Sixty-second General Assembly

Fifth Committee

30^th Meeting (AM)

Fifth committee takes up proposals to improve timeliness,

Quality of Internal Oversight investigations

Also Discusses Secretary-General ’s Recommendation

For Comprehensive Review of United Nations Investigations

Speakers in the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) today addressed the proposals by the Under-Secretary-General for Internal Oversight Services to improve the timeliness and quality of investigations within the United Nations, as well as the Secretary-General’s request for a mandate for a comprehensive review of United Nations investigations.

Outlining her proposals, Inga-Britt Ahlenius, Under-Secretary-General for Internal Oversight Services, attributed problems in the Investigations Division to three main areas: leadership and management; structure; and operating strategies and procedures.  Leadership and management were being addressed with the assumption of duties by the new Principal Deputy Director for New York and the ongoing selection process for a Director position.

The new structure outlined in the document included:  the creation of regional centres in New York, Nairobi and Vienna; the organization of OIOS investigative capacity around two main types of cases, with specialized teams focusing on sexual exploitation and abuse, and financial, economic and administrative cases; and ongoing integration of the Procurement Task Force caseload into the permanent structure of the Investigations Division.

On the latter, Ms. Ahlenius informed the Committee that she had established a Project Office to carry out the changes as smoothly as possible.  However, without strengthening the regional hubs with posts for highly specialized investigators of white-collar offences, including complex fraud schemes, the Office would not be able to integrate those cases into the Investigations Division.

She added that the actual creation of the regional centres was subject to the approval of the General Assembly in the context of the 2008-2009 support account budget.  OIOS had pointed to the fact that the proposed restructuring would lead to a net saving of 20 posts in the Investigations Division.  It was her firm opinion that the proposed restructuring would be the best way of ensuring quality and timeliness.

Introducing the Secretary-General’s report on the matter, Kim Won-soo, Deputy Chef de Cabinet and Assistant Secretary-General, said that the Secretary-General had taken note of the approach taken by OIOS and the actions that fell within the purview of the Under-Secretary-General.  The Secretary-General also recognized that there were financial implications associated with those actions, particularly the restructuring, which would be submitted for approval in the appropriate budget cycle.

Concerned that the capacity in other areas was not sufficient to carry out investigations assigned to them, the Secretary-General wished to initiate a comprehensive review of investigations at the United Nations and report to the General Assembly.  Currently, Programme Managers, the Office of Human Resources Management, the Department of Safety and Security and others were all called on to carry out investigations.  The staff carrying out investigations should be properly trained.  Other aspects that might also need to be reviewed included due process rights of staff during investigations, the need for a clear framework of cooperation and coordination between the internal justice system and OIOS, and the accountability and independence of the Organization’s investigative capacity.

The representative of Australia, also speaking on behalf of Canada and New Zealand, said that the recommendations by OIOS and the Secretary-General appeared side by side, but fell short of working together to present a comprehensive vision of the Organization’s investigative function.  She had, in the past, commented on what appeared to be a poor relationship between the OIOS and Secretariat management, and had been told that it related to a perception of the OIOS as more an external than internal entity.  It was clear that OIOS was internal, was part of the Secretariat and worked under the authority of the Secretary-General.  Its responsibility was to support his efforts to improve the United Nations management, and she would like to see continued progress in that regard.

As for the Secretary-General’s comprehensive review proposal, before setting on that path, she, like the ACABQ, would prefer to receive information regarding non-OIOS actors.  “Not until we have this information can we consider strengthening these capacities,” she said.

Stressing the need to adopt a well-considered, fully-justified and effective strategy towards conducting investigations, the representative of Antigua and Barbuda, speaking on behalf of the “Group of 77” developing countries and China, also requested more information regarding the Secretary-General’s intention to undertake a comprehensive review and expressed concern about a number of aspects of the Secretary-General’s report, including the Office’s apparent confusion about its position within the Secretariat.

