By mail dated March 10, 2005, the Monitoring Committee sent through the acting Special Representative of the Secretary General of the United Nations to the Speaker of the Parliament of Cote d'lvoire a set of notes on some Acts passed by the National Parliament, which are not allegedly in conformity with the objective of the Linas-Marcoussis Agreement.

In so doing, the Monitoring Committee states that it is acting "to promote the peace and reconciliation process in Cote dlvoire".

In the presentation of its notes, the Monitoring Committee repeatedly used the fashionable phrase "the spirit and letter of the Linas-Marcoussis Agreement".

If the letter of the Agreements simply refers to the wording of the recommendations there is a persistent problem with the meaning given to the spirit of the Linas-Marcoussis Agreements.

A. / The Spirit of the Linas-Marcoussis Agreement is Given a Rough Ride

The spirit of an agreement conveys the meaning and purpose pursued by the authors of the said agreement.

As far as the Linas-Marcoussis Agreement is concerned, the purpose was to come up with a solution to the armed conflict shaking the country since it has been attacked by gangs of armed attackers supported by alien military and civil individuals from the neighbouring countries but also from a Western country, namely France.

Providing a solution to this crisis involved mostly putting an end to the belligerence and to the very existence of the grounds evoked by the attackers to justify their action.

Subsequently, the Agreements recommended the formation of a Government of National Reconciliation (only condition, from the prospect of the Agreements, to secure the disarmament of the armed groups whose existence was no longer justified from the formation in this Government and their participation therein) including the attackers and the representatives of the legitimate State power in Cote d'lvoire.

The Agreements re-asserted "the need to preserve the territorial integrity of Cote d'lvoire, respect its institutions (the Constitution, the President, the National Assembly, the Judiciary institutions...) and restore State authority".

This is finely sketched the spirit of the Linas-Marcoussis Agreements.

All the other reforms recommended by the Linas-Marcoussis Agreements were to be drafted by the Government of National Reconciliation and submitted to the National Assembly, which is part of the institutions whose upholding had been reasserted by the said Agreements.

Consequently, assessing the conformity of the Acts passed by the Parliament equates, on the one hand, to assessing their conformity with the recommendations made by the Linas-Marcoussis Agreements and assessing, on the other hand - in the process of passing of the said Acts - the respect for the Parliamentarian Institution and the compliance with the principles governing the rule of law in Cote d'lvoire.

B. / The Monitoring Committee Monitors the Linas-Marcoussis Agreements Selectively

The selective monitoring of the Linas-Marcoussis Agreements conducted by the Monitoring Committee you chair is blatant and utterly blameful.

The Linas-Marcoussis Agreement slated disarmament on its agenda and recommended the immediate execution of the same upon the formation of the Government of National Reconciliation.

If Monitoring Committee does not mention at all the compliance with this recommendation made by the Linas-Marcoussis Agreements, should we infer that for the said Committee the Government of Reconciliation has not yet been set up?

Otherwise, why while launching an all-out onslaught on the legislative and regulatory provisions regarding the settlement of the Ivorian crisis this Committee does not mention concurrently the disarmament expected since the formation of the Government of National Reconciliation that occurred back in March 2003. Should this be recalled to the said Committee?

The rebel movements and their allies in the G7 coalition... and France and her obliges alongside with them claim that the referendum - which is to provide the People of Cote d'lvoire the opportunity to voice their standpoint regarding the amendment of Article 35 of the Constitution - cannot be held because the country is partitioned and the rebels are still in arms.

The objective, that is to say the spirit of the Linas-Marcoussis Agreements was to succeed in having, upon the formation of the Government of National Reconciliation, a unified State both in terms of territorial integrity and administrative outreach. As a result, it is preposterous to argue that the Ivorian territory is still partitioned.

This spirit is against the very existence of an buffer zone, which was not provided for anywhere in the Linas-Marcoussis Agreements since the disarmament recommended to be initiated immediately after the formation of the Government of National Reconciliation made any buffer zone null and void.

