Sixty-first General Assembly

Fifth Committee

43^rd Meeting (AM)

BUDGET COMMITTEE APPROVES $122 MILLION FOR SPECIAL POLITICAL MISSIONS,

INCLUDING BURUNDI OFFICE, NEPAL MISSION, IRAQ MONITORING BOARD

Also Begins Debate on Redesign Panel’s Proposals

For New System of Internal Justice at United Nations

The Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) today approved $122.06 million for the United Nations Integrated Office in Burundi, the International Advisory and Monitoring Board and the United Nations Mission in Nepal, and debated recommendations of the Redesign Panel on the administration of justice within the United Nations, as well as progress in the implementation of the Organization’s information and communication technology strategy.

Approving, without a vote, a draft resolution on estimates in respect of special political missions, good offices and other political initiatives authorized by the General Assembly and Security Council, the Committee also made recommendations to the Assembly on several posts for the United Nations Mission in Nepal and the United Nations Integrated Office in Burundi and advocated timely recruitment of staff and effective use of resources by the Nepal Mission.

Speakers in the debate on the Redesign Panel expressed strong support for the proposals calling for a completely new, decentralized, streamlined and, ultimately, cost-efficient system of internal justice for the Organization, which many saw as an essential prerequisite for other key reforms, especially in the area of human resources management.

Introducing the reform proposals on behalf of the Under-Secretary-General for Management, United Nations Controller Warren Sach said that the Secretary-General agreed with most of the recommendations of the Panel, with some modifications.  The Redesign Panel had been unanimous in its assessment of the existing internal justice system as “outmoded, dysfunctional, ineffective” and lacking in independence.  That was a very troublesome diagnosis.  Designed for a few thousand staff, mostly at Headquarters, the system was now expected to provide justice for over 55,000 people, more than half of whom were in the field.

Placing great emphasis on informal resolution of disputes before they escalate to full-blown “litigation”, the proposals before the Committee envision significant strengthening of the Ombudsman’s Office.  The Redesign Panel’s report also outlines a fundamentally different formal system of justice, under which the Joint Appeals Boards and the Joint Disciplinary Committees would be replaced with a new, decentralized first-instance tribunal, presided over by independent, professional judges with power to issue binding decisions.  The Administrative Tribunal would become a mainly appellate court.  The system would be managed by a newly established Office of the Administration of Justice, and an Internal Justice Council would be established to compile lists of candidates for appointment as judges, and to monitor the system.

The representative of Germany, speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that the United Nations needed an internal justice system that enjoyed the trust of both staff and management.  As such, that system should conform to international law and the principles of the rule of law and due process.  A thorough selection process for the ombudspersons and judges was also important.

Speaking on behalf of the African Group, the representative of Botswana said that some of the broad parameters outlined by the Panel’s recommendations enjoyed the Group’s full support, including a fully resourced, professional and independent system that relied, not on voluntary staff time, but on persons with relevant judicial qualifications; comprehensive training for all those involved in the system; and an integrated, decentralized and better coordinated formal and informal system that expeditiously resolved grievances and ensured equitable geographic outreach to all staff.

While agreeing with the broad framework of the proposed system, the representative of Pakistan, who spoke on behalf of the “Group of 77” developing countries and China, said that some issues might need further clarification.  The Group wanted to focus on, among other things, management evaluation, the scope of the justice system, the procedure for appointing judges, disciplinary matters, the composition and competence of the United Nations Dispute Tribunal and transitional measures.

The effectiveness of the new system would hinge on the judges’ skills and competence, he said.  The proposals envisaged broad powers for the judges in the first-instance tribunal, whose decisions would have a significant bearing on the case loads in the formal justice system and the scale of litigation.  Accordingly, they must be given a high stature and a suitable compensation package.  He also emphasized the importance of appointing the most qualified staff to managerial positions, as the quality of programme managers’ decisions was among the root causes of conflicts.  Managers should be held accountable for their administrative decisions.

The position of United Nations staff on the reform was presented by staff union representatives.  The President of the Coordinating Committee of International Staff Unions and Associations, Oleg Kiiamov, said that, in an emergency session last year, the federation had fully endorsed the recommendations of the Redesign Panel.  Staff representatives had attended the special Staff Management Coordination Committee session to build upon that report.  He particularly supported the proposal to establish the Office of Staff Legal Assistance, saying that, unless the reform provided for legal counsel, the goal of restoring staff confidence could not be met.

As for the recommendation that the administrative review -– criticized as ineffective -- be abolished, he said that the staff representatives had agreed that it was possible to draft a system of “managerial introspection” in its place.  Additional safeguards had been proposed and accepted to ensure that managers would be held accountable.  With a functional managerial evaluation process in place, staff members would receive justice more quickly and applications to the formal process would drop.

The President of the United Nations Staff Union, Stephen Kisambira, however, criticized the Secretary-General’s proposal to replace the administrative review with management evaluation, saying that “the name may have changed, but the purpose remains the same”.  Decisions adverse to staff should be reconsidered, but that should not take place at the same time as management prepared for mediation or trial.  Instead, he suggested a 14-day “cooling off” period after a complaint to management, before a legal case was filed.  If management wanted more time, it could lodge an application with the judge.

Also taking the floor on the administration of justice today were the representatives of Dominican Republic (on behalf of the Rio Group), Australia (also on behalf of Canada and New Zealand), United States, Norway, Singapore, China, Japan, Syria and Colombia.

The representatives of Pakistan (on behalf of the Group of 77), Dominican Republic and Japan also addressed the Secretary-General’s interim report on information and communication technology.

The Ombudsman, Assistant Secretary-General Patricia Durrant, introduced her Office’s report, and the Director of the Programme Planning and Budget Division, Sharon van Buerle, introduced the report on information and communication technology.

The Committee will hold its next formal meeting at a date to be announced.

Background

The Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) met this morning to take up one of the main issues of its resumed session -– the administration of justice within the United Nations -- as well as the Organization’s information and communication technology system.

The Committee had before it a report of the “Redesign Panel” on the United Nations system of administration of justice (document A/61/205), which recommends a completely new decentralized, streamlined and ultimately cost-efficient system of internal justice for the Organization.  Once approved, the system should become operational on 1 January 2008.

According to the document, an effective reform of the United Nations cannot happen without an efficient, independent and well-resourced internal justice system that will safeguard the rights of staff members and ensure accountability of managers and staff.  The Panel has found that the system, as it currently stands, lacks independence and is outmoded, dysfunctional and ineffective.  The present system’s financial, reputational and other costs to the Organization are enormous and a new, redesigned system of internal justice will be far more effective than an attempt to improve the current one.  The new system will be professional and independent and, if well-resourced, will both reduce conflicts through more effective informal dispute resolution and promote more expeditious disposal of cases in the formal system.

As recommended by the Panel, the Office of the Ombudsman should be strengthened and decentralized with a merger of the existing Offices of Ombudsmen in the Secretariat and funds and programmes.  The Panels on Discrimination and Other Grievances, which were established in 1977 as an informal grievance procedure, should be abolished, as they have not functioned as intended.  Their functions, as they relate to the informal system, should be transferred to the Office of the Ombudsman and their other functions to the formal system of justice.  The Ombudsman Office should have professional mediators and should take on a stronger monitoring role regarding institutional management.  Administrative review before action in the formal system should be abolished.

The Joint Appeal Boards and the Joint Disciplinary Committees should be replaced with a new, decentralized United Nations Dispute Tribunal presided over by independent, professional judges with power to issue binding decisions.  The United Nations Administrative Tribunal should become a mainly appellate court, and legal representation for staff should be professionalized and decentralized.