The representative of Singapore said that it was in everyone’s interest that the United Nations have a strong investigations capability and insisted that investigators had to be held to high standards of accountability. He said it was frightening to see the Secretary-General’s report state that the OIOS current investigations manual “was noticeably lacking in useful and practical information for investigators compared to similar manuals used in other international organizations and that it did not contain sufficient working instructions for conducting investigations”.  The report also insinuated that current investigators might not automatically be familiar with the rules, regulations and procedures of an internal, administrative investigative unit within the United Nations.  That startling revelation went a long way towards explaining the inconsistent way in which some investigations had been conducted by the OIOS.

The United States representative said that, in the interest of staff members who might be the subject of investigations, and the Organization itself, the OIOS needed to resolve existing concerns as soon as practicable.  Among the adjustments that could improve the conduct of investigations, he mentioned development of a new electronic case management system; clarification of the rules governing internal and external communication of information; development of standard operating procedures; and updating of the Manual of Investigation Practices and Procedures.  The OIOS also needed to refine and further develop its standard operating procedures to ensure fairness and due process protection.  The United States supported the OIOS-proposed increased use of computer forensic methods, tools and practices to take advantage of information technology capabilities and to improve the OIOS ability to detect fraud.  He also welcomed a proposed centralized case management system.

Also speaking today were representatives of Slovenia (on behalf of the European Union) and Japan.  The report of the ACABQ was introduced by its Chairperson, Susan McLurg.

The Committee will take up procurement at 3 p.m. Tuesday, 11 March.

Background

The Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) met this morning to take up the Secretary-General’s report on strengthening investigations (document A/62/582 and Corr.1), which provides a comprehensive overview of the results of the ongoing examination of the investigation caseload and the overall review of the capacity of the Investigations Division of the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS).  That examination pertains to the review of the Office’s investigation function by an external expert that had been commissioned for that purpose.

According to the report, the recommendations of the external expert are being used by OIOS as a basis for improving investigations in three areas:  leadership and management; operating strategies and procedures; and optimal structure and location, and that, in several instances, the OIOS has begun to implement the actions which were practical in nature.  Structuring the Investigations Division optimally was a major challenge for OIOS.  The driving factor was the distinction between the two main types of cases investigated by OIOS, namely sexual exploitation and abuse cases and financial, economic and administrative cases, and the need to create specialized teams to investigate those respective cases effectively.

The report stated that OIOS would realize further economies of scale and efficiency by repositioning the resident investigators from the peacekeeping missions to one of three regional centres in New York, Vienna and Nairobi.  It further noted that the panel appointed by the Secretary-General in 2006 to redesign the Organization’s system of administration of justice had touched on the fragmented nature of the existing investigation capacities in the United Nations.  The panel’s report had pointed out the need for a clear framework of cooperation and coordination between the existing internal justice system and OIOS.  The Secretary-General planned to report to the General Assembly after conducting a broader review, which would provide a comprehensive approach to investigations across the United Nations.  That review would be guided by the recent experience of the Organization, including in the context of the investigations concerning the oil-for-food programme and the investigations carried out by the Procurement Task Force, as well as the practices of other international organizations that have taken steps to strengthen their internal investigative capacities.

Recognizing that the Procurement Task Force investigations within OIOS needed to continue without delay and that the ongoing work of OIOS should continue, notwithstanding the comprehensive review, the Secretary-General proposes that the work of the Task Force should continue, pending approval of the resource requirements and the implementation of actions to strengthen the investigations function that were under the authority of the Under-Secretary-General for Internal Oversight Services.

The Secretary-General recommends that the General Assembly take note of the annex to the report and also note that any changes that had financial implications were subject to the review and approval of the Assembly, in accordance with established procedures.  He also recommends that the Assembly request him to submit at its sixty-third session a report on the outcome of the comprehensive review of investigations in the United Nations, taking into account the reform of the system of administration of justice, the report of OIOS on strengthening its investigation function, reports on the accountability framework, results-based management, the enterprise risk-management and internal control framework and any decisions taken by the General Assembly in that regard.