Therefore, it is in total breach of the spirit and letter of the Linas-Marcoussis Agreement that there is in Cote d'lvoire a buffer zone, fraudulently referred to as confidence zone, which is the place, par excellence, for the re-colonizing of the territory of Cote d'lvoire by the French Devil embodied by Jacques Chirac, the Unicorn.

In view of all this, how can the Monitoring Committee convince us of its concern to promote the peace and reconciliation process if it fails to criticize the refusal of the armed groups sitting on the Government of National Reconciliation to disarm (even if they show an absenteeism the Monitoring Committee seems not to be aware of) when it descries irreverently a Republican Institution to which it should owe total respect pursuant to the Unas Marcoussis Agreements.

How does the Monitoring Committee perceive these issues and many others, which are matters of concern to Ivoirians who - weary of awaiting an unlikely disarmament - should secure arms in their turn to ensure as best as they can the security of their country, which remains single and indivisible.

The current stance of the Monitoring Committee urges us to do so. It is the only way out left to be explored since the People of Cote d'lvoire, who have been conned by the Monitoring Committee through the MPs, has no other option but to rely on themselves.

C. / Irrelevant Comparisons between the Linas-Marcoussis Agreements and the Texts propounded by the National Assembly.

It should be indicated that the Linas-Marcoussis Agreements propounded no text drafting except for Article 35 of the Constitution for the amendment of which a text has been propounded; it has ever since become a bill aimed at amending the Constitution, which remains to be passed for good by the People through a referendum to become ultimately an Act liable to be promulgated.

The conception and drafting of most of the bills were conducted by Ivorians (???) working in various administrative services - especially at the Prime Minister's Office -who have thus given these bills their understanding of the Linas-Marcoussis Agreement.

At this stage, it is worthwhile indicating that these texts were not drafted in accordance with the spirit of the Linas-Marcoussis Agreement in that all the signatories of the said Agreements have not been involved in their drafting.

The adoption by the Government of National Reconciliation of these bills, with or without amendment, would have given these documents a more official trait; prior to this operation the whole process was imprinted by the sole and unilateral will of the Prime Minister.

The fact, however, is that the adoption by the Government does not equate with the participation of all the signatories, since these adoptions were mechanical ones.

For the sake of objectivity, it would have been appropriate for the Monitoring Committee to scrutinize the conformity of the bills adopted by the Government of National Reconciliation with the Linas-Marcoussis Agreements before examining the conformity of the bills passed by the Parliament, in due respect for the institutions as advocated by the same Agreements.

In any case, the bills passed by the National Parliament may not be in conformity with the Linas-Marcoussis Agreements as is the case with the Amnesty Law, which went beyond the spirit and letter of the Linas-Marcoussis Agreement, just as the current partition of the national territory is not in keeping with the same agreements. Yet, the Monitoring Committee seems not to perceive any inconsistencies in either case.

II. / COMMENTS

The notes submitted by Monitoring Committee call for the following comments:

Act Organizing the Independent Electoral Commission (C.E.I.), Passed in Plenary Session by the National Assembly on December 10, 2004:

Concerning the aforementioned Act, the Monitoring Committee notes that "this new Act is not in line with the spirit and letter of the Linas-Marcoussis Agreements in that it does not ensure a better representation of the signatories to the Linas-Marcoussis Agreement, neither in the Central Commission nor in the Board of the C.E.I. It precludes the representation of Forces Nouvelles in the decentralized branches of the said Institution... The innovations that it contains do not provide for adequate conditions for opening, impartiality and balance for all signatories".

On that account, the Linas-Marcoussis Agreements made the following recommendation "the Government of National Reconciliation ...shall propound several amendments to Act # 2001-634 in view of a better representation of the participants in the Roundtable within the Central Commission of the Independent Electoral Commission, including in the Board".

