(22nd plenary meeting) Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations, 2026 resumed session, Economic and Social Council

I call to order the 22nd meeting of the 2026 session of the committee on non governmental organization.
I now turn the attention of the committee to document slash slash 2026 slash CRP dot 16 entitled, List of Organizations to be suspended pursuant to Council Resolution 28 2008 slash four.
May I take it that in accordance with ECS Resolution 2008 slash four, the committee wishes to recommend the IC United Kingdom, you have the floor.
Thank you, Chair.
Before we begin to discuss this agenda item, I just wanted to briefly place on record the United Kingdom's position on a matter discussed during the previous session.
Would it be possible to do that now? It was discussed under agenda item for a EC 22026 CRP 15.
Thank you for your suggestion and may I suggest to consider your proposal under Item six C, other related matters, which will be coming up shortly.
Sasha, thanks.
I invite the I'm sorry.
We were on item four A.
May I take it that in accordance with ECOSOC Resolution 2008 slash four, the committee wishes to recommend the suspension of the NGOs listed in E slash two slash 2026 slash CRP dot 16.
I hear no objection.
It is so decided.
I now invite the attention of the committee to document slash 02 slash 2026 slash CRP 18 entitled List of Organizations to be reinstated pursuant to Council Resolution 2008 slash four.
May I take it that in accordance with ECS resolution 2008 slash four, the committee wishes to take note of the list of the NGOs listed in CRP 44 and to recommend to the council that it reinstate their consultative status.
I hear no objection.
It is so decided.
The committee now has before it document slash slash 2026 slash CRP dot 17, containing a list of organizations whose consultative status is to be withdrawn pursuant to council resolution 2008 slash four.
May I take it that the committee wishes to take note of the NGOs listed in CRP dot 17 and to recommend to the council that consultative status of the non governmental organizations listed in document slash slash 2002 and six slash CRP dot 17 to be withdrawn pursuant to council resolution 2008 slash four.
I hear no objection.
It is so decided.
We are moving on to Item 60, other related matters.
The committee now has before it document E s two slash 2026 slash CRP 19 containing a list of organizations requesting a name change.
The first NGO on the list is agents.
I started that Francophone The first organization on the list is Agents Francoon Superior Recherche proposes to change its name to agents Ursa de la Franco.
The second NGO on the list is all believers Pentecostal Church International proposes to change its name to UN GH Protection Organ LBG.
The third organization, Alliance Global Consulates Mutilation Genits Feminines proposes to change its name to Alliance Global Poesid Tehome et Lasantte.
Fourth organization, Canadian Women for Women in Afghanistan, proposes to change its name to right to Learn Afghanistan.
The fifth NGO, Santo de Initiativ anti probista requests to change its name to Miglio L Gale APS.
The sixth NGO, Global Confederation for Promotion and Development, Inc, requests to change its name to the St.
Francis Mission and Foundation for Caring Inc.
The seventh NGO, Licht for D Walt Christopher and Vklugszaarbit, request to change its name to Light for the World International Organization for Inclusive Development, Organization for Inclusive and Vik Lung Ssuamuarbit.
Of course, Light for the World International.
The eighth organization, organization Cameronse Polar Protection de la Pre proposes to change its name to Or Unis Polar Protection P.
The ninth, the ninth organization, the Center for Oceanic Awareness Research and Education proposes to change its name to Core.
The tenth NGO, World Family of Radio Maria NGO, proposes to change its name to World Family of Radio Maria ETS.
Does any delegation wish to offer a comment or question regarding this agenda item and the NGOs that I just read out I assumed the United Kingdom wish to take the floor on Agenda Item six other related matters.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
We would like to briefly place on record the UK's position on a matter discussed during the previous session under agenda item A slash slash 2026 slash CRP 0.15.
Note the committee's decision to transmit a request to the Open Society Foundation concerning a 2019 report, following a question raised by a member of the committee during the previous session.
However, we have concerns about the nature of that request.
The committee's mandate, as set out in resolution 1996 slash 31, is to assess whether NGOs meet the established criteria for consultative status, including compliance with the principles of the United Nations Charter.
This framework is intended to support an objective and criteria based assessment, while respecting the independence of NGOs in carrying out their activities and expressing their views.
