HEALTH OF DETAINEES IN RWANDA TRIBUNAL DETENTION AREAS IS OF SERIOUS CONCERN, FIFTH COMMITTEE TOLD AS IT DISCUSSES FINANCING OF INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNALS
Press Release
GA/AB/3271
HEALTH OF DETAINEES IN RWANDA TRIBUNAL DETENTION AREAS IS OF SERIOUS CONCERN, FIFTH COMMITTEE TOLD AS IT DISCUSSES FINANCING OF INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNALS
19981123 Representative of Uganda Also Concerned By Practice of Sharing One Prosecutor between Both TribunalsThe health of detainees in detention areas of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda was a matter of serious concern, the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) was told this afternoon as it continued discussing the financing of both International Criminal Tribunals.
In addition to concerns about the high vacancy rates at the Tribunal and the lack of controls over expenditure, Uganda was concerned about the practice of sharing one Prosecutor between the Rwanda Tribunal and the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. Each Tribunal should have its own Prosecutor. His delegation had never supported stationing the Prosecutor in The Hague and the Deputy Prosecutor in Kigali.
It seemed that those preparing the budget for the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia had never heard of the words "accountability" and "efficiency", Japan's representative said.
The cost of the Secretary-General's proposal was far too high, and its supporting arguments were not persuasive, he continued. With vacancy rates at extremely high levels, why was the Secretary-General asking for additional posts for the Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia? he asked.
[The Secretary-General had requested resources for 1999 for that Tribunal of some $106.4 million gross ($96.6 million net) -- a net increase of roughly $34.3 million from 1998 -- and an additional 267 posts over the 1998 authorized staff level.] [For the Rwanda Tribunal, he had asked for about $73.1 million net (some $80.6 million gross), an increase of $22.2 million net over the 1998 appropriation. He asked for an additional 256 posts.]
The representatives of the United States and Cuba also spoke. Under other matters, the representative of Panama spoke.
The Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. tomorrow, 24 November, to continue discussing financing the two International Criminal Tribunals.
Committee Work Programme
The Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) met this afternoon to continue its discussion on the financing of the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.
(For background on the relevant reports, see Press Release GA/AB/3268 of 20 November 1998.)
Statements on Financing International Criminal Tribunals
KAZUO WATANABE (Japan) said his delegation wondered whether those who had prepared the budget for the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia had even heard of the words "accountability" and "efficiency". The cost of the Secretary-General's proposal was far too high, and its supporting arguments were not persuasive. Japan could not endorse the proposal as it stood. Throughout the United Nations, efforts were being made to implement activities efficiently, in the spirit of ongoing reform. However, that spirit was not reflected in the 1999 budget for the former Yugoslavia Tribunal, which was 55 per cent higher than that for 1998, and almost triple the 1997 budget.
Since the vacancy rate was so high -- 23 per cent of the total -- why was the Secretary-General asking for an additional 75 posts in the revised estimate for 1998 and an extra 192 posts for 1999? he asked. It had been suggested that the Tribunal was overstaffed at the administrative level, compared with the International Court of Justice. His delegation would be interested in how many administrative staff there were for each judge in the International Court and the former Yugoslavia Tribunal, and also the administrative staff cost per judge in the two bodies.
The Fifth Committee should spend more time considering the budgets for the International Criminal Tribunals, he said. A third party should review the activities of both Tribunals. His delegation endorsed the idea of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) of a review by a team of experts and took note of its recommendations regarding the 1998 revised estimate and the 1999 budget.
Regarding the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, he said the fact that its functions were divided between The Hague, Arusha and Kigali should be taken into consideration. However, he did not understand the necessity of the budget level for 1999 -- $80.6 million -- which was an increase of 43.6 per cent over the 1998 initial appropriation. How many administrative staff members were there for every judge and what was the cost breakdown per judge? he asked.
NESTER ODAGA-JALOMAYO (Uganda) said Uganda considered the two Tribunals very important. It shared a strong belief that the perpetrators and their
Fifth Committee - 3 - Press Release GA/AB/3271 34th Meeting (PM) 23 November 1998
sponsors should never be allowed to go unpunished. Like the other delegations that had spoken on the issue, Uganda deeply regretted the lateness of the reports. That lateness could not be allowed to continue in perpetuity. The General Assembly should decide not to consider reports submitted in contravention of the six-week rule, unless good reasons were provided for the late submission.
