page 391 note 1 See generally Meron, T., The United Nations Secretariat 60–66 (1977)Google Scholar.

page 391 note 2 Id. at 159–71.

page 391 note 3 Article 100 states, in part, that the Secretary-General shall not seek or receive instructions from any government or from any other authority external to the United Nations, and that each member state shall respect the exclusively international character of the responsibilities of the Secretary-General.

page 391 note 4 Article 101 (3) provides, in part, that the paramount consideration in the employment of the staff shall be the necessity of securing the highest standards of efficiency, competence and integrity.

page 391 note 5 See generally Meron, , In re Rosescu and the Independence of the International Civil Service, 75 AJIL 910 (1981)Google Scholar; Estabial v. Secretary-General of the United Nations, UN Doc. AT/DEC/310(1983).

page 391 note 6 Yakimetz v. Secretary-General of the United Nations, UN Doc. AT/DEC/333 (1984), was an appeal against the nonextension of the appointment of a staff member from the Soviet Union after his application for asylum in the United States. On Aug. 28, 1984, the Committee on Applications for Review of Administrative Tribunal Judgments decided that there was substantial basis for the application for review. The International Court of Justice has not, as yet, pronounced its advisory opinion on the Yakimetz case.

page 393 note 1 Fox, D. & Glennon, M., Report to the International Human Rights Law Group and the Washington Office on Latin America Concerning Abuses Against Civilians by Counterrevolutionaries Operating in Nicaragua (1985)Google Scholar [hereinafter cited as Report].

page 393 note 2 Moore, , The Secret War in Central America and the Future of World Order 80 AJIL 43, 123 n.333 (1986)Google Scholar [hereinafter cited as Moore].

page 393 note 3 Moore, , Reply to the letter by Larry Garber, 80 AJIL 186, 193 (1987)Google Scholar [hereinafter cited as Reply].

page 393 note 4 Id.

page 393 note 5 Americas Watch, Violations of the Laws of War by Both Sides in Nicaragua 1981–85, at vi (March 1985).

page 393 note 6 Amnesty International, Nicaragua: The Human Rights Record 32 (March 1986).

7 Americas Watch, Human Rights in Nicaragua: 1986, at 5 (February 1987).

8 Id. at 18–19.

9 See Report, supra note 1, at 21.

10 Id. at 20.

11 Id.

12 Telephone interview with Kathleen Smith, Press Officer, Amnesty International (Feb. 11, 1987).

13 Apparently intending rhetorical effect, Moore raises a variety of objections that have no bearing on the reliability of our methodology or the probity of the report’s conclusions. He complains, for example, that a public relations firm that had some relationship with the sponsoring organizations also had Maurice Bishop’s Grenada as a client. Similarly, he writes that Fox “may not even have been aware,” Reply, supra note 3, at 191 n. 16, of my meeting with Reichler and an Interior Ministry official, and that one of us—he does not specify which—“expressed doubts about the questioning of the other,” id. at 193. This comment considers only those of Moore’s remarks that have some bearing on the point he tries to establish.

14 Id. at 190.

15 Id.

16 Id. at 191.

17 Moore, supra note 2, at 123 n.335.

18 Reply, supra note 3, at 191.

19 Weissbrodt, , International Trial Observers 18 Stan. J. Int’l L. 27, 119 (1982)Google Scholar.

20 Reply, supra note 3, at 191.

21 See Report, supra note 1, at 2.

22 Reply, supra note 3, at 192.

23 Id.

24 Id. at 191.

25 Id. at 192, 194.

26 Moore’s reliance on this interview is most interesting. See infra text accompanying notes 61–62.

27 Moore, supra note 2, at 123 n.333.

28 See Report, supra note 1, at 9.

29 Reply, supra note 3, at 192.

30 Id.

31 Id. at 189 n.7.

32 Report, supra note 1, at 18.

33 Id.

34 See Reply, supra note 3, at 192.

35 Desbarats, & Jackson, , Vietnam 1975–1982: The Cruel Peace Wash. Q., Fall 1985, at 169 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