In that context, we would not see this mandate as extending to requests for NGOs to amend or remove content from publicly available materials.
We would also be concerned that approaches of this kind could risk narrowing the space in which civil society organizations are able to operate independently.
On that basis, we would not consider this an appropriate approach for the committee going forward.
I thank you, Chair.
I thank the distinguished representative of UK for her comments.
I take note of her comments.
As for the organizations that I just read out requesting a name of change, may I take it that the committee wishes to take note of the name change requests of the non governmental organizations listed in document slash slash 2026 slash Rp dot 90? I hear no objection.
It is so decided.
I now invite the committee to resume its consideration of Agenda Item seven entitled Consideration of Special Reports.
Does any delegation wish to make any comment on this agenda item? I see Algeria, you have the floor.
Thank you, Chair.
Good afternoon to everyone.
Under this agenda item, we understand that the organizations, OC Pros and Rad have not yet responded to our questions from last Monday, both organizations received queries from our committee on six February and were requested to provide a comprehensive reply in a single communication.
With respect to Oka Pros, the response received to our questions from February remains incomplete, despite the organization having been granted sufficient time.
For this reason, this past Monday we requested the organization to provide the missing information in order to allow the committee to fulfill its duty.
At this stage, we would like to recall our questions and request this organization to provide the information in full.
For the sake of time, I refer the Secretariat and colleagues to our statement from last Monday under the same agenda item seven.
Regarding Radig, this organization did reply to our question dated sixth February.
We raised follow up questions this past Monday but have received no response so far.
There were also a couple of queries to be followed up by the Secretariat pertaining notably to the content of that response.
As with OCA Pros, we recall our questions from last Monday and request Rad to provide an answer.
Mr.
Chair, I would like now to turn to the case of Siraq As you all know, we addressed questions to this organization on 26 January and drew attention to some serious concerns.
I would remind the committee that the Grand passes and ICSO access of this organization were already suspended by the Secretariat in 2014.
Due to a leadership dispute, still unresolved.
In view of the seriousness of the concerns raised and the absence of a relevant response to the questions are asked.
Our committee recommended suspending the status of this organization for one year as a safeguard measure pending the receipt and review of the required documents and information.
So far, no response has been provided by CRC.
This is a proof in itself that this organization remains in a state of noncompliance vis-à-vis committee.
Not responding in a timely manner to the questions raised by the committee constitutes a challenge to the authority of our technical organ.
This attitude of CRA confirms the validity of the committee's decision to recommend suspending its status.
Having said that, I would like to inform colleagues that during the intercession of the NGO committee, we received additional elements confirming violations of provisions contained in paragraph three, 20, 23, and 55 of EcoSc resolution 1996 slash 21, thereby confirming once again the relevance of our committee's recommendation to suspend the status of this organization.
This information and the accompanying documents have been shared today with the members of the committee.
They include the letter sent to the acting chief of the NGO branch in 2019.
That was never considered by this committee.
Therefore, we kindly request the NGO branch to convene an informal briefing for committee members on this issue at their earliest convenience during this ongoing resume session.
Mr.
Chair, I would like to stress that despite the established practice for an organization to be allowed to respond to questions within four days, We have seen this week that some organizations were granted more than 100 days, yet they still failed to answer comprehensively and one did not reply at all to the queries of this committee.
Many questions raised in February are still waiting answers.
Chair, the primary aim of this committee, when posing questions under this agenda item seven is to exercise oversight, enforce compliance, and investigate potential violations of the rules governing NGOs relationship with the UN as dictated by ECOSOc resolution 1996 slash 31.
If an NGO ignores or fails to answer the committee specific inquiries regarding a special report, how should we interpret this? A presumption of non compliance, a tacit admission of guilt, contempt for this committee's authority, or does it simply mean that such an organization no longer maintains an active structure capable of engaging properly with us? It is for the committee to decide collectively.
Chair, I very much agree with the statement made by our British colleague earlier this week.
When he noted that we share a collective responsibility to ensure that our working methods remain fit for purpose, we indeed need to make our process more predictable with clearer approaches for managing the suspension or withdrawal of accreditations.
We also welcome the development of clearer safeguards, the transparent consideration of evidence, and most importantly, keeping resolution 1996 slash 21 as our only compass for assessing the work of organizations with consultative status.
