+ For Macedonia, please explain the legal arrangements for each and every current or ongoing. grant, contract, and other allocation and/ or disbursement to FOSM, including the means and terms by which they may be terminated. ‘+ For Macedonia, has the U.S, Goverment conducted any research, studies, or polling that would measure or index the effect its funding and support for FOSM has on the reputation, image, and public opinion of the United States as seen in Macedonia? Please provide such research, studies, or polling. ‘+ For Macedonia, what percentage of US aid money in the fields of democracy, civil society, and media is funded through FOSM? = For Macedonia, was any organization, entity, group (or any individual participant in any organization, entity or group) that receives U.S. funds, directly or indirectly, through FOSM or otherwise, reported to have been involved in violence, either against persons or property destruction, and have any police or security officers been ‘wounded in connection to that violence? Finally, we request that you report on what standards are applicable to the spending ‘of U.S. government funds in a foreign democratic country on media and civil society, and ‘on U.S. government intervention in the party politics of a foreign democratic country — and on whether these standards may have been violated or infringed upon in any way. Standards to consider include: ‘+ standards set by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (VCDR), particularly Article 41.1, “1. Without prejudice to their privileges and immunities, it is the duty of all persons enjoying such privileges and immunities to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State. They also have a duty not to interfere in the internal affairs of that State” — in this connection it is our understanding that the International Law Commission (ILC) that developed the text on which the Vienna Convention is based has noted in its commentary that persons enjoying diplomatic immunities and privileges “must not take part in political campaigns”; that this is the one example the ILC provides of violating VCDR 41.1; and that the leading textbook in this field, Prof. Paul Behrens’ Diplomatic Interference and the Law, explains “The possibility that diplomatic agents may favour a particular party in the receiving State, had been a topic of discussion even at the drafting stage of the rule against interference... participation in electoral campaigns is, in fact, a classic example of conduct which prima facie falls within the concept of interference... ‘The fact that cases of this kind frequently meet with criticism from receiving States with varying political systems might suggest that modem customary law contains ‘an outright ban on diplomatic participation in elections abroad”; + standards set by other intemational treaties, conventions, covenants and law; + standards set by U.S. laws and regulations, including the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended; ‘+ standards set by the rules, regulations, and policy statements of the U.S. government, including the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development; and + standards set by applicable federal ethics rules.