It emerges from this recommendation that the proposal of amendment should allow a better representation of all parties to the Roundtable within the Central Commission as well as in the Board.

Therefore, the bodies concerned are the Central Commission and the Board.

By way of consequence, the Monitoring Committee wrongly evokes the decentralized structures.

In addition, the Monitoring Committee mentions the claim lodged by the G7 concerning the right of each political party to appoint and dismiss freely its representatives on the C.E.I.: this claim is against the stance of independence and impartiality expected from the C.E.I.

Furthermore, as the rebels movements are bound to disappear (a better follow-up of the Agreements would have been a catalyst for their disappearance upon the formation of the Government of National Reconciliation), it is fair that representation in the C.E.I, should not be extended beyond the 2005 general elections; likewise, their presence on the Board should not be explicitly specified but be the outcome of classical arbitrations applying to such matters without ostracizing any party, as appropriate in democratic rules.

In effect, the C.E.I, is a Republican Institution whose existence transcends the armed conflict led by G7 against the State of Cote d'lvoire; it also goes beyond the 2005 elections, which it is bound to outlive.

Therefore, it advisable that it be governed by an Act addressing all these factors. This is what the Ivorian MPs endeavoured to do.

Besides, the restriction that the representatives of the rebels should sit on the C.E.I, only on disarming is definitely in line with the spirit and the letter of the Linas-Marcoussis Agreements, if, of course, one is not scared of the rebellion and its main sponsor - which France under Chirac - to realise it.

These Agreements enshrine the respect for the integrity of the Republic of Cote d'lvoire, the respect for Republican Institutions and the commencement of disarmament upon the formation of the Government of National Reconciliation, things that are incompatible with the presence of individuals illicitly armed and unlawfully "holding sway" over whole areas of the territory of the Republic uncontrolled by the administrative services of the State of Cote d'lvoire, all with the complicity of the Elysee - Presidency of France.

The power of dismissal of the members of the C.E.I, granted to the Constitutional Court enshrines the fundamentally lawful nature of the C.E.I.

Indeed, it helps protect the power of dismissal of the members of the C.E.I, from the arbitrariness of the Institution per se and from that of political parties (whose personal interests are distinct from and opposed to the collective interest, the preservation of which is entrusted to the members of the C.E.I, as a whole) to be entrusted to a Republican judicial institution comprised of figures renown for their skills and experience in legal and judicial matters.

If, indeed, the Monitoring Committee were concerned with the observance of the spirit and letter of the Linas-Marcoussis Agreements, it would have been fairer to criticize the Government's bill which tended to establish a new Electoral Commission controlled by political parties and lacking autonomy, and thus totally under the yoke of political parties, and subsequently biased.

The National Parliament has contributed to avoid putting in place an institution, which, like the Government of National Reconciliation itself, would have had difficulties operating because placed under the yoke of political parties, and mostly under the sway of rebels who are wont to boycott the institutions they join for the only sake of preventing their smooth operation. And the Monitoring Committee seems not to know it while it is blatant for all observers.

New Acts on Citizenship and Naturalization in Cote d'lvoire passed on December 17, 2004:

Concerning this issue, the Monitoring Committee adequately recalls the recommendations made by the Linas-Marcoussis Agreements, which provide that "the Government of National Reconciliation ... shall submit, exceptionally, within six months, a bill of naturalization aimed at solving, simply and in an accessible manner, situations that are currently blocked and referred to common law (mostly cases of former beneficiaries of Articles 17-23 of Act # 61-415 repealed by Act # 72-852, and individuals living in Cote dTvoire before 7 August 1960 who could not exercise their right of option in the prescribed time-limits), and to complete the existing text by including in new Article 12 alien citizens married to Ivorian women".