As outlined in the report, the system would be managed by a newly established Office of the Administration of Justice.  The proceedings in the formal justice system should be brought against the Organization or relevant funds or programmes, not the Secretary-General or the executive heads.  An Internal Justice Council should be established to compile lists of candidates for appointment as judges, and to monitor the system.

The Panel further insists that managers and staff members should be held personally accountable for their decisions and actions.  Accordingly, the formal justice system should entertain applications for the enforcement of individual financial accountability, and Dispute Tribunal judges should have the power to refer appropriate cases to the Secretary-General for possible action.  Staff associations should have an independent right to bring a class or representative action on behalf of their members.

Regarding field offices and offices away from Headquarters, the report recommends full delegation of authority to Special Representatives of the Secretary-General heading peacekeeping and political missions and to heads of offices in misconduct and disciplinary cases.  A clear framework of cooperation and coordination between the Office of Internal Oversight Services and the United Nations internal justice system should be established on a priority basis. Standing Boards of Inquiry should be established in all peacekeeping missions.

Also in front of the Committee was a note by the Secretary-General on the Redesign Panel’s report (A/61/758), in which he agrees with most of the recommendations of the Panel, with some modifications.  In his comments, which reflect extensive consultations with the Staff Management Coordination Committee, the Secretary-General requests the General Assembly to give due consideration to the proposals contained in the report and to approve the resources necessary for full implementation.

Furthermore, on budgetary matters, should the Assembly agree on the proposals contained therein, the requirements in respect of the proposed programme budget for the biennium 2008-2009 would be $37.65 million.  Of that total, $10.63 million have already been included in budget proposals for the biennium 2008-2009 and would be redeployed.  Additional resources of $27.02 million would be required to implement the proposals.  With respect to peacekeeping missions, action would be required in terms of approving varying amounts to the United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC), the United Nations Mission in Liberia (UNMIL) and the United Nations Mission in the Sudan (UNMIS).

Another report (document A/61/342) informs the Assembly of the action taken by the Secretary-General to implement the decisions and requests contained in resolution 59/283 on the administration of justice within the Secretariat.

Among other things, the Secretary-General reports on the ongoing review of the rules of procedure of the Joint Appeals Boards at various duty stations, to comply with the time limits for the consideration of appeals.  The Joint Appeals Board in New York has adopted a series of interim measures restricting extensions to the Administrative Law Unit for filing a respondent’s replies to appeals.

Responding to the Assembly’s request to transfer responsibility for formulating decisions on appeals from the Department of Management to the Executive Office of the Secretary-General, the Secretary-General states that his Office has no capacity for taking over the decision-making on 80 to 90 appeals annually.  The report further details steps to provide training for staff involved in the administration of justice and ensure implementation of the Secretary-General’s bulletin on the financial liability of managers (ST/SGB/2004/14).  A recent administrative instruction sets out procedures to be followed in cases of suspected gross negligence resulting in financial loss to the Organization.  Other measures include amendment of a staff rule to provide for steps that staff can take to request review of managerial decisions, and recruitment of additional Legal Officers for the Panel of Counsel and Administrative Law Unit, as well as a consultant tasked with development of a database of all cases submitted to the New York Panel.

The Secretary-General also reports that, to guarantee the independence of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal, as of 1 January 2006, its resources were transferred from section 8, Legal affairs, of the budget to section 1, overall policymaking, direction and coordination.  However, based on the rejection by the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) of the Secretariat’s proposal to establish a separate administrative office for the Tribunal, personnel services for the Tribunal’s secretariat are now provided by the Executive Office of the Secretary-General.

Other reports on the administration of justice outline the activities of the Office of the Ombudsman for the periods from 25 October 2002 to 31 August 2005 and from 1 September 2005 to 31 August 2006 (documents A/60/376 and A/61/524) and provide information on the outcome of the work of the Joint Appeals Boards in 2003-2005 and statistics on the disposition of cases by the Panel of Counsel (documents A/60/71 and A/61/72).  The Committee also had before it a report on the practice of the Secretary-General in disciplinary matters and cases of criminal behaviour, 1 January 2004 - 30 June 2005 (document A/60/315).

Commenting on the proposals, the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ), in a related report (document A/61/815), states that additional efforts must be made to quantify the cost parameters underlying related resource requirements.  More specific cost-sharing arrangements have to be developed and agreed upon by the participating organizations before the proposed system of internal justice is implemented. The Advisory Committee also notes that no compelling reasons have been provided, either by the Secretary-General or the Redesign Panel, to widen the scope of coverage of the system.  The system of internal justice should continue to apply only to those covered by the United Nations Staff Rules and Regulations.  Should the Assembly decide to consider expanding the scope of the system, a further in-depth analysis would be required.

The Advisory Committee has no objection to the establishment of the Office of Administration of Justice, yet it is not yet in a position to make any pronouncements on specific staffing proposals, as well as resource requirements presented by the Secretary-General.  It recommends that consideration of these requirements be deferred, pending the adoption of further decisions by the Assembly.  The Advisory Committee agrees with the proposal to rename the Office of Counsel as the Office of Staff Legal Assistance.  Emphasizing the need for the Ombudsman to encourage staff to seek resolution through the informal system, ACABQ also stresses the importance of the general principle of exhausting administrative remedies before formal proceedings are instituted.

As for the Secretary-General’s proposal to place management evaluation in the Department of Management, the Advisory Committee comments that it presents a risk of a perception of a conflict of interest.  Responsibility for management evaluation should not be with those whose policies or decisions are, in fact, under scrutiny.  It is essential to promote full confidence in the new system of internal justice by assuring the independence and impartiality of the process.  Safeguards should also be provided against undue pressure being brought on staff availing themselves of the new system.  Subject to those concerns, the Advisory Committee sees merit in a management evaluation function and agrees that the Administration should be offered an opportunity to redress faulty decisions.  The Assembly should consider placing the Management Evaluation Unit elsewhere; for example in the Executive Office of the Secretary General.  The Unit should be accorded operational independence to ensure its objectivity.  ACABQ also recommends shortening its time frame for providing a response from a proposed 45 to 30 days.

The Advisory Committee sees merit in the Panel’s recommendations concerning the establishment of a two-tiered system of formal justice, but is not convinced that more than one judge is required with respect to the decisions to be made at the first level Tribunal.  Regarding the Internal Justice Council, it stresses that the effectiveness of such a body will largely depend on the expertise of its members.  However, from the proposals before the Committee, it is not clear how the Council would be constituted, the precise role it would play and the process that would be applied for the selection of its members.  A fair, impartial and transparent selection process is needed, which could capture a large pool of potential candidates with the requisite experience.  Should the Assembly decide to establish the Internal Justice Council, it should request the Secretary-General to elaborate its terms of reference and the selection criteria for its members.

The Committee also had before it the Secretary-General’s report on investing in the United Nations: for a stronger Organization worldwide, investing in information and communication technology (document A/61/765).  In the report, the Secretary-General outlines a governance framework for information and communication technology in the United Nations Secretariat that will ensure the proper balance between centralized functions and those requiring delegated authority to be performed effectively.  The proposals under the information and communication technology reform include the creation of an Office of Information and Communications Technology, to be headed by an Assistant Secretary-General.

In that connection, the report notes that the Assembly had previously approved the position of Chief Information Technology Officer in the Office of the Secretary-General.  Recognizing the importance of information technology to the Organization’s efficient management and the need for the Chief Information Technology Officer to have adequate resources, the Secretary-General proposes to shift the placement of that post from the Executive Office of the Secretary-General to a new Office of Information and Communication Technology to be established in the Department of Management.  It also outlines the envisaged functions and reporting lines of the Office and describes the distribution of functions that would be delegated to the Department of Peacekeeping Operations and other offices.  According to the report, the Chief Information Technology Officer will have a role at the highest level of policymaking by being a permanent member of the Management Committee.

