Mr Sean Garland enjoyed a suite of rooms at a Moscow hotel while Mr Proinsias De Rossa had only a bedroom when they stopped in the Soviet capital in 1986, the High Court heard yesterday.
During the visit - which Mr De Rossa told the court he considered to be "a bonus" - Mr Garland sought medical attention for old wounds he sustained in 1956 and spent little time in Mr De Rossa's company.
Mr De Rossa told Mr Justice Carney and a jury he and Mr Garland had stopped in Moscow on the way to and from a peace conference in North Korea in September 1986.
His recollection was that the visit to North Korea had been paid for by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. It might have been paid for by the party in North Korea, but it was his understanding that the CPSU had funded it.
When they arrived back in Moscow, they stayed at a fairly new hotel owned by the CPSU. During their stay, Mr De Rossa performed no official duties on behalf of the Workers' Party.
He recalled he was at meetings which Mr Garland had with people, but he was not personally involved.
Before he went, he had not been aware that they would stay so long in Moscow. Mr Garland had made the arrangements, he said.
The general secretary had greater status in the party and at the hotel Mr Garland would have had a suite of rooms. "This was the protocol both in Korea and Moscow," he said.
The WP had decided to send a delegation to the peace conference in North Korea, but not a delegation to Moscow. Mr De Rossa recalled that he spent very little time in the company of Mr Garland. He did "various tourist things" while Mr Garland had done them before during visits to the city.
They had met Mr Eugene Lagughtin in Mr Garland's rooms where they discussed travel arrangements. He could not recall whether this was before they went to North Korea or after their return. Mr Garland had not mentioned that he was making any requests from the CPSU. For some days he had been visiting hospital as he was in ill health from wounds received in 1956.
On one occasion there were discussions with a person from an English-language company to discuss the delivery of books and the settling of accounts for books delivered from Moscow to Repsol.
Mr Michael McDowell, counsel for Independent Newspapers, asked if Mr Garland had ever indicated what progress he had made in regard to the relationship between the CPSU and the WP.
Mr De Rossa said he had not. He would not have expected Mr Garland would have talked about those things. It was not an official visit.
Mr McDowell showed him a letter from the WP dated August 7th, 1986, to the CPSU in which it was stated that the WP would welcome the meeting with the central committee during its stop-over in Moscow. Mr De Rossa said he had not seen the letter at the time and did not know it had been written. "My understanding was that it was a decision of the party to respond to an invitation to a peace conference in North Korea and the stop-over in Moscow was a bonus."
Mr McDowell suggested that Mr Garland had a "party-to-party agenda" in mind when he made the arrangements. Mr De Rossa said he would accept that. On his return to Ireland he did not recall a report being made to the ard-comhairle. The trip to Moscow was "more or less a break, a bonus for me certainly."
There was no indication that there had been any response to the letter. It might have been that Mr Garland had simply failed.
Mr De Rossa agreed that the Moscow letter had come into the public arena in 1992, shortly before the general election and nine months after he had left the WP. The letter was published in The Irish Times on December 7th, 1992.
Subsequently, The Irish Times contacted him and requested an interview about the letter. He agreed on the basis that he would see the questions in advance. Mr McDowell asked if The Irish Times had told him the report of a handwriting expert had concluded that the signature was probably his. Mr De Rossa said he had not been informed of that at that time.
He was asked for copies of his signature to have tests done and he agreed. He was satisfied that more than likely a handwriting expert would conclude that it was a forgery.
Mr De Rossa was later interviewed by journalist John Armstrong and in the presence of Ed O'Loughlin, another journalist. The interview was recorded on tape and Mr De Rossa was given a copy.
Mr McDowell read the transcript of the Irish Times interview. Mr De Rossa was asked to explain how his signature had appeared on the letter.
He replied that it could have been a fabrication or could have originated in the WP. There were a number of possible explanations, one of which was that it could have come from someone within the WP.
Mr McDowell referred him to a passage in the interview where it was stated that he had known of a case involving a former colleague in the WP, and now in Democratic Left, whose signature had been acquired by deception to a document guaranteeing a loan from a financial institution. He had understood that it was a guarantee to pay rent on a premises.
Mr McDowell asked if that person whose signature was acquired by deception was Mr Patrick McCartan, subsequently a judge, and Mr De Rossa said it was. Asked whether he inquired from Mr McCartan who had tricked him into signing the guarantee, he replied that Mr McCartan had not told him.
Mr De Rossa said that while there were rumours of forged documents, in his opinion the person who wrote the letter had made a serious attempt to get money from the CPSU.
He said yesterday he seemed to be the only person The Irish Times was interested in interviewing and he felt he was being unfairly pilloried.
Mr McDowell referred him to a passage in the article in which Mr De Rossa said he was "aggrieved that it seems I have been made to carry the can for other people's stupidity."
Mr De Rossa said he had always made the point that the content of the letter in relation to seeking money was stupid and that factual mistakes contained in it indicated the author was not from the WP.
The hearing continues.