EX-23

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Shareholders and Board of Directors of
Dreyfus Premier Emerging Markets Fund

In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements of Dreyfus Premier Emerging Markets Fund (one of the funds comprising Dreyfus International Funds, Inc.) as of and for the year ended May 31, 2006, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), we considered its internal control over financial reporting, including control activities for safeguarding securities, as a basis for designing our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the financial statements and to comply with the requirements of Form N-SAR, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of Dreyfus Premier Emerging Markets Fund’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion.

The management of Dreyfus Premier Emerging Markets Fund is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting. In fulfilling this responsibility, estimates and judgments by management are required to assess the expected benefits and related costs of controls. A company’s internal control over financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Such internal control includes policies and procedures that provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition of a company’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.

Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.

A control deficiency exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent or detect misstatements on a timely basis. A significant deficiency is a control deficiency, or combination of control deficiencies, that adversely affects the company’s ability to initiate, authorize, record, process or report financial data reliably in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles such that there is more than a remote likelihood that a misstatement of the company’s annual or interim financial statements that is more than inconsequential will not be prevented or detected. A material weakness is a significant deficiency, or combination of significant deficiencies, that results in more than a remote likelihood that a material misstatement of the annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected.

Our consideration of Dreyfus Premier Emerging Markets Fund’s internal control over financial reporting was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph and would not necessarily disclose all deficiencies in internal control that might be significant deficiencies or material weaknesses under standards established by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). However, we noted no deficiencies in Dreyfus Premier Emerging Markets Fund’s internal control over financial reporting and its operation, including controls for safeguarding securities, that we consider to be a material weakness as defined above as of May 31, 2006.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of management and the Board of Directors of Dreyfus Premier Emerging Markets Fund and the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties.

ERNST & YOUNG LLP

New York, New York 

July 10, 2006 

EX-99

                        SUB-ITEM 77E - LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

In early 2004, a purported shareholder in the Dreyfus Disciplined Stock Fund and
a purported shareholder in the Dreyfus S&P 500 Stock Index Fund each filed
similar class action lawsuits in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania against Mellon Financial Corporation, Mellon
Bank, N.A. (the "Mellon Defendants"), The Dreyfus Corporation, Founders Asset
Management LLC, and certain directors of Dreyfus Funds (together with the
Dreyfus Founders Funds, the "Funds") and certain John Doe defendants identified
as directors of other Dreyfus Funds. (Hays v. Mellon Financial Corp., et. al.
and Wortman v. Mellon Financial Corp., et. al.)

In September 2004, plaintiffs served a Consolidated Amended Complaint (the
"Amended Complaint") on behalf of a purported class of all persons who acquired
interests in the Funds between January 30, 1999 and November 17, 2003, and
derivatively on behalf of the Funds. In addition to the defendants mentioned
above, Plaintiffs also named Dreyfus Service Corporation and Premier Mutual Fund
Services, Inc. as defendants. The Amended Complaint in the newly styled In re
Dreyfus Mutual Funds Fee Litigation alleged violations of Sections 34(b), 36(a),
36(b), and 48(a) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the "ICA"), Section 215
of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices
and Consumer Protection Law and common-law claims. More specifically, plaintiffs
claimed, among other things, that 12b-1 fees and directed brokerage were
improperly used to pay brokers to recommend the Funds over other funds, and that
such payments were not disclosed to investors. In addition, plaintiffs asserted
that economies of scale and soft-dollar benefits were not passed on to the Funds
and that 12b-1 fees were improperly charged to certain of the Funds that were
closed to new investors. Plaintiffs sought to recover allegedly improper and
excessive Rule 12b-1 and advisory fees allegedly charged to the Funds for
marketing and distribution services. The Amended Complaint sought compensatory
and punitive damages, rescission of the advisory contracts, and an accounting
and restitution of any unlawful fees, as well as an award of attorneys fees and
litigation expenses.

Defendants filed motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint in whole or
substantial part on November 12, 2004. In a Memorandum Opinion dated September
28, 2005, the Court dismissed all of the claims except for a claim against
Dreyfus under Section 36(b) of the ICA which alleged that Dreyfus had breached a
duty to the Dreyfus funds by charging advisory fees that were excessive, and a
claim under section 48(a) of the ICA against the Mellon Defendants claiming that
they were "controlling persons" responsible for that violation.

Dreyfus and the Mellon Defendants answered the Amended Complaint, denying its
material allegations and asserting certain affirmative defenses. Dreyfus and the
Mellon Defendants simultaneously moved for judgment on the pleadings on the
remaining claims on the grounds that, pursuant to the ICA, they should have been
brought derivatively but were improperly brought as class claims. On April 7,
2006, the Court granted this motion and dismissed both remaining claims. On
April 24, 2006, Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's
dismissal, seeking leave to replead their excessive fee and control person
claims as derivative. The Court denied Plaintiffs' motion on June 16, 2006.