1. Protection for Prof. Fortuyn, considering informations available at that time, was sufficient under the circumstances of that time.
2. Nevertheless in retrospective, with the informations now available, clearly serious questions may be posed as to the degree of security. The Netherlands was not prepaired for crimes of this sort.
3. Questions may also bve posed about at what stage involuntary protection should be considered as Prof. Fortuyn did not specifically request protections nor took own measures.
4. Evaluation at this time indicate that possibly serieus errors were made in the danger assesments.
5. Due to the unpredictable behaviors of a single disturbed individual having set his mind on a one man action, it is questionable whether effective protection was at all possible.
6. Contrary to reports and wild speculations in the press the BVD (now AIVD) did not target Prof. Fortuyn for wiretapping at any time. For reasons of it's limited mandate it would even not have been possible. Neither did at any time the responsible ministers and prime minister authorize such tapping. Possibly there were instances of indirect tapping of contacts with suspected extremist foreign contacts.
7. Due to the ongoing nature of the Volkert van der Graaf trial specifics of the murder investigations can not be addressed at this time.

Final conclusions will ammount to the realization that lessons of this tragic incident will have to be included in future danger assesments.

Further worries will be expressed relating to the broder between freedom of expressions and unfounded and instigative conspiracy theories and unacceptable severe accusations against public figures.

Haak recommendations:

1. Increased awareness and considerations of dangers are required in future dager assesments.
2. Study should be conducted on enhancing AIVD and other services mandates and authorities, as recent events have shown the need to re-evaluate the distinctions between privacy and security.
3. Wiretapping mandates shoudl possibly be strongly enlarged in respect to individuals, organizations and groups.

Net result will be some degree of critics about the functioning of the resposible ministers and services, however due to circumstances as they were normal in the Netherlands no undue blame can be places at those individuals and/or services. Further of course it will be stressed that there is nothing like the wild conspiracy thoughts circulating among internet people and Fortuyn supporters. That this kind of thinking is understandable in face of the national trauma caused by the murder, that however also steps should be taken to prevent this from happening in future cases.

MCC states that this is only a description of the essence of the report as sources provided us with.

Clearly this report is only an addition to all manipulations and serves only to solidify the cover-up. Clearly also the timing o 17-12-2002 only one day before 18-12 is not coincidental.

MCC at this time is studying several options in concert with third parties, own expert staff and consultants on three options:

1. Maintaining the 18-12-2002 02:00 gmt release date
   1. Advantage
   2. Of course for logistical, structural and coordinational reasons this option most easy.
   3. Drawbacks
   4. Unavailablitity of the official version of the Haak report
   5. Possible local Dutch news flooding
2. Moving the release date to 16-12-2002 02:00 gmt
   1. drawbacks
   2. Coordinational and organizational aspects
   3. Dutch local press media stay in stagnated positions waiting the official Haak report
   4. Unavailability of the official version of the Haak report
3. Moving the release date to 23-12-2002 02:00 gmt
   1. Drawbacks
   2. Increased time for manipulations attempts
   3. Added security risks for local employees and affiliates
   4. Advantages
   5. Due to the publically unsatifactory nature of the Haak reporting Dutch media become under more pressure in face of criticisms
   6. Detailed analysis of the Report can be conducted for purpose of:
      1. Enhancing impact of factual proofs and evidences
      2. Full exposure of the crimminal nature of the Haak Report composers manipulations.
      3. Enhancing pressures on implicated politicians, like Mr. Herben, while on public television programs. Reason their uncertainties of what an how big damage will be inflicted.

   MCC calls on dedicated researchers on the Dutch internet to voice their informed and honest opinions in respect to our options. MCC suggest setting up polling with three options (1) Maintaining 18-12 (2) 16-12 (3) 23-12. MCC values most greatly your informed views and argumentations, we promise where it is possible to include it in our evaluations.

   MCC calls on patriotic, honest and sincere individual in positions with the ability to leak the full report to the public and press. Notice that ones duties toward the people and the country prevail over duties toward governmental institutions and organizations participaing in covering up the true circumstances and motivations for the murder of the choosen representative of the people by the people.

   CCMCC