Introduction of Documents

KIM WON-SOO, Deputy Chef de Cabinet and Assistant Secretary-General, introduced the Secretary-General’s report on strengthening investigations, saying that the main areas to be strengthened included leadership and management; operating strategies and procedures; and optimal structure and location.  The Secretary-General had taken note of the approach taken by OIOS and the actions being taken that fell within the purview of the Under-Secretary-General.  The Secretary-General also recognized that there were financial implications associated with those actions, particularly the restructuring, which would be submitted to the General Assembly for approval in the appropriate budget cycle.  However, the Secretary-General was concerned that the capacity in other areas was not sufficient to carry out investigations assigned to them.  Programme Managers, the Office of Human Resources Management, the Department of Safety and Security and others were all called on to carry out investigations.  Indeed, OIOS had indicated that during 2007, 108 cases pertaining to staff involved in peace operations had been referred to other departments/offices for investigations.  Those who carried those investigations out should be properly trained.

Other aspects that might also need to be reviewed included due process rights of staff during investigations, the need for a clear framework of cooperation and coordination between the internal justice system and OIOS, and the accountability and independence of the Organization’s investigative capacity.  As a result, the Secretary-General wished to initiate a comprehensive review of investigations at the United Nations and report to the General Assembly, taking into account the reform of the administration of justice, the report of OIOS, and the report on the accountability framework, the Enterprise Risk Management and Internal Control Framework that would be shortly before the Committee.

Introducing the Annex to the Secretary-General’s report on strengthening investigations, INGA-BRITT AHELENIUS, Under-Secretary-General for Internal Oversight Services, said the initiatives outlined there were aimed to address two concerns of hers, namely timeliness and quality.  As stated in the report, she attributed problems in the Investigations Division to three main areas: leadership and management; structure; and operating strategies and procedures.  The leadership and management issues were being addressed.  A new principal Deputy Director had been recruited for New York and assumed his duties in December.  The vacancy announcement for the Director position had closed recently after being widely advertised, and the recruitment and selection process would now follow.

Turning to the new structure outlined in the document, she said that, so far, it had been difficult to attract and retain well-qualified Resident Investigators in peacekeeping missions.  The Resident Investigator turnover rate was approximately 30 per cent.  Access to training was cost prohibitive in a widely distributed structure.  Critical mass size for quality and excellence was around 10 to 12 investigators.  The caseload in the field was only 20 to 30 cases per mission, however, which did not justify the critical mass size in any mission.  It was not unusual for some mission cases, particularly more complex ones, to be investigated by staff from regional hubs.  A significant problem related to official leave provisions in the field, which resulted in approximately two thirds of the available investigator capacity most of the time.  The present small teams in the field were vulnerable and inflexible and constituted an inefficient fragmentation of resources.  Case assignments were confined to cases in each mission, so investigations were not optimized to make use of total available skill or capacity of investigators.  Monitoring and oversight of investigations were a problem in a widely disbursed structure.

To address those issues, it was proposed to establish regional centres with increased number of working hours, more effective investigations and timelier reporting.  The reforms would achieve enhanced quality management and enable the Organization to have a global and efficient case and staff management, with the ability to assign cases according to the skill and experience of the investigators, not confined to the capacity in a specific mission.  Staff would be provided with more professional career development opportunities and access to training.  The proposals also sought to avoid duplication of fixed costs, such as for Resident Investigation Units in each mission and more efficient use of divisional investigative support/administrative resources.  The Procurement Task Force, as a pilot project, and a few other cases had proven the efficiency of investigating in the field with specialized teams from the centre.

She added that OIOS was the only investigative office in the United Nations system with decentralized offices.  Although smaller than OIOS, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees had dedicated investigative units operating globally, but from a central location.  As to operating strategies and procedures, the Office had been working on those issues for a long time and Standard Operating Procedures were an important basis for its work.  There was also an ever-increasing number -- approximately 15 at this time -- of operational protocols that dealt with more technical or process matters, from information technology forensics to how interpreters were used during investigation interviews.

As to restructuring, including the integration of the Procurement Task Force caseload into the permanent structure of the Investigations Division, that process was ongoing, she said.  She had established a Project Office, where the Deputy Director was the Project Manager and with a Steering Committee chaired by her.  The ambition was to carry out that change as smoothly as possible.  However, without strengthening the regional hubs with posts for highly specialized investigators of white-collar offences, including complex fraud schemes, the Office would not be able to integrate those cases into the Investigations Division.

The actual creation of the regional centres was subject to the approval of the General Assembly in the context of the 2008-2009 support account budget, she said.  In the budget submission, OIOS had pointed to the fact that the proposed restructuring would lead to a net saving of 20 posts in the OIOS Investigations Division.  It was her firm opinion that the proposed restructuring would be the way of ensuring quality and timeliness.

Introducing the report of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) (document A/62/7/Add.35), the Chairperson of the Committee, SUSAN McLURG, said that the Secretary-General’s comments on the “insufficient capacity” of other entities of the Organization mandated to carry out investigations did not build on the framework for investigations adopted in General Assembly resolutions 57/282 and 59/287.  The General Assembly had clearly established the role and mandate of the OIOS in its resolution 48/218 B and its role in internal investigations in resolution 59/287.  The placement of the investigations function within the OIOS had also been reaffirmed in resolution 61/245.  Before a decision was taken on the need for a comprehensive review, the Advisory Committee recommended that the Secretary-General be requested to provide information on:  all the United Nations entities, other than OIOS, carrying out enquiries and investigations, as well as their legislative basis and precise role; the number and types of cases handled; related resources; reporting mechanisms; standards and guidelines involved; training; and information on the implementation of resolution 59/287.

As to the proposals to improve the functioning of the Investigations Division of OIOS, the Advisory Committee noted that the Secretary-General had taken note of the approach taken by the OIOS and the action, which he referred to as practical in nature and, in several instances, already under implementation.  Some actions, particularly those related to the restructuring of the Investigations Division, had financial implications.  Paragraphs 22 to 38 of the Annex to the Secretary-General’s report set out initiatives undertaken by the OIOS in connection with its operational strategies and procedures.  The Advisory Committee believed that the implementation of those initiatives should be used as benchmarks to assess the performance of the OIOS. The proposals to restructure the Division were centred on organizing the investigative capacity around two main types of cases, sexual exploitation and abuse, and financial, economic and administrative cases, as well as the decision to create specialized teams to investigate those cases effectively, and repositioning resident investigators to regional centres in New York, Vienna and Nairobi.

ACABQ was of the opinion that the presentation would have been strengthened by a more complete analysis and specific reference to the experience with resident investigators, she said.  Submission of a formal proposal to the Assembly should be supported by such analysis.  Any changes with administrative and financial implications would be subject to the review and approval of the General Assembly, in accordance with established procedures.

With respect to sexual exploitation and abuse, she added that paragraph 61 of the annex to the Secretary-General’s report seemed to limit the role of the OIOS to investigating cases involving rape and sexual exploitation and abuse involving minors.  The Advisory Committee had been informed by the OIOS that the message conveyed in that paragraph was not correct and that OIOS was seeking not to limit its role, but to ensure that there were clear roles and responsibilities among all actors.

Statements

MATEJA BIZILJ (Slovenia), on behalf of the European Union, said that the report gave full information on the functions, structure and work processes of the Investigations Division of the OIOS, with a view to strengthening the investigative function, based on the results of the ongoing examination and rationalization of the investigation caseload and the overall review capacity of the Division.  The report also covered, among other things, important issues relating to operational strategies and procedures for investigations.  The Union believed that the elaboration of comprehensive standard operating procedures, including fairness and due process considerations, would need to be handled with care.  The Union stood ready to engage constructively in, and bring forward the negotiations on, those important issues, with a view to strengthening the investigation function in a way that accommodated all views expressed.  The conclusions and recommendations of the ACABQ would form a good basis for further deliberations.

CONROD HUNTE (Antigua and Barbuda), speaking on behalf of the “Group of 77” developing countries and China, said that the group attached great importance to the issue of investigations and believed that effective conduct of investigations had a significant impact on the positive morale and well-being of staff and the Organization.  It was in the interest of the Group and the entire membership to adopt a strategy towards the conduct of investigations that was well considered, fully justified and effective.  For that reason, the Group was concerned about a number of aspects of the Secretary-General’s report.

