.

1.
Revised Guidelines for the Participation Committee in Recommending
Interim Measures as regards Serious Non-compliance with KPCS Minimum
Requirements
Introduction:
1. In response to Recommendation 47 of the 2006 KP Review adopted by the
Gaborone Plenary which states that “Proposals will be developed for the creation
of interim measures and criteria to deal with those participants in significant
noncompliance…,” and in light of experience in such cases, this document
provides guidance to the Participation Committee (and other KP working bodies,
as appropriate) on such interim measures drawing on the full range of instruments
at the disposal of the Kimberley Process in pursuit of its objective of eliminating
the presence of conflict diamonds from rough diamonds trade.
2. In accordance with Section 4 of the terms of reference of the Participation
Committee, the Committee is required to consider any relevant information
submitted to it by the Working Group on Monitoring, Working Group on Statistics,
or other KP working body regarding compliance by a Participant. It should
determine whether, in its view, the Participant in question remains able and willing
to meet the requirements of the KPCS in accordance with Section VI (8) of the
KPCS, and listed in Sections II (Annex 1A), III (Undertakings in respect of the
international trade in rough diamonds), IV (Internal Controls), and V (Co-
operation and Transparency) of the KPCS. This determination should be reached
as a rule no later than 30 days following the referral.
Instances of serious non-compliance that may be referred to the Participation
Committee by the Working Group on Monitoring, Working Group on Statistics, or
other KP working body include:
Changes to operative legislation that no longer meet KPCS minimum
requirements;
The disruption of, or failure to implement, internal controls systems for
certification;
Systematic non-submission of statistics or annual reports; or
Significant statistical irregularities or anomalies that could indicate that
conflict diamonds are entering the legitimate trade.

2.
3. If the Committee determines that the Participant concerned continues to meet the
requirements of the KPCS, it should inform the Chair, the Working Group on
Monitoring (or other relevant working group), and the Participant of its findings.
4. If however, the Committee concludes that the Participant no longer meets the
said requirements, in accordance with Section IV of its terms of reference, it
should inform the Chair in writing of the reasons for such a conclusion. At the
direction of the Chair, the Committee may then commence the process to address
the deficiency set out in the roadmap found in Paragraph 11, and may recommend
any further action it believes to be appropriate to ensure the credibility and
effectiveness of the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme.
Guiding principles:
5. While considering any issue under these guidelines, the PC or any other working
group, it must be ensured that procedures and decisions are taken consistent with
the KP core document and principles of national sovereignty.
6. Where appropriate and feasible, the road-map set forth in Paragraph 11 should
be followed to address deficiencies. In its determination and consideration of any
further action the Committee should consider:
past cases handled by the KPCS;
the need for transparent and consistent treatment of Participants, while
recognizing that each circumstance is unique;
established best practices;
the nature and seriousness, the reasons and implications of the non-
compliance identified;
the possibility of recommending measures which could, if appropriate, be
applied cumulatively and could be renewed; and
the principle of progressively stronger action.
7. In determining a Compliance Program for the Participant concerned, appropriate
actions to address the non-compliance are to be decided on a case by case basis in
due consideration of the specific situation and with the consent of the Participant.
8. The Committee’s recommendations should include a clear statement of the
actions required by the Participant concerned in order to end the non-compliance, a
timeline indicating the dates by which such actions should be taken, and ways

3.
technical assistance by other Participants and Observers could assist the Participant
concerned in taking such action.
9. Consideration could be given, in appropriate cases, to accelerated or simplified
procedures for finding that the non-compliance identified has been satisfactorily
addressed by the Participant concerned.
10. Where possible, consistent with the 2010 AD on Respecting Confidentiality,
the Participation Committee should make final documents relevant to compliance
available to the public in a consistent manner.
Roadmap of action:
11. Unless circumstances demand otherwise, the Participation Committee should
utilize the following process to further investigate situations of non-compliance by
a Participant, in order to ensure a transparent and consistent approach. In carrying
out this process, the Participation Committee may seek the assistance of the
Working Group on Monitoring and other working groups, as appropriate:
a) Raise identified issue with Participant.
o In a case in which a specific individual or entity is shown through
the available information to present a particular concern with
respect to the non-compliance (e.g., the majority of non-compliant
imports or exports are the result of the action or inaction of one
company), the Participation Committee should indicate this to the
Participant;
b) Solicit response from Participant.
o In a case concerning a specific individual or entity, the relevant
Participant should request feedback from the specific individual or
entity;
c) Further define problem, if any, based on Participant response. Targeted
statistical analysis and enhanced monitoring and verification measures, as
described in Paragraph 12, may be used;
d) If needed, send review mission, established pursuant to Section VI,
Paragraphs 13-15 of the KP Core Document and the Administrative
Decision on Peer Review. The terms of reference for the mission should
charge it with identifying in its Report the scope of the problem,
benchmarks to be addressed, and steps necessary to resolve the problem.
The review mission should be comprised of members with expertise