Uganda welcomed the new administration of the Rwanda Tribunal, he said. It had undertaken very important improvements, given the problems that had existed. That praise, however, should put pressure on management to work even harder and reach higher levels of efficiency. Uganda was aware of several management problems that needed urgent attention, but wanted to highlight the new management's efforts to address problems. It remained concerned with the high vacancy rates and slow recruitment, with the lack of up-to-date accounting data and strict control over expenditure, and with the backlog in procurement activities. Most importantly, it was concerned about the health of the detainees.
Uganda welcomed the Security Council decision which stated that the three new judges should commence as soon as possible, he said. It was concerned by administrative arrangements at the top level. The Prosecutor was stationed in The Hague and the Deputy in Kigali. That had led to administrative weaknesses, such as the clearing process for candidates. Uganda had never been persuaded that the two Tribunals should have one Prosecutor. Rather, each Tribunal should have its own. That would help overcome the management weakness.
Uganda noted that five Professional and two General Service posts were based in The Hague to promote communication with Arusha and Kigali, and was concerned at the division of their line of work, he said. In an era of modern technology, effective communication could be carried out between The Hague and Arusha without the need to station staff that should be in Arusha in The Hague. Uganda would find it hard to support the continuance of those Hague-based posts. Additionally, unless it could be provided with good reasons, it would not be supporting the additional P-4, P-2 and General Service posts for the President of the Appeals Chamber proposed for The Hague. He sought information on the transfer of the entire Trial Section from Kigali to Arusha, and agreed with the ACABQ that the Tribunal did not need an information unit in Nairobi.
That fees for the defence counsels of the two Tribunals were similar was pleasing, he said. He would like to receive more information in the informal consultations on the frequency of changes of defence counsel, and on services to indigent defendants. Uganda wished to thank those Member States which had made generous voluntary contributions.
In the interest of time, he said, he had focused on Rwanda. Several issues on the former Yugoslavia Tribunal required clarification or explanation. Like the ACABQ, Uganda was disappointed with the report formats of the 1999 budget and
Fifth Committee - 4 - Press Release GA/AB/3271 34th Meeting (PM) 23 November 1998
revised estimates, which were based on projected activities rather than workload indicators. He shared the concerns of the ACABQ that the vacancy situation did not support the rate assumed in the revised estimates. An explanation of expenditure on public relations and information was also sought. He noted that the establishment and reclassification of posts and units had been requested without explanation. Uganda would need to be persuaded in informal consultations of the reasoning for, and the necessity of, those requests.
ROYAL WHARTON (United States) praised the important work done by the two International Tribunals and underscored that those guilty of war crimes must be brought to justice. In general, the United States supported the recommendations of the ACABQ. It particularly supported the recommendation that a management review of both Tribunals be undertaken, but it believed the Office of Internal Oversight Services was the appropriate body to do so. Independent experts need not be assembled. Such a review fell within the Oversight Office mandate, and it was fully capable of performing it.
On the Rwanda Tribunal, the United States was concerned about reports of inefficiency, notably in hiring and procurement, he said. He hoped a management review might contribute in those areas. Hiring must be accelerated, and procurement bottlenecks must be resolved. The United States understood that more court linguists were required, and it supported the ACABQ recommendation that 29 new language posts be created. The Tribunal's trust fund of some $7 million should be used to meet critical needs. The United States also understood that the judges needed two legal assistants, as was the case in The Hague, and, therefore, supported increasing their number.
DULCE BUERGO RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said her delegation was concerned at the staffing situation at the Rwanda Tribunal, and asked what recruitment measures were being applied for it, especially bearing in mind the high vacancy rates. The Chief of the Administration of the Rwanda Tribunal had been transferred to the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC). If that was true, what impact would it have on the Tribunal's function? she asked.
For both Tribunals, her delegation had taken note of information on detention areas, she said. She asked for the characteristics of those areas, and whether the same standards applied to both. That information should be given in writing.
Other Matters
JUDITH CARDOZE (Panama) thanked all those who had made the Committee's party a success, in particular those delegations who had contributed presents, and to China, who had hosted the party.
* *** *