a new Section 16 which reads as follows:

Sec. 16. Under the direction of the President

(1) the United States Ambassador to a foreign country shall have full responsibility for the direction, coordination, and supervision of all United States Government officers and employees in that country, except for personnel under the command of a United States area military commander;

(2) the Ambassador shall keep himself fully and currently informed with respect to all activities and operations of the United States Government within that country, and shall insure that all Government officers and employees in that country, except for personnel under the command of a United States area military commander, comply fully with his directive; and

(3) any department or agency having officers or employees in a country shall keep the United States Ambassador to that country fully and currently informed with respect to all activities and operations of its officers and employees in that country, and shall insure that all of its officers and employees, except for personnel under the command of a United States area military commander, comply fully with all applicable directives of the Ambassador.

The above provisions enact into law what had theretofore possessed only the force of executive directive.

In the case of Concrete Industries (Monier), Ltd. v. the United States, Congressional Reference Case No. 6-70, July 3, 1974, the U.S. Court of Claims was confronted, inter alia, with questions concerning a possible conflict of interest by a United States Ambassador.

The case involved a contract, dated July 19, 1963, for the construction of a radio transmitting and receiving facility in Australia for the U.S. Navy. The project had been authorized by a May 9, 1963, agreement between the United States and Australia relating to the establishment of a U.S. naval communication station in Australia (TIAS 5377; 14 UST 908; entered into force June 28, 1963). The 1963 agreement included a clause providing that "At all stages in the construction and maintenance of the station, the maximum practicable use will be made of Australian resources." The contract specifications