My delegation also suggests clearly defining due process so that everyone shares the same understanding of our working methods.
During the intersession, several conversations with colleagues outside this committee and with NGO representatives highlighted the need to better clarify what due process requires in our context.
In conclusion, Mr.
Chair, my delegation requests that these cases in the Rajat Item seven be reconsidered on 29 May.
I thank you.
I thank the distinguished representative of Algeria.
Firstly, would it be possible to repeat the questions you wish the committee to transmit to the organizations in question? Thank you, Chair.
Can I ask why should I repeat them? I don't have them here.
They are on the record of last Monday.
Thank you.
I would like to thank the distinguished representative of Algeria.
The committee, as I assume you would understand, needs to consider the questions that you wish to propose to the organizations in question.
I'm informed that the last time your interrogation was a statement and you I'm informed that the committee didn't consider the questions you may have mentioned in your statement.
So it would be appreciated if you could provide the committee to questions and you can have time to retrieve the questions if you would like.
Thank you.
Thank you, Chair.
To be honest, I'm not sure I understand.
Past Monday, there were two interventions.
The first one pertained to letter a briefing an update letter for the Secretariat.
The second intervention contained the questions.
I They were posed.
Nobody asked questions or clarification that time and for my delegation, those questions were asked.
Again, I don't have the questions here, so I have sent the questions to the Secretariat afterward in written form.
I can defer the Secretariat to those questions if they want to look at them.
Thank you.
I thank the distinguished representative of Algeria, and I'm informed that the Secretariat wishes to inform on this matter.
No, thank you, V.
It's a simply matter of procedure.
In your intervention on Monday, you did state about your intention for the committee to pose additional questions to the NGOs and there are different NGOs different questions, but the questions have never been treated by the committee in the way the questions are being treated in this committee.
The presiding officer at the moment hasn't invited the committee or hasn't sought the consent of the committee for the questions to be transmitted to the NGOs in question.
It's just a matter of a procedural importance, technical importance.
The presiding officers just offered some time.
Probably you may need to retrieve these questions.
So for the sake of the committee, for these questions, they need to be uttered, pronounced here in the meeting, and then the committee should agree for them to be transmitted as further additional questions to the NGOs in question.
It's a simply procedural question from the point of view of the Secretariat.
Thank you.
I thank the Secretariat for the explanation provided, and I now give the floor to Algeria.
Yes.
Thank you.
My colleague just showed me the questions.
I'm trying to retrieve them.
For OCA pros, the organization failed to provide the list of designated authorized representatives submitted to the UN Secretariat for 22 25 period, alongside the Internal Board resolutions confirming their authority to speak on behalf of the organization's members pursuant to paragraph 11 of EcoSoc resolution 1996 slash 31.
It did not disclose whether any of its leaders hold simultaneous high level positions in other EcoSoC accredited NGOs, nor did it share the internal criteria and vetting processes used for non member representatives.
So the organization is asked to provide this information in full.
That's for OCP pros.
Then for Rad for this one, we did indicate that a The response of this organization indicated that all authorized representatives during the 202220245 period were strictly vetted internal members or closely associated resourcepers.
But a cross check with the public registries of the HRC sessions reveals a serious discrepancy.
So multiple individuals delivered oral statements on behalf of the organization who are entirely omitted from the organization list submitted to the UN Secretariat.
So on this, we said we look forward to the organization's explanation regarding these diversions, namely those persons that were omitted in the list they have provided.
And then I We demanded that the organization provide the committee with the specific internal board resolutions or executive mandates granting the concerned individuals the formal authority to express the views of the organization's membership.
And we also requested disclosure of whether the specific floor speakers simultaneously hold high level positions, titles or active affiliations with other NGOs that possesses ECS consultative status.
Um, so that's the questions aim to verify compliance with relevant paragraphs of ECOSOC Resolution 1996 slash 31.
Including paragraphs 11 and 12.
These are the questions and the conclusion was that we intend to transmit during this resume session of the committee the specific names of the individuals in question and the corresponding sessions reference to the Secretariat to facilitate internal verification with the relevant authorities in Geneva, to ensure the integrity of the security as a baseline compliance check.
This information is provided, of course, exclusively for the internal use.