36 Id. at 176.

37 See Reply, supra note 3, at 192.

38 Id.

39 Id.

40 Desbarats & Jackson, supra note 35, at 176.

41 See infra note 48.

42 Report, supra note 1, at 19.

43 Id. at 17–18 (emphasis added).

44 Desbarats & Jackson, supra note 35.

45 This procedure, it is worth noting, comports with Professor Weissbrodt’s Proposed Draft Model Procedures for NGO Fact-Finding:

Weissbrodt, & McCarthy, , Fact-Finding by Nongovernmental Organizations in International Law and Fact-Finding in the Field of Human Rights 186, 216 (Ramcharan, B. ed. 1982)Google Scholar.

Our report devoted six pages to describing the methodology used. As in the case of other proposed model rules, our report complies fully with each of Professor Weissbrodt’s 12 proposed guidelines, with one exception (paragraph 6). We did not indicate which of us conducted each interview. In fact, we probably conducted 90% of them jointly.

46 Reply, supra note 3, at 9.

47 Desbarats & Jackson, supra note 35.

48 See, e.g., Weissbrodt, & McCarthy, , Fact-Finding by International Nongovernmental Human Rights Organizations 22 Va. J. Int’l L. 1 (1981)Google Scholar; Franck, & Fairley, , Procedural Due Process in Human Rights Fact-finding by International Agencies 74 AJIL 308 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Norris, ; Observations “in loco”: Practice and Procedures of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights 15 Tex. J. Int’l L. 46 (1980)Google Scholar; Report of the Secretary–General on Methods of Fact–finding, UN Doc. A/5694 (1964).

49 Franck, , Current Developments Note, 75 AJIL 163 (1981)Google Scholar. These were drawn up after 4 years of study by a special subcommittee of the International Law Association, which consisted of representatives from Austria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Ghana, Kenya, the Netherlands, Singapore, the United Kingdom, the United States and Uruguay. The 59th ILA Conference, held in Belgrade on Aug. 18–23, 1980, approved the rules by consensus. Id.

50 Id. at 165. Fox’s and my findings and conclusions were unanimous.

51 Reprinted in Ramcharan (ed.), supra note 45, at 239.

52 These are: (1) appointment, mandate; (2) organization of work; (3) procedure adopted; (4) facts alleged; (5) comments on allegations or rebuttals; (6) evidence obtained, including sources of evidence used and evidentiary criteria followed; (7) standards relied upon; (8) discussions of issues; (9) conclusions and recommendations; and (10) annexes, such as rules of procedure or comments of governments concerned. Van Boven, The Reports of Fact-Finding Bodies, reprinted in id. at 182.

53 L. Abel, Important Nonsense (1987).

54 I should note, however, that here the Vietnam blood-bath report is consistent with Moore’s approach. It contains no indication that the authors made any effort through cross-examination to determine the veracity of any of the persons interviewed. Rather, if they related enough detail, they apparently were assumed to be telling the truth. Desbarats & Jackson, supra note 35, at 176.

55 Reply, supra note 3, at 192.

56 Weissbrodt & McCarthy, supra note 45, at 208.

57 See Report, supra note 1, at 22.

58 Reply, supra note 3, at 193.

59 Report, supra note 1, at 10.

60 Id. at 12.

61 Id., App. III at 34.

62 Moore, supra note 2, at 66.

63 Reply, supra note 3, at 191.

64 Id.

65 Id. at 191–92.

66 Id. at 192.

67 Id. at 188–89.

68 Id. at 189 n.7.

69 Id. at 190—which is the kind Moore wants.

70 Report, supra note 1, at 19.

71 Id. at 22.

72 Id. at 18.

73 Model Code of Evidence Rule 1(5) (1942).

74 Report, supra note 1, at 15.

75 Id. at 22 (emphasis in original).

76 Id.

77 Id. at 23.

78 Id.

79 Id. at 28.

80 UN Charter art. 94, para. 1.

81 Reply, supra note 3, at 193.