Perhaps the greatest difficulty which the Human Rights Commission labors under in its delicate and difficult task is the propensity of sovereign nations to be fully-if not furiouslyaware of the shortcomings of other countries relating to human rights-but to remain blithely unconscious of their own delinquencies. There seems to be an overwhelming tendency by most governments to express concern only when human rights violations occur elsewhere-and to invoke "domestic jurisdiction" as a barrier to examination of violations within their own boundaries.

Under the procedures laid down in Economic and Social Council Resolution 1503 (XLVIII) nation states will now have the opportunity to cast their gaze inwards to recognize such human rights violations as occur on a gross and consistent basis within their own boundaries-and to ascertain the degree of international concern with regard to those matters.

And this international concern is justified. It is justified if the existence of the Human Rights Commission is justified-or that of the United Nations itself. Claims that abasement of man, the cruelties or oppressions inflicted upon him, are matters for internal concern only are not appropriate on the part of nations subscribing to the United Nations Charter. And this applies to oppressions ranging from unjustified imprisonment, torture, and restrictions on freedom of speech, of movement, of ideas, all the way up to that most egregious of all violations-apartheid. What is the purpose of the Human Rights Commission if this is not the case?

Under the 1503 procedures we do not sit as a court to pass judgments on governments or to apportion blame. Our role is to find the best way to help promote and protect human rights. We hope that the attitude between this Commission and the governments involved in the separate cases which will be before us will be one of cooperative understanding, with a shared concern for the good of the human beings involved, motivated by a common desire to find a way to improve situations with respect to which the evidence appears to reveal "a consistent pattern of gross and reliably attested violations of human rights."

to indicate my government's determination to support these procedures we have decided on the following general policy. When the Subcommission refers a situation to the Human Rights Commission as revealing a consistent pattern of gross and reliably attested violations of human rights requiring consideration by the Commission under ECOSOC Resolution 1503 and when the situation is reasonably supported by the record before the Subcommission and is of continuing and current concern, the United States will support a thorough study. The United States support of a study does not imply a prejudgment on the merits by the United States.

Dept. of State telegram 1004 to Geneva, Feb. 14, 1975.

Freedom of Information

Freedom of Information Act

On February 19, 1975, the 1974 amendments to the Freedom of Information Act (P.L. 93-502; 88 Stat. 1561; 5 U.S.C. 552) enacted November 21, 1974, went into effect. The new law was designed to give the public quicker and easier access to information or documents in Federal departments and agencies. Deputy Secretary of State Robert S. Ingersoll called for full compliance with the "letter and spirit" of the revised law as regards the records of the Department of State and U.S. missions abroad. A Department notice of February 13, 1975, and an airgram of February 18, 1975, to ambassadors and principal officers at overseas posts outline the changes in the law of greatest significance:

1. Authorizes district courts to review the validity of classification of executive branch documents requested under the Act. 2. Sets time limits of 10 working days for response to the original request and 20 working days for final action on an appeal, with a maximum total extension of the process by 10 further working days allowable in certain specified circumstan

ces.

3. Mandates greater availability of investigative files.

4. Makes the Executive Office of the President, including the National Security Council, subject to the provisions of the Act. 5. Provides for punitive action when an employee's conduct in wrongly denying documents can be proved to be "arbitrary and capricious.'

Revisions in Department regulations were incorporated in the Code of Federal Regulations to give effect to changes in the Freedom of Information Act and were published in the Federal Register on February 19, 1975, effective that day. See Federal Register, Volume 40, No. 34, February 19, 1975, pp. 7256-7259, and Code of Federal Regulations, Title 22, Part 6, Sections 6.1-6.6.

Section 6.2(b) of the Regulations defines "record" to include "all books, papers, maps, photographs, or other documentary material, or copies thereof, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made in or received by the Department of State (including Foreign Service posts abroad) and preserved as evidence of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, operations, or other activities of the Department or the Foreign Service." It excludes copies of the records of other Government agencies (except those which have been expressly placed under the control of the Department of State upon termination of another agency), foreign governments, international organizations, or nongovernmental entities unless they evidence organization, functions, policies, deci

sions, procedures, operations, or activities of the Department of State. Also excluded are records in the Berlin Document Center.

Nine categories of records maintained by the Department of State that may be exempted from disclosure are set forth in 22 CFR § 6.4. Section 6.4 also provides that any reasonably segregable portion of a record requested under the Freedom of Information Act shall be provided to any person requesting such record after deletion of the portions which are exempt, provided the resulting record is intelligible, not distorted out of context, and does not contradict the record being withheld.

In making a determination on classification review under Section 6.3 of the Regulations, the criteria of Executive Order 11652 (37 Federal Register 5209), which authorizes classification only to prevent "exceptionally grave damage" (Top Secret), "serious damage" (Secret), or "damage" (Confidential) to national security, are applied.