ACABQ, in a related report (document A/61/804) does not find that there is sufficient justification for the Secretary-General’s proposal to reverse the decision of the General Assembly.  ACABQ recommends that decisions on structures, staffing requirements, roles and responsibilities be taken up in the context of the Assembly’s consideration of the comprehensive report requested in resolution 60/283.  Furthermore, as the Advisory Committee understands that the appointment of the Chief Information Technology Officer is to be made in the near future, it considers it important that the appointee be given the opportunity to contribute to the formulation of the organizational structure of the Office for which he or she will be responsible, bearing in mind that the development of information and communication technology in the United Nations also affects the wider United Nations system.

Introduction of Documents

United Nations Controller, WARREN SACH, delivered a statement on behalf of the Under-Secretary-General for Management, Alicia Bárcena, introducing the Secretary-General’s reports on the Redesign Panel’s recommendations, implementation of resolution 59/283, the outcome of the work of the Joint Appeals Board during 2004-2005 and statistics on the disposition of cases and the work of the Panel of Counsel.  He said that the Redesign Panel had been unanimous in its assessment of the existing internal justice system, which was “outmoded, dysfunctional, ineffective” and lacking in independence.  That was, indeed, a very troublesome diagnosis, which resonated with many staff and managers.

The reasons for establishing a new justice system included the fact that United Nations staff had no access to their national courts when it came to employment-related grievances, he continued.  The United Nations should “practice what it preaches” when it came to resolving disputes between staff and managers.  Also, the new zero-tolerance culture demanded the highest levels of conduct and accountability of all international civil servants.  Any behaviour to the contrary demanded swift judicious action and remedies that were fair and consistent. Finally, the system needed to adapt to the times.  Designed for a few thousand staff stationed mostly at Headquarters, the system was now expected to provide justice to over 55,000 staff, more than half of whom were in the field.

The Panel placed great emphasis on informal resolution of disputes before they escalated to full-blown “litigation”, he continued.  It proposed significant strengthening of the Ombudsman’s Office, with presences in offices away from Headquarters, including large peacekeeping missions.  It also proposed the creation of a separate Mediation Division.  The proposed rigorous “management evaluation” would replace the existing “administrative review” function, which was underresourced and ineffective.  The new tool would be essential for holding managers more accountable for their actions.  The Staff Management Coordination Committee had agreed to that measure, on the understanding that all staff who filed a request for an evaluation would receive a full reasoned response within 45 days and that it would be conducted by a separate independent unit within the Department of Management.  The Secretary-General also fully supported the Panel’s recommendation for a fundamentally different formal system, replacing the voluntary advisory bodies with a first-instance tribunal that would issue binding decisions, which the parties would be able to appeal to the Appeals Tribunal.

The Secretary-General agreed with the Panel’s recommendation regarding the Panel of Counsel, and proposed the creation of offices to provide staff legal assistance, he said.  He also endorsed the recommendation for the provision of extensive training and education on various aspects of the internal justice system.  Also supported by the Secretary-General was the recommendation that a five-member Internal Justice Council be created to compile a list of candidates for appointments as judges.  The Secretary-General recognized the importance of ensuring adequate remedies for all individuals who provided personal services to the United Nations.  Finally, he said that both the Secretary-General and staff felt that the issue of disciplinary proceedings needed further elaboration.  A joint staff-management working group on disciplinary matters would be created in the coming weeks to review the investigation and disciplinary procedures of the Organization.  A proposal for a clear framework for cooperation with the Office of Internal Oversight Services and the international justice system would also be further examined.

Turning to the financial aspects of the reform, he said that effective justice came at a price.  The Panel was of the view that the current system was very costly.  As a long-serving manager within the United Nations, he had observed inordinate amounts of staff time and organizational resources were lost in protracted and ineffective Joint Appeals Board and Joint Disciplinary Committee processes.  Based on the Panel’s proposals, the Secretary-General’s recommendations would entail some $37.6 million to be financed from the 2008-2009 budget.  Of that total, some $10.6 million of existing resources would be utilized or redeployed.  Modest additional costs would be covered by the three large peacekeeping missions where justice staff would be deployed.  Costs would also be shared with United Nations funds and programmes, based on workload statistics and cases disposed.

“We have been improvising for too long, to the detriment of the staff, the managers and the Organization,” he said in conclusion.  The time for bold change had come.

The Organization’s Ombudsman, Assistant Secretary-General PATRICIA DURRANT, introduced the report on the activities of the Ombudsman.  She said that the establishment of her Office in 2002 had provided, for the first time, a dedicated mechanism available to all staff of the Secretariat for the informal resolution of employment-related conflicts, based on the principles of confidentiality, independence, impartiality and neutrality.  The Redesign Panel had noted that “the Office of the Ombudsman holds the most promise as a viable and integrated alternative dispute resolution institution” and that “an expanded, integrated and geographically decentralized Office of the Ombudsman can unify the currently disparate and overlapping informal dispute resolution processes and so provide a valuable complement to the formal justice system”.

Since the Office’s inception, over 2,000 staff members had sought the assistance of the Office, she continued.  A better understanding of the role of the Office had resulted in increased cooperation from management and staff, and early resolution in the majority of cases.  The Office had great flexibility in looking into all the issues surrounding a complaint.  In addition, owing to the fact that no formalities were required to proceed, the Office could quickly respond to situations, taking steps to prevent conflicts from escalating.  Mediation services were also provided by the Office within its mandate.  In that connection, she took note of the proposal by the Redesign Panel to establish a Mediation Division in the Office of the Ombudsman.

Owing to the limited resources of the Office, expanding outreach to peacekeeping missions had resulted in a decrease in the number of visits to offices away from Headquarters, she said.  That underscored the urgency of activating the three Chief-of-Branch positions approved by the Assembly for the current biennium through the deployment of existing posts.

Presenting information and statistics on the work of the Office, she said that, while much had been achieved, more remained to be done to ensure a zero-barrier approach to the services of the Ombudsman for all staff, independent of location or occupational category.  That could only be achieved through the decentralization of services and the establishment of regional branches, as proposed as early as 2003.  The Office had benefited greatly from the external expertise provided by two review panels comprised of alternative dispute resolution experts.  Their recommendations had helped it to deal with complex issues in a very challenging environment.  Another external evaluation would be undertaken before her five-year term came to an end in July 2007, and the outcome of the evaluation would be included in the report to the next session of the Assembly.

Introducing the ACABQ report, its Chairman, RAJAT SAHA, said that the Advisory Committee had pointed to a number of issues that merited further examination and clarification, or on which it recommended that guidance be sought from the Sixth Committee, particularly where the Secretary-General’s proposals differed from those of the Redesign Panel.  Among other things, ACABQ noted that the Secretary-General intended to revisit the basis for cost-sharing arrangements at a later stage.  However, the Advisory Committee was of the view that additional efforts to identify and quantify the cost parameters underlying related resource requirements were needed and that more specific cost-sharing arrangements had to be developed and agreed upon by participating organizations before the proposed system of internal justice was implemented.

With respect to the procedures for the selection of ombudsmen and judges, ACABQ emphasized the need to ensure that qualification requirements were met and to promote transparency in the nomination and selection processes.  Regarding the formal justice system, the Advisory Committee noted that the Panel proposed that Dispute Tribunal cases be decided by one judge, while the Secretary-General proposed a panel of three judges.  The Advisory Committee was not convinced by the Secretary-General’s argument in that regard.  The Panel’s proposal provided sufficient safeguards to ensure that the law was properly applied.