And must not be shared with the organization at this stage.
It's it's too cross check.
I thank you.
I thank the distinguished representative of Algeria for providing the questions.
I'm sorry if this caused an inconvenience for you, but this was a procedural matter.
Are there any other delegations wish to take the floor the distinguished representative of Algeria's request at this stage? I now give the floor to the Angio Branch.
Thank you very much, Chair.
I just want to Note that, as I understand it, the delegation of Algeria is asking for individuals names in the context of this NGO and the situation that we have under review for SRA and just note that it is unusual by the committee to consider a request that identifies individuals.
I just want to bring that on record.
Thank you.
I thank the Chief No Branch for our explanation.
I see United Kingdom, you have the floor.
Thank you, Chair.
I would be grateful for clarification of exactly what is being proposed by the delegation of Algeria.
Thank you.
Do I give the floor to Algeria.
Yes.
Thank you, Chair.
Thanks to No branch and colleague from UK.
I slightly disagree with the colleague from the Ajo branch.
We have a precedent.
It's not the first time I'm asking list of authorized representatives.
It's on the record.
We have precedent.
We did ask the list of the representatives sent by an organization to the Secretariat to get access to the U to the Grand Passes.
Um, and this list is not comprehensive.
So which means I don't want to say they are abuse in terms of granting grant passes, but it's part of this committee to investigate and to check whether there is an abuse or no.
This is the objective of this question.
And if you can check now on the ICSU portal, you can find, for instance, in the response from the Reg, there is a list of the representative they between 2022, 2025.
What we are saying now is that we have found in the record of the HRC that there are individuals not on this list, not on the list that this Radic organization have shared.
So who are those individuals? That's not a matter of the individual, it's about the relationship with the organization and to see if there is an abuse on this matter or no.
That's the only thing.
It's not a matter of those specific individuals.
Thank you.
I I thank the distinguished representative of United Kingdom and Algeria for their comments.
If I see the light on the microphone of Algeria, would you like to take the floor again? Yes, you have the floor.
Thank you.
Sorry, I said ACS, but I meant paperless.
I think everyone just other organizations also provided list and that was fine, not only Radek.
Thank you.
And it's on the document.
I see the Secretariat, I think Branch want to add on this point.
Thank you.
Yes, indeed.
The NGO Secretariat would like to take the floor and I take the floor.
Yes.
Just to clarify from the procedural point of view, and also there was a query from a member state about where we are in these procedures.
So under agenda item seven special report in accordance with the tentative schedule adopted by the committee on Monday, the 18th of May, we resumed consideration of agenda item seven.
Uh, and we heard, at least that's what I understood that the delegation in concern, invited the committee to ask additional questions in follow up to the information that had been received by the committee with regards to the question posed by the committee on its regular session, and also the steps undertaken by the NGO branch in fulfillment of the mandate given by the committee to it, at the regular session.
So the questions were of the nature of the policy compliance on the part of the NGOs in concern.
But the last part of the question was regarding disclosing the names of the individual members of the NGO involved and while it is up to the committee to decide, but as the secretary, we are entrusted with the institutional memory and, So as a matter of policy, this committee has restrained from asking or requesting NGOs to disclose the names of its individual members.
Obviously, the NGOs themselves can provide the committee with what level of talization they find appropriate to them.
But the committee has restrained for many, many years of asking an NGO to disclose the names of their individual members.
Unless the members are the members of the executive board of the NGO.
That's been the practice of the committee and as a part of our responsibilities, we are obliged to share with the committee of this longstanding practice.
Thank you, chair.
I thank the committee Secretariat for his explanation and I now give the floor to distinguished representative of Algeria.
Yes.
Thank you.
I do agree with the representative of the Secretariat, that is not the practice of this committee to ask questions about the membership of an organization.
However, the question we have asked is not about the membership.
Those are public information is The representative that attend UN meetings, they have the list sent to the Secretariat.
It's the participation in the UN and these are information that are public.
If you can look on the list of participants, you can find the members.
It's a matter of cross check what list they have sent and one we have in the public record.
That's the only question we ask.
Thank you.
I see India, you have the floor.
Thank you very much, Mr.
Chair.
I deeply appreciate my delegation appreciates the conversation going on, particularly the contributions made by our colleagues from UK and Algeria.