4.
relevant to evaluate the particular concern that is the subject of the
mission;
e) Based on review mission feedback and the consent of the Participant,
develop a Compliance Program, implementation of which is necessary in
order to achieve compliance status;
o the Compliance Program should include a timeline setting forth the
dates by which recommended actions should be taken;
o the Compliance Program may include items from the indicative list
of measures set out in Paragraph 12;
o If a specific individual or entity is shown to present a particular
concern, then the Compliance Program should ensure that the
Participant is responsible for appropriate, on-going follow-up with
this individual or entity;
f) In consultation with the Working Group on Monitoring and other KP
working bodies, as appropriate, develop additional mechanisms, whether
outside or local or both, to supplement established KP methods for
monitoring implementation by the Participant;
g) Communicate regularly with Participant to evaluate the status of the
Compliance Program and keep the KP Chair, who may wish to update
KP Participants and Observers, and the Working Group on Monitoring,
appropriately informed.
h) The Participation Committee may at any time refer the matter back to the
Working Group on Monitoring where it forms the view that routine
monitoring processes would be adequate to deal with the matter.
Indicative list of measures to be considered as further action:
12. The Participation Committee’s may wish to consider the following measures:
a. Targeted statistical analysis
In cases where specific trade transactions raise compliance issues, the Participation
Committee could liaise with the WGS to consider the possibility of targeted
statistical analysis. Statistical analyses, such as that developed in the context of the
2009 Administrative Decision on Guinea, offer examples of such an instrument for
the identification and assessment of compliance issues. These Guidelines are
without prejudice to the specific guidelines adopted at Moscow in 2005 regarding
non-compliance with statistical reporting obligations.
b. Enhanced monitoring and additional verification measures

5.
In cases where there are credible indications of significant non-compliance with
the Certification Scheme and/or where serious compliance issues pose a threat to
the credibility and effectiveness of the Kimberley Process, the Participation
Committee could liaise with the WGM to consider the possibility of enhanced
monitoring arrangements through, inter alia:
request additional information and clarification from Participants;
specific actions by the concerned Participant;
specific actions in other Participants complementing the action undertaken
by the Participant that is primarily concerned; these action may include
targeted trade or customs controls;
specific KP monitoring actions, localized monitoring arrangements, and
other ad hoc monitoring visits or reports, enhanced co-operation with
relevant UN agencies, including the UN Sanctions Committee, other
international bodies, or third-party auditors;
use of specific technological instruments, such as mapping, satellite
imagery, dedicated research; as appropriate, this may require coordination
with the Working Group of Diamonds Experts;
review missions by other Participants or their representatives.
c. Mobilisation of technical assistance
The Participation Committee in co-ordination with the KP Chair and other working
bodies may recommend targeted assistance to address issues of non-compliance.
d. Suspension of export and import operation
In serious cases of non-compliance affecting essential elements of the certification
scheme and with the view to preserving the integrity and credibility of the KPCS,
and as a last resort, the PC may recommend to the Chair the suspension of export
and import rough diamond operations for a period needed to eliminate the reasons
of serious non-compliance.
At first the Participation Committee may recommend to the Chair to propose to the
Participant a suspension of export and import operations; the Participation
Committee may also recommend that suspension of rough diamond export and
import operations could be taken by decision of the Plenary. Suspension of export
and import operations should in principle be considered on a countrywide basis; it

6.
might be restricted to specific sites, depending on the specific circumstances and
consensus of the Participation Committee, in consultation with the Participant.
Under this measure the Participant would continue to be able to exercise unaffected
rights as determined by the Participation Committee, and would continue
to be subject to all other obligations under the KPCS. In this case the
Participation Committee keeps the situation under constant review while the
Participant in question retains its membership participating in the KP activities and
continues to be subject to all other obligations under the KPCS.
The measure could be applied together with other measures such as enhanced
monitoring or technical assistance.
In the case of suspension of export and import operations, the fact that the
Participant is not exporting and importing in accordance with the KPCS will be
reflected in the KPCS list.
Resumption of rough diamond export/import operations:
13. Suspension of rough diamond export and import operations is the result of
either an initiative of a Participant itself or the decision of KP Plenary after
consideration by the appropriate Working Group(s).
Resumption of rough diamond trade, whether on a countrywide or site-by-
site basis, by a KP Participant that has previously suspended its rough
diamond export and import operations shall be carried out after the
Participant in question has demonstrated the ability to fulfill all the KPCS
minimum standards, specifically addressing the reason(s) for the initial
suspension of rough diamond export and import operations.
In order to resume rough diamond trading, a Participant should engage in the
following steps:
o A written submission to the Participation Committee and the KP Chair
should be sent in advance of the resumption of trade that includes
verifiable evidence to permit an assessment by the Participation
Committee and the KP Chair of whether the reason(s) that resulted in
the suspension of rough diamond trading (export and import
operations) have been adequately addressed.

7.
o The Participation Committee could, if necessary, request any other
supplementary data under Paragraph 3.4 of the terms of reference of
the Participation Committee. The Participation Committee has the
option of sending a review/expert mission or visit to the Participant in
question to assess the status of implementation and the system of
internal controls.
o Upon concluding that resumption of rough diamond trading is
appropriate, the KP Chair shall notify the KP Participants in writing
regarding the resumption of rough diamond trade by the Participant in
question.
New Delhi, 5 November 2008 (revised Washington, 30 November 2012)