Sixty-third General Assembly

Sixth Committee

5^th Meeting (AM)

LEGAL COMMITTEE TOLD ‘JURISDICTIONAL GAPS’ AMONG ELEMENTS IMPEDING EFFORTS

ON ACCOUNTABILITY OF PERSONNEL ON UNITED NATIONS MISSIONS

 

Delegates Concerned at Harm to Reputation of World Body; Support

Expressed for Zero-Tolerance, No Impunity for Criminal Misconduct

A “jurisdictional gap” and the absence of a regulated process for dealing with crimes committed by United Nations officials and experts on missions hindered the ability of the Organization to hold its personnel accountable, Israel’s representative told the Sixth Committee (Legal) this morning as it met to take up the question of criminal accountability of United Nations officials and experts on mission.

Only with enhanced cooperation among States, between States and the United Nations, and within the United Nations itself could progress be made, he said.

The representative of France said these jurisdictional gaps let crimes go unpunished.  The zero-tolerance policy with respect to serious crimes committed by United Nations officials on mission must be enforced.  States should, first and foremost, be encouraged to establish and exercise criminal jurisdiction over their nationals in a host State.  They also needed to cooperate with other States and the United Nations to advance criminal proceedings.

In that connection, the representative of Mexico said, on behalf of the Rio Group, that a better reporting practice on crimes occurring in the field would increase the understanding of the problem.  It was the shared responsibility of the Secretary-General and Member States to take every measure to prevent and punish such criminal activities.

However, Egypt’s representative said, a clear definition of “experts on mission” should be established before jurisdiction was determined.  Consideration should be given as to whether military experts should be included.  Agreement must also be reached on how to deal with, and lift, the immunity of these officials.

In that regard, Sudan’s representative said there was no justification for drawing a difference between those covered by different chapters of the Charter.  Competence should be broadened because serious crimes, beyond sexual crimes, occurred on missions.

Also supportive of broad inclusion, the representative of the Democratic Republic of Congo said failing to hold accountable those who had committed crimes, and giving them impunity, was an assault to the collective consciousness, but it did occur.

Establishing criminal accountability and enforcing it were two separate matters, said Malaysia’s delegate.  Any mechanism developed to ensure criminal accountability could not compromise the operational requirements of United Nations personnel, or impinge on existing and future status-of-forces and status-of-mission agreements.

The delegation of Trinidad and Tobago, speaking on behalf of Caribbean Community (CARICOM), said a long-term solution was needed, a common set of international rules and regulations, irrespective of existing domestic legal systems.  That could be incorporated into a comprehensive convention.

Tunisia’s representative said the elaboration of a convention would be premature, but it was the long-term solution.  It should include jurisdiction over military observers and police, and should cover other crimes, such as corruption.

Maria Telalian, the Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on Criminal Accountability, introduced the Committee’s report.

Also speaking today were the representatives of Australia (speaking also for Canada and New Zealand), Cuba on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement and Kenya on behalf of the African Group.

Others speaking in their national capacities were the delegates of Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Nigeria, Uruguay, Algeria, Guatemala, Indonesia, China, Iran, India, Russian Federation, Norway, Venezuela, Canada and United States.

The Committee will meet again at 11 a.m. on Monday, 13 October to continue its debate on criminal accountability of United Nations officials on mission and to begin its debate on the rule of law.

Background

The Sixth (Legal) Committee met today to take up the agenda item on the Criminal accountability of United Nations officials and experts on mission and had before it a report on the subject(document A/63/260 and Add.1).

The report conveys the extent to which State laws establish jurisdiction over crimes committed by nationals serving as United Nations officials or experts on mission.  It also contains information on the cooperative efforts taken among States, and with the United Nations, to facilitate the prosecution and investigation of such individuals.

In accordance with the Secretariat policy, which deems officials and experts on mission accountable whenever they commit criminal acts, the report highlights the ways in which the Organization would bring credible allegations to the attention of States, while ensuring prospective experts on mission are informed of the expectation to meet high standards in their conduct and behaviour.

Most States commenting in the report have criminal laws that apply to nationals while abroad, or make exceptions to extend their jurisdiction when the crime committed is serious, or would be punishable under international law.  The report says that the laws of Australia, Austria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Iraq (as referred to in the Addendum to the report), Jordan, Kenya, Republic of Korea, Poland, Qatar, Serbia, the United States and Yemen generally apply outside of state boundaries, and could be used to prosecute nationals on United Nations missions, irrespective of the applicability of the law of the host State.

Belgium, too, extends its law internationally, the report continues, but only for serious crimes.  It also expects a formal complaint to be lodged with its Public Prosecutor’s Office if the victim in the case is foreign.  Meanwhile, Austria, Finland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland and Tunisia extend their legal jurisdiction only in cases where the crime committed is punishable under the laws of the host country, although, in most cases, exceptions could be made in special cases, especially if the crime constituted an international offence.

Canada and South Africa, on the other hand, limit the application of their laws solely to domestic cases, according to the report.  A caveat exists in Argentina law making its jurisdiction applicable only to State officials, not international civil servants.  Likewise, New Zealand has no law specifically concerning nationals serving on United Nations missions.  Meanwhile, Ireland allots extraterritorial jurisdiction only to a limited number of crimes.

