PRESS BRIEFING BY UNDER-SECRETARY-GENERAL FOR INTERNAL OVERSIGHT SERVICES
Press Briefing
PRESS BRIEFING BY UNDER-SECRETARY-GENERAL FOR INTERNAL OVERSIGHT SERVICES
19970212
FOR INFORMATION OF UNITED NATIONS SECRETARIAT ONLY
At a Headquarters press briefing this afternoon, Under-Secretary-General for Internal Oversight Services Karl Theodore Paschke introduced his report on the financing of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (document A/51/789). He said the report reflected the findings and recommendations of an Office of Internal Oversight Services field review of operations in Arusha and Kigali, which took place in October and November 1996.
Explaining the genesis of the report, which was distributed today, Mr. Paschke said that the General Assembly had requested in 1996 that the Oversight Office reviewed both International Criminal Tribunals -- for Rwanda and for the former Yugoslavia. By the time of the Assembly's decision, Mr. Paschke had already heard complaints and rumours concerning deficiencies and irregularities, particularly in Arusha and Kigali, as well as charges of nepotism, favouritism and racism. In order to carry out the Assembly's request, his Office fielded a combined team of auditors and investigators to examine events in Arusha and Kigali.
Mr. Paschke said he reported the team's more significant and urgent findings from the field to former Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali and upper management at Headquarters. Some of the major problems had been quickly addressed in the weeks following the investigative team's return from Rwanda. In December 1996, the first draft of the report had been circulated among all of the major players -- the President of the Tribunal, the Registrar, the Prosecutor and departments in Headquarters. Their comments were received by the Oversight Office in early January and taken into account during the drafting of the final version. That final version was submitted to the Secretary-General on 30 January, and his thoughts on the matter were included in his transmittal note to the General Assembly, which was also included in the report. The report was "a snapshot review of the situation in October and November 1996", Mr. Paschke said, and remedial action had already been taken during the period between the field visit and the report's distribution. In May or June, the Oversight Office would dispatch another team of auditors and investigators to Arusha and Kigali to check on the progress there.
The report was very critical, and that was what an oversight report should be, Mr. Paschke added. While the report did not confirm allegations of corrupt practices, such as nepotism, racism and the misuse of funds, it had disclosed management errors and serious shortcomings in almost all areas of the Rwanda Tribunal. The conclusion of the Oversight Office was that many things had to be improved and changed both in Arusha and Kigali.
Mr. Paschke urged correspondents not to view the report as "devastating", because it was meant to be a blueprint for action that would allow the Tribunal to work effectively. The United Nations had an obligation to make both Tribunals work, and it was his personal conviction that their eventual success would be tantamount to a quantum leap in international law. It would mean a giant step towards the creation of an international criminal court of justice.
The report on the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia was being prepared and would be distributed in a few weeks, he said.
A correspondent asked if it would be appropriate for the Registrar and the Deputy Prosecutor to be removed from their posts. Mr. Paschke said those were decisions that the Secretary-General would have to make. However, the report acknowledged that the Registrar had faced a number of difficulties and a lack of support from Headquarters in setting up the operation. The report also stated that under the circumstances, the Registrar had not performed badly in some of the functions he had been asked to fulfil. The situation was complex, and he did not see a complete failure on the part of the Registrar. The environment in which the entire Tribunal had to work was so complex that quick solutions and a smooth set up of the Tribunal could not be expected. Regarding the Deputy Prosecutor's fate, Mr. Paschke said that it was a decision that the Prosecutor would have to take.
Asked how the Oversight Office had reached the conclusions that there had been no occurrences of racism or nepotism or no misuse of funds, Mr. Paschke said that in investigative work his office had to be very clear about the words it used and what charges it made. The Office had not been able to find convincing evidence to prove those charges. Regarding the misuse of funds, the words "misuse" indicated an intentional abuse of funds, and the Office had not been able to establish that. Mismanagement would not necessarily involve intention and might simply be due to poor management, ineptitude or lack of expertise.
A correspondent asked if the "quantum leap" Mr. Paschke mentioned earlier entailed a leap into the governmental elements that the existence of all law seemed to imply. Mr. Paschke said the correspondent seemed to be stretching the casual remark he had made earlier. He was only saying that the two Tribunals had to succeed in order to bring about a very important development in international law which he would personally welcome: the establishment of some form of international criminal justice. He did not intend to imply that it would be an easy task or something on which all governments would see eye to eye.
Asked if the mismanagement described in the report meant that justice in Rwanda had been delayed, Mr. Paschke said yes, justice had been somewhat delayed, but it was not too late. The recommendations made in the report
Oversight Office Briefing - 3 - 12 February 1997
provided the Organization with a blueprint for action to provide adequate justice.
Another correspondent asked if the Oversight Office had any way of assessing where the Tribunal should be in pursuing justice. Mr. Paschke said the report addressed that point. It was always difficult to assess the impact of that kind of work. The work of the Tribunal was still a relatively recent undertaking, and it would take at least a year before the United Nations could determine if the Tribunal was making a significant impact in the political environment in which it worked.
Asked if the report stated that no cases of nepotism had occurred, despite a number of press reports by Tribunal staff to the contrary, Mr. Paschke said that in his introductory remarks he had acknowledged the fact that complaints had been made to his Office, which had taken all complaints, rumours, and allegations into account during the field visit, and the results of the field visit were as stated in the report. The Oversight Office could not find convincing evidence that those charges were substantial.
A correspondent asked if there was any truth to the media reports stating that the "whistle-blowers" were being punished, and that the people they had accused had retained their posts or had been moved to another post within the United Nations system. Mr. Paschke said his Office had a 24-hour hot-line, and took whatever information it received seriously. But the "whistle-blowers" in question had yet to inform him of those charges. When they did, the Office would look into the matter. He reminded the correspondent that Oversight Office would also be visiting Arusha and Kigali again in a few months.
* *** *