FIFTH COMMITTEE TAKES UP FINANCING FOR INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNALS, INCLUDING EXPERT PANEL REPORT REVIEWING TRIBUNAL OPERATIONS

Press Release
GA/AB/3377

FIFTH COMMITTEE TAKES UP FINANCING FOR INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNALS, INCLUDING EXPERT PANEL REPORT REVIEWING TRIBUNAL OPERATIONS

Also Begins Consideration of UN Iraq-Kuwait Mission

The Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) met this morning to discuss financing of the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, which included consideration of a report from a five-member Expert Group appointed by the Secretary-General to conduct a review of the operations of both Tribunals.

Responding to the report, which contains 46 recommendations, speakers this morning expressed concerns over such aspects as the remuneration of defence attorneys for detainees, the slow pace of trials and extended detention time, the creation of parallel administrative structures, and budget responsibility.

The representative of Nigeria told the Committee that remuneration of defence counsel should not be excessive and he expressed concern about references in the report to fee-splitting arrangements between some defence attorneys and detainees of the former Yugoslavia Tribunal. If that was true, it was unprofessional and could be considered corrupt. The Secretary-General must investigate that allegation, he said.

Further, he said, the administrative functions of both Tribunals should only be exercised by personnel answerable to the Secretary-General, for reasons of constitutionality and accountability. As for the slow pace of trials and a worrying length of detention time, the reason given for the delays –- excessive numbers of motions filed by the parties, insufficient control of the proceedings by the judges and frequent amendments of indictments by the Prosecutor -– the judges were responsible for ending those practices.

The representative of Portugal, speaking on behalf of the European Union and associated States, pointed out that the issue of remuneration levels for defence counsel deserved careful attention, as it was an important issue with regard to the administrative functions of the two Tribunals, including financial control, accountability and procurement. He added that creating parallel administrative structures in the office of the Prosecutor and Chamber was unnecessary. However, all organs of the Tribunals should be fully involved in the budget process.

Fifth Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/AB/3377 71st Meeting (AM) 25 May 2000

Also this morning, the Committee took up the financing of the Iraq-Kuwait Observation Mission (UNIKOM), which included a report on a special audit concerning the payment of mission subsistence allowance.

The representatives of Rwanda, United Republic of Tanzania and Kuwait also spoke this morning.

C.S.M Mselle, Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ), introduced that body’s reports; David Woodward, Director of External Audit of the United Kingdom, introduced the report of the Board of Auditors on the UNIKOM audit; and Hocine Medili, Director of Field Administration and Logistics, Department of Peacekeeping Operations, introduced a related report of the Secretary-General on the Mission.

The Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. Friday, 26 May, to continue its consideration of the Tribunals, as well as a draft text on the financing of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL). It will also begin discussion of the financing of the United Nations Mission in the Central African Republic (MINURCA), the United Nations Interim Administration in Kosovo (UNMIK), the United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor (UNTAET) and the United Nations Observer Mission in the Congo (MONUC).

Fifth Committee - 3 - Press Release GA/AB/3377 71st Meeting (AM) 25 May 2000

Committee Work Programme

The Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) met this morning to discuss the financing of the Internal Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the United Nations Iraq-Kuwait Observation Mission (UNIKOM).

International Tribunals

The Committee had before it a letter from the Secretary-General transmitting a report of an Expert Group on the operation and functioning of the International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (document A/54/634). The expert group was established following the General Assembly's request for an evaluation of the operation of the two Tribunals. It was asked to focus on the judicial administration of the Tribunals and held its first meeting at the end of April 1999.

That the Tribunals share structures that would be clearly separated in national courts has led to friction, the report states. Furthermore, prosecutorial and judicial functions are independent of the Secretary-General, but he is responsible for administering normal United Nations regulations and rules in them. They are unique in being dependent on the cooperation of Member States, with no coercive powers in relation to their arrest warrants, orders affecting property, obtaining access to victims or witnesses or obtaining evidence. That dependency has led to greater difficulties for the former Yugoslavia Tribunal than for the Rwanda Tribunal.

