By making this statement, the European Union is expressing its concern with the present situation and asking for the undertakings given to be complied with.

First of all, the proposal submitted by the group of four envisions drastically altering the Security Council's composition as regards the proportion of permanent to non-permanent members, making that proportion almost equal.

In stating our view, I want to make this clear at the outset: a great debate is at hand, and we shall take part in it, in cooperation with others, and shall do so with an open mind.

In making that observation he did not wish to assign responsibility for the late issuance of documents, and acknowledged that it was often not possible to submit a document for processing ten weeks before the opening of the session for which it was intended; equally, it was generally not possible for the processing services to make up for the late submission.

In making this statement, its authors must bear in mind that over 350,000 Serbs have been expelled from Croatia, that columns of unarmed civilian refugees, fleeing the Croatian military, were strafed, shelled and shot at by other weapons in a most brutal manner on their way to Bosnia and Herzegovina and Yugoslavia and that many of them lost their lives.

Lastly, the Commission on Human Rights in resolution 1995/16 invited him to give attention to the declaration and programme of action to be adopted by the World Summit for Social Development, thus making this study an integral part of the strategies and efforts of all United Nations bodies and institutions to eradicate poverty.

In offering this interpretation the State has not ruled out subsequent interpretative proceedings nor has it ruled out the possibility that its interpretation will be rejected. [...] If, on the other hand, the declaring State wishes to assert its interpretation regardless of what a subsequent tribunal might include, that is, the State when making the declaration has ruled out the possibility of a subsequent inconsistent interpretation of the treaty, a different result should follow.

171. On 6 June 2002, the Appeals Chamber (Judges Jorda, Presiding, Shahabuddeen, Güney, Gunawardana and Meron) dismissed the appeal, on the ground that the contention of the Appellant that rule 90 (H) (ii) infringed upon his right to privileged communications with his counsel was based on a misunderstanding of the rule, because rule 90 (H) (ii) was not addressed to the right of a client to make privileged communications to his counsel but designed to facilitate the fair and efficient presentation of evidence by giving the witness being cross-examined an opportunity to explain his evidence that was being contradicted by the cross-examining party with reference to the nature of its case, thus avoiding the unnecessary recall of the witness subsequently to provide that explanation and enabling the Trial Chamber to assess the credibility of the witness's evidence more fully through his explanation or the explanation by his counsel.