Statements

The President of the Coordinating Committee of International Staff Unions and Associations, OLEG KIIAMOV, said that, in an emergency session last year, the federation had fully endorsed the recommendations of the Redesign Panel on the reform of the justice system.  Staff representatives had attended the special Staff Management Coordination Committee session to build upon that report as a baseline for the new justice system.  “We are convinced that the proposal before you does represent an improvement upon the original report,” he said.

Highlighting some specific areas where the proposals had been augmented, he said that the Staff Management Coordination Committee had agreed with the Panel’s recommendation that the administrative review -– criticized as ineffective -- be abolished.  However, drawing upon the experiences of United Nations funds and programmes, the staff representatives had agreed that it was, indeed, possible to draft a system of managerial introspection.  Additional safeguards had been proposed and accepted to ensure that managers would be held accountable.  With a functional managerial evaluation process in place, staff members would receive justice more quickly and applications to the formal process would drop.  That would result in a justice system that would be more likely to serve the needs of staff and the Organization in a cost-effective way.

On the proposed Office of Staff Legal Assistance, he said that, unless the reform provided for legal counsel, the goal of restoring staff confidence could not be met.  Such practice existed in other internal justice systems, such as the International Labour Organization Administrative Tribunal, where some level of legal representation was provided.  By providing an Office of Staff Legal Assistance, the United Nations could minimize the prospect of being held hostage by private attorneys.  That would also promote the interests of justice for staff.

It was critical that the agreements reflected in the report before the Committee be fully funded, he stressed, saying that the Committee’s endorsement would demonstrate that Member States wished to deliver a high-quality justice system to the United Nations.  The agreements reached at the special Staff Management Coordination Committee session represented the type of justice system necessary to protect the rights of staff and serve the Organization’s best interests.  Funding those agreements would also show confidence in the staff-management consultative mechanism.  The delegates of the special Staff Management Coordination Committee session represented over 38,000 staff members of the global Organization.  The new internal justice system would materially improve the efficacy of the United Nations.  When injustices were remedied in a timely and effective manner, the best interests of the Organization, staff and management were served.  Fully funding that mechanism would deliver a United Nations better capable of meeting the needs of Member States.

Also presenting staff views, the President of the United Nations Staff Union, STEPHEN KISAMBIRA, said that the Union and its own commission of judicial experts fully supported the Redesign Panel’s recommendations for a professional, independent justice system.  Unlike the Panel’s report, however, the Secretary-General’s comments had not been developed by judicial experts and, despite the fact that some comments were positive, the fact remained that the recommendations had been watered down to ensure that the system was not fully independent and thus would not serve the best interests of the Organization and its staff.  The Union had already made its reservations about the Secretary-General’s comments to ACABQ and the Sixth Committee.

Turning to the necessary first steps needed for the new system to become operational by January 2008, as recommended by the Panel, he said that the establishment of the Internal Justice Council, the Office of Administration of Justice and the registrars were a priority.  The terms of reference of the Internal Justice Council and the selection criteria of its membership should be drawn up by an independent panel.  Better yet, the Redesign Panel could be invited to undertake such a task.  Since full independence was crucial to the whole system, the Staff Union sought the support of the Committee for setting up the Internal Justice Council immediately.  Initially, it would meet for a few days to draft and conduct candidate selection, but in subsequent years, it would only need to meet once every six months to monitor the system.

He said that an important aspect of judicial independence was that the judges must have sole responsibility for the management of their judicial activities.  In the proposed system, they would be assisted by registrars under overall supervision of the Executive Director, but directly responsible to the judges in relation to judicial matters.  The Panel proposed, and the Staff Union agreed, that registrars should be appointed only after consultation with the President of the Administrative Tribunal and the appropriate Dispute Tribunal judge.  The registrars and judges’ staff should be appointed as United Nations staff.  He also urged the Committee to consider expediting the establishment of the Office of Counsel, even as the Office of the Administration of Justice was established.

The new system’s structure should be unveiled first at the United Nations Headquarters and phased in at other duty stations and peacekeeping missions, he continued.  Resource requirements, estimated on that basis and on the basis of the Panel’s proposals, should allow for a quick launch of the new system at a lower cost for the first phase.  He noted that the Secretary-General had not offered separate financial implications based on the posts recommended by the Panel.  Instead, estimates had been provided based on counter-proposals, which included additional judges and locations.  The Committee might, therefore, wish to request cost estimates based on the Panel’s recommendations, as requested by the Assembly in resolution 59/283, and on the basis of a phased process.

On management evaluation, he said that “the name may have changed, but the purpose remains the same”.  Management wanted a period set aside for evaluation as a precondition for legal action, but the Staff Union considered that a retention of the discredited system of administrative review -- a root cause of delays.  The administrative review was just an excuse for management inaction and a change in name would not alter that fact.  Decisions adverse to staff should be reconsidered, but that should not take place at the same time as management prepared for mediation or trial.  Moreover, such administrative review should not be embedded in the new system.  The Committee might wish to consider a 14-day “cooling off” period after a complaint to management, but before a legal case was filed.  If management wanted more time, it could lodge an application with the judge.

On the Panel’s recommendation to replace the Joint Disciplinary Committees with the Dispute Tribunal with jurisdiction over disciplinary matters, he noted that, under the proposal, the judge should sit with assessors who would provide the judge with advice on disciplinary cases.  To ensure that decisions were taken fairly and transparently, the Panel had proposed a standing panel on disciplinary matters in all peacekeeping operations and offices away from Headquarters.  He urged the Committee to consider setting up a similar standing panel at Headquarters.  Sanctioned staff members should have an immediate right to challenge disciplinary decisions before the Dispute Tribunal.  It would also be necessary to amend the Staff Rules and Regulations and administrative instructions with respect to disciplinary matters.

While the initial costs of the proposed system might appear high, it would be a sound investment, he said in conclusion.  After all, there were many hidden costs in the current discredited system.  He hoped the Committee would support the recommendations of the Redesign Panel in full and, in doing so, recommend the establishment of a professional and truly independent internal justice system for the United Nations.

IMTIAZ HUSSAIN (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the “Group of 77” developing countries and China, regretted the late submission of the Secretary-General’s note on the Redesign Panel’s report, which had been issued in July 2006.   Reiterating the Group’s concern over the negative implications of late submission of reports on the Committee’s work, he strongly urged that the issue be fully addressed.  The Group valued United Nations staff as the Organization’s vital asset.  The highest standards of professionalism and ethical and moral conduct could only be ensured in an environment that was free of discrimination or reprisals.  The protection of fundamental rights could be guaranteed through an effective internal system of justice that was in conformity with internationally recognized standards.

The Group strongly supported a system of governance at the United Nations that ensured the rule of law and availability of effective mechanisms for conflict resolution, as well as adequate remedies to address possible violations that were likely to occur in a multicultural organization, he said.  A professional, independent and adequately resourced internal justice system was a central pillar of the Organization’s accountability framework.  He agreed that the Organization’s current internal justice system was outmoded, dysfunctional, ineffective and lacked independence.  Accordingly, the Group was ready to support the reform of internal justice system, as an effective internal justice system was an essential prerequisite for other key reforms, especially in the area of human resources management.  The Group welcomed the large degree of congruence in the reports on key aspects of the reform of the internal justice system.