In this situation, my delicious sting is like this.
In the past, well, as the institutional memory, the company secretary has just mentioned that we do not have the practice of asking for the names of the individuals that may have been in the past.
We agree with that.
But then the situation now has come to a stage where the question is shifting or slightly drifting away from the mere names of the individuals.
But the situation is coming to a place where the sort of suspected wrongdoing or a suspected impersonation or an unauthorized utilization of the platform is being alleged.
So in a situation like this, is it not proper for the member state to ask for the names, particularly when the names have already been registered at the event? Thank you.
I thank the distinguished representative of India for his comments.
Does any other delegation wish to take the floor at this stage? I say, United Kingdom, you have the floor.
Thank you, Chair.
The United Kingdom fully recognizes the importance of ensuring the integrity of participation in UN processes, and we take these allegations seriously, including needing assurances that individuals are properly accredited.
But our understanding is that it's important to distinguish clearly between the roles of the committee and the Secretariat.
And in our view, the responsibility for verifying accreditation, including who has access to UN premises, lies with the Secretariat and the relevant UN accreditation authorities.
So we would therefore urge caution about this request and invite further clarity about exactly what is being requested and what is what is being requested of the NGO branch in relation to the issues that have been raised.
Thank you.
I thank the distinguished representative of UK for her comments.
Does any other delegation wish to take the floor at this stage? If not, may I take it that the committee agrees to transmit the questions from a distinguished representative of Algeria to the organizations in question? IC United Kingdom, you have the floor.
Thank you, Chair.
I don't feel that my question has been answered in terms of how the information that we're asking the organization to transmit would be handled.
I'd welcome greater clarity before we make a decision.
Thank you.
Okay.
Thank you.
I see.
Algeria, you have the floor.
Thank you.
Thanks to colleague from UK.
In this particular instance of Frade, if you go on the Peper system, you see the response in page six, there is a list of individuals, but there are other names that are not on this list that have had access to UN and spoke on behalf of this organization.
They are not on this list.
Who are they? That's the question.
Um, if this organization is not aware of the fact that there are individuals speaking on its behalf, it means that there is an problem with the structure of the organization or there is an abuse.
Um, so that's the aim of this question.
Thank you.
Thank you.
The United Kingdom has the floor.
I thank you for clarifying that.
I think the question that I have is regarding what we do with the information that you're requesting.
I'm unclear on where the responsibility sits between the committee and the NGO branch in terms of handling investigations into accredited organizations and their representatives.
That's what I'm asking for further clarity on before we proceed.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Aljira has the floor now.
Yes.
Thank you.
I mean, we're speaking about public information.
To be clear again, it's a list of participant webcasts and names out there.
It's nothing not public that we're asking.
So when you go to Geneva, you check with the Secretariat, they tell you it's the NGO committee that has this oversight role.
If you have questions, you have to be asked through the NGO committee.
So this is what we are doing right now.
Thank you.
I thank the distinguished representative of Algeria and I now give the floor to the Secretary.
Thank you, Chair.
Exactly a week ago, the committee had before it a letter from the Secretariat from the NGO branch informing it of the preliminary findings of an ongoing investigation.
I repeat an ongoing investigation launched by relevant authorities in Geneva following a request submitted by the NGO branch based on the mandate given by this committee.
With your kind permission, I would read it again.
The offices that have been contacted in Geneva have reiterated that the acquisitions are being considered with the utmost seriousness and that in depth investigations and monitoring is ongoing.
And that was a week ago.
So maybe as a matter of compromise or to alleviate concerns, we could ask the Secretariat to report on the final outcomes of an ongoing investigation.
And maybe we can specify what kind of specific information we're expecting to hear from them.
But to, in my opinion, while the investigation is ongoing to directly contact a part which is being investigated, an NGO, and it's been investigated precisely because there were serious concerns that there were some discrepancies in also the practice of misrepresentation as the committee had it in its report.
This NGO is being investigated precisely on that subject matter, maybe it would be sensible, but also a matter of compromise to ask the Secretariat to report back to the committee on the final outcomes of this investigation before the committee makes up its mind on whether what it is what it has received is sufficient or complete or in compliance with its expectations or its parameters.
