6.         The provisions of Parts X and XI will, therefore, apply side by side, complementing each other.  The assumption in paragraph 2 of Part XI is that no conflict exists between them.*  The following examination will demonstrate the additional character of Part XI.

7.         Qualified experts. The circumstances of an investigation into alleged use may require knowledge not normally required in other challenge inspections.  Paragraphs 7 through 9 of Part XI, therefore, provide for the Director General to prepare a list of qualified experts whose skills could be required in an alleged use inspection and whom the Director-General could appoint as members of the inspection team.  States Parties have thirty days to signify their non-acceptance of this list.  This use of qualified experts  does not exist in other types of challenge inspections.  (Section A of Part II would also apply to the compilation of the list of qualified experts and their possible  exclusion from that list in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs 4 and 5 of Part II).

8.         Dispatch of inspection team. The alleged use investigation is different from other challenge inspections in as much as it may be conducted under conditions of armed conflict, which may endanger the safety of the inspection team.  In view of the grave character of the accusation involved, and the possibility that essential evidence, such as traces of chemicals, may be subject to evaporation and degradation, these investigations also often involve special urgency.  For this reason paragraphs 10 to 12 of Part XI provide for special rules on safety and urgency and for a balance between these two considerations.

9.         Access. Paragraph 15 of Part XI deals with the extent of access that the inspectors of alleged use should enjoy in the following terms:

            "The inspection team shall have the right of access to any and all areas which could be affected by the alleged use of chemical weapons. It shall also have the right of access to hospitals, refugee camps and other locations it deems relevant to the effective investigation of the alleged use of chemical weapons. For such access, the inspection team shall consult with the inspected State Party".

10.       A basic difference between alleged use investigations and other types of challenge inspections lies in the sphere of operations of the inspection team.  While other challenge inspection are limited to investigations within the perimeter as defined in paragraph 21 of Annex I, alleged use investigations take place wherever the use of chemical weapons is alleged to have occurred.  This difference explains the "any and all areas" formula in paragraph 15.  The inspectors will not be limited by a specific perimeter, but will be able to go to any and all affected areas.  The same rationale also manifests itself in paragraph 19 of Part XI on the extension of the inspection site.

11.       As necessary, the State Party on whose territory the investigation takes place may request that the investigation be conducted in specific places or facilities on the basis of managed access.  Alleged use investigations may be conducted on the territory of the accused State Party or on the territory of a third State, but such investigations would, in most cases, take place on the territory of the requesting State Party itself.  It would seem odd to deprive the complaining State Party of the privileges that are given to a State Party accused of violating the Convention in other challenge inspections.

12.       Paragraph 15 has no bearing on the issue of managed access.  Under paragraph 47 of Part X the inspected State Party may designate only the points of entry or exit to the perimeter, but not the places to which the inspection team should go or the places within the perimeter to which inspectors may have access.

13.       The concept of "access" referred to in paragraph 47 of Part X is in conformity with the same concept in paragraph 15 of Part XI, just as it is with "access" referred to in paragraph 11(b) of Article IX or in paragraph 38 of Part X (regarding other types of challenge inspections).

14.       Sampling. The last sentence of paragraph 16 of Part XI introduces an additional rule on sampling that will apply in investigations of alleged use.  Under paragraph 16 samples may also be taken from areas neighbouring the site of the alleged use and not only from the site itself.  One reason for this is that, due to the lapse of time between the alleged use and the inspection, it might become necessary to identify, not the original chemicals but their break-down products.  Such products may also be present in the environment for reasons other than the use of chemical weapons.  Another reason is that it may be necessary to examine the background concentration of a toxin in the environment. such considerations do not exist in other types of challenge inspections.

15.       There is a difference between the sampling provisions of Part XI (paragraphs 16 through 18) and those of Part II (paragraphs 52 through 58, which also apply in challenge inspections).  Under paragraph 52 of Part II samples are ordinarily to be taken by the representatives either of the inspected State Party or of the inspected facility, whereas under paragraph 16 of Part XI, samples will be taken by the inspection team.

16.       The rationale behind this difference again lies in the special character of the alleged use investigation.  Other inspections take place in storage or production facilities. Confidentiality, as well as technical considerations require that samples be taken in those places by representatives of the inspected place.  These considerations do not apply in normal circumstances to alleged use investigations where the samples are mainly environmental and biological.  Consequently, the samples may be taken by the inspectors.  But if, during an alleged use investigation, it becomes necessary to collect samples from munitions or similar objects, the rationale of paragraph 52 would dictate that Part II rules would apply, and samples will be collected by the representatives of the inspected State Party".

- - - o - - -