As of 31 August 1999, the former Yugoslavia Tribunal had 25 public indictments of 66 alleged war criminals outstanding, the report notes. Arrests had been made on 17 of the 25 indictments, and 31 accused were in custody. Ten accused were in trial proceedings or awaiting judgement, with the rest in detention awaiting trial. Those trials are not likely to commence until 2001 at the earliest. The Prosecutor has estimated that it will take about four years to finish investigations now planned, and at least 10 years to complete trial and appeal proceedings.

As of 30 September 1999, the Rwanda Tribunal had completed two trials with three people sentenced, the report notes. Two more have been sentenced following guilty pleas, and in two more trials judgement is expected shortly. Two trials are to begin soon. There were 34 detainees in the United Nations Detention Facility (including the seven already tried). Three have been awaiting trial since late 1996, and a further 13 since 1997. Ninety investigations are in progress, and it is estimated that the Tribunal's mandate will be completed in approximately seven or eight years.

The experts state that obstacles to effective functioning of the Trial Chambers include the time allowed for procedural steps prior to trial, time needed to translate documents, the availability of judges and the number of pre-trial motions submitted. To reduce the extent of pre-trial detention, the experts suggest provisional release of those who have voluntarily surrendered after an initial appearance be considered, on the understanding that they could be tried in their absence if they do not reappear.

Some factors leading to prolonged trials, according to the report, are: the legal complexity in establishing guilt under the Statutes' terms; the heavy burden of proof required and, therefore, the amount of testimony needed; defendants' rights under the adversarial system; and defence tactics. They note insufficient judicial control over presentation of evidence and, for the Rwanda Tribunal, the question of choice of counsel.

They suggest some possible measures to address delays, such as greater intervention on the part of trial judges, requiring parties to provide reasons for disputing facts, accepting transcripts of witnesses to other proceedings, and requiring a general defence disclosure following required prosecution disclosures.

Lack of cooperation by States has been an obstacle to the former Yugoslavia Tribunal's effective functioning, the report states, and greater cooperation would significantly improve its performance. If high-level political and military figures were tried, it notes, that would best serve the Tribunal's mission. There are now prospects for such trials. The Rwanda situation vis-à-vis cooperation and high-level figures was better. They suggest the Rwanda Tribunal enact a rule allowing it to defer to a national court.

They note that the workload of the Appeals Chamber is no longer light, with 29 applications for interlocutory appeals, one judgement handed down and three appeals pending in 1998-1999 for the former Yugoslavia. The Rwanda Tribunal had 11 appeals pending, with two more anticipated. The practice of judges alternating between Appeals and Trials Chambers has led to complications. They should be assigned exclusively to one Chamber.

Commenting on the Office of the Prosecutor, the report notes both Tribunals experience difficulties in investigative work resulting from the number of places that must be visited, accessibility problems, the numbers of interviews required, the need to obtain government permission to interview, the amount of information that must be located and analysed, and the need to arrange protection for investigators. Difficulties are also reported in recruiting sufficient qualified staff, meeting translation/interpretation needs and obtaining evidence. Lack of State cooperation also causes problems, and there have been problems in obtaining travel documents for witnesses. It was also difficult to make arrests, formulate indictments and make requisite disclosures to defence. The complexities of proof, of bringing witnesses to the Tribunals and protecting them, and of restricted use of confidential information caused further problems.

The Prosecutor advised the experts that her Office now functioned in a mature fashion, and that no significant increases in personnel were needed. Regarding the Office of the Registrar, the Experts note that audits of the former Yugoslavia operation have led to relatively minor measures recommended, but that for Rwanda, while improvements have been noted, some problems remain. The Rwanda Tribunal President has raised administrative issues in an address to the Assembly, the Experts note, and in the Prosecutor's Office the main issue seemed to be having its own administration for certain functions.

The report states there seems to be no overpowering evidence in favour of having a separate Prosecutor for each Tribunal. While the jurisdictions are not identical and the Prosecutor has spent more time at The Hague, she has nevertheless spent significant time at the Rwanda locations, and the Deputy Prosecutor for Rwanda has also spent significant periods at The Hague. Moreover, the presence of a single Prosecutor has resulted in a consistent body of prosecutorial interpretation, which is a great advantage.

The experts conclude that, while there is room for improvement, the operations and functioning of the Tribunals are reasonably effective. If all the Tribunals' proposed improvements and those recommended by the Expert Group were adopted, proceedings would be significantly faster, but they would not become short-term events. Establishing a precedent-setting judicial institution looking into extraordinary events in inhospitable environments requires a lengthy development period. The Tribunals have maintained respect for rights, while demonstrating that there can be no impunity for crimes against humanity.

Among the Expert Group's 46 recommendations are that the time-frames set for preliminary motions on amended indictments with new charges be considered maximums. They suggested automatic disqualification of judges who confirm indictments. Changes to proceedings rules to allow one confirming judge to issue an arrest warrant and order the freezing of the assets should also be considered. Legal fees might be adjusted for delays deemed to result from obstructive and dilatory defence tactics, with Chambers exercising an oversight function.

To curtail excessive motions, the Chambers might require them to be discussed by the prosecution and the defence before they are presented. Omnibus hearings on motions before a trial might also be explored, as might oral presentation and response to motions. Among proposals to speed up the trial process, the experts suggest Trial Chambers might more forcefully use existing rules of evidence or introduce new rules to assert greater control over proceedings. The pre-trial judge's function to seek agreement between parties on the trial's conduct might be expanded. To allow the Trial Chamber to focus on the real issues, the experts recommend defence counsel be required to inform witnesses being cross-examined of where the defence contradicts their testimony.

To increase awareness of the Tribunals' roles, outreach programmes should continue, the experts recommend. They also suggest preliminary screening of appeals to ensure satisfactory grounds, or that motions for summary dismissal of seemingly frivolous appeals be lodged and considered. Legal assistance to judges should be increased in line with the 2000 budget proposals, the experts recommend. For the Appeals Chamber, two further judges and associated staff are recommended, although they note a more satisfactory result might be obtained by permanent separation of that Chamber. The experts also state the use of ad hoc judges should be considered.

Current training programmes for prosecutors for the Rwanda tribunal should continue, they recommend, as should the Prosecutor's policy of conducting investigations only where she feels evidence will support an indictment. Cases should be trial-ready when an indictment is confirmed, and post-indictment investigations should be largely limited to exceptional circumstances. They strongly recommend two Rwanda Tribunal staff be instructed to track, verify and expedite appeals documentation, and that the Registrar be consulted on witness arrangements whenever trial adjournments or schedule changes are considered.

To enforce observance of Detention Unit rules, alleged defence counsel misconduct should be promptly reported to the President and the Registrar, the report recommends, and promptly investigated. If proven, the misconduct should be reported to the national authority and the counsel removed from the Tribunals' lists.

Remuneration levels for legal counsels deserve careful attention, the report notes. The qualifications for such counsel should be aligned between the two Tribunals, and at least five years criminal trial experience should be required. They suggest defence counsel be required to certify the accuracy of, and their entitlement to, any payments. Training programmes should be developed on the rudiments of Tribunal practice. They suggest a change of counsel should be permitted only in exceptional circumstances, and, if the geographical spread of counsel is to be improved, that should involve prioritizing nationalities for additions to the list, not by denying assignment to those already listed.

The experts recommmend study of procedures for short-term provisional release of detainees for personal emergencies, with guarantees from the detainee's country of return to detention. Also, resources required for research and translation should be provided, the experts recommend. In order to better prioritize translation, Chambers might ask parties to provide as much notice and information on the documents they expect to submit.

To ensure judges' powers of supervision and control over judicial assistants and secretaries, internal administrative matters, and budget proposals, the current system for the selection of judicial assistants should be continued, the experts recommend. Judges should be also responsible for the performance evaluations of their judicial assistants and secretaries.

Judges should also be able to submit budget proposals to the Assembly, the experts recommend, and Tribunal Presidents should feel free to make proposals on the Tribunal's budget to the Registrar, without prejudicing the Registrar's role in submitting budget proposals to the Secretary-General. They recommend the Secretary-General issue a revised delegation of authority giving the judicial Chambers control over their internal administrative matters.

To avoid disruption of Prosecutor's work, an exception to normal United Nations rules limiting interns' length of service could be made, they state, to allow them to serve for the duration of a trial, or up to one year. Also, to reduce misperception of the relationship between judges' Chambers and the Prosecutor, consideration should be given to separating their administrations. Further, the Prosecutor should more frequently visit the Rwanda Tribunal, and recognition should be given to the special responsibilities of the Deputy Prosecutor in Kigali, given the more independent nature of his work.

A related report contains comments from the two Tribunals, the Prosecutor and the Secretary-General (document A/54/850). It notes 16 of the experts’ 46 recommendations have been implemented. Several others – on allowing transcripts of evidence from proceedings to be used in trials, on means to curtail excessive use of motions, on means to speed up trials, on the Rwanda Tribunal deferring to national courts, on screening appeals or allowing motions for summary dismissal of them, and on reporting, investigating and acting on allegations of misconduct against defence counsels -- are awaiting further review by the Chambers.

Two recommendations of the Expert Group are of particular importance in terms of the Secretary-General's overall authority, the note states. These are the suggested delegation of administrative functions to Chambers, and the suggestion that the Registry be divided in two to provide separate service to the Prosecutor and the Chambers.

The Secretary-General states that the suggestion that judges be allowed to submit their own budgets to the Assembly would mean neither the Registrar nor the Secretary-General would have a role in proposing budgets for the Chambers. It could mean that varying criteria were used to determine the budgets of the different parts of the Tribunals, and he recommends against it. Other efforts could be used to ensure adequate resources are provided for the Chambers, if there were problems, he states.

Regarding proposed changes to delegation of authority for financial and personnel matters, he states that the Registrars will continue to have sole authority, the report states. To maintain clear lines of accountability, it is essential that those with this delegation are appointed under the authority of the Secretary-General. Should the Security Council decide to revise the administrative arrangements in the Statutes, a full understanding between the Assembly and the Council would be needed on their respective authorities before any change in delegation could be effected.

Regarding the proposed division of the Registry, this too would have similar consequences for lines of accountability, and would mean that an official currently not subject to the Secretary-General (the Prosecutor) would have to become subject to him. The Secretary-General states that the best solution may be to improve the "client service" structure of the Registries, through training and procedures, to ensure good performance standards are met.

He also expresses concern about the suggested exemption to United Nations rules on interns, stating that the cure could be less desirable than the problem. The Registry argues that the interns would be "gratis personnel" of the type the Assembly has stated should no longer be used. If the Prosecutor's workload is too large, additional posts should be requested, it states. It also states that acceptance of the proposal would favour candidates from wealthy States, and thus skew the geographic diversity of the programme.

Annexed to the report are comments from the Secretary-General and the Tribunals on each expert recommendation.

A further related report from the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) provides that body's comments on the Expert Group report and the responses form the Secretary-General and the Tribunals (document A/54/874). The ACABQ states that it plans to follow up the recommendations on administrative, budgetary and non-judicial matters when it reviews the Tribunals' budgets. It encourages the Board of Auditors and the Office of Internal Oversight Services to pay particular attention to the management issues within their mandates.

The report asks the Chambers of the Tribunals to speedily complete their reviews of recommendations. It notes that, while similar, the two Tribunals are separate entities and cautions against complete harmonization in the application of Expert Group recommendations. The ACABQ recommends the Assembly acknowledge with appreciation the Expert Group report. It calls on the Secretary-General to make every effort to fully and effectively use existing resources before calling for additional resources to implement the experts' recommendations.

Unless the Security Council amends the Tribunals' statutes, it states that the two recommendations concerning changes to delegation of authority -- which the Secretary-General recommended against -- should not be implemented, but that refinements to address the shortcomings that led to the recommendations should be undertaken. The Secretary-General should prepare the 2001 budget proposals on the basis of the existing Tribunal structures. It calls on the Security Council to carefully consider the Secretary-General and Tribunal comments on the two recommendations before any relevant amendment to the Statutes.