That would be my suggestion.
This letter has been before the committee for a week only.
So the investigation is still ongoing.
That is maybe it would help us to address the concerns, very serious concerns of not only one delegation, but of the committee, but also to respect the procedure as launched by the committee.
This procedure, these investigations have been launched by initiative of this committee.
Thank you, Chair.
I thank the committee Secretariat representative for his explanations.
I now give the floor to the Algeria.
Yes.
Thank you, Chair and thanks to the representative of the Secretariat for sharing his views.
So, there was a letter from the NGO committee chair dated March April and that concerns only Uk Pros.
That's first, only Uk Pros.
That was the letter.
And second, in that letter, the um chair on behalf of this committee requested a report back to this committee before this resume session.
The Secretariat failed failed again to a to accomplish this query from member states.
And that's why past Monday, we said that we considered the letter from the Secretat as an update, not as a report back.
So we are still waiting for the report back.
And third, the rad is not part of that letter, and we're not asking about investigation.
These are just questions.
I the name, I mean, the name of the individuals we want to share, they are public.
We're going to send to the Secretariat and they can cross check on their side whether these individuals have been authorized by this organization to speak on behalf to have grant access to the UN.
Otherwise, the Secretariat has to tell us what to do.
I don't know.
We're just trying to show some kind of abuses.
And if based on evidence, I have to underline on evidence, If there was no evidence, we will just, you know, step back and say, okay, that's fine.
Thank you.
I thank the distinguished representative of Algeriia for his comments and I now give the floor to Ngiobranch Chief.
Thank you very much, Chair and thank you for the exchange and the comments received from the delegation of Algeriia.
I would like to stress that the branch, following the last session of the committee, submitted and transmitted indeed the concerns raised by the committee at its last session.
In a timely manner.
We have reported back, yes, in particular, about one, and we have provided the committee with an update that has been conveyed to us of the authorities that are undertaking investigations on these matters.
I frankly fail to see how we should have failed in our work, and I would like to express my disagreement in this regard.
Having said that, if I Circle back to what I understand as the question being raised about the possible discrepancy between the speakers in the session and the list of the delegates that were transmitted, which indeed are public information.
As I understand it, what the delegation from Algeria is looking for is information whether these speakers are indeed accredited or not and members of this organization.
We can certainly transmit that information and ask.
But again, as the Secretary has stated, we have not received final information of this investigation yet.
But if indeed I am understanding correctly what you're looking for, we will be happy to reiterate and to affirm and to specify that ask in our ongoing follow up with the authorities in Geneva.
I just want to make sure that we are understanding the ask the right way.
Thank you.
I thank the NGO branch chief for her comments.
I now give the floor to Algeria.
Thank you, Chairman.
Sorry for prolonging this discussion.
Just quickly, I mean, the failure is Secretariat as a whole.
I know NGO Branch, if I may qualify it as a mailbox.
You just transmit and receive.
It's not you who have this information.
So that's perfectly understood from this side.
And we have in the intervention of Monday, draw attention on six substantive questions that remain unanswered.
And those are on the record.
Thank you.
I see India, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair and also the distinct interventions made by our colleagues.
Without commenting on the failure aspect of it, my delegation's views are like this.
The present effort is to assist the role of the Secretariat.
And the UN apparatus to determine whether the NGO is playing by the rule book or otherwise.
The essence of the intervention, our collective interventions here is to see that only those who are authorized to speak get access to the UN platforms.
And if there is a suspected wrongdoing on the part of any NGO that needs to be highlighted, and it will be helpful in the ongoing investigation as well to come up with a clear conclusion.
Precisely the committee is dealing with this issue now.
So in ways more than one, I believe that there is a convergence in our approach.
There is no divergence, but there is a convergence of things.
Thank you.
I thank the distinguished representative of India for his comments.
Does any other delegation wish to take the floor at this stage? If not, I am repeating that.
May I take it that the committee wish to transmit the questions proposed by Algeria to the organizations in question? I United Kingdom, you have the floor.
Thank you, Chair.
I apologize also for prolonging this discussion.
I I just still don't feel that there is clarity on what we're going to do with the information when the NGOs respond.