A strong informal justice system had a crucial role in the United Nations administration of justice, he said.  To be effective, a professional and decentralized system, managed by professionally qualified personnel and accessible to the United Nations staff working in the field, was needed.  The Group agreed with the need to replace the current system of informal justice, while strengthening the role of the Office of the Ombudsman as recommended by the Redesign Panel.  The Group also supported a two-tiered system that would comprise a decentralized tribunal composed of professional judges with power to make binding decisions that would replace existing advisory bodies -- including the Joint Appeals Boards and the Joint Disciplinary Committees -- but not the rebuttal panels, classification appeals and review committees.  The Group supported the transformation of United Nations Administrative Tribunal to a United Nations Appeals Tribunal with new appellate jurisdiction.

The effectiveness and quality of the new system’s output would hinge on the judges’ skills and competence, he said.  The new system envisaged broad powers for the judges in the first instance tribunal.  Their decisions would have a significant bearing on the case loads in the formal justice system and the scale of litigation.  Accordingly, they must be given a high stature, essential for their independence and representation in the United Nations bureaucracy, as well as a suitable compensation package, so that the best qualified practitioners could be attracted.  The quality of the decisions by the programme managers at all levels was among the root causes of conflicts in the United Nations, bringing into sharp focus the recruitment and appointment, competence and calibre of programme managers, the necessity of a fair performance appraisal system, awareness of the relevant rules and regulations and existing channels of relief in the United Nations system.  Well-qualified managers with excellent communication skills and fair dispensation could ward off the proliferation of complaints and litigation.

Similarly, making staff aware of existing remedies was equally crucial in the administration of justice, he said.  He hoped the ongoing human resources management reforms would ensure that the most qualified and eligible staff were promoted to managerial positions and they would be held accountable for all their administrative decisions.  He also hoped that adequate resources would be allocated to training and creating awareness among the staff in the field.  The availability of Staff Rules and Regulations and information about the key features and the available avenues of relief under the administration of justice system should be a first step of the reform.  While the Group agreed with the broad framework of the proposed new system, some issues might need further clarification.  In that context, the Group wanted to focus on, among other things, management evaluation, the scope of the justice system, the procedure for appointing judges, disciplinary matters, the composition and competence of the United Nations Dispute Tribunal and transitional measures.

PETER WOESTE ( Germany), speaking on behalf of the European Union and associated States, said the United Nations system of justice administration must be reformed, as it did not comply with international standards.  The Union shared the view of the Redesign Panel and the Secretary-General that the United Nations needed an internal justice system that enjoyed the trust of both staff and management.  As such, that system should conform to international law, the principles of the rule of law and due process.  A thorough selection process for the ombudspersons and judges was also important.

The new system of administration should comprise an informal and formal system, he said.  Other issues central to reform included strengthening the informal dispute resolution mechanism and establishing a two-tiered system consisting of a first instance body and appellate body to render binding decisions and order appropriate remedies.  The new system should be decentralized as necessary, to promote wider access to justice and facilitate the disposition of disputes.  Moreover, information on disincentives to pursue frivolous claims was needed, and legal assistance to staff seeking redress should be considered.

A new system of justice administration would contribute to the Organization’s overall reform, he emphasized.  The European Union was willing to take decisions where there was general agreement on reform proposals, but a completely new system could not be implemented immediately and some issues were within the managerial competence of the Secretary-General.  In that regard, the Union would welcome the introduction of a reformed system for management evaluation of administrative decisions with a clear, short deadline.  That would strengthen the current system during the interim period.

NTESANG MOLEMELE ( Botswana), speaking on behalf of the African Group, noted that administration of justice was an integral building block to the effective management of any organization.  Unfortunately, the United Nations system of justice had remained a stubborn and long-standing concern.  Oversight bodies, including the Joint Inspection Unit and the Office of Internal Oversight Services had long exposed the shortcomings of the existing system.  Member States had long demanded a clear accountability mechanism, including in resolution 61/244.  A functioning system should certainly enjoy the full confidence of all those it served.  It should not only be efficient and effective, but also guarantee due process to staff and management alike, while ensuring that those delegated the authority to manage were held accountable for their actions.

The African Group broadly welcomed the findings and bold recommendations of the Redesign Panel, she said.  The reports provided a good basis for achieving the necessary transformation of the current United Nations justice system.  Such a system must be sustainable in the long term and it should enjoy unequivocal confidence.  As a legitimate authority in global norm-setting, the United Nations should indeed set the example as a good employer.  She agreed that the United Nations must practice what it preached.  For that reason, the Group agreed that efforts aimed at strengthening the system should place equal emphasis on both the formal and informal means of dispute resolution.  Amicable resolution of grievances should surely be a first step, before seeking litigation.

Some of the broad parameters outlined by the Panel’s recommendations enjoyed the Group’s full support, she said, including a fully resourced, professional, independent and transparent system that relied, not on voluntary staff time, but on persons with relevant judicial qualifications; comprehensive training for all those involved in the justice system; and an integrated, decentralized and better coordinated formal and informal system that expeditiously resolved grievances and ensured equitable geographic outreach to all staff, including those in the field.  The Group appreciated the Secretary-General’s personal commitment to the Organization’s overall management and encouraged her to broadly seek the views of staff.  The Group attached the utmost importance to the matter and looked forward to its early and balanced conclusion.

LUIS LITHGOW (Dominican Republic), speaking on behalf of the Rio Group, said that he was pleased with the interaction between the Secretariat, the personnel and the Redesign Panel, which laid the ground for better understanding the proposals.  He also stressed the importance of a system that would be professional, independent and effective, guaranteeing due process and transparency.  The time had come for a complete reform of the Organization’s administration of justice system.  The current system was obsolete and needed to adapt to international guarantees for labour and law.  In that connection, it was important that the reform proposals related to the whole system and were not just a simple package of measures.  The Redesign Panel report was a good basis for negotiations.  The Group was also interested in looking at the specific comments of the Secretary-General and ACABQ.  He regretted, however, the late issuance of documentation, especially since resolution 59/283 had asked for the topic to be treated as a priority.  That could also cause further delays in the adoption of the decisions on the matter.

Resolution 59/283 paved the way for significant changes in the system, he continued.  The medium- and short-term changes should be introduced in the context of the implementation of that resolution, especially since the proposed reform would take some time.  The Group agreed with the diagnosis regarding the weaknesses of the current system.  There was a priority need to adopt a new centralized, simplified system guaranteeing transparency and independence.  In that connection, the Group was in favour of establishing a system that would have both formal and informal components.  The Office of the Ombudsman would have a key role, adding flexibility to the process.  It was essential for the system to be made of a first-instance and appeals bodies, with professional judges and binding decisions.  The Organization should also improve legal assistance and counsel to staff through reform of the current mechanisms.

The reform offered a unique opportunity to strengthen accountability, so that staff and administration were responsible for their actions, he said.  The Group supported the setting up of a working group on disciplinary affairs.  He believed that, when it came to discipline in peacekeeping operations, consultations with relevant bodies were needed to avoid duplication.  Establishment of an Office of the Administration of Justice dealing with management, administration, training and coordination was of utmost importance to guarantee independence and institutional autonomy of the system. The Organization should undertake a full reform of the administration of justice to protect its staff.  The costs involved would be offset through savings in time, motivation and predictability.

ROBERT HILL (Australia), speaking also on behalf of Canada and New Zealand, congratulated the Redesign panel, and said the fact that the proposals had received broad agreement from staff, Secretariat management and ACABQ was testament to their quality.  The Organization’s staff members were its most important resource and were entitled to a fair and efficient internal justice system.  He, therefore, attached great importance to the reform of the administration of justice system and agreed with many of the proposals put forward by the Panel.  A properly functioning, efficient and transparent system of internal justice underpinned all efforts to strengthen accountability, oversight and human resources management reforms.  The deficiencies of the current system were all too well known, and the history leading up to the adoption of resolution 59/283 needed not be repeated.