Executive Order 11652 expressly provides full protection for information received in confidence from foreign governments and international organizations and which is properly classified. Department of State instructions for handling such information state the Department's view that (1) the information may be exempted from the general declassification schedule if its unauthorized disclosure would be expected to create the damage to foreign relations set forth in Executive Order 11652 and 5 Foreign Affairs Manual 924, and (2) such information would include, but not be limited to, personal opinions and private views as well as official opinions and classified documents provided by an officer and staff member of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the concerned government or international organization on a confidential basis. The instructions express the opinion that damage from disclosure of source can be the basis for classification even if substantive comment alone is not sufficient.

In a reply of November 4, 1975, to questions from Congresswoman Bella Abzug, Chairwoman of the Government Information and Individual Rights Subcommittee, Ambassador Robert J. McCloskey, Assistant Secretary of State for Congressional Relations, noted the following:

the Executive order does not require that a foreign government must classify a document in order for it to be classified by the United States. If breach of the confidence in which any information is received from foreign governments or officials can reasonably be expected to damage foreign relations,

that in itself can be a basis for classification. Whenever the United States needs the foreign sources and relationships on a continuing basis for the conduct of foreign relations, and whenever disclosure would prejudice that continuation, the United States must be able to protect the information against disclo

sure.

Where information received in confidence from foreign sources would not qualify for classification either on the basis of content or on the basis of the effect on foreign relations of disclosure, it would be handled on the same basis as any information received in confidence from anybody else.

The procedure for appealing an initial denial of a request for information is set forth in Section 6.8 of the Regulations.

Dept. of State Notice, Feb. 13, 1975; Dept. of State airgram No. A-1089, Feb. 18, 1975; Dept. of State Newsletter, Mar. 1975, pp. 8-9. For Amb. McCloskey's letter of Nov. 4, 1975, to Congresswoman Abzug, see Dept. of State File L/M.

In Nixon v. Sampson, 389 F. Supp. 107, 121-123 (1975), the United States District Court for the District of Columbia stated with respect to the Freedom of Information Act:

The primary purpose of the Freedom of Information Act is to increase public access to government records, Soucie v. David, 145 U.S. App. D.C. 144, 448 F.2d 1067 (1971), by providing a right of access by "any person" without "consideration of the interests of the party seeking relief."

. . . It is well settled that the exceptions of the Freedom of Information Act are to be read narrowly and that disclosure is the rule, not the exception. And, Section 552(a)(3) of the Act places the burden on the government to sustain its action. Thus, the courts have been loath to accept mere assertions that a record is covered by any exception. . . .

. The exemptions under the Freedom of Information Act are to be narrowly construed. This general construction of the FOIA has been made particularly applicable to the third exemption. Robertson v. Butterfield, 498 F.2d 1031 (D.C. Cir. 1974). A court must not only examine and interpret the statute relied upon as specifically exempting disclosure. See Schechter v. Weinberger, 506 F.2d 1275 (D.C. Cir. 1974). It must also resolve any dispute as to whether the exemption has been properly invoked. See Stretch v. Weinberger, 3 Cir. 495 F.2d 639 (1974).

CSCE Principles on Information

The Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) concluded a Final Act at Helsinki on August 1, 1975, signed by the United States and the 34 other participating states, which included a section aimed at facilitating "freer and wider dissemination of information of all kinds." The section, which was included under the general heading "Cooperation in Humanitarian and Other Fields," is set forth below:

The participating states,

Conscious of the need for an ever wider knowledge and understanding of the various aspects of life in other participating states,

Acknowledging the contribution of this process to the growth of confidence between peoples,

Desiring, with the development of mutual understanding between the participating states and with the further improvement of their relations, to continue further efforts towards progress in this field,

Recognizing the importance of the dissemination of information from the other participating states and of a better acquaintance with such information, Emphasizing therefore the essential and influential role of the press, radio, television, cinema and news agencies and of the journalists working in these fields,

Make it their aim to facilitate the freer and wider dissemination of information of all kinds, to encourage cooperation in the field of information and the exchange of information with other countries, and to improve the conditions under which journalists from one participating state exercise their profession in another participating state, and

Express their intention in particular:

(a) Improvement of the Circulation of, Access to, and Exchange of Information (i) Oral Information

-To facilitate the dissemination of oral information through the encouragement of lectures and lecture tours by personalities and specialists from the other participating states, as well as exchanges of opinions at round table meetings, seminars, symposia, summer schools, congresses and other bilateral and multilateral meetings.

(ii) Printed Information

-To facilitate the improvement of the dissemination, on their territory, of newspapers and printed publications, periodical and nonperiodical, from the other participating states. For this purpose:

they will encourage their competent firms and organizations to conclude agreements and contracts designed gradually to increase the quantities and the number of titles of newspapers and publications imported from the other participating states. These agreements and contracts should in particular mention the speediest conditions of delivery and the use of the normal channels existing in each country for the distribution of its own publications and newspapers, as well as forms and means of payment agreed between the parties making it possible to achieve the objectives aimed at by these agreements and contracts;

where necessary, they will take appropriate measures to achieve the above objectives and to implement the provisions contained in the agreements and contracts.

-To contribute to the improvement of access by the public to periodical and nonperiodical printed publications imported on the bases indicated above. In particular:

they will encourage an increase in the number of places where these publications are on sale;

they will facilitate the availability of these periodical publications during