As I understand it, the branch have confirmed that they have been acting on the mandate of the committee and have transmitted the concerns that have been raised by the committee in a timely manner, and they are engaging with the relevant authorities who are treating the matter with the seriousness that it deserves.
And that we have taken note today that there may be discrepancies between the public record of participation and the lists of delegates submitted to the NDO branch.
But at the same time, as I understand it, the investigation is ongoing.
The findings are preliminary, and the committee does not yet have a complete or verified record of information before it.
So I'm not clear on what the additional request for information is at this stage.
I'd welcome further clarity on What will happen with the information once submitted by the NGOs, as I understand it, that would seem to run counter to the investigation that is already going as mandated by the committee.
I thank the distinguished representative of UK for her comments and I now give the floor to Algeria.
Thank you.
Thanks again to colleagues from UK for the question.
There is no investigation on Radig It's not part of the investigation.
They just respond to the question.
There was for organizations.
The two others, it was fine.
They provided the list, it was okay.
But this particular case of Rad, they have provided the list, and when you cross check with the public record, you will see that there are other individuals.
Who are they? But if you tell them, these are the individuals, you're going to make their life easier.
They say, we are trying to show that whether this organization has a real control on its structure.
We signing the letter to obtain badges.
If they have been authorized by this organization, they are supposed to know who are they.
I don't know if you understand these nuances.
I mean, this kind of sitting is not the best to try to discuss this kind of detailed matter, technical, but I'm ready to discuss that in informal mode.
Thank you.
I thank the distinguished representative of Algeria.
If are there any other delegations wish to take the floor at this stage? I see United Kingdom wish to take the floor.
You have the floor.
I thank the representative from Algeriia and I propose that if it would be possible to have a bilateral discussion about what is being suggested so that we can understand and make sure that we have clarity on the responsibility of the committee in terms of reviewing information about NGOs accreditation and the Secretariat, then I would prefer to do that before we make a decision in this forum today.
Thank you.
They're only members, no NGOs in them, so.
I thank the distinguished representative of UK.
I personally agree with that.
I now propose to suspend the meeting for, let's say 15 minutes and maybe we can in the meantime reach an understanding.
There will be no webcast for 15 minutes the meeting unless any other delegation wish to take the floor.
I see India, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
It is precisely the same thing that I was proposing that we can be offline for five or 10 minutes since the matter belongs to the entire committee would have a private discussion.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I see Algeria.
You have the floor.
Yes.
Thank you.
Chair.
Sorry.
I guess many of us have plans after this, so I don't want to prolounge more so that we can finish quickly.
This is close or informal consultation for everyone, not a bilateral.
That's I think to be inclusive and so that everyone can understand if there is any kind of misunderstanding.
Thank you.
Yes, that is my intention.
I now suspend the meeting for 15 minutes.
Yeah.
Just to inform you colleagues, we are meeting at CRC.
No.
Okay.
Just I I I I Thank you, colleagues.
I will resume our session.
We were considering agenda item seven, consideration of special reports and we had a fruitful meeting between us informal meeting.
I believe we have reached an understanding.
For the sake of clarity, I would invite the distinguished representative of Algeria to repeat his requests in summary as he would like to say.
Thank you.
Yes.
Thank you, Chair, and thanks to all colleagues for their understanding for their commitment to our work.
So for the organization, Radeg the question is that there is discrepancy between the list they provided and what's in the public records.
So can they please explain this discrepancy? And then the question addressed to Oca Pros.
I defer to the question asked past February to this organization and ask Oca Pros to please provide the comprehensive response.
They didn't answer to all the questions.
I thank you.
I thank you.
Are there any delegations wish to take the floor at this stage? If not, the committee will transmit the questions to the relevant organizations and the committee will be notified when the response is received.
The second request of distinguished representative of Al Java was to have an informal meeting if possible, at the next week.
I'm proposing to have an informal meeting on 28th of May on 1:00 P.M.
Between 1:00 P.M.
And 1:30 P.M.
If there is no comments or questions on my proposals, I will give it.
Are there any other delegations wish to take the floor at this stage on agenda item seven? If not, the committee has thus concluded its consideration of agenda item seven for now.
Distinguished delegates.
The committee will resume consideration of items on its agenda on Thursday 28 May at 10:00 A.M.
In conference room one.
The meeting is adjourned.
Okay.