He underlined the importance of the operational independence of the OIOS, as well as its primacy in investigating category 1 cases.  The Group requested more information regarding the Secretary-General’s intention to undertake a comprehensive review of investigations in the United Nations.  Stressing that the fundamental purpose of the OIOS was to assist the Secretary-General in fulfilling his internal oversight responsibilities, he said that the Office should develop its procedures and strategies to strengthen its investigations capacity.  The Group was concerned about apparent confusion within OIOS about its position within the Secretariat, especially relating to the openness in considering bilateral mutual legal assistance treaties with Member States.

On the issue of the engagement of an independent consultant by the OIOS to review its investigative capacity, he requested further information regarding the background and expertise of that consultant, the process in which the consultant was engaged, as well as the cost to the Organization.  He noted with concern that the ACABQ did not have access to the review by the consultant, and said that the group intended to seek further information on the details contained in that review.  The Group also requested further information on the question of the recruitment of the Director of the Investigations Division, including the terms of reference, the skills envisioned for the post, and how it related to the proposals contained in the programme budget submitted by the OIOS for 2008-2009, as well as the interim steps taken to date by the Acting Director.

He further expressed the Group’s deep concern with the OIOS conclusion that the existing manual was lacking in useful and practical information.  That conclusion cast doubt on the quality of the investigations that had been carried out to date.  The Group was also concerned about the OIOS observation that the background of at least several investigators it had hired might not be compatible with the investigative work they were required to do.  Those situations required close scrutiny and further clarification.  Other clarifications sought by the Group related to the apparent view of the OIOS that not all allegations or complaints warranted investigation; how cases would be prioritized and what kind of reliable and consistent results were envisioned by the OIOS; and more information on the needs of the Division.

EDWINA STEVENS (Australia), also speaking on behalf of Canada and New Zealand, said that the delegation she spoke for had always attached great importance to the issue under consideration, including the matter of additional resources for that function.  While disappointed that strengthening the OIOS investigation function had not been treated more expeditiously, she also understood that it was of crucial importance to strengthen that area judiciously.

The recommendations by OIOS and the Secretary-General appeared side by side, but fell short of working together to present a comprehensive vision of the investigative function of the United Nations, she continued.  She had, in the past, commented on what appeared to a poor relationship between the OIOS and Secretariat management, and had been told that it related to a perception of the OIOS as more an external than internal entity.  It was clear that OIOS was internal, was part of the Secretariat and worked under the authority of the Secretary-General.  Its responsibility was to support his efforts to improve United Nations management, and she would like to see continued progress in that regard.  As for the Secretary-General’s proposal for a comprehensive review of the investigative capacity of non-OIOS actors, before setting on that path, she, like ACABQ, would prefer to receive information regarding those other actors.  “Not until we have this information can we consider strengthening these capacities,” she said.

OIOS had recommended a number of sound proposals, particularly those relating to leadership and management and operational strategies and procedures, she said. She was pleased the Office would soon recruit the Director of Investigations and would welcome an update in that regard in informal consultations.  She supported OIOS in its plans to update and improve the investigations manual, assisted by the development of standard operating procedures for numerous areas relating to work of investigators.  She also saw merit in arguments for resources for enhanced capacity in computer forensic tools and supported better case intake and prioritization.

It was essential that OIOS deployed investigators with appropriate specialized skills to undertake the task at hand, she said, but to make decisions on the proposed restructuring, she would need to clarify a number of questions.  Overall, she was concerned that the arguments advocating the restructure had not clearly detailed substantive and qualitative examples of how the current structure had produced sub-optimal performance.  That proposal would have been strengthened, if supported by specific examples of OIOS field investigators to date.  She would like to learn more how the location of the investigator affected the quality and timeliness of investigative outcomes.  She would also like to better understand the drawbacks of the present structure, when compared with the advantages of the new one.  The investigators and the types of cases they investigated were of paramount importance, and she would like reassurance regarding the proposed specialization of the work of OIOS.