According to the report, most of the aforementioned countries would cooperate with other States, through bilateral and multilateral agreements, and with the United Nations, in the exchange of information to help move forward investigations and prosecutions of their nationals.  Only Australia would prohibit such information-sharing with international bodies.  Any formal request from the United Nations to Australia for assistance would need to be made through another country.  The Czech Republic also stated that it would not provide the United Nations any information about ongoing investigations or court proceedings.

Because United Nations officials are generally immune from legal process under the Convention on Privileges and Immunities, adopted in 1946, the report says the Secretary-General has the authority and duty to waive immunity where not doing so would impede justice.  This rule applies to all United Nations staff, with the exception of those who are recruited locally and are assigned an hourly rate.  It was noted that during the reporting period, credible allegations against two officials and one expert on mission were made.

The report notes that the Office of Legal Affairs requested information relevant to the reporting requirements of paragraph 9 from all relevant departments of the Secretariat, programmes and funds.  Accordingly, from 6 December 2007 to 30 June 2008, credible allegations against two officials and one expert were referred by the United Nations to the State of nationality.  To ensure that prospective experts on mission are informed of the expectation that they should meet high standards in their conduct and behaviour, a memorandum was sent to the heads of all departments, funds and programmes, requesting that those serving on missions be made aware of those expected high standards, and that certain conduct may amount to a crime for which they could be held accountable.

On other measures taken to strengthen existing training on United Nations standards of conduct, the report says training staff to abide by the Organization’s code of conduct has been given priority by the Department of Peacekeeping Operations and the Department of Field Support, as well as by the Conduct and Discipline Unit at Headquarters.  The Departments of Peacekeeping Operations and Field Support have developed a three-pronged strategy to address sexual exploitation and abuse.

To complement this effort, the report points out, capacity-building efforts at Headquarters have led the Conduct and Discipline Unit, in coordination with the Integrated Training Service, to produce three standardized modules on the prevention of sexual exploitation and abuse, designed for all levels and categories of peacekeeping personnel.  The Unit has also implemented numerous other training and awareness-raising measures to improve the conduct of staff members on mission, in particular, an effort to incorporate various local issues into their training to sensitize peacekeeping personnel about matters particular to each host country.  According to the report, a significant percentage of United Nations peacekeeping personnel have been trained on sexual exploitation and abuse since it became mandatory in 2005.

Also before the Committee is a report of the Ad Hoc Committee on Criminal accountability of United Nations officials and experts on mission (document A/63/54), which covers the Committee’s second session (Headquarters, 7-9 and 11 April).  In a summary of general comments made in two plenary meetings, the report states that delegations reiterated support for the zero-tolerance policy on criminal behaviour of such officials, particularly in cases of sexual exploitation and abuse.  Such actions were not only a violation of the rule of law and did harm to victims, family and host State community, but it was also a violation of trust that could seriously damage the United Nations and its ability to carry out its mandate.

The report states that support was expressed for encouraging States to establish jurisdiction over criminal activity committed by nationals serving with the United Nations.  On legal and policy aspects of the question, support was expressed for the proposal that States expand cooperation on information exchange, extradition, serving of sentences and other measures to facilitate effective exercise of criminal jurisdiction, including judicial assistance mechanisms.  In view of the fact that countries varied in terms of their stage of institutional development, the suggestion was made to bolster the capacity of host States upon request.

On the elaboration of an instrument on the entire issue, the report says some delegations expressed the view that the question of the formulation of a convention was premature; more should first be known about impediments to prosecutions.  Some delegations agreed in principle with a convention requiring States to exercise jurisdiction over nations.  While bilateral agreements existed in the area, they were uneven and did not cover cooperation between States and the United Nations.  The possibility of developing a “protocol of cooperation” between States and the United Nations Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) was discussed.  A call was made for an agreed-upon terminology.

With regard to other matters such as scope, ratione personae or immunity based on function, the report says the definition of crimes and issues relating to jurisdiction merited consideration.  A preference was expressed for not limiting the topic to personnel involved in peacekeeping, while excluding members of national contingents and military observers.  Support was also expressed for including all crimes in the scope.  Finally, it was recommended that efforts be coordinated with those of the Special Committee on Peacekeeping and the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) to avoid duplication and divergent outcomes.  The recommendation was also made to establish a working group during the Assembly’s sixty-third session to continue work.

Annex I of the report contains an informal summary by the Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee regarding discussions held concerning the report by the Group of Experts charged with consideration of the matter.

Annex II contains the text of an informal working paper on international cooperation, again prepared by the Chairperson based on consideration by the Ad Hoc Committee.

Introduction of Report

MARIA TELALIAN, Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on criminal accountability of United Nations officials and experts on mission introduced the Ad Hoc Committee’s report.  She said the working group of the whole of the Ad Hoc Committee focused its discussions on matters relating to legal aspects of international cooperation, in particular with respect to investigations by the host State, other States and the United Nations.

Based on discussions with the working group, a working paper on international cooperