Fifty-ninth General Assembly

Fifth Committee

27^th Meeting (AM)

budget committee told unpaid contributions to former Yugoslavia, Rwanda Tribunals,

 

resulting recruitment freeze, could affect completion dates

As a result of the non-payment of assessments by a significant number of Member States, the Secretariat had had no choice but to impose on the two international Tribunals a recruitment freeze and other economy measures last May, United Nations Controller, Jean-Pierre Halbwachs, told the Fifth Committee this morning, as it took up the financing of those courts.

Introducing several reports before the Committee, he said that positive statements had been made in the Assembly plenary on the work of the Tribunals, but that praise had not been translated into deeds.  There still remained some $32.8 million of unpaid contributions for the former Yugoslavia Tribunal and $26.7 million for the Rwanda Tribunal.  For each Tribunal there were over 100 Member States in arrears.  Support to the Tribunals could not just be expressed in words -- financial obligations towards the Tribunals must also be honoured.  “I cannot but stress the seriousness of the situation and appeal to those 100 plus Member States to make their payments.  They hold the future of the Tribunals in their hands”, he said.

Numerous speakers in today’s debate expressed serious concern about the freeze on recruitment, saying that it would have a significant negative effect on the completion strategy schedules, especially in view of the serious and persistent vacancy situation.  Both Tribunals, however, must continue to do their utmost to maximize efficiency and achieve savings, where possible.

Committee members were pleased to note that the courts had introduced economy measures this year, which had resulted in savings of $6.75 million for the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, and $5.06 million for the International Tribunal for Rwanda.  Among welcome developments in that regard, they mentioned restructuring and realignment of the Investigations Division at the former Yugoslavia Tribunal and the management reforms and organisational restructuring in the Office of the Registrar and some key sections of the Rwanda Tribunal.

The representatives of Switzerland and Norway were among the speakers who pointed out that, while the Tribunals had shown commitment to the completion strategy set by the Security Council, Member States had failed to honour their commitment to the Tribunals.  Switzerland’s representative recalled that Presidents and Prosecutors of the Tribunals had pointed out on numerous occasions – and, once again, in the Security Council yesterday -- that the recruitment freeze was having a devastating effect on the Tribunals.  She understood why the freeze had been imposed, but it was also necessary to consider recent substantial payments by several Member States.  The Tribunals could not be made responsible for non-payment of assessments.

Welcoming recent efforts of several countries to pay their outstanding contributions -- and Japan and Venezuela announced today that they were planning to pay in full by the end of the year -- speakers encouraged others to follow suit.  The recruitment freeze, though unavoidable given the current cash crisis, was at best a short-term measure, said Canada’s representative (also speaking on behalf of Australia and New Zealand).  The time had come to look at other options for dealing with the crisis. 

She also stressed the need to urgently address the difficulty experienced by both Tribunals with regard to staff retention -- the problem she characterized as “a continuous exodus”, which could seriously handicap the Tribunals’ ability to complete their work within the envisaged time frame.  It could also result in significant additional costs related to the hiring, installation and repatriation of staff.

Addressing the situation of the Rwanda Tribunal, South Africa’s representative, on behalf of the African Group, said that it was evident that the Tribunal would have a heavy workload in 2005 and it was imperative to ensure that it received all the financial and human resources it needed.  A way should be found to ameliorate the current staffing situation of both Tribunals.  A proactive recruitment policy, coupled with the lifting of the freeze, would ensure that vacancies were filled expeditiously.

Several speakers were also troubled by the fact that a large number of individuals continued to evade justice.  Norway welcomed the unanimous adoption of Security Council resolution 1534, reaffirming the need to intensify efforts to arrest and transfer for trial the main fugitive indictees, including Rodovan Karadzic, Ratko Mladic and Ante Gotovina, to the Yugoslavia Tribunal; and Felicien Kabuga to the Rwanda Tribunal.  Unless the highest-ranking indictees were brought to justice, the main mission of the Tribunals would not be fulfilled.

The Netherlands, on behalf of the European Union and associated States, urged all Member States to cooperate actively with the Tribunals, expressing concern with the fact that most of the 16 indictees in Rwanda might never be brought to trial before the Arusha courts.  Also, while the Assembly last year had authorised nine ad litem judges for the Rwanda Tribunal, the countries he represented had now learned that four of those nine had been unused throughout the year.  The resulting loss of trial days was regrettable.

The reports of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) on the Tribunals were introduced by that body’s Vice-Chairman, Rajat Saha.  Statements were also made by representatives of Serbia and Montenegro, the Russian Federation, Rwanda, United Republic of Tanzania, China, Oman, United States, Iceland, Mexico, Syria and Nigeria.

Also this morning, a series of reports on the administration of justice within the United Nations system was introduced by Under-Secretary-General for Internal Oversight Services, Dileep Nair; Assistant Secretary-General for Programme Planning, Budget and Accounts and United Nations Controller, Jean-Pierre Halbwachs; President of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal, Julio Barboza; Inspector of the Joint Inspection Unit, Victor Vislykh; Director of the General Legal Division, Office of Legal Affairs, Bruce Rashkow; Chief, Conditions of Service Section, Office of Human Resources Management, Marianne Brzak-Metzler; and Chairman of the ACABQ, Vladimir Kuznetsov.

The Committee will start its debate on that agenda item and take up several report related to the 2004-2005 programme budget at 10 a.m. Monday, 29 November.

Background

The Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) this morning was expected to take up the administration of justice at the United Nations and financing of the two international Tribunals.

Administration of Justice

The Committee had before it a report of the Secretary-General on administration of justice in the Secretariat (document A/59/449), which includes proposals for strengthening the internal justice system at the United Nations.  The “formal” recourse system at the Secretariat involves two stages of litigation:  first, before the Joint Appeals Board, a peer review body composed of staff and management, which establishes the facts and makes recommendations to the Secretary-General; and, second, before the United Nations Administrative Tribunal (UNAT), which renders binding judgements.

The report was prepared in response to General Assembly resolution 57/307, which requested, among other things, that the Secretary-General develop as a matter of priority an effective system of accountability to recover financial losses to the Organization caused by management irregularities; ensure that a department or programme manager whose decision is challenged by an appellant cooperates fully with and is accountable to the internal system of justice; and undertake an in-depth analysis of legal insurance schemes to cover legal advice and representation for staff.

The document takes into account the findings of the management review of the appeals process conducted by the Office of Internal Oversight Services (document A/59/408), which was conducted from March to July 2004 pursuant to Assembly resolution 57/307, which specifically requested that the OIOS consider “measures to shorten the period required for the disposal of cases, including imposing deadlines at all stages of the process”.  The OIOS was to examine “not only the procedures and functions related to the Joint Appeals Board but also those related to the Panel of the Counsel, the Administrative Law Unit, and the secretaries of the Joint Appeals Board and the Joint Disciplinary Committee, as well as their impact on and contribution to the administration of justice”.

The Office offered a total of 18 recommendations for making the process more effective through the provision of additional resources and the strict use of time limits, as well as through improved training, communication, and case management.  Its findings addressed four main problems:  the time taken to complete the process, the resources available to the respective parties, the institutional roles played by the various entities in the process, and training and communication.

Regarding the time taken to complete the appeals process, the Office recommends streamlining procedures at various duty stations.  Only in Vienna were appeals completed in 10 to 17 months, whereas in New York, the average time ranged from 27 to 37 months.  Delays were attributed to gaps in the formal guidelines to govern the time frame for the process, with bottlenecks caused by insufficient resources.  In this connection, the report of the Secretary-General also stresses that the notion of a speedier process is inextricably linked to the adequacy of resources.  The Secretary-General agrees that the deadlines proposed by the OIOS would, if implemented, assist in reducing the delays, but points out that they should become mandatory only after the staffing shortages are addressed and the backlog of cases is eliminated.

The Department of Management and the Office of Legal Affairs expressed concern about the OIOS proposal, whereby the Secretary-General would approve by default an appellant’s access to the Administrative Tribunal if the respondent failed to respond within the prescribed time frame.  In order to implement such a measure, the Assembly would have to amend the statute of the Administrative Tribunal accordingly.  The Department of Management also objected to the proposal that the Rules of Procedure of the Joint Appeals Board be amended to authorize the presiding officer to move a case to the front of the queue when it concerns non-renewal of contract.  The Department expressed concern that giving priority to non-renewal cases could be seen as subjective.

Among measures to strengthen the resources available to appellants, the OIOS suggests adding and modifying posts at the secretariats of the Joint Appeals Boards and recruiting professional staff for the Panel of Counsel in New York.  The Office notes that while respondents had five staff members available to them -- including one P-5 and two P-4s -- appellants had to rely on only two General Service staff members and volunteers provided through the Panel of Counsel.  Also, while respondents’ legal costs are borne by the Organization, appellants must pay the costs of any outside legal assistance they engage.  Also recommended are measures to eliminate the appearance of a conflict of interest in the Department of Management, which has authority over most judicial entities in New York.  Suggesting that the status quo be maintained, the Secretary-General does not agree with the recommendation to transfer some of the Department’s current responsibilities to either the Office of the Secretary-General or other Secretariat units, noting that this would create an even greater conflict of interest.

The OIOS also addresses shortcomings in the training provided to members of the Joint Appeals Board and the Panel of Counsel and suggests the use of secure electronic means to improve staff’s access to information about the status of their appeals.  In that connection, the Secretary-General highlights such improvements as the issuance of annual reports providing details about the work of the Joint Appeals Board; information circulars on disciplinary matters; and introduction of an electronic digest of UNAT cases.  He also proposes reducing reliance on volunteers and moving to a “jury” system for the Joint Appeals Board and the Disciplinary Committee.  The Secretary-General believes that this option has considerable merit, but notes that the Assembly should take into account the resources needed for training the “jurors”.  Careful thought should also be given to the handling of exemptions from duty.

Also before the Committee was a report of the Secretary-General on the role of the Panels on Discrimination and Other Grievances (document A/59/414), which were designed to supplement the formal litigation process and emphasize mediation to resolve employment-related disputes at the Secretariat.  The Panels have been underutilized by staff, and their recommendations have not always been heeded by the Administration.  They lack the statutory power of the Joint Appeals Board or of an Ombudsman to have access to all persons and documents necessary for their work, making it difficult to investigate staff grievances.

The Secretary-General believes that the Panels are not effective in their current form and should be eliminated.  After consultations with the Ombudsman and staff representatives, he proposes two options:  (1) to eliminate the Panels altogether and have their functions assumed by the Office of the United Nations Ombudsman, or (2) to transfer some of the Panels’ functions to new “joint grievance committees”.  He notes that if the Assembly decides to endorse the second option, it would be necessary to provide members of the grievance committees with adequate resources for training and administrative support.  Implementation of this option would also require consultations with the staff. 

Also before the Committee were the Secretary-General’s reports on the outcome of the work of the Joint Appeals Board in 2001-2002 (document A/58/300) and in 2002-2003 (document A/59/70), according to which there was a substantial increase in the number of appeals filed with all Joint Appeals Boards during 2002, with the largest share going to the New York Board.  At 102, the number of appeals received by the New York Board exceeded the number of 2001 appeals by 23.  The Geneva Board received 10 more appeals in 2002 than in the year before, which brought the total to 29; the Vienna Board received 15 appeals in 2002 (10 more than in 2001); and the Nairobi Board received 1 more appeal, for a total of 13.  The number of pending appeals in 2002 was effectively nil in the Vienna and Nairobi Boards, and rather modest in the Geneva Board.  However, the number of pending cases continued to be a problem for New York, where the Board had some 150 pending appeals in its docket by the end of 2002.

The reports also show that 89 appeals were filed and 72 were disposed of in 2003 in New York; 35 appeals were filed and 24 disposed of in Geneva.  In Vienna those figures totalled 9 and 17; and in Nairobi 12 and 8, respectively.

The Committee also had before it a comprehensive report on the activities of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal (document A/58/680), which consists of seven members appointed for a term of four years by the General Assembly, upon the recommendation of the Fifth Committee.  The members may be reappointed once.  The most recent elections to fill vacancies were held in the General Assembly, on 17 December 2003.  The Tribunal renders an average of 60 judgements per year.  In 2003, it rendered 63 judgements and received 56 new cases.  At present, 93 cases remain outstanding.

On one of the main problems -- prolonged delays in the administration of justice -- the Tribunal states that an old axiom “justice delayed is justice denied” remains all too true.  For example, improper discharge of an employee under normal conditions should be remedied by reinstatement with back pay.  After a prolonged delay, however, the post in question may have disappeared or been filled, the aggrieved staff member may no longer be available, or the Administration may choose to award damages in lieu of reinstatement.  The remedy can only be achieved through simplification of the system and an appropriate increase in funding and staff at all stages of the process.

Among other important issues, the Tribunal singles out the issue of its independence.  Currently, the Tribunal is dependent on the Office of Legal Affairs (OLA) for its administration, budget, staffing and physical facilities.  At the same time, the OLA represents the Secretary-General, who is the respondent in most Tribunal cases.  The Joint Inspection Unit (JIU), in its report on the administration of justice at the United Nations has proposed the creation of a separate independent department for the settlement and resolution of disputes and the administration of justice, comprising the secretariat of UNAT, the Ombudsman’s Office and the secretariats of the Joint Appeals Board and the Joint Disciplinary Committee.  Alternatively, proposals have been made to separate UNAT from the Office of Legal Affairs, provide it with an independent budget, a separate location and its own staff.

Another long outstanding issue is the question of clear disparity of function, power and availability of resources between the UNAT and the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization (ILOAT).  The Tribunal believes there should be no restriction on its power to rescind contested management decisions or order specific performance of management obligations, nor any limitation on the amount of compensation it may award.

That issue is also addressed in the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU) report on the harmonization of the statutes of the UNAT and the ILOAT (document A/59/280).  The Unit’s objective was to provide a definitive opinion on the feasibility of harmonizing the statutes of the Tribunals with the aim of closing the gap between the two and removing the perception of inequality in justice administration within the United Nations family, thus strengthening the common system.  The Unit considers that this issue has been on the United Nations agenda for too long, and over the years has become unnecessarily complicated.

The UNAT was established in 1949 as an independent organ competent to hear and pass judgment on applications alleging non-observance of contracts and terms of appointment of staff of the Secretariat and associated funds and programmes, as well as applications alleging non-observance of the regulations and rules of the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund.  The International Labour Organization (ILO) Tribunal hears complaints from serving and former officials of the ILO or one of the other international organizations that recognise its jurisdiction.  The ILOAT is competent to hear complaints against more than 40 international organizations, including the majority of the United Nations specialized agencies.

The Inspectors strongly recommend that the matter be finalized and that decisive steps be taken to eliminate the three most important remaining discrepancies between the two statutes:  (1) selection and appointment of members of the Tribunals; (2) authority of the Tribunals to order specific performance by the executive heads; and (3) limitations on the amount of compensation that may be awarded by the Tribunals.  The Unit suggests that the statute of the UNAT be amended to conform to that of the ILOAT in these areas.

The Unit recommends that the Assembly continue to review the issue of selection and appointment of members of the UNAT with a view toward aligning them with the statute and practices of the ILOAT; amend article 10 of the UNAT statute to bring it into conformity with the ILOAT statute; settle the issues of performance and compensation limitations; and continue to treat, as a priority matter, improvement of the slow and cumbersome processes of internal justice.  The Joint Inspection Unit further suggests that the Secretary-General, in his capacity as chairman of the United Nations System Chief Executive Board for Coordination, should invite the Board to develop a mechanism to enhance cooperation and facilitate professional exchange between the UNAT, the ILOAT, and other administrative tribunals.  The Inspectors suggest that the UNAT eliminate the two-year net base salary limit on awards, and follow the approach of the ILOAT and other administrative tribunals. 

The Secretary-General, in a note on the JIU report on administration of justice (document A/59/280/Add.1) reiterates concerns expressed in his earlier report on this issue (document A/56/800), pointing out that “the issue of specific performance should not be viewed in isolation” from other factors, notably the selection criteria, procedures, and qualifications of Tribunal members.  Although no precise qualifications are stated for either UNAT members or ILOAT judges -- except that all on each Tribunal must have different nationalities -- in practice, UNAT members include persons with a wide variety of backgrounds, many having had some years of service as representatives to the Assembly, while the ILOAT is staffed by professional judges from the highest national courts.  The Secretary-General states that he would be prepared to reconsider his position on the question of specific performance, but only “if the statutes and practices of the two Tribunals were fully harmonized”.  He repeats his suggestion that “alternatively, the current system could be retained with an increase in the limit of compensation” awarded to claimants.

A report on compensation of “other-than-Secretariat” officials (document A/C.5/59/12) addresses the proposal to provide remuneration to the members of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal equivalent to that received by the judges of the ILO Administrative Tribunal.  Should the Assembly decide that UNAT members are to be compensated in a manner comparable to ILOAT judges, the Secretary-General proposes that the Assembly consider honorariums as follows:  the UNAT member drafting a judgement would receive $1,000; the two members signing the judgement would receive $250 for each case.  The calculations have been prepared on the assumption that with 70 judgements rendered per annum, each of the seven members would draft 10 judgements a year and would sit as a panel member for 20 other judgements, which they would sign. 

In that connection, the Committee also had before it a letter dated 18 November 2003 from the President of the Tribunal addressed to the Chairman of the Fifth Committee (document A/C.5/58/16), in which he informs the Administrative Committee that the Tribunal has requested the Secretary-General to take whatever steps he deems appropriate to provide remuneration to the members of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal equivalent to that received by the judges of the ILO Tribunal.

In the Secretary-General’s report on the possibility of the financial independence of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal from the Office of Legal Affairs (document A/59/78), it is recommended that the Assembly approve provision of resources related to the UNAT not from Section 8, Office of Legal Affairs, but from Section 1, overall policy-making, direction and coordination, effective as of the biennium 2006-2007.  That action would result in the avoidance of any appearance of undue influence by the respondent.

Tribunals’ Financing

The Committee had before it the Board of Auditors’ financial report and audited financial statements for the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and for the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia for the biennium ending 31 December 2003 (documents a/59/5/Add. 11 and 12).  The most important financial issue facing the Tribunals is the deteriorating cash position due to the sharp increase in unpaid assessments.  The reports note that unpaid assessments as at 31 December 2003 for the Rwanda Tribunal totalled $34.8 million, and for the former Yugoslavia $53.3 million.  Both Tribunals had to borrow from other funds in order to meet their operating requirements:  Rwanda $35.5 million and former Yugoslavia $68 million.

The 2002-2003 budget for the Rwanda Tribunal totalled $208.4 million, as appropriated by the Assembly in its resolution 58/252.  Actual expenditures for the biennium totalled $208.4 million, leaving a small unencumbered balance of $100,000.  Total reserves and fund balances of the Rwanda Tribunal decreased by approximately 52 per cent, from $5.5 million in 2000-2001 to $2.6 million in 2002-2003.  The Tribunal’s reserves were inadequate to cover its end-of-service and post-retirement benefit liabilities of $27.4 million.  The Board warns that it does not seem possible for the Tribunal to complete its work by 2010, as required by Security Council resolution 1503 (2003).

Among the Board’s main recommendations were that the administration intensify efforts to gain the cooperation of Member States; improve the presentation and disclosure of financial statements; review the funding mechanism for end-of-service and post-retirements benefit liabilities; and monitor progress in implementing the completion strategy.  By July 2004, the administration planned to implement a number of appropriate remedies.

The 2002-2003 budget of the former Yugoslavia Tribunal totalled $288.3 million, as appropriated by the General Assembly in its resolution 58/254.  Actual expenditures for 2002-2003 totalled $284.3 million, leaving an unencumbered balance of $4 million.

Among the main recommendations was that the administration should address the problem of unpaid assessments by intensifying its efforts to gain the cooperation of all concerned Member States and seek the assistance of the international community in placing additional pressure on uncooperative Member States.  The Board also suggests that the administration review its procedures on deferred charges (commitments approved by the Controller for future financial periods) to ensure the completeness of the disclosure.  Among other recommendations are that the administration liaise with United Nations Headquarters to account for the liability related to judges’ pensions and plan for the transfer of pension commitments to a permanent entity before the termination of the Tribunal; explore with the Secretariat the possibility of applying the usual United Nations staff medical standards to candidates for judgeship; and finalize the annex to the memorandum of understanding setting out services to be shared and invoiced within the United Nations House in Sarajevo.

Also before the Committee was the Secretary-General’s report on the budgeting schedule of the two Tribunals (document A/59/139), which proposed that the Assembly maintain the biennial format for the presentation of their budgets, for the biennial cycle saved time and effort and would enhance long-term planning.

In a related report of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) (document A/59/561), the ACABQ expressed concern about the fact that the current recruitment freeze would have a significant impact on the Tribunals’ completion strategy schedule.  It also expressed concern about the fact that experienced security officers leave the Tribunals for other United Nations organizations and peacekeeping operations.  The Advisory Committee trusts that a way can be found to ameliorate the current staffing situation and requests that a way be found to improve the incumbency situation of security officers of the two Tribunals.

The Advisory Committee recommends approval of the proposed staffing of the Investigations Division for the former Yugoslavia Tribunal as well as the proposed redeployment of two P-5 posts to the Appeals Unit.  It also recommends approval of the proposed travel requirements of $994,300 for the Investigations Division for 2005.  Likewise, for the Rwanda Tribunal, it recommends approval of the proposed staffing of the Investigations Division for 2005, as well as the proposed travel requirements of $550,000.

Taking note of three cases of fraud and presumptive fraud at the Rwanda Tribunal for the financial period ended 31 December 2003, the Advisory Committee is of the view that disciplinary action with regard to cases of proven fraud should take place in the most expeditious way.  Staff rules and regulations should be adopted, if necessary, to allow such swift disciplinary action.

The Committee also had before it the first performance reports of the biennium 2004-2005 for the former Yugoslavia Tribunal (document A/59/547) and for the Rwanda Tribunal (document A/59/549).  The performance reports are intended to identify adjustments to the initial appropriation owing to fluctuations in the rates of exchange and inflation. 

The performance report of the former Yugoslavia Tribunal reflects a requirement of additional appropriations of $26.8 million, net of staff assessment, over the initial appropriation for the biennium 2004-2005.  The requirement includes changes with respect to exchange rates as a result of the weakening of the United States dollar vis-à-vis the euro and provision for the Investigations Division for 2005.  The Assembly is requested to approve the revised appropriation for 2004-2005 in the amount of $329.5 million gross ($298.4 million net) to the Special Account for the Tribunal.

The performance report of the Rwanda Tribunal reflects a net additional requirement of $18.2 million, net of staff assessment, over the initial appropriation for the biennium 2004-2005.  The increased requirements reflect changes arising from variations to budgetary assumptions and the provision of resources for the Investigations Division for 2005.  The Assembly is requested to revise the 2004-2005 appropriation in the amount of $255.9 million gross ($231.5 million net) to the Special Account for the Tribunal.

Introduction of Reports

DILEEP NAIR, Under-Secretary-General for Internal Oversight Services, introduced the Office’s report on the management review of the appeals process.  In performing the review, the OIOS had focused on procedural and institutional matters.  The review’s findings could be grouped into four main categories, namely the time taken by the process; the institutional roles played by the various entities in the process; the resources available to the respective parties; and training and communications.  The OIOS had issued 18 recommendations to improve the appeals process at the United Nations, most of which management had agreed to implement.  The OIOS would continue to monitor their implementation.

Assistant Secretary-General for Programme Planning, Budget and Accounts and United Nations Controller, JEAN-PIERRE HALBWACHS, then introduced a series of reports of the Secretary-General, namely on the administration of justice; the role and work of the Panels on Discrimination and Other Grievances; the annual report on the outcome of the Joint Appeal Board’s work during 2001-2002; the administration of justice in the Secretariat: outcome of the Joint Appeal Board’s work during 2002-2003; and the possibility of financial independence of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal from the Office of Legal Affairs.

The report on the administration of justice, he said, focused on the management review of the appeals process, and provided information on the other issues requested by the Assembly.  The Secretary-General agreed with the majority of the OIOS recommendations on the management review of the appeals process, recommendations designed to make the process more effective through adherence to time lines, provision of resources, as well as through improved training, communications and case management.  Their implementation would result in a streamlined, transparent and more efficient process, which would, at the same time, uphold the Organization’s commitment to a process that is fair and effective. 

Regarding alternatives for strengthening the administration of justice, the report focused on measures relating to addressing the delays in the appeals process, training and communications in the context of the internal system of justice, and cooperation and accountability of managers, he continued.  Proposing a number of improvements, the report concluded thatthe internal recourse system did not require a radical overhaul to make it more effective.

Turning to the report on the work of the Panels on Discrimination and Other Grievances, he said the Assembly, at its fifty-sixth session, had established the position of Ombudsman.  It had not, however, decided whether the Ombudsman should replace the Panels on Discrimination and Other Grievances, as originally proposed by the Secretary-General.  Rather, the Assembly had requested detailed proposals on the role and work of the Panels.  Such information was contained in the present report.

He then introduced the reports on the work of the Joint Appeals Board.  The two reports provided information on the work of all Joint Appeals Boards, namely in New York, Geneva, Vienna and Nairobi.

Regarding the possibility of financial independence of the Tribunal from the Office of Legal Affairs, he noted that Assembly resolution 57/307 had requested the Secretary-General to take steps to ensure the independence of the Tribunal and the separation of its secretariat from the Office of Legal Affairs and to study the possibility of its financial independence.  The Secretary-General was proposing the transfer of the Tribunal’s resources from Section 8, Office of Legal Affairs, to Section 1, Overall policy-making, direction and coordination, effective with the beginning of the new biennium 2006-2007, brining the Tribunal and its secretariat in line with comparable subsidiary organs of the Assembly such as the ACABQ and the United Nations Board of Auditors.

JULIO BARBOZA, President of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal, introducing the comprehensive report of the Tribunal on its activities, said the report provided information on the compensation, jurisdiction, functioning and work of the Tribunal, including a general overview.  The Tribunal noted with interest the establishment of the Ombudsman Office to facilitate conflict resolution.  The Tribunal supported the strengthening of the existing system, and saw no great merit in modifying the system, or creating a new one.  The Tribunal supported the proposals of the Joint Inspection Unit and the ACABQ.  The Tribunal stressed the importance of presenting an annual report to the Assembly to keep it informed of emerging jurisprudence and the main areas of conflict between the administration and the staff.

VICTOR VISLYKH, Inspector of the Joint Inspection Unit, then introduced, through videoconference, the report of the Unit entitled Administration of justice:  Harmonization of the statutes of the UNAT and the International Labour Organization Administrative Tribunal.

For almost a quarter of a century, he noted, the Assembly had expressed its concern about deficiencies of the present administration of justice system at the United Nations.  The system was slow, cumbersome, costly, unfair and discriminatory.  In response to that concern, the Joint Inspection Unit had produced a number of reports with concrete proposals to remedy the situation.  The report presented today concluded that the issue of the harmonization of the two statutes had been the United Nations agenda for too long. 

Now that both the Assembly and the Secretary-General had committed themselves to meaningful improvement of the current system, the issue must be brought to a close by quick and decisive action, he said.  Such action would be easy and simple to take, as it would be sufficient to eliminate only those discrepancies between the two statutes that could be perceived as materially affecting the administration of justice.  Only three such discrepancies had been identified and their elimination would be sufficient to close the issue.  Based on those conclusions, the inspectors had submitted four specific recommendations which were fully in line with modern thinking and with the major parties interested in the issue.

BRUCE RASHKOW, Director of the General Legal Division, Office of Legal Affairs, introduced the note by the Secretary-General transmitting his comments on the above Joint Inspection Unit report.  He said the Secretary-General’s position on the matter explained in his report A/56/800 remained valid.  The Secretary-General had expressed the view that, on the subject of that recommendation of specific performance, the subject should not be viewed in isolation, but in the context of other criteria, notably procedures and qualifications of tribunal members.  Regarding the recommendation, the Secretary-General expressed a willingness to reconsider his earlier position on specific performance, if the statutes of the two tribunals were harmonized.  The Secretary-General’s report stressed the importance of viewing the matters not in isolation, but as parts of an integral whole that must work together in order for the system to achieve its objectives. 

MARIANNE BRZAK-METZLER, Chief, Conditions of Service Section, Office of Human Resources Management, introduced the Secretary-General’s note on compensation for officials other than Secretariat officials:  members of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal.

ACABQ Chairman, VLADIMIR KUZNETSOV then took the floor on the administration of justice at the United Nations.  The Advisory Committee had consistently maintained that related subjects should be dealt with together, to the maximum extent possible.  It was, therefore, the ACABQ’s expectation to issue one report covering all the related elements. 

Regarding the United Nations Administrative Tribunal, he said a number of the issues were not new.  The Advisory Committee had already expressed itself on the issue of specific performance, the qualification of members and their compensation.  The report on the administration of justice was one of a series over the years.  Indeed, the issues now under discussion had been raised by the ACABQ as far back as 1985.  The ACABQ took the matter very seriously, as it had a significant impact on staff morale and productivity and on the Organization’s efficiency.  It could also have a significant financial impact.  The material contained in the Secretary-General’s report on the administration of justice was, in many respects, not new to the ACABQ, as the problems alluded to in the report had persisted for many years.

That was why, he continued, the ACABQ had noted with a great deal of interest the statement in the Secretary-General’s report that the internal recourse system did not require a radical overhaul to make it more effective and that the chronic delays and inefficiencies that had been its trademark in past years were largely the result of inadequate resources in terms of both staffing and training.  The ACABQ regretted that the administration had not followed the statement with proposals for the resources necessary for solving the problem.  It was incumbent upon the Secretariat to provide the proper analysis of what was required.  Without such analysis, it was impossible for the ACABQ to provide the recommendations necessary for the General Assembly to complete action on the matter.

Under the circumstances, the Advisory Committee had requested the Secretariat to prepare an addendum to its report, laying out resource requirements for dealing with the backlog and for the ongoing administration of the internal justice system.  The submission should include a clear justification of the need, as well as a full explanation of what would be achieved through the provision of additional resources. 

It was the Advisory Committee’s intention, he added, to revert to the issue when it had received the requested submission from the Secretariat.  The ACABQ also intended to meet with representatives of the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization and other officials to gain a better insight as to how internal justice systems operated in other members of the United Nations system.  The Advisory Committee intended to complete its work on the matter before the end of the session.

International Tribunals

Introducing several Secretary-General’s reports, Mr. HALBWACHS recalled that the Assembly had requested the Secretary-General to submit a report on the results of the experiment on the biennialization of the budgets of the Tribunals and to include the views of the Board of Auditors thereon.  The proposal to retain the biennialization of the Tribunals’ budgets had been made for several reasons.  Among them was the fact that preparation of the annual budget was overwhelming for both the Secretariat and the MemberStates.  A biennial budgeting cycle saved both time and effort on the part of the Tribunals, providing greater scope for planning, management and coordination of activities.  It also freed up staff time that would otherwise be spent preparing a budget, thereby allowing staff to redirect their time to other areas, such as performance measures.  It also alleviated the heavy agenda of reviewing bodies.

The report on the former Yugoslavia Tribunal included both the technical adjustments of the first performance report, as well as the resource requirements of the Investigations Division for 2005.  It also took into account a one-time adjustment of some $6.75 million, reflecting savings accruing owing to economy measures applied during 2004.  When approving the initial appropriation for the Tribunal for the biennium 2004-2005 last year, the Assembly had decided to defer the consideration of the resource requirements for the Investigations Division for 2005 to the fifty-ninth session and requested the Secretary-General to resubmit his proposals in the context of the first performance report for the biennium 2004-2005.

The report reflected additional requirements of $26.8 million, which reflected changes arising from variations to budgetary assumptions (some $20.56 million); the resources for the Investigations Division for 2005 ($12.95 million); and the above-mentioned adjustment for savings.

Provision for the Investigations Division for 2005 would include the continuation of 148 posts effective 1 January 2005, compared to 215 posts for 2004, within the Division to support pre-trial, trial and appeals; and support in respect of the transfer of cases from the Tribunal to local courts through the establishment of the Transition Team.  As of 1 July 2005, the Division would undergo a further reduction of 12 posts bringing the staffing of the Division to 136 posts.  That would require resources under post and staff assessment in the amount of $11.96 million and $2.28 million respectively.

The Rwanda Tribunal report included both the technical adjustments of the first performance report and resource requirements of the Investigations Division for the year 2005, he continued.  It also took into account a one-time adjustment of some $5.06 million as a result of savings achieved in 2004.  Estimated additional requirements for the Tribunal amounted to $ 18.2 million, including changes arising from variations to budgetary assumptions (some $10.7 million); and resources for the Investigations Division for 2005 ($12.58 million).

Requirements for the Investigations Division for 2005 include:  $12.04 million for the continuation of the staffing component approved in 2004, namely 106 temporary posts (88 at the professional and above categories and 18 posts at the General Service category) and support for pre-trial, trial and appeals work.  Some $550,000 was proposed to cover travel for investigative work.

He went on to say that the financial problems of the Tribunals were well known to the Committee, and Mrs. Bertini had drawn attention to the situation again, during her financial presentation last month, to the continued shortfall in contributions.  The Secretariat had had no choice but to impose on the Tribunals a recruitment freeze and other economy measures last May as a result of non-payment by a significant number of Member States.  Some progress has been made, as some payments have been received. 

Positive statements had been made in the Assembly plenary on the work of the Tribunals, he continued, but that praise had not been translated into deeds.  There still remained some $32.8 million of unpaid contributions for the former Yugoslavia Tribunal and $26.7 million for the Rwanda Tribunal.  For each Tribunal there were over 100 Member States in arrears.  Support to the Tribunals could not just be expressed in words.  Financial obligations towards the Tribunals must also be honoured.  “I cannot but stress the seriousness of the situation and appeal to those 100 plus Member States to make their payments.  They hold the future of the Tribunals in their hands”, he said.

RAJAT SAHA, of the ACABQ, introduced a related report, saying that the Advisory Committee was concerned about the freeze on recruitment, which would have a significant negative effect on the completion strategy schedules, especially in view of the serious and persistent vacancy situation.  The ACABQ was recommending approval of the requests in respect of both Investigations Divisions.

Regarding the reports of the Board of Auditors on the Tribunals, he added that the Advisory Committee had pointed to the need to take swift disciplinary action with regard to cases of proven fraud.  He also noted that the former Yugoslavia Tribunal had accepted the Board’s recommendations with regard to premises in Sarajevo and that the Tribunal would take the necessary measures to improve the occupancy rate there.

Statements

MARK ZELLENRATH (Netherlands), speaking on behalf of the European Union and associated States, recalled that on many previous occasions, the Union had expressed its concerns about the consistently rising budgets of both Tribunals and the slow progress of the important work of those institutions.  During its 58^th session, the Assembly had deferred consideration of the resources for the Investigations Division due to, among other reasons, the need for the Tribunals to demonstrate that resource bids were being made in conformity with their completion strategies. 

He was pleased that the Tribunals had taken those concerns on board, he said.  He welcomed the restructuring and realignment of the Investigations Division at the former Yugoslav Tribunal as a result of the completion of all pre-indictment investigations by the end of this year.  He also welcomed the fact that the Rwanda Tribunal was closely studying the system of lump-sum remuneration for defence counsel, which appeared to be working well in The Hague.  Like the ACABQ, he encouraged the Rwanda Tribunal in its efforts to introduce such a system.  He also commended the Tribunals for the savings they had achieved in 2004, owing to the economy measures put in place.

It was clear that the Tribunals still had some way to go in order to achieve their completion strategies and would face further challenges in the future, he continued.  A key example of that was the question of appeals, where the complexity of the work and the propensity for new witnesses and documentation to emerge was elaborated in the report of the former Yugoslav Tribunal.  That point had also been highlighted by the Board of Auditors, which called for a combined completion strategy for the Appeals Chamber to put in place measures that would streamline that process as far as possible within judicial constraints.

Turning to the Rwanda Tribunal, he expressed concern of the fact that most of the 16 indictees might never be brought to trial before the Arusha courts.  He urged all Member States to cooperate actively with the Tribunal.  While the Assembly last year had authorized nine ad litem judges for the Tribunal, the countries he represented had now learned that four of those nine had been unused throughout the year.  The resulting loss of trial days was very regrettable.  He also expected the Tribunal to follow up expeditiously on the recommendation of the Board of Auditors to establish a comprehensive and formal fraud prevention strategy.

Continuing, he expressed great concern regarding the arrears of contributions for both Tribunals, which put a severe strain on the operations and completion strategies of the courts.  He was pleased that several Member States had paid substantive parts of their arrears and that outstanding contributions had dropped since then.  He reiterated the call on all Member States to pay their contributions in full and on time.  In the light of the improvement of the Tribunals’ financial situation, he wanted to know whether it would be enough to lift the current recruitment freeze, which had a negative impact on the courts’ efficiency and effectiveness and might negatively affect the completion strategy.  Another source of concern was the inability to hire new security experts, after several experienced officers had left the organizations.  He understood that the recruitment freeze had had a particular impact on the prosecution divisions.  In informals, he would seek further clarification on how that had been taken into account in the staff proposals for those divisions.

Regarding the report on biennial budgeting of the Tribunals, he noted that the two-year cycle apparently provided greater scope for planning, management and coordination of activities.  He also understood from the ACABQ report that returning to one-year budget cycles and contracts might result in lower staff morale and greater difficulties in retaining staff.  He, therefore, approved the proposal to maintain the biennial format for the budgets.

KAREN LOCK (South Africa), speaking on behalf of the African Group, said that the Assembly had designated 7 April 2004 as the international day of reflection on the genocide in Rwanda to show global solidarity for the victims.  Through collective action, the Assembly, in the words of the Secretary-General, had also sent a message of “remorse for the past” and “resolve to prevent such tragedy from ever happening again”.  The Rwanda Tribunal, since its inception, had handed down landmark verdicts, which had sent a message to all that there was no impunity for such heinous crimes.  It had also been the first international court to convict anyone for genocide and hold a former head of government responsible for genocide; the first to determine that rape had been used as an act of genocide; and to find that journalists, who incited the population to genocide, were themselves guilty of the crime.

It was imperative that the international community continued to translate its political support into action, as the sustained success of the Tribunals depended on the extent to which States collectively ensured that they received adequate and predictable resources towards the successful completion of their mandates, she stressed.  Therefore, she noted with deep concern that a large number of Member States had not made full or partial contributions to the accounts of the Tribunals during 2004.  Member States could hardly judge the performance of the Tribunals, if they did not provide them with appropriate tools to function properly.  Now that the end was in sight, they could not afford to fail the courts.

The African Group had expressed its reservations over the freeze imposed on the Tribunals, for it would place their functioning at risk, she said.  The freeze had also come shortly after the Assembly had approved the staffing for the office of the new Prosecutor, the Appeals Unit and additional ad litem judges.  It was also in contravention of the Assembly’s request to the Secretariat to reduce the vacancy rate at the Tribunal.  The Group had repeatedly called on the Secretariat to exclude areas that were critical to the Tribunals from the proposed freeze.  She was, therefore, deeply concerned about the confirmation received from the ACABQ that the current freeze would have a significant negative impact on the completion strategy schedule.  A way should be found to ameliorate the current staffing situation of both Tribunals.

Turning to the first performance report of the Rwanda Tribunal, she supported the proposals of the Secretary-General, as endorsed by the ACABQ.  The Group welcomed the efforts of the new Prosecutor to review the completion strategy of the office and draw up an action plan.  She also welcomed the concerted efforts to arrest fugitives at large, revamp the tracking team and appoint a completion strategy monitoring committee.  During 2005, there would be 13 cases in trial involving 30 accused.  The Appeals Section could be occupied with as many as 10 appeals involving 13 accused.  The workload of the Investigations Division was also expected to increase.  It was, thus, evident that the Tribunal would have a heavy workload in 2005 and it was imperative to ensure that it received all the financial and human resources it needed.

She added that the Group was encouraged by the management reforms and organizational restructuring in the Office of the Registrar and some key sections of the Tribunal.  Those reforms were aimed at enhancing operational efficiency, while maximizing the use of limited human resources.  The Group remained concerned with the large number of vacant posts and indications that experienced staff were leaving the Tribunals.  A proactive recruitment policy, coupled with the lifting of the freeze, would ensure that those positions were filled expeditiously.  She noted with appreciation that the Rwanda Tribunal had one of the highest diversity ratios in the Secretariat, with almost 90 countries represented.  She also requested information on the status of the security projects at the court, saying that the Group would be interested in receiving an indication if those projects were excluded from the freeze.

In connection with expected completion of the work of the Tribunal, she said that Rwanda would require support in developing the capacity of its judiciary to ensure that the transferred cases would be conducted with a high level of professionalism.  In keeping with its statute, the Rwanda Tribunal should continue to provide support in that respect.  She further trusted that the proposed budget for the next biennium would provide for the costs of transferring the trials to Rwanda and other MemberStates.  In view of the central role of outreach programmes in the effective execution of the Tribunal’s mandate, the Group encouraged the Tribunal to continue to be innovative and dynamic in developing and implementing such programmes.

ADELLE FERGUSON (Canada), speaking also on behalf of Australia and New Zealand (CANZ), noted that as a large part of the membership had not paid its assessments on time, in full and without conditions, the Tribunals had been placed in an untenable financial position.  The high level of arrears, resulting in the recently imposed recruitment freeze, had jeopardized not only the achievement of the completion strategies, but also the ultimate success of the Tribunals in carrying out their work.  That was unacceptable.  Welcoming the recent efforts of several delegations to pay their outstanding contributions, she encouraged others to follow suit.  The recruitment freeze, though perhaps unavoidable given the current cash crisis, was at best a short-term measure.  The time had come to look at other options for dealing with the crisis.

She welcomed the careful consideration by the Tribunals of the need for investigative resources beyond 2004.  The pragmatic approach of the Former Yugoslavia Tribunal involving both reduction and redeployment was particularly welcome.  Both Tribunals, however, must continue to do their utmost to ensure that efficiency was maximized, economies were made where possible and the utmost rigour was applied to the budgetary process.  She was pleased to note the efforts and resulting economies of several million dollars each, found by both Tribunals.  She hoped the Tribunals would not only continue to seek such efficiencies, but that they would also make every effort to operate within current budget levels.

She noted with concern the difficulty experienced by both Tribunals with regard to staff retention.  Though not unexpected, given their finite nature, it was a problem that would no doubt grow in scope as the completion strategy advanced.  Ultimately, such a continuous exodus could seriously handicap the Tribunals’ ability to complete their work within the envisaged time frame.  It could also result in significant additional costs related to the hiring, installation and repatriation of staff.  Addressing the issue would be a priority and she encouraged the Secretariat to examine possible solutions to the problem and work towards developing concrete proposals for increasing retention levels.

ANJA ZOBRIST RENTENAAR (Switzerland) noted that the biennialization of the budgets had led to a greater scope for planning, management and coordination of activities, placing a better focus on the Tribunals’ work and creating a more predictable work environment for the staff.  She supported the proposal to maintain the biennial format for budget presentation.

Concerning the performance reports, she said that her delegation appreciated the detailed analysis of staffing requirements in terms of anticipated workload for the investigations divisions for 2005 and approved the proposed staffing and travel requirements.  Her delegation welcomed the commitment of the Tribunals to the completion strategy set by the Security Council.  Unfortunately, Member States had failed to honour their commitment to the Tribunals.  Far too many had only partially paid their assessments, or worse, had not made any payments.  She called on those States to meet their obligations in full, on time and without conditions.  As a result of their precarious financial situation, a recruitment freeze had been imposed on all posts, and a severe cutback of all other expenditures had been introduced.  The Presidents and Prosecutors of the Tribunals had pointed out on numerous occasions – and, once again, in the Security Council yesterday -- that the recruitment freeze was having a devastating effect on the Tribunals. 

Particularly affected was the Office of the Prosecutor of the former Yugoslavia Tribunal, she continued, and the decimation of the Investigation Division had placed some of the investigations in jeopardy.  The situation was undermining the credibility of the Tribunals and of international criminal justice as a whole.  It impeded the Tribunals’ efficiency and would negatively impact on the completion strategy.  The condition of the Tribunals could not indefinitely continue.  She understood why the freeze had been imposed.  However, it was also necessary to consider recent substantial payments by several Member States.  The Tribunals could not be made responsible for non-payment of assessments.  She wondered, therefore, what benchmark had to be reached before the freeze could be lifted.  She called on the Secretary-General to lift the hiring freeze as soon as possible.

DRAGANA IVANOVIC (Serbia and Montenegro) expressed her country’s full support for the position of the European Union and said that, unfortunately, Serbia and Montenegro was one of the countries that had not paid any assessments so far for the Tribunals.  Such a situation was not motivated by political considerations.  Neither did it represent an intent to obstruct the functioning of the international system of justice.  It was solely due to harsh economic circumstances prevailing in the country, and she informed the Committee that a decision had been made to pay Serbia and Montenegro’s dues for the international Tribunals in the near future.

Turning to the former Yugoslavia Tribunal’s completion strategy, she said that its two major pillars included fair and expeditious completion of trials and transition from international to domestic prosecution.  Serbia and Montenegro was aware of its responsibilities in that regard.  Nevertheless, the referral of cases to domestic courts had to be carried out in full compliance with the rules of the Tribunal, bearing in mind a paragraph that stated “the Trial Chamber may order such referral proprio motu or at the request of the Prosecutor, after having given to the Prosecutor and, where applicable, the accused, the opportunity to be heard and after being satisfied that the accused will receive a fair trial”.  In view of the above, her country was undertaking efforts to improve the capacity of local courts and Prosecutor’s Offices to fully comply with international standards.  Serbia and Montenegro was determined to take fresh steps to promote its cooperation with the Tribunal.

VLADIMIR IOSIFOV (Russian Federation) said he was pleased to see that both Tribunals had stepped up work on their completion strategies, including through reallocating resources to complete trials on time.  At the same time, he was disturbed to see the continuing difficult financial situation and related problems in recruiting and retaining qualified personnel.  At the current stage, the successful completion of the Tribunals’ work would depend to a large extent on Member States fulfilling their obligations.  The world community would, in the future, judge the role of the United Nations and those unique international legal institutions on the results of their final work.

In 2004, the Russian Federation had paid off its arrears to the former Yugoslavia Tribunal and had paid its assessment on time to the Rwanda Tribunal budget, he said.  He took note of the positive experience in the experiment of drawing up the Tribunal budgets on a biennial basis.  At the same time, however, as the Tribunals carried out their completion strategies, it would be sensible to consider restoring annual budgeting, in view of the fact that the Assembly had, in recent years, been considering the budget annually.

HITOSHI KOZAKI (Japan) noted that some ten years since the establishment of the Tribunals, the question of whether the massive costs involved could continue to be justified had to be asked.  His Government had closely followed the Tribunals’ activities to assess whether the resources made available had been well spent.  Member States could not fund the expenses for the pursuit of justice without limits.  The Secretary-General, in his report on the rule of law and transitional justice, had acknowledged as much, stating that the stark differential between cost and number of cases processed raised important questions.  It was his delegation’s view that a gap did exist between cost and the number of cases processed in the Tribunals.

To address his concerns, he said the Tribunals needed to make a convincing case by providing information on what had been achieved and what measures were being taken to enhance efficiency and effectiveness in the trial process.  The completion strategy needed to be adhered to and he attached importance to the gradual decrease of the Tribunal’s overall costs as the trials proceeded along the strategy.  Bearing in mind the commitments expressed in the Security Council to continue to make further efforts to rationalize budgets and the Tribunal’s work, Japan intended to commence immediately the procedure necessary to pay by the end of the year its outstanding assessed contribution for 2004 to both Tribunals. 

MARI SKAARE (Norway) recalled that, at the last Assembly, Norway had expressed some doubts as to the desirability of maintaining biennial budgeting at the Tribunals.  Having since received several reports supporting the proposal to maintain the biennial format, her delegation had been convinced that biennial budgeting would have advantages for the administrative planning of the Tribunals.  That would enable the courts to focus more attention on long-term planning, instead of having to spend limited administrative resources on more repetitive tasks.  A return to annual budgets could have a negative impact on staff morale and, by extension, on completion strategy. 

Continuing, she commended both Tribunals on their efforts to put the completion strategies into effect.  The Tribunals had increased their efficiency and were on schedule.  Never before had the judicial output been so high.  The financial situation of the courts was deeply worrying, however, and could severely threaten the implementation of the completion strategies.  The Tribunals were committed to those strategies, and it was Member States’ obligation to provide them with the necessary resources approved by the Assembly.  She reiterated her country’s appeal to all States to honour their financial commitments and pay their contributions as soon as possible.

Turning to the freeze on new recruitment, she said that both Tribunals were having severe difficulties in retaining qualified staff, in particular in the prosecution divisions, where the situation was nearing a critical point.  Both the ACABQ and the Board of Auditors were concerned about the negative impacts of the current freeze on the completion strategy schedule, and she shared those concerns.  Relief measures must be addressed as a matter of urgency, including incentives to retain staff.

On ad litem judges, she recalled that her country had welcomed the decision of the Council to increase their number at the Rwanda Tribunal.  She was, therefore, somewhat disappointed to learn that four ad litem judges had arrived in Arusha as late as September this year, due to the fact that none of the permanent judges were available to sit jointly with the new ad litem ones.  The eight trials currently in progress before the Rwanda Tribunal were taking place in three courtrooms only.  More courtroom capacity would be important for the completion strategy.  Due to the current budgetary constraints, an additional courtroom must be based on voluntary contributions.  Norway was, therefore, pleased to be able to finance the construction of a fourth courtroom at the Rwanda Tribunal.

Her delegation was troubled by the fact that a large number of individuals continued to evade justice, she continued.  Norway welcomed the unanimous adoption of Security Council resolution 1534, reaffirming the need to intensify efforts to arrest and transfer for trial the main fugitive indictees, including Rdovan Karadzic, Ratko Mladic and Ante Gotovina, to the Yugoslavia Tribunal; and Felicien Kabuga to the Rwanda Tribunal.  Unless the highest-ranking indictees were brought to justice, the main mission of the Tribunals would not be fulfilled.

She welcomed the Tribunals’ detailed analysis regarding resource requirements for the investigations division for 2005, she said.  Her delegation considered the proposals adequate and commended the efforts of both Tribunals to streamline and rationalize the activities of the investigations divisions.  She supported the ACABQ recommendation to approve the proposed resource requirements.  She also stressed the need for continued close collaboration and coordination between the two Tribunals in order to complete successfully the mission assigned to them by the Council.

NICHOLAS SHALITA (Rwanda) said his country considered the work of the Rwanda Tribunal to be critical in supporting government efforts in bringing the perpetrators of the genocide to justice, combating impunity and promoting reconciliation and healing.  To that end, it was vital that the Tribunal continue to receive the necessary support to enable it to effectively discharge its mandate.  At a time when the Tribunal was expected to work steadily towards implementing its completion strategy, the late or non-payment of assessed contributions to the Tribunal had resulted in serious financial difficulties and a recruitment freeze.

Since the creation of a separate Prosecutor post for the Rwanda Tribunal, only half of the complement of six support staff was in place, he said.  The prosecution section had 17 vacancies, including the post of Chief of Prosecutions.  The investigations section had a total of 25 vacancies.  That high rate of vacancies would impact on the capacity of the Office of the Prosecutor to prepare and prosecute cases at the pace envisaged by the completion strategy.  There were nine vacant posts for legal officers in the three chambers and several permanent and ad litem judges had no associate legal officers.  The Tribunals could not be asked to deliver on the completion strategy, while being denied the requisite resources to deliver.  To realize the goal of the implementation strategy, it was imperative that all Member States make their contributions on time, in full and without conditions.

The outreach programme was central to the overall mandate of the Rwanda Tribunal, he continued.  His delegation took note of the Tribunal’s current and future outreach plans.  He encouraged the Tribunal to be more proactive and effective in the execution of the particular aspect of its mandate.  The communication challenge before the Tribunal remained quite daunting.  In that respect, he said radio could be used more aggressively in Rwanda.  He also believed that visits to the Tribunal by Rwandan journalists had been too infrequent to have had a sustained impact and that the Kigali information centre could be used more optimally.  His delegation welcomed the proposal to establish provincial information centres, and hoped that more educational materials could be made available in the local languages.  Surmounting the challenges posed by the limitations of the traditional media, he added, would require the Tribunal to “think outside the box” and explore other outreach opportunities.

The transfer of cases from the Tribunal to national jurisdictions had been envisaged as central to the objective of bringing the perpetrators of the genocide to justice when the Tribunal had been established ten years ago, he said.  Taking into account the interest of the survivors of the genocide, the imperative for reconciliation and the principle that justice should be rendered as close as possible to the victims and the place where the crimes were committed, the Tribunal had identified 41 cases for transfer to Rwanda.  His Government recognized the importance of the transfers to the reconciliation process and the positive impact it would have on the implementation of the completion strategy.  As with the former Yugoslavia, however, Rwanda would require the support of the international community and the Tribunal in order to receive and try the transferred cases with the highest level of professionalism and efficiency.

INNOCENT EUGENE SHIYO (United Republic of Tanzania) endorsed the Secretary-General’s request for additional resources, and called on Member States to pay their assessed contributions in full and on time so as to enable the Court to implement its mandate.  The availability of more flexible financial mechanisms, resources and tools would significantly facilitate the expeditious implementation of the completion strategy.  The most recent version of the completion strategy implied that the Tribunal was on schedule to complete all trials by 2008.  While he looked forward to the achievement of the completion strategy, his delegation believed it was quite appropriate for the United Nations to start thinking on how to create a sustainable and secure future utilization of the infrastructures under the Tribunal.  In that regard, he expressed appreciation at the Tribunal’s initiatives in determining the economic and social visibility of the continued use of the facilities after the Tribunal finished its business in Arusha. 

As a host country to the Tribunal, Tanzania pledged to continue working closely with it, he said.  His country had fully implemented the Host Country Agreement and facilitated the required needs through the joint facilitation of the Committee of Senior Representatives of Tanzania and the Tribunal.  He hoped the United Nations would continue to treat Tanzania as one of the most reliable, friendly and secure host countries in its future plans and activities.

WANG HAIJIAO (China) encouraged the Tribunals to continue to taking measures to actively implement their completion strategy.  She hoped that they would further increase trial efficiency and speed up the trial process.  She noted the establishment of national court capacity to take over the cases in countries concerned and encouraged increased cooperation with those countries.

Continuing, she shared other speakers’ concern over the dire financial situation of the Tribunals, which resulted from the high level of unpaid assessments by Member States.  That led to a steady deterioration of the financial health of those institutions.  She called upon all Member States to pay their contributions in full, on time and without conditions.  China had paid its assessments for the Tribunals in full.  In conclusion, she supported the recommendations of the ACABQ regarding the biennailization of the budget of the Tribunals.

RASHID AL-ZAABI (Oman) endorsed the conclusions of the Board of Auditors’ report on the former Yugoslavia Tribunal (document A/59/5/Add.12), saying that its recommendations must be taken seriously.  He called upon the Tribunal to take all possible measures to implement the recommendations of the Board of Auditors, especially those contained in paragraph 10 of the report.  They were only meant to help the Tribunal to implement its completion strategy. 

Continuing, he noted that the regular budget expenditure for the Tribunal for the biennium ended 31 December 2003 had reached $284.3 million to finance the activities of the court.  That figure did not include the expenses of the trust fund, at $13.5 million an increase of 18 per cent.  The increase had derived mainly from the staff costs, which had increased by 41 per cent, to 82 per cent of total expenditures.  The Tribunal had also had to resort to cross-borrowing to the tune of $48 million.  He agreed with the opinion expressed by many that more clarification on expenditure by the courts in 2002-2003 was needed, and shared the concern regarding the need for Member States to pay their assessed contributions on time and in full.  He also asked for clarification regarding the costs for the friends of the court.

He also endorsed the recommendations by the Board that candidates for judicial positions with the Tribunals must be subject to the medical standards of the United Nations.  The courts must not incur more expenses due to sickness of their members.  The recommendation of the Board of Auditors in paragraph 74 of its report to develop a plan against corruption and fraud deserved attention, for it would allow the Tribunal to achieve more transparency.

CANDICE EBBESEN (United States) said that her delegation stood ready to endorse the conclusions and recommendations of the ACABQ supporting the Tribunals.  Both Tribunals had provided helpful information, as requested by the Assembly in 58/255 and 58/253, in the performance reports on outreach activities and reforms to the legal aid systems.  She was pleased that both courts were making special efforts to educate and inform citizens of the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda on the work of the Tribunals that was taking place hundreds of miles from their homelands.  With regard to the legal aid systems, she encouraged the Registrar of the Rwanda Tribunal to adopt a lump-sum payment system, to avoid fraud and control skyrocketing defence costs.  Further, she urged the former Yugoslav Tribunal to institute a lump-sum payment system for the pre-trial phase to control costs and ensure that defendants had access to fair representation during all phases of the trials.

Her delegation was extremely concerned with the findings of the Board of Auditors that, if the current financial trend persisted, both Tribunals would be unable to meet the 2010 deadline, as required by the completion strategies.  The United States had fully paid all of its current assessments for both Tribunals as of the first week of November.  Recent payments by other major donors should put the Tribunals in a better position to manage their workload and resources in order to stay on course with the completion strategies.  She also urged the Tribunals to fully implement all the recommendations of the Board.

In conclusion, she agreed with the Secretary-General that biennial budgeting would allow the Tribunals to engage in more long-term planning and to review budget performance and evaluation.  Those reviews should highlight possible waste and areas where the Tribunals could use more cost-effective means of carrying out their activities.  That was essential, as the Tribunals prepared to downsize as the investigation and trial stages came to an end.  Her delegation endorsed the recommendation of the ACABQ to maintain biennial budgeting.

BJARNI SIGTRYGGSSON (Iceland) said his delegation wished to place on record that it fully aligned itself with the representative of the Netherlands on behalf of the European Union.

DIEGO SIMANCAS (Mexico) welcomed the announcement by the representative of Norway concerning its readiness to make a voluntary contribution to fund the building of an additional chamber in the Rwanda Tribunal.  Such measures would allow the Tribunals to complete their work within their deadline.  It was commendable that countries in a position to do so reaffirm their commitment to the Tribunals, enabling them to fulfil the work for which they were established.

MHD. NAJIB ELJI (Syria) shared the concern of the African Group on the recruitment freeze and the scaling down of the Tribunals activities.  His concern was increased by the report of the ACABQ that the recruitment freeze would impact the Tribunals’ work.  He also took note of the reform of the administration and restructuring of the Registrar’s office and took note of the new amended completion strategy.  He supported both Tribunals and called on all to finance them.

NONYE UDO (Nigeria) said her delegation had not taken the floor, as the South African delegate had delivered the statement on behalf of the African Group.  Certain comments had necessitated her taking the floor, however.  The Group had taken careful note of the encouraging support expressed by delegates on the financing of the two Tribunals.  The Group appreciated the outpouring of support for the Tribunals.  She placed on record her appreciation to the delegate of Norway for the announcement to finance the construction of an additional chamber for the Rwanda Tribunal.  It was an expression of strong support.  She was also encouraged by substantial payments, which were all very strong indications of support for the Tribunals.  Those gestures would encourage them to intensify their efforts.

ASDRÚBAL PULIDO LEÓN (Venezuela) associated himself with those who spoke in support of the work of the Tribunals.  His country had made significant contributions to the Tribunals, and outstanding contributions would be shortly paid.  By 31 December, Venezuela would have made all its payments.

Responding to comments from the floor, Mr. HALBWACHS thanked the delegates for their support for the work of the Tribunals and said that he shared delegates concern about their financial situation.  They did good work, and they did it effectively.  The Secretariat wanted nothing more than to see them complete their work successfully.  It was true that the Tribunals could not be made responsible for non-payment of assessments by Member States.  Actually, they were the victims in that case.  It was not the freeze that was putting pressure on the Tribunals -- it was non-payment of contributions. 

He went on to express gratitude to the countries that had presented the Committee with good news today, Japan and Venezuela.  Their payments would allow the Tribunals to return to normalcy and “proceed full-steam ahead” next year.  He hoped that those Member States that were still in arrears would shortly follow suit with their payments.

* *** *