On perusal of this recommendation, it emerges that the target pursued was twofold: propose, on the one hand, a naturalization bill (concerning maybe individual previously identified as "victims" of the amendment operation that occurred in 1972 and whose naturalization requested then was made impossible by the new texts); amend, on the other hand, a single provision of the existing Act, namely new Article 12 to include alien citizens married to Ivorian women.

The Government of National Reconciliation was neither called upon to propound a bill amending the Act on Citizenship in Cote d'lvoire nor called upon, as it did, to produce a new Act on Citizenship.

By propounding a new Act, the Office of the Prime Minister blazed the trail for all kinds of fiddling with the regulation on citizenship, not in keeping with the mere will of settling the crisis as the Linas-Marcoussis Agreements claim to.

It shows clearly here that it is the Governmental bill that is not in conformity with the letter of the Linas-Marcoussis Agreement, and this is what emerges from the detailed review of the points the Monitoring Committee referred to.

a) Cases of the Former Beneficiaries of Articles 17-23 of Act # 61-415 repealed by Act # 72-852:

The Monitoring Committee's review is inaccurate and the confusion is of note.

Contrary to the Monitoring Committee's statement, the recommendation does not aim at meeting the request of all the individuals who could until 21 December 1972 enjoy the benefit of Articles 17-23 of the 1961 Act but rather those who wished to obtain Ivorian citizenship and have had their request thwarted by the 1972 Act.

Besides, there was no need for a law since by nature a law is meant to impersonal and open; and in fact, the case in point was to solve identified and globally personal cases; this is why a better construction of the recommendation would have helped propound the President of the Republic a bill of naturalization for the identified individuals.

But for petty manipulation - deeply concealed motive of the rebels and their allies -the Prime Minister chose to propound an Act amending the Citizenship Act, giving at any moment to people of all kinds the opportunity to apply, depending on their moods, for the Ivorian Citizenship and all in breach of the Linas-Marcoussis Agreements.

The National Assembly acted to put an end to this scheming and this is right and fair. The Monitoring Committee is mistaken about the spirit of the Act.

b) (New) Article 12 of the Citizenship Code: Inclusion of Alien Citizens Married to Ivorian Citizens:

Concerning this matter, the Monitoring Committee descries the passed Act for having, on the one hand, cancelled the full-fledged entitlement to Ivorian Citizenship through wedlock by slating that the alien women should request it, and for maintaining a differential treatment for the male alien citizen and the female alien citizen.

It should first be noted that it is the bill of amendment of new Article 12 adopted by the Government of National Reconciliation that cancelled the full-fledged entitlement to Ivorian Citizenship for the married female alien citizen and set it as a condition for her to request it, at least two years after marriage.

On that score, since the Monitoring Committee deemed that the Government abode by the Linas-Marcoussis Agreements, the criticism it makes is null and void, unless it aimed at the Government of National Reconciliation.

This Government furthermore propounded the repealing of Articles 13 and 14, which had in no way been provided for by the Linas-Marcoussis Agreements. As for the Parliament it just subscribed to the option consisting in requesting the woman to request the Ivorian Citizenship on getting married, but not within two years after marriage as propounded by the Government.

This is in no way a regression but rather an advantage granted to the woman who has a right to assess the opportunity to acquire or not a foreign citizenship through wedlock. This provision respects women's right as advocated by all the current major charters of Human Rights.

Next the Parliament kept Articles 13 and 14 as such in the legal purview but cancelled their application to the alien male citizen.

In the same vein, the Parliament requested that the male alien citizen who marries an Ivorian women should apply for the Ivorian Citizenship two years after wedlock, condition that had been provided for by the Government's bill for the female alien citizen. The principle of de jure citizenship is not, at all, an advantage; it is a violation of the basic rights of the individuals concerned in the sense that it grants them de facto a citizenship, which may emerge as incompatible with their current situation. The man who marries an Ivorian woman is assuredly looking for his soul mate and not necessarily an additional citizenship. By what right should we deprive him of this freedom to choose?

The allusion made by the Monitoring Committee to the principle of equality of all before the law enshrined, as it specifies, by Article 30 of the Constitution provides us the opportunity to remind the said Committee that the same Article 30 states also and beforehand that "The Republic of Cote d'lvoire single, indivisible, secular, democratic and social".

What does the Monitoring Committee do to restore the authority of the State across the country to pretend to lead the fight for the equality of all before the law while scores of Ivorians are currently - we are soon going to usher in the third year -deprived of their freedom to move all over the country, because held hostage by armed attackers without the Monitoring Committee's daring so far to demand the Rally of rebels to observe this principle of equality of all before the law enshrined by the Constitution.

Because without this other fight, the fight for alien citizens in Cote d'lvoire is doomed to fail, just as the mission of the same Monitoring Committee.

Furthermore, are not the Linas-Marcoussis Agreements the instrument, par excellence, enshrining the inequality of all before the law since they acknowledge the superiority of alien citizens over Ivorian nationals whose laws are deemed ineffective to ensure the happiness of alien citizens living in Cote d'lvoire at the expense of Ivorians? Does the Monitoring Committee think it can put an end to disorder by committing an act of injustice while upholding concurrently freedom and peace in Cote d'lvoire and in the sub-region? In view of the foregoing we may wonder if the Monitoring Committee and its sponsors really want peace to be restored in Cote d'lvoire or are working on a secret agenda. Anyway, they are highly suspicious.

c) Other provisions of the Citizenship Code

The Monitoring Committee indicates that new Articles 16 and 43, which are allegedly new provisions, are not in line with the spirit of the Linas-Marcoussis Agreements.

Indeed, the Monitoring Committee implies simply that these texts had not been provided for by the recommendations of the Linas-Marcoussis Agreements.

By venting to make a condemnatory judgement against the National Assembly for these texts, the Monitoring Committee was twice wrong.

It is primarily wrong because it would have been creditworthy if it had limited itself to propounding the mere cancellation of new Articles for not having been recommended by the Linas-Marcoussis Agreements.

It is also wrong because both texts introduce the term "alien" instead of "woman" to extend their enforcement for both the alien woman and the alien man and this is a positive and beneficent development for the interested individuals; it is also in keeping with Article 30 of the Constitution referred to earlier.

The Monitoring Committee continues and writes that in prescribing that the alien who has become Ivorian may keep their citizenship only if the demise of their spouse or divorce occurs after the tenth year of marriage, the law renders the status of the alien man legally unstable.

It is untrue to make such as statement, which does not furthermore build on any serious judicial review, except if one is poised to write that the marriage of an alien citizen to an Ivorian woman aims at securing the Ivorian Citizenship for the former instead of establishing a community of life between two human beings, adding further that only destitute men and women seek marriage with Ivorian nationals for the sake of enjoying the benefits arising from this citizenship. Is this not offensive for those who seek to be married in Cote d'lvoire?

The acquisition of he Ivorian Citizenship by such mean is a special right the alien citizen may waiver by resolving to keep their initial citizenship pursuant to the law. They have a choice to exercise in full knowledge; furthermore, the legislator has a right and the duty to create the conditions for perpetuating the wedlock ties binding Ivorian women to alien citizens.

Regarding new Article 43, the Monitoring Committee makes a grievous mistake by spotting therein additional constraints and limitations, which will delay the integration of naturalized aliens. To what extent is the impossibility for a naturalized alien to work as an architect within five years from naturalization be against the spirit of the Linas-Marcoussis Agreement?

Concerning new Article 53, the Monitoring Committee displays its utter ignorance in writing that the adopted text is not in keeping with the spirit of the Linas-Marcoussis Agreements because it repeals the obligation for the State to notify its national the loss of his/her Ivorian Citizenship.

In what does the cancellation of a costly procedure for the State, whose administration generally proves cumbersome, is detrimental to the spirit of the Linas-Marcoussis Agreements?