The Redesign Panel’s report correctly noted that a strengthened informal system could assist in resolving a number of cases before they reached the litigation stage, he said.  Informal mediation minimized confrontation and could lead to outcomes that were conciliatory and satisfactory to both staff and management.  He, therefore, supported, in principle, a strengthened informal system, especially the Ombudsman’s Office and the establishment of a mediation Division therein.  He also supported, in principle, the establishment of the proposed two-tiered formal system of a United Nations Dispute Tribunal and a United Nations Appeals Tribunal.  Much of the further details of the system remained to be clarified.  Further details would be required in order to take decisions.  Further information would also be needed on associated issues, including a Secretary-General’s report on disciplinary proceedings, specific information on cost-sharing arrangements with the funds and programmes, a clear framework of cooperation and coordination between the Office of Internal Oversight Services and the internal system of justice, the Sixth Committee’s legal guidance on draft statutes and plans for the transitional measures needed as the Organization moved from one system of internal justice to another.

The importance of reform to the internal justice system and the volume of work required prompted him to support the establishment of an Office of Administration of Justice to be headed by an Assistant Secretary-General.  The timely selection of a suitable candidate would assist the Secretary-General in the effective implementation of the reforms.  Notwithstanding the late introduction of the item, it was possible -– indeed imperative -– that the Committee work towards a resolution by the end of the session.  He urged Members to focus on the task before the Committee, namely the establishment of a functional system of internal justice, and not be sidetracked by tangential issues that could be reviewed at later stages. 

BRUCE RASHKOW ( United States) said that his Government had recognized that fundamental reforms of the current system were required to address the concerns raised by staff members and management.  As ACABQ had highlighted, many of the Panel’s recommendations, supported by the Secretary-General, would have significant cost implications, which could not, at this time, be qualified.  It was, thus, necessary to devote sufficient time and a well-planned effort to consider the recommendations provided.

On the topic of informal system arrangements, his Government agreed with highlighting the necessity and importance of an effective mediation function, in order to promote informal resolution of problems and to avoid unnecessary and costly litigation.  Moreover, emphasis needed to be placed on measures facilitating the settlement of dispute prior to litigation.  Also, the Ombudsman needed to play a greater role in encouraging staff to seek resolution through the informal system.  However, he would like to ensure that, once an agreement was reached via mediation, no recourse to the formal justice system be available, except to enforce the mediated outcome.

On the subject of “undefined duties”, it was and should be the responsibility of the General Assembly to determine the rights and duties of the Organization to its staff, he said.  He was concerned over adopting the proposed language, which allowed the justice system to define new rights and “duties”.  Further, providing the Staff Association with the authority to bring class action suits on behalf of its members was both unnecessary and inappropriate.

Turning to jurisdiction, the United Nations obligations to staff members were not -- and should not be -- the same as to those outside the Organization, he said.  Current modalities provided to individual consultants and contractors were not in need of comprehensive reform.  On the issue of judges, his delegation recommended that only one judge hear cases at the first level, as proposed by the Redesign Panel and endorsed by ACABQ.   Regarding damage awards, it was the responsibility of the United Nations, the Administration and the General Assembly to identify and correct any pattern of improper conduct.  In light of that, he joined the Secretary-General in opposing the recommendation concerning punitive damages.  In addition, the existing system, which provided a two-year salary cap for compensation awards, was appropriate, given that most staff were engaged under fixed term or indefinite contracts.

On the subject of personal liability, he said the existing standard –- allowing for personal liability only in cases of gross negligence and providing for evaluating individual performance –- was sufficient.  His delegation also supported the creation of an Office of Legal Assistance.

To conclude, he noted that only the recommendations with direct financial implications were adequately addressed.  In light of that, his Government would appreciate more information regarding the possible indirect costs resulting from the Panel’s recommendations.  Furthermore, his delegation wanted to join ACABQ in its request for more information on cost-sharing arrangements proposed by the Secretary-General.

TRINE HEIMERBACK ( Norway) said that the Redesign Panel had confirmed the perception of the system’s being dysfunctional.  Her Government’s aspiration was both ambitious and simple -- it wanted a United Nations-led world order, with the rule of law underpinning all United Nations activities.  That principle was valid for the United Nations itself and for the Secretariat.  Furthermore, Norway supported both improving the internal system of administration of justice to provide adequate safeguards, and due process to ensure accountability of staff members.  It likewise supported the establishment of an independent, two-tier system of formal justice; professionalizing the system; strengthening the mediation system; the establishment of legal counsel; and decentralization of the system.

While supporting general recommendations made by the Panel, comments made by the Secretary-General and ACABQ were both valuable and well founded, she said.  Finally, a well-functioning internal justice system was a prerequisite for a well-functioning Secretariat, and an adequate internal system of justice would contribute to preventing misconduct and mismanagement.  The issue was an important part of the ongoing reform process.  The flaws in the current system had been recognized for a long time and correcting them was long overdue.  The international community should not settle for something less than adequate from the point of view of justice because of financial considerations.

RAZIFF ALJUNIED ( Singapore) said the reports before the Committee painted an alarming picture.  The current system of justice was not only unprofessional, but had been described as slow, underresourced, inefficient and failing to meet many basic standards of due process established in international human rights instruments.  The Redesign Panel’s report had only confirmed what was already common knowledge.  The absence of a credible administration of justice system in the United Nations had created a “trust deficit” and had adversely affected management reforms.  His delegation was, nevertheless, heartened that the Secretariat and senior management had been able to overcome their initial reservations on the Panel’s recommendations.  He was also relieved that good reason and common sense had prevailed, resulting in management accepting the bulk of the Panel’s recommendations, albeit with a number of proposed modifications. 

While the detailed examination and evaluation of the issue would be fulfilled in the context of the Committee’s informal consultations, he endorsed the Panel’s broad vision in creating a decentralized, strengthened and cost-efficient system that would ensure a more effective informal dispute resolution mechanism and ensure the expeditious disposal of cases via the formal justice system.  Singapore, therefore, saw merit in the establishment of the Office of Administration of Justice and the creation of a two-tier system with the establishment of the Dispute Tribunal and the creation of the Appeals Tribunal.  He also saw merit in strengthening the reach of the Ombudsman’s Office and establishing the Mediation Division.  In addressing the issue, however, several factors needed to be highlighted, including the urgent need to speed up consideration and resolution of cases brought forward to the formal system.  It was absurd that a case would take a total of three years, from beginning to end, to be completed.  Justice delayed was justice denied.

He said a clear example of that travesty of justice involved the case of Andrew Toh, a Singapore national working at the United Nations.  He was unsure whether to address Mr. Toh as the Assistant Secretary-General for Central Support Services in the Department of Management or the former Assistant Secretary-General.  He was unsure, because Mr. Toh had been in the administrative -– or administration of justice –- limbo for almost 15 months.  Mr. Toh and seven others had been placed on administrative leave on 16 January 2006.  That administrative action had been taken on the basis of a draft OIOS report on United Nations procurement in peacekeeping operations.  Six of the eight staffers had since been reinstated.  Mr. Toh had been cleared of any criminal wrongdoing by the Procurement Task Force investigators last year, but the Task Force continued to allege some managerial failings on his part –- claims that he was contesting.  Unlike his colleagues, he had not been reinstated.  The reason for that discriminatory application of justice was unclear.