The ACABQ recommends the Secretary-General report to the fifty-fifth session of the Assembly on actions taken or proposed in respect of the recommendations still under Tribunal consideration, and that he file a comprehensive report to the fifty-sixth Assembly on the results of implementation of the Expert Group’s recommendations.

UNIKOM

Also before the Committee was the Secretary-General’s financial performance report for the United Nations Iraq-Kuwait Observation Mission (UNIKOM) (document A/54/709) for 1 July 1998 to 30 June 1999. In June 1998, the General Assembly appropriated some $52.14 million gross (about $50.25 million net) for that period. Expenditures totalled some $49.96 million gross ($48.32 million net), resulting in an unspent balance of $2.18 million gross ($1.93 million net).

The unspent balance resulted mainly from lower travel costs for military observers, a higher vacancy rate for civilian personnel, reduced air operations requirements and the early termination of the contract for the fixed-wing aircraft because of the closure of Iraqi airspace. Savings were also due to reduced requirements under supplies and services. The Secretary-General asks the Assembly to decide on the treatment of the unspent balance of $2.18 million gross ($1.93 million net) for 1 July 1998 to 30 June 1999.

The Committee also had before it the Secretary-General’s report on the financing of UNIKOM (document A/54/736) containing the proposed budget for that Mission for 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2001. The Secretary-General seeks some $49.81 million gross (about $47.82 million net). Some 49.5 per cent of resources relate to military personnel costs, with 26.2 per cent for civilian personnel, 20.3 per cent for operational costs, and staff assessment comprising 4 per cent of the total budget.

He recommends the General Assembly appropriate that amount for the maintenance of the Mission, including some $31.88 million net, representing two thirds of the cost, to be funded through voluntary contributions from the Government of Kuwait. The Assembly should assess $17.94 million gross ($15.94 million net) representing the net balance of voluntary contributions for the Mission’s maintenance beginning 1 July 2000, at a monthly rate of $1.49 million gross ($1.33 million net).

In a related report of the ACABQ (document A/54/841/Add.3) on the Mission's financial performance for 1 July 1998 to 30 June 1999, that body recommends that an analysis of the cause for persistent high vacancy rates and their effect on the Mission's operations be undertaken. The Advisory Committee also seeks possible solution to the high vacancy rates, including the possibility of abolishing some posts.

On the Mission's procurement operation, the ACABQ notes that while some 90 per cent of the Mission’s procurement activities take place in the Mission area, 10 posts in the Procurement Section of the Mission had been vacant for up to one year. In view of the need to strengthen the procurement function in the Mission, the Committee urges that steps be taken to immediately fill the posts. Regarding the unspent balance of some $2.18 million, the ACABQ recommends that it be credited to Member States, with the understanding that two thirds of the amount would first be refunded to the Government of Kuwait.

On the cost estimates for 1 July 2000 to 30 June 2001, the ACABQ notes a number of voluntary contributions in the Secretary-General's report for which no value is given. It also notes that the Secretariat was unable to provide the Committee with values for the voluntary contributions. The Committee finds that a cause for concern as it indicates a failure to comply with the requirement for full-cost budgeting. Noting that Mission appointees currently encumber only nine posts, the ACABQ recommends greater recourse to that type of personnel to address the chronic vacancy situation of the Mission.

The ACABQ also notes that information on UNIKOM training programmes is not transparent. In that regard, it recommends that a review of the methods for formulating costs and selecting trainees be conducted. Training programmes should be well planned to benefit the largest possible number of Mission personnel, and efforts should be made to avoid piecemeal training activities that might not, in the long run, be cost-effective.

The Advisory Committee recommends that the Secretary-General’s budget for the year starting 1 July 2000 be approved at $49.81 million gross, including the amount of $31.88 million net, representing two thirds of the cost, to be funded through voluntary contributions from the Government of Kuwait.

[For the ACABQ's general report on financing of peacekeeping missions (document A/54/841), see Press Release GA/AB/3365.]