Does not a law principle posit that no one is supposed to be unaware of the law! So what is the need to notify a national of age, who does not abide by the provision of new Article 53, the loss of this Ivorian Citizenship while in scores of other cases they could have been sued for collusion with a foreign power?

Besides, the purpose pursued was to attune the contents of Article 53 to that of Article 48, which states that the loss of citizenship does not apply de jure to the Ivorian national registered in the census books for fifteen years. This provision benefits the State and not the national who has resolved to acquire another citizenship.

Act on the Identification of Individuals and the Stay of Aliens in Cote d'lvoire:

The Monitoring Committee notes here that the mentions required on the identity papers are against the spirit of the Linas-Marcoussis Agreements, primarily on the ground that one of those mentions requires the resumption of the whole process of data collection; secondly that the other mention is a source of discrimination between citizens of a same country.

Is such analysis serious and worthy of the largest civil service in the world? Should that come from partisans of the rebel block it would be understandable but from a body of the UNO it is indicative of manipulation or else of guilty collusion.

As far the mention of the "height" is concerned, the Monitoring Committee is worried about the resumption of the whole data collection process. This is all the less grounded as since 1960 the national identity papers have always included the mention of the height; better still, the issue is to tell an individual from another since names, as well as dates and places of birth can be the same.

At worst, the resumption of the data collection will have a purely financial impact on the identification process.

The pursued purpose is not to specify the ethnic group like in Rwanda prior the genocide or like in Lebanon even now but the nationality of origin; this provision that can help control the enforcement of the relevant provisions of new Article 43 as well as many others which prevent the naturalized Ivorian citizen from exercising some functions within some prescribed time-limits.

The nationality of origin has nothing discriminatory; otherwise one should forbid the naturalization of coloured people (Whites and Asians) whose skin colour shows clearly that they are different from other Ivorians.

The lawmaker remedied the omission by the former Act which cancelled the mention of the height; one should be grateful to him for that. Without a thorough identification of the inhabitants of a country how can we crack down efficiently on crimes?

Act # 2004-494 on the Funding of Political Parties, Political Groupings and Candidates running for Presidential Elections on Public Funds and Repealing Act # 94-694 of December 14, 1999:

The Monitoring Committee has quoted in extenso in its comments the text of the recommendation of the Linas-Marcoussis Agreement, which provides for a bill on the status of the opposition and the funding of political parties and election campaigns.

In effect, this recommendation contains two items: an item pertaining to the status of the opposition - and let it be said up to now no text has been submitted to the National Assembly - and another item concerning the funding of political parties and election campaigns.

It should be considered that the Prime Minister did not deem it useful to propound a new status for the opposition since the current configuration of the control of power in Cote d'lvoire does not allow for the identification of which political parties or groupings are in the opposition.

Concerning the presidential system, the Constitution provides that political parties partake only in the voting and are not meant to control power. People wrongly spoke of the P.D.C.I. in power in the past and the F.P.I, in power today. This is an abusive term misuse.

To assert the existence in Cote d'lvoire of opposition political parties is to acknowledge the vacuity of all the purview of the Linas-Marcoussis Agreement, which led to a principle of power-control sharing, real souk specific to banana republics as desired by Chirac and his followers.

The only individuals to be found in the opposition in Cote d'lvoire marked by the Linas-Marcoussis Agreement are the Ivoirians who acknowledge neither the Linas-Marcoussis Agreements nor this Government of National Reconciliation. And as a matter of course, these Ivorians are not part of the concerns of the Monitoring Committee, which limits Cote d'lvoire to the signatories of the Linas-Marcoussis Agreement. What a pity!

The other Points in the Recommendation relate to the Funding of Political Parties and Election Campaigns on Public Funds.

In this regard, the Monitoring Committee should have underpinned that the Act propounded by the Government and passed by the National Assembly has introduced the notion of candidates running for the presidential elections where the recommendation slated election campaigns.