She wanted to know if the cases would be sufficiently broad to cover the full gamut of cases OIOS was mandated to investigate.  The General Assembly had mandated OIOS to look at all category 1 cases involving sexual exploitation and abuse, and yet paragraphs 60 and 61 of the OIOS report suggested a more limited role.  Similarly, she was interested in the follow-up to General Assembly resolution 59/287, which had asked the Secretary-General to ensure that OIOS was informed about category 2 cases.  At its sixtieth session, the General Assembly had recognized the need to build skills for category 2-type investigations and resources had been allocated to OIOS to train investigators in such cases, although she was not sure whether that training had been pursued.

HOE YEEN TECK ( Singapore) said that it was in everyone’s interest that the United Nations have a strong investigations capability.  But, the real question was whether the current system was functioning properly and whether the present report helped make it better.  It was apparent that the working methods of the OIOS were a large part of the problem.  The system needed to be transparent, with clear rules for investigations in terms of scope, process and behaviour.  United Nations staff and investigators alike would like to know what was expected of them.

It was frightening then, he added, to see the Secretary-General’s report state that the OIOS’ current investigations manual “was noticeably lacking in useful and practical information for investigators compared to similar manuals used in other international organizations and that it did not contain sufficient working instructions for conducting investigations”.  The report also insinuated that current investigators might not automatically be familiar with the rules, regulations and procedures of an internal, administrative investigative unit within the United Nations.  That startling revelation went a long way towards explaining the inconsistent way in which some investigations had been conducted by the OIOS.

Uncertain rules disadvantaged those being investigated, he said.  Due process was a serious matter, which the OIOS had treated cavalierly.  The OIOS procedures did not withstand review.  Four United Nations tribunals -- the Joint Appeals Board, the panel on Discrimination and Other Grievances, the Joint Disciplinary Committee, and the appellate United Nations Administrative Tribunal -- had, at one stage or another, concluded that the OIOS’ and the Organization’s rules on investigations were incompatible with international instruments on human rights.  On the disclosure of accusations, he noted that there had been cases where United Nations staff had been placed on administrative leave, essentially a suspension from duty, based on a draft OIOS report that they did not have a chance to refute.  There was also the question of consistency of application.  Some staff were suspended, while others were not.  All those complications seemed to stem from having partial or capricious rules.

Investigators had a special responsibility, he went on.  Their behaviours determined the quality of investigation and, by extension, the credibility of the Organization.  They needed to be held to the same or even higher standards of accountability, but there did not seem to be much willingness by the OIOS to accept responsibility for their actions.  Further, he urged the Assembly to address the issue of the penchant of investigators to run to the media.  Too often, comments by officials about ongoing investigations and deliberations were read in the media.  That was a question of professionalism.

BRUCE RASHKOW ( United States) encouraged the Under-Secretary-General in charge of the OIOS and her staff to pursue measures designed to address weaknesses or deficiencies in the current conduct of investigations.  In the interest of staff members who might be the subject of those investigations, and the Organization, the OIOS needed to act as soon as practicable to resolve existing concerns.

He noted that the Secretary-General’s report had identified a number of operational adjustments to current policies and methods that his country believed would help improve the conduct of investigations.  Those would include development of a new electronic case management system; clarification of the rules governing internal and external communication of information concerning ongoing and past cases; development of standard operating procedures governing the investigation function; and updating of the Manual of Investigation Practices and Procedures to more closely align it with best practices and make it available to all staff, particularly new ones.  The OIOS also needed to refine and further develop its standard operating procedures, as outlined in paragraphs 28 to 34 of its report, to ensure fairness and due process protection in the conduct of investigations.

He supported the OIOS proposed increased use of computer forensic methods, tools and practices to take advantage of information technology capabilities and to improve OIOS ability to detect fraud.  His country also welcomed the proposed replacement of the current case management system with a new centralized system that would enable users to plan, organize and manage their investigative work in a more efficient, effective and secure manner.  It looked forward to a report from the Under-Secretary-General on the implementation of those proposals.