Also before the Committee was the report of the Board of Auditors' special audit of UNIKOM (document A/54/869). Pursuant to a request of the General Assembly, the Board of Auditors conducted an audit of the Mission, focusing as a matter of priority on the payment of mission subsistence allowance -- the allowance given to missions staff to cover their daily expenses. The Board determined that an overpayment of $851,093.50 had been made to 192 civilian international staff members from May 1991 to March 1996. Of that amount, $773,442.54 –- or 91 per cent –- had been recovered, leaving an outstanding balance of $77,650.96 at the end of January 2000. The Board noted that the overpayments had resulted from the failure of the Mission to adhere to instructions from the Department of Peacekeeping Operations and to implement an important recommendation of the Internal Audit Division regarding the application of mission subsistence allowance policies. Civilian staff had been paid mission subsistence allowance for weekends and holidays that fell during leave periods and for compensatory time off for which no mission subsistence allowance had accrued.

The auditors also found that UNIKOM paid mission subsistence allowance totalling $5.46 million to 1,425 military observers between May 1991 and September 1996. Of that amount, $3.79 million was inconsistent with established procedures, since the payments were made prior to the observers’ accruing the entitlement or were based on a formula that differed from the established one. However, the inconsistencies did not result in an overpayment, since the amounts paid were eventually earned. The Board found that the balance of $1.67 million was paid in accordance with the relevant guidelines.

The Board makes several recommendations in its report, including that the Department of Peacekeeping Operations ensure that missions comply with established procedures and that they do not pay mission subsistence allowance prior to entitlements. The Board also recommends that the Department of Peacekeeping Operations review, approve and regularly update its draft field administration manual to facilitate the proper administration of field activities. The Department should identify and disseminate "lessons learned" to all peacekeeping missions.

The Committee also had before it a report of the Secretary-General on the financing of the UNIKOM (document A/54/873), which provides current information on the amount of overpayment and the amount recovered as at 31 March 2000. The report also updates information regarding the judicial process in respect of civilian staff members and recommends a course of action regarding military observers.

He explains that civilian staff members have used the recourse mechanism available to them to challenge the conclusions, which were reached that mission subsistence allowance had been misapplied. On 11 March 1999, the United Nations Administrative Tribunal issued a judgement remanding the case to the Joint Appeals Board for its consideration. The Joint Appeals Board unanimously agreed that the UNIKOM administration exceeded its authority when it authorized payment of mission subsistence allowance for annual leave for which no mission subsistence allowance leave credits had accrued, for official holidays and non-working days which fell during the annual leave for which no mission subsistence allowance leave credits had accrued and for occasional time off taken outside the mission area, in conjunction with annual/home leave for which no mission subsistence allowance had accrued.

The Board also unanimously agreed that the United Nations remained the rightful owner of the mission subsistence allowance overpayments and has the right to reclaim the overpaid public funds from the staff. The Secretary-General agreed with the Board's conclusions, but did not accept two additional recommendations, which would have reduced the total amount of overpayments to be recovered. The judicial process is still ongoing.

With regard to military observers, the Secretary-General agrees with the Board of Auditor's report that UNIKOM mission subsistence allowance payments to military observers in respect to annual leave and compensatory time off were inconsistent with the established procedures, but that irregularities did not result in any final overpayment since the amounts paid were eventually earned.

Subject to the approval of the Assembly, the Secretary-General plans to continue recovery of funds from civilian staff. Since the judicial process is still ongoing, however, final determination with regard to overpayment or recovery of funds is subject to the judgement of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal. Regarding military observers, it is the Secretary-General's intention to cease recovery efforts and to reimburse the amounts already recovered to the individuals concerned.

Statements

C.S.M MSELLE, Chairman of the ACABQ, introducing the report of the Expert Group on the International Tribunals, said when the report was transmitted to the Committee last November, it recommended to the General Assembly that the Tribunals review each of the recommendations of the Expert Group. The ACABQ had decided not to comment or take a position. Instead, it had included in its report what it considered the most appropriate procedure to handle the report and the note of the Secretary-General. Sixteen of the recommendations had already been put into practice, and the Advisory Committee had recommended that the review of the others be completed expeditiously. Because the two independent Tribunals operated and functioned in different environments and had different practices, it was inappropriate to call for complete harmonization of the application of the recommendations. Subject to the outcome of the current debate, the Fifth Committee could consider other options to recommend to the General Assembly. Such options could include recommending that the General Assembly take note with appreciation of the report and of the work the Tribunals had done on its recommendations.

