After the discovery of the Charnier de Yopougon, U.S. State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher called the reports of the massacre “appalling.” He applauded the Ivorian government’s agreement to allow an international investigation, and welcomed “the commitment of Mr. Gbagbo to find the perpetrators of the massacre and bring them to justice.”146 Most U.S. assistance, except to support child survival and combat HIV-AIDS, has been suspended since the 1999 military coup, as mandated under section 508 of the Foreign Operations Act. U.S. assistance will remain suspended until the president certifies to Congress that a democratic government has taken office. Although there have been no official statements calling for new elections, the thrust of U.S. policy continues to be that it will monitor the situation and reevaluate as appropriate. U.S. officials maintain that they have repeatedly told the Ivorian government that those implicated in the violence must be brought to justice, and that any resumption of U.S. aid will be evaluated in the context of government progress toward national reconciliation and curbing human rights abuses.147 In its annual report on human rights conditions around the world during 2000, published in February 2001, the State Department criticized the government of Côte d’Ivoire for its persistent human rights abuses, including violations committed during the 2000 elections, and the lack of full, participatory elections. The report calls the Ivorian government's human rights record “poor,” and notes that members of the security forces committed numerous human rights abuses, including hundreds of extrajudicial killings. The report states that the Gbagbo government has a “mixed record in controlling the security forces.”148 The European Union (E.U.) In December 1998 the European Union suspended aid to President Bédié’s regime following a scandal involving the misappropriation of €27.5 million by several ministers. The December l999 coup ensured that any potential resumption of aid was postponed. In January 2001, the E.U. decided to hold consultations with Côte d’Ivoire under Article 96 of the ACP-EU Cotonou Agreement,149 the new human rights conditionality clause. The consultations, which were held on February 15, focused on a series of E.U. concerns about the electoral process and human rights violations. The E.U. presented to the government a list of areas that had to be addressed within three months for the resumption of non-humanitarian aid. They included:150 1. Assure an open political system for all parties and guarantee that the municipal elections would be open to all parties; 2. Make the committee for national reconciliation an active and efficient structure to address intercommunal problems, provide it with the necessary means to function, and ensure that its recommendations are followed by the government; 3. Make transparency on the abuses committed during the transition, including under the military regime, a priority; 4. Guarantee the neutrality of the armed forces and ensure that they respect human rights; 5. Guarantee the independence and the neutrality of the justice system, especially in the nomination of local judges; 6. Guarantee freedom of expression, especially of the press; 146 “Press Briefing,” U.S. Department of State, October 30, 2000. Briefer: Richard Boucher, Spokesman. Human Rights Watch interview with Don Boy, Ivory Coast Desk Officer at U.S. Department of State, June 19, 2001. 148 U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices – 2000. (Washington: February 2001). 149 The Cotonou Agreement, concluded in June 2000, replaced the previous Lomé Agreement and regulates trade and other relations between African, Caribbean, and Pacific (ACP) developing countries and the E.U. Among other things, the Cotonou Agreement included stronger human rights criteria than its predecessor for the ACP countries to have preferential trade terms with the E.U. 150 “Côte d’Ivoire: La check list politique de l’UE!” La Lettre du Continent, March 1, 2001, p. 4. 147 Human Rights Watch 65 August 2001, Vol. 13, No. 6(A)