constitutional order of the Republic of Serbia. £he implementation of those measures had resulted in abuses and those found guilty had been brought to justice. The unsatisfactory situation in Kosovo could be resolved only if two conditions were fulfilled, namely, the holding of democratic and multiparty parliamentary elections in that province and the recognition of the sovereignty and integrity of the Republic of Serbia as the State in which ethnic Albanians lived. In accordance with existing international instruments, the Government believed that national minorities did not have the right to self-determination and secession and strongly opposed the establishment of a new Albanian State. Constitutional and leaal framework within which the Covenant is implemented, state of emergency and self-determination 436. With regard to those issues, members of the Committee wished to receive further information on the effect of the current crisis on the constitutional order in Yugoslavia and on the discharge of Yugoslavia's international obligations to respect and ensure to all individuals subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant; the status of the amendments to the federal Constitution adopted since November 1988; developments regarding the adoption of new constitutions for the so-called "federal units"; developments relating to the observance of article 1 of the Covenant, in particular in view of the statement in the report that the adoption of amendments establishing federal units as sovereign States had implied that mutual relations in Yugoslavia had to proceed along new lines and had changed its internationally recognized status; and on the new legal system that had come into being as a result of such redistribution of power. Clarification was also requested of the rights that had actually been derogated from during the recent events; in particular, it was asked why Yugoslavia had not declared a state of emergency; why the notification procedure laid down in article 4, paragraph 3, of the Covenant had not been followed; what safeguards and remedies were available to individuals affected by the recent military operations claiming violations of the rights referred to in article 4, paragraph 2, of the Covenant; and what had been the impact of the state of emergency in Kosovo on the exercise of the rights guaranteed under the Covenant, in particular with regard to safeguards and remedies available to individuals. Members further inquired whether the Government intended to ratify the First Optional Protocol to the Covenant, which it had signed on 14 March 1990. 437, In addition, it was noted that, while the Covenant applied to the entire territory of Yugoslavia, the federal Government could protect civil and political rights only in Serbia and Montenegro. The Government was, however, to be considered responsible for the actions of its troops wherever they operated. Furthermore, information was requested concerning the events that had led to the Government resorting to force and to the war-type situation characterized by sieges and violence against civilians; the Government's view on the de jure and de facto scope of the application of the Covenant under the current rapidly evolving situation in the country; the status of the Covenant in the republics that had chosen to leave the Federation and establish independent States; and the new draft Constitution which was being drawn up to govern those republics that wished to remain in the Federation. Clarification was also requested of a statement in the report which seemed to ascribe the worsening human rights situation to political pluralism. -104-