He also concurred with the ACABQ’s recommendation that the OIOS provide a fuller justification to support its proposed restructuring of the Investigations Division, including by providing specific reference to the experience of resident investigators.  He noted the Secretary-General’s indication that he would submit a comprehensive review of investigations to the General Assembly during its sixty-third session, as well as the observation by the ACABQ on the role and mandate of the OIOS, including the Office’s responsibility to conduct investigations, and resolution 61/245 of the General Assembly by which it reaffirmed the placement of the investigations functions within OIOS.  He stated that, in the view of the United States, the legislative framework of the OIOS activities in the area of investigations was well established and clear.

TAKESHI MATSUNAGA (Japan) said that to respond to the Secretary-General’s concern regarding the insufficient capacity of non-OIOS entities mandated to carry out investigations, Member States might need some additional information, since the case had been presented in a more or less cursory manner.  The view of the Advisory Committee was helpful, in that regard.  Member States would benefit from additional information on those other than OIOS entities and the number of cases they handled.  Further, it was also important to take into consideration the investigative framework adopted in Assembly resolutions 57/282 and 59/287 as that would be an important step to ensuring accountability.  He would appreciate receiving an explanation from the Secretariat as to relevant evidence and analysis, in line with the Assembly’s past resolutions and delineation of responsibilities of the respective entities concerned.  He also sought clarification regarding the information provided in paragraph 5 of the Advisory Committee’s report in that regard.

Regarding the action and proposals of the Under-Secretary-General to strengthen the investigative function of OIOS, he said that the information contained in the annex to the Secretary-General’s report deserved careful, but open-minded consideration.  According to the information provided, OIOS would seek to clarify its role in investigating sexual exploitation and abuse cases, on the basis that the Investigations Division would continue to investigate such cases within the framework of the responsibilities of different investigative units in the peacekeeping missions.  The responsibilities of different actors must be clearly outlined, and he expected clear explanations from OIOS, the Department of Field Support and the Department of Safety and Security, in that regard.  That would require further discussion among OIOS, the Conduct and Discipline teams and the Department of Safety and Security, as stated in paragraph 63 of the annex.  Those entities should clearly deliberate their respective responsibilities.

At the same time, there should be no gaps in the investigation of sexual abuse and exploitation, he continued.  The new approach to sexual exploitation and abuse investigations should take into account resolution 61/267 B, in which the Assembly had endorsed amendments to the memorandums of understanding with troop-contributing countries.  That would significantly change the role OIOS played in the investigation of sexual abuse and exploitation cases involving national contingents.  He wanted to hear about the reformulated role of OIOS, in that connection.  Member States should also have an early opportunity to be briefed in connection with the proposed relocation of regional investigators to regional hubs.

Regarding the proposal to restructure the Investigations Division around two main types of cases, including sexual exploitation and abuse and financial, economic and administrative cases, with specialized teams, he said that he appreciated the rationale presented in the annex and looked forward to receiving further information in informals.  The proposal to reposition regional investigators to hubs was an interesting one, to which he wanted to give careful and open-minded consideration.  With that in mind, he concurred with the ACABQ that the presentation could have been strengthened with more reference to the experience of resident investigators.  It was also necessary to take into account the financial and other implications of the proposed restructuring.

KIM WON-SOO, Deputy Chef De Cabinet, said that the report sought to address problems in the system in order to enable the investigation of both serious and not-so-serious cases.  That was because there were cases that might appear to be minor, but which, if they were not attended to, might turn into more serious cases.  In that regard, unless there was the capacity to address all cases, the Organization might face serious damage.  Last year, the OIOS handled some 60 cases, while the other similar units handled many more cases.  The Secretary-General believed that there was the need to take a system-wide and Secretariat-wide, even programme-wide, approach.  There needed to be one standard, and the same level of expertise to handle cases.  That was why he believed in the need for a comprehensive review of the investigative functions in the Secretariat and the system.  That review, however, did not preclude the work of the General Assembly with regard to the work on OIOS, since the comprehensive review was likely to take a long time.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record