EDUARDO RAMOS (Portugal), speaking on behalf of the European Union, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Cyprus, Malta and Turkey, thanked Mr. Mselle for introducing the ACABQ’s report, but regretted the late submission of that document, which it found particularly puzzling, given that the report of the Group of Experts dated from November 1999. Late submission of the documents on that subject once again hampered their work. The European Union would be grateful for an explanation.

He said that the Union’s strong support, both financial and political, for the work of the Tribunals was well established. Its concern about their functioning was driven by the desire that they make the best possible use of resources to carry out their important role as effectively as possible. Both Tribunals had been burdened by the slow pace of trials and a worrying length of detention time, which the Advisory Committee had observed in the past was not a question of a mere increase of resources, but also required other steps.

The Union recognized the positive developments taken by the Tribunals administration so far and welcomed clarification from the Secretariat on the outstanding areas for improvement and the steps they were taking to address them, he continued. The experts noted court management was a nerve centre for the Tribunals. Concerning the Rwanda Tribunal, in particular, they noted that the administration of the courts was not entirely satisfactory. The Union welcomed the steps recently taken by the Rwanda Tribunal, but would like to know what other steps were envisaged.

The Union remained seriously concerned about the important issues with regard to the administrative functions, including financial control, accountability and procurement, he said. In order to secure the functioning of the Tribunal, it was important that those problems be addressed. The issue of remuneration levels for defence counsel, for example, deserved careful attention. The Union also wanted to know what steps the Tribunal had in mind for further improving the pace of trials.

The Union shared the opinion of the Expert Group that in order to increase awareness of the role of the Tribunals in protecting and enhancing humanitarian values, the Tribunals should continue their outreach programmes. Like the Secretary-General, the Union was not convinced that the creation of parallel administrative structures in the Office of the Prosecutor and Chambers was necessary. Nevertheless, the Union believed that it was important that all organs of the Tribunals be fully involved in the budget process. He recalled the Oversight Office’s recommendation for a clear statement of role, scope and reporting relationship between the organs, emphasizing the service function, and endorsed the Secretary-General’s comment on that.

The Union stressed the importance of recruiting high quality staff and of training and evaluating staff properly, he said. It was crucial to explore the use of modern technology, such as video-conferencing. It was also essential that resources be properly targeted to ensure that priorities were adhered to in the translation of documents. The Union concurred with the ACABQ that before requesting additional resources, the Tribunal should fully and effectively use the existing ones. Furthermore, the Board of Auditors and the Oversight Office should continue to pay particular attention to management issues.

NONYE UNEGBUNAM (Nigeria) welcomed the report, noting that it shed light for the first time on the activities of the Tribunals. The Rwanda Tribunal, in particular, had been successful in apprehending and bringing to trial the senior government officials allegedly responsible for the 1994 genocide and related crimes in Rwanda. That achievement was significant, as the objectives of the Security Council were unfulfilled if only low-level personnel , rather than senior military and civilian leadership, were brought to trial. Recent efforts by the former Yugoslavia Tribunal to align its prosecution policy with those of the Rwanda Tribunal were noteworthy. However, he expressed concern over the pace of trial by the two Tribunals. Pointing to reasons given for the delays –- excessive numbers of motions filed by the parties, insufficient control of the proceedings by the judges, and frequent amendments of indictments by the Prosecutor -- he noted that responsibility to end those rested with the judges.

He stated that the Rwanda Tribunal had recorded progressive improvements, which included revamping of personnel services and financial management and accounting procedures, particularly those that allowed for transparency by instituting additional guidelines for utilizing the Tribunal trust fund. The administrative functions of both Tribunals should be exercised by personnel answerable only to the Secretary-General, for reasons of constitutionality and accountability. It was also important to ensure that remuneration of defence counsel was not excessive. He was concerned by references in the report to fee- splitting arrangements between some defence attorneys and detainees at the former Yugoslavia Tribunal. If that was true, it was unprofessional and could be considered corrupt. The Secretary-General must investigate that allegation, as it had implications for the use of resources provided by Member States for the functioning of that Tribunal.