It was for that reason that his delegation was rather sceptical of the Secretary-General’s proposed “modification” that introduced the idea of a “management evaluation” to replace the existing administrative review function.  The Redesign Panel had recommended abolishing the administrative review function, as it had been the main cause of the delay and abuse in the formal system of appeals.  He believed that the “management evaluation” proposal was “old wine in a new bottle” and merely perpetuated the same mistakes and added another layer of bureaucracy, which prevented staff from approaching the Dispute Tribunal directly.  The proposals contained in paragraphs 30(a) and 30(b) also bordered on a conflict of interest.  In addition, the 45 days recommended by the Secretariat for a “management evaluation” to be completed, not only delayed the appeals process further, but also gave management too much lead time to initiate actions that might undermine the case being brought forward by the concerned staff member.

In that regard, some were all too familiar with the bureaucratic manoeuvrings by the former Under-Secretary-General and the former Deputy Secretary-General in using administrative review provisions to delay consideration and decision on staff matters before them, he added.  His delegation was not about to encourage or support any proposals that might only perpetuate frivolous attempts by senior management to deny justice and due process to staff members. 

On the issue of due process, he agreed with the Panel’s findings that the administration of justice in the United Nations failed to meet many basic standards of due process established in international human rights instruments.  Unfortunately, the case of Mr. Toh again substantiated that point.  Another factor was the issue of accountability.  He was glad that the Panel had identified accountability, both for management and staff, as an important element in the administration of justice framework.  There should be a stop to selective accountability being practiced in the Secretariat.  It must be applied across the board at all levels.

In looking at the issue of the administration of justice, he said the issue of oversight and investigations also came to mind.  He had several questions about the Secretary-General’s report entitled “Procurement Task Force” (document A/61/603), including what exactly the terms of reference for the Task Force were.  Had the terms of reference been expanded without the Committee’s knowledge?  He asked because he had seen press reports saying that the United Nations had decided, in light of the Task Force’s conclusions, to remove at least two companies from the United Nations vendor database.  What was the Task Force’s role in the suspension and striking of vendors from the list?  Did it have the mandate to recommend such actions?  He also understood that the Task Force had been “pressuring” individuals and vendors to cooperate in investigations.  If so, he asked what rules governed cooperation by individuals and vendors with the Task Force.  He also wanted to enquire about the status of the procurement cases referred to in the Secretary-General’s report.  He hoped senior management would provide clear and cogent answers to the various questions raised.

LI JUN ( China) aligned herself with the position of the Group of 77 and said that the existing system of the administration of justice had many deficiencies, and a new decentralized, streamlined and, ultimately, cost-efficient system of internal justice was needed.  She supported the measures to strengthen the system for the informal resolution of disputes, as well as a two-tier formal justice system.  That would ensure fairness and equality of treatment and increase staff confidence.  Her delegation believed that more information was needed on the proposal to increase the scope of coverage under the system, in view of its potentially significant financial implications and the legal burden on the Organization.

Regarding the Secretary-General’s recommendation to introduce management evaluation, she said that there was no substantial difference with the existing administrative review procedure and it was necessary to assess the advantages of the proposal.  It was important to strengthen management accountability and reduce the disputes resulting from mismanagement. It was also necessary to reduce the costs resulting from litigation.  In that connection, first of all, it was necessary to implement the relevant provisions of accountability, including punitive measures.  However, her delegation did not support the establishment of a disciplinary panel and punitive damage awards.

In seeking the reform of the administration of justice, her delegation emphasized the need to take full advantage of existing resources, reduce duplication and ensure cost-effectiveness.  With the Organization facing major human resources management reform, a strengthened and fair internal justice system was essential.  Her delegation attached great importance to the reform and would listen attentively to the Sixth Committee’s recommendations.

YASUO KISHIMOTO ( Japan) said his delegation appreciated the tremendous efforts by the Redesign Panel and the Secretary-General to analyse the shortcomings and deficiencies of the current internal justice system and to issue a prescription for overcoming them.  The outcome addressed the many important questions that needed to be settled.  He agreed that the present internal justice system had many drawbacks, both in terms of its structure and its operations.  Remodelling the justice system would have a significant impact on staff-management relations and the way in which both management and staff would perform.  The Panel’s report and the Secretary-General’s note were an excellent basis for discussing the kind of mechanisms that were needed and would endure for the next half century.

Regarding the overall internal justice system, he said the focus needed to be on strengthening and relying on the informal system to manage conflict resolution effectively and ensure efficient administrative operations.  Now was the appropriate time to evaluate the effectiveness and mandate of the current Ombudsman’s Office and assess the role it had played in ensuring its effectiveness through its extensive outreach activities.  The function of mediation would be the core role of the future Ombudsman’s Office and should be secured by clearly defining the role of mediation in such a way that its outcome was not duplicated in formal litigation.  As the structure and scope of the formal system was determined by the legal regulations in place, it was important that the new system be consistent with the staff’s legal responsibilities and obligations.

The subsequent legal discussion in the Sixth Committee would provide the basis for creating the new system with a view to ensuring legal stability, he added.  An independent and professional two-tier system should be formed based on what was legally and administratively appropriate.  In that regard, it was imperative to compare the advantages and disadvantages of the current system and the Secretary-General’s proposal for the Dispute Tribunal and the Appeals Tribunal, as well as making the latter a two-chamber system.  Meanwhile, it was important that the formal system excluded abuses and ensured indemnification for violations of legal rights.  The formal system’s scope and jurisdiction should, therefore, be clearly defined, as well as the nature of the collaboration and work of the Fifth and Sixth Committees.  The core function of the future justice system would depend on how disciplinary proceedings were integrated into the formal and informal system.

His delegation had some difficulty understanding what the proposed Office of Staff Legal Assistance would do, he said.  To properly utilize the future justice system, the education and legal understanding of the staff was critical.  That was not a new requirement, however.  “I believe the current system, too, sinks or swims based on the success or failure of the Secretariat’s efforts to disseminate information to staff,” he said, adding that those efforts should be continued on a regular basis, regardless of whether the system was reformed.  It would, therefore, seem unnecessary for the Secretariat to provide legal services or a representative whose responsibility would be to file claims against the United Nations on behalf of staff. 

YASSAR DIAB ( Syria) supported the position of the Group of 77 and said that his delegation attached particular importance to the reform of the administration of justice, as an integral part of human resources management reform.  It was necessary to modernize and review the current outmoded system, to make sure that the rights of staff were protected.  The new system should include additional accountability measures, providing for transparency of managerial decisions.  Such a system would improve the relations between management and personnel.  Through its resolution 59/283, the Assembly had asked the Secretary-General to set up a Panel to examine the internal justice system.  That Panel had now submitted its recommendations, but he regretted that the Secretary-General’s comments on the matter had been delayed.  He had also submitted new proposals, which were in contravention with 59/283.

His delegation supported the recommendations of the Redesign Panel, he said, stressing that any new system should become operational by January 2008.  The establishment of the Internal Justice Council was essential and should become a driving force in the new system.  He also supported the establishment of a two-tier system of justice, which should be independent in professional terms, specializing in administrative and labour law as it affected the United Nations.  Geographical representation should be taken into account in selecting judges.  He supported the recommendation to appoint judges at the level of Assistant Secretary-General, so that they were at the same level as the officials whose decisions they would be reviewing.  With regard to the proposal on management evaluation, he supported the recommendation to eliminate the administrative review procedure.  However, the management evaluation proposed was just the same ineffective system with another name.  His delegation also supported strengthening the role of the Office of the Ombudsman.