And yet it has condoned this infringement of the Linas-Marcoussis Agreement and is now worried about the fate of the signatories of the said agreements. Is this not weird!

The Monitoring Committee is going to worry in vain because the recommendation mentions political parties and not the signatories of the Agreements; therefore, all the political parties are concerned. One needs assessment criteria since there are more than 100 political parties in Cote d'lvoire, a country with a per capita income of less than 500 dollars per year and a political class getting richer faster than achieving the reasons it came to power for. Should we institutionalise the plundering of public funds by politicians for the Ivorians to be in peace in one of the most indebted African countries?

Better still, as this Act is meant to outlive the 2005 general elections, the Monitoring Committee has no cause to worry about the fate of political parties, which did not partake in the previous elections (to fail afterwards in their armed attack on Cote d'lvoire) and of those who participated but did not win any seat; they will take part in the forthcoming ballots and if they succeed in winning some seats they will then benefit by the provisions of this Act for the next campaigns. Such is the will of the current Parliament. There is no other ways besides disbanding this Parliament or overthrowing it. Otherwise, we may resume the text reviewing exercise. The outcome may not change ceteripar/bus.

On this issue the Monitoring Committee does not state that the Act is not conformity with the Linas-Marcoussis Agreements; it just content itself with raising questions the Act has provided answers to but which the Monitoring Committee scorned as it scorned the National Assembly as an Institution. Should cry over that?

Legal Status of the Audiovisual Communication:

With regard to Act # 2004-644 of 14 December 2004, the Monitoring Committee indicates that this text depart from the spirit of the Linas-Marcoussis Agreement.

The Monitoring Committee could have stopped there but will not as this truth is far from assuaging its will to fuel the fire of the armed rebellion its proteges are leading in Cote d'lvoire.

It thus asserts that the decree taken by the President of the Republic to enforce this Act strays from the spirit of Linas-Marcoussis, as far as RTI is concerned.

The Monitoring Committee has subsequently identified two elements: first, that the decree trespasses the powers statutorily granted; second, that decree has not been taken pursuant to the normal procedure.

Concerning the first issue, the Monitoring Committee underpins that this decree was taken in the absence of the Minister of Communication.

This is all the more ridiculous as the Monitoring Committee is fully aware that the Minister of Communication has been on holiday for almost a year now and that he has never taken an active part in the proceedings of the Government whose existence is far from corresponding to his initial purposes. The main function of this Minister is to act as local foreman of the rebellion. Does the Monitoring Committee not know that this function is much rewarding than the leadership of a Ministry, which requires - no matter what may be said - some skill. Being rebel leader makes it possible to pay oneself by robbing banks and organising the looting of people's properties, in all impunity, at least for the time being.

For the Monitoring Committee to make such comments, it is conceivable that the said Committee finds this attitude of the Minister of Communication - who has furthermore never had time to draft a bill; does he, in fact, know how? - in conformity with the spirit of the Linas-Marcoussis Agreements.

This being said, the Monitoring Committee finds fault with the decree in that it grants the Board of Directors the power to dismiss the General Manager (G.M.) and in so doing the Article, as the Monitoring Committee claims, goes beyond the statutorily granted powers, which deal only with the issue of appointment.

In such circumstances, how does the Monitoring Committee propound to remove from office the G.M. appointed by the Board of Directors? Which body will be competent to dismiss the G.M. appointed by the Board of Directors? Should the G.M. then be irremovable as the law failed to designate the body responsible for dismissing him/her or for failing to have even evoked his/her dismissal? Concerning the second issue, the Monitoring Committee seems to say that the decree has not been adopted in Cabinet Meeting. This criticism is simply due to the blameful ignorance of the applicable regulation for such matters. In Cote d'lvoire, the President of the Republic takes decrees either in Cabinet Meeting or simple decrees off Cabinet Meetings.

Decrees taken in Cabinet Meetings must be explicitly provided for by an Act?