ISIDORE MUNYAKAZI (Rwanda) said that it examined both the report of the Expert Group and the Secretary-General. The Rwanda Tribunal, from the beginning, had experienced a number of problems, due to both internal administrative and external factors. Given the poor performance of the Tribunal, those problems had affected the expectation of the Rwandan population. The last three years, however, had brought improvement, in particular, the reforms made by the Registrar. Rwanda was aware of the difficult circumstances the Tribunal worked under.

The Rwanda Tribunal should be given the same level of resources available to her sister Tribunal, the Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, he said. That would make it possible to avoid double standards. He also believed that broader discussion was needed on the issues, and adequate resources must be provided on time. He encouraged speeding up the work of providing human resources to both Tribunals. Further, his Government believed the current system, in which more than 30 per cent of international staff were from outside the continent of Africa, should be reconsidered.

MUHAMMAD YUSSUF (United Republic of Tanzania) noted that the separate reports for the two Tribunals should be presented in the future. The information provided in the joint report was confusing.

WARREN SACH, Director of the Programme Planning and Budget Division, said a timetable had been established for responses to the comments that had been received regarding the reports. The Legal Counsel transmitted the reports of the Expert Group and comments had been sought by 25 February. However, due to the complexity of the issues, it had been impossible to complete the comments by that date. In future, the office would try to move documentation as quickly as possible.

On the issue of detailed items, he suggested that those be addressed in informal consultations. A number of recommendations, particularly those regarding the Statutes, would require action by the various offices of the Tribunals, the Secretariat and the Security Council. The earliest any action on those recommendations could be recorded would be in the 2001 report. The present report would go to the Security Council and, if there were changes in the Statute, those would also be reflected in the next report.

DAVID WOODWARD, Director of External Audit, United Kingdom, speaking on behalf of the Chairman of the United Nations Board of Auditors, introduced the report of the Board of Auditors on the special audit of UNIKOM.

HOCINE MEDILI, Director, Field Administration and Logistics Division, Department of Peacekeeping Operations, introducing the report of the Secretary- General on the issue of mission subsistence allowance in UNIKOM, stated that the Board of Auditors had also confirmed the conclusions reached by the Secretary- General in his report. Those were to continue recovery action in respect of civilian staff members and let the legal recourse mechanism run its course, and to discontinue recovery efforts of military observers and reimburse them the amounts already recovered. The situation that arose, because of improper administration in codifying the applicable regime, had been corrected and the recommendations of the Board of Auditors would be implemented, as they would guide administrators and staff in the field and avoid recurrence of similar situations.

Mr. MSELLE said that the report of the ACABQ on the subject of mission subsistence allowance payments had been submitted in document A/54/418 dated 29 September 1999. The Advisory Committee submitted that report after it had examined the Secretary-General’s report (document A/53/1023). In that report, the Secretary-General concluded that while there had been overpayment of civilian staff, payments for military observers had been earned. The audit of the Mission -- requested by the Assembly -- confirmed that that had been the case.

Recalling paragraphs 4 and 5 of the ACABQ’s report on payment of mission subsistence allowance, he said that the administration’s mishandling of the payments had created the unfortunate misperception that UNIKOM staff had been unfairly treated. It was a complicated case that had been and was still in litigation. The Advisory Committee believed that no action should be taken by the Assembly until the judiciary process, which would clarify the facts of the case, was completed. In accordance with current procedures, the ACABQ received texts from the relevant judicial bodies.

ZIYAD MONAYAIR (Kuwait) said the report was merely a commentary of the one the Board of Auditors had presented and contained nothing new. Mr. Mselle had reminded that the matter concerning overpayment should be dealt with on the whole, and there was no need to distinguish between the military observers and civilian staff. However, decisions made by the General Assembly on the issue must be respected. The difference between the mission subsistence allowance paid to the military observers and their receipt of payment before it was earned proved that there had been some form of misconduct. He wondered what the time between the actual payment and work period had been. Apparently there was a very large difference between the two.

* *** *