ALVARO SANDOVAL BERNAL ( Colombia) said the key to reform of the United Nations internal justice system was based on protection of staff members’ rights.  It was fundamental that a judicial system be set up that was robust enough to guarantee transparency, independence and due process.  He agreed with the proposal to set up a two-tier system, with the idea that dispute resolution in international law, both public and private, enjoyed equal footing and that agreements arrived at through mediation were as binding as any decisions handed down by a court or tribunal.  The concepts for extrajudicial dispute could, however, lead to confusion, as the system had the aim of seeking solutions to disputes with decisions being binding.  That was why he preferred to go along with public international law terms, as set in the Panel’s report, namely an extrajudicial and judicial system.

He supported the idea of a two-tier system, namely a first instance followed by a possible appeal system that enjoyed the option of handing down a sentence.  However, a two-tier system could not necessarily be successfully achieved within the two independent tribunal structure.  He proposed, therefore, the establishment of a single administration of justice tribunal consisting of a trial chamber (first instance) and an appeals chamber (second instance).  Such a system would imply a single legal system with one statute and one set of rules.  The establishment of one tribunal with two instances could streamline the administration of justice system, avoid possible conflict between two sets of rules, ensure jurisprudence consistency and result in greater administrative efficiency. 

He added that a single administrative unit would be under a president and vice-president, with a secretariat covering the whole unit.  Such a structure could also have favourable budget implications, including the rationalization of costs and better administration of the unit.  One tribunal with two chambers could perform the same tasks as those performed by two separate tribunals, avoiding the budget implications of two independent structures.  His aim in putting forward the proposal was based on a constructive approach, with a view to contributing to the Committee’s deliberations.

In a brief discussion that followed, responding to repeated requests by the representative of Singapore, the Committee’s Secretary assured him that the Secretariat had taken note of the questions raised during the discussion and was working on the replies.  The Bureau was meeting today at 3 p.m. and would address such issues.  The Committee’s Chairman noted Singapore’s request that the questions be responded to in the same setting as they had been raised.

Action on Draft

The Committee then adopted, without a vote, a draft resolution on estimates in respect of special political missions, good offices and other political initiatives authorized by the General Assembly and Security Council (document A/C.5/61/L.36), by the terms of which the Assembly would approve the 2007 budget of $122.06 million for several bodies, including $33.08 million for the United Nations Integrated Office in Burundi,$162,500 for the International Advisory and Monitoring Board and $88.82 million for the United Nations Mission in Nepal.

Also by the text, the Assembly would approve several posts for the United Nations Mission in Nepal and the United Nations Integrated Office in Burundi. It would also request the Secretary-General, in executing the mandate of the Nepal Mission, to ensure the timely recruitment of staff, effective and efficient use of resources under operational costs for facilities and infrastructure, air transportation and communication, to improve coordination among United Nations entities operating in the Mission area, and to report on that in the context of the second performance report for 2006-2007.

Following action on the draft, the representative of Nepal thanked all members of the Fifth Committee for extending support to the Nepal Mission by unanimously approving the resolution.

Introduction of Reports

SHARON VAN BUERLE, Director of the Programme Planning and Budget Division, introduced the Secretary-General’s report contained in document A/61/765.  She said that the Secretary-General was intent on vigorously pursuing the course of action outlined in last year’s package of reform initiatives.  The Department of Management provided the “backbone” of services that supported the Organization’s overall work, and the Secretary-General had tasked the Department with the lead role in implementing the wide array of management reforms, of which information and communication technology was an integral part.

She said the Secretary-General had taken due note of the Assembly’s decision to place the position of Chief Information Technology Officer in his Office and had considered several possible options to implement it.  The Secretary-General had considered the possibility of establishing the new Office in two components, one strategic, reporting to his Office, and one operational, reporting to the Department of Management.  In the end, the Secretary-General had concluded that the Organization would be best served by placing the Office in the Management Department and was requesting the Assembly to reconsider its earlier decision.

Mr. SAHA, ACABQ Chairman, then introduced the Advisory Committee’s related report.  He said ACABQ did not find sufficient justification in the interim report for the Secretary-General’s proposal to reverse the Assembly’s decision.

Statements

Mr. HUSSAIN (Pakistan), speaking on behalf of the Group of 77 and China, concurred with the comments of ACABQ that the Secretary-General’s report did not respond to the General Assembly’s request in resolution 60/283. It was regrettable that the Secretariat had not implemented paragraphs 3 and 5 of that resolution, thus preventing the Assembly from concluding its consideration of the information and communication technology strategy of the United Nations.  That would lead to unnecessary delays in the implementation of the reform proposals approved in 2006.  In June 2006, the Assembly had agreed to establish a Chief Information Technology Officer post and replace the Integrated Management Information System (IMIS) with an enterprise resource planning system, based on assurances from the Secretariat that it intended to submit a comprehensive report in March 2007.  The Group expected that the Secretariat would be able to explain, in a formal session, the reasons for the delay.

He also expected the Secretariat to respond to the Assembly’s request for proposals on how to increase the use of open source software in the Secretariat, he continued.  Last June, Member States had been assured that the Secretariat intended to address that aspect in its report.  Based on that understanding, the Assembly had agreed to revert to the report of the Joint Inspection Unit on that matter during its first resumed session.  Furthermore, the report had not responded to paragraphs 13 and 15 of resolution 61/233.  Before the adoption of that text, the Secretariat had assured Member States that it would be able to report on the decisions of the accounting task force on the implementation of the International Public Sector Accounting Standards and the development of an enterprise resource planning system.  It was regrettable that those undertakings had not been acted on.  Indications were that the new information and communication technology system might be costly, and Member States required assurances that the Secretariat was proceeding as expected, in coordination with other United Nations entities.

Continuing, he emphasized that, in the implementation of the information and communication technology strategy, the lessons learned from past projects should be fully taken into account.  A comprehensive information management strategy was urgently needed, which should take into account the entire set of organizational requirements.  Introduction of an information and communication technology system should fully support the result-based management process and be able to cope with all planning, programming, budgeting, monitoring and reporting functions in an integrated manner.  The Group appreciated the progress achieved towards the establishment of effective information and communication technology operations and application of uniform standards with similar level of technological innovation in all offices, since the launching of the information and communication technology strategy in 2002.  He hoped that the full potential of information and communication technology would be reaped by establishing central and strategic management of information and communication technology investment, with focus on needs of the entire organization, rather than on some departments.  He was concerned that the Chief Information Technology Officer had not been appointed.

He reiterated the Group’s support to the Secretary-General’s efforts to reform and modernize the information and communication technology system and looked forward to receiving a comprehensive report that would fully address the mandate specified in resolutions 60/260, 60/283 and 61/233.  The Assembly had acted in good faith in agreeing in principle to establish a new Chief Information Technology Officer and replacing IMIS with an enterprise resource planning system before having had an opportunity to consider the details of the proposals.  He trusted that the Secretariat would make a greater effort in the future to implement Assembly resolutions.

OLIVIO FERMIN (Dominican Republic), speaking on behalf of the Rio Group, stressed the need for efficient and modern management in the United Nations to be backed up with advanced information and communication technology, uniform criteria and supervised processes.  Information technology was a tool to promote change and offered continuity and uniformity of action throughout departments.  He looked forward to the Secretariat’s report for the second resumed session in response to information requested in resolution 60/283, including consideration of the Joint Inspection Unit report on the Organization’s policy regarding the use of open source software.

MISAKO KAJI ( Japan) stressed the need for the Committee to engage in discussions on the issue in a manner that was consistent with its deliberations on the Secretary-General’s reform structures.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record