The fact, however, is that Article 112 of the Act that the Monitoring Committee deems fully in conformity with the Linas-Marcoussis Agreements states that "the statutes of public sector bodies are approved by decree". It is not specified that the decree be taken in Cabinet Meeting. This is why the comments of the Monitoring Committee on this issue are not only irrelevant but they mostly appear as offensive to the President of the Republic.

Finally, according to the Monitoring Committee, this time of crisis calls for the establishment of a body with equal representation and the granting of extended powers to this body.

If such body with equal representation has not been provided for by the Linas-Marcoussis Agreements, the Monitoring Committee has no ground to evoke it and suggest it, lest it act against the spirit and letter of the said agreements.

National Commission for the Monitoring of the Identification Process:

The Monitoring Committee deems the decree taken President of the Republic in conformity with the Linas-Marcoussis Agreement.

The Monitoring Committee deplores however, on the one hand, that the decisions of this Commission should only be advisory and, on the other hand, that its status was adopted by decree and not by law.

The Linas-Marcoussis Agreements called for the establishment of this Commission to be made effective by a decree and not by a law so that the Monitoring Committee cannot rightfully go beyond what the said Agreements recommend. So much confusion for wanting to adopt at all cost the stances of the rebels and France.

The Monitoring Committee wishes furthermore that the rulings of the Commission be compulsory and binding because all the signatories of the Agreements are represented therein.

The monitoring the Commission is to conduct aims only at remedying, pursuant to the recommendation made by these Agreements, the uncertainty and sluggishness in the identification processes.

What compulsory force does this Commission need to discharge its duties? All other mandates assigned to the Commission would be incompatible with the Linas-Marcoussis Agreements, just as the binding force of such rulings since the identification process concerns large numbers of Ivorians who are not affiliates of the groupings that signed the Linas-Marcoussis Agreement.

CONCLUSION

As a conclusion, the Monitoring Committee has reviewed four Acts relating to citizenship and one decree.

It did not deem it necessary to get entangled in the mazes of the pro and anti-referendum battle; but there is no doubt that such a stance is due to the lack of relevant arguments and also to the fact the case is closed and the referendum is the only way.

The Monitoring Committee deemed the decree establishing the National Commission for the Monitoring of the Identification Process, the Act on the Legal Status of Audiovisual Communication as satisfactory and deemed on questionable grounds, as aforementioned, the other texts debatable.

With regards to the form, it is a real indictment by the Monitoring Committee, which made use of the terms and tone in use in the G7 rebellion: irreverent and hardly urbane.

In so doing, the Monitoring Committee lacked the necessary courage to produce a criticism that would have helped assess its impartiality in the monitoring of the implementation of the Linas-Marcoussis Agreement.

It neither has the mettle to descry the rebels' refusal to disarm nor to protect the civilian populations in the areas held by the French troops with the support of rebels and vice-versa.

In any case, the Speaker of the National Assembly being the addressee of the comments of the Monitoring Committee, it is fair and appropriate to indicate that the texts adopted by the National Assembly are no longer in the remit of this Institution.

Likewise, the Monitoring Committee's move compares with a will of imposing mandatory instructions on MPs, thing that is against the Constitution of Cote d'lvoire, which neither the spirit nor the letter of the Linas-Marcoussis Agreement did repeal. Unless this is now a new requirement of Monitoring Committee as witnessed lately in Togo.

Otherwise, it falls into the province of the Monitoring Committee to approach the Government of National Reconciliation to draft, as required, new texts to be submitted to the National Assembly without the least guarantee that will be passed pursuant to the procedure in force therein. Charles de Montesquieu, the father of Constitutional Democracy, used to say "the Constitution should be touched but with a shaking hand". The Monitoring Committee scorned this recommendation and seems have followed suit those took arms to attack the constitutional order of the People of Cote d'lvoire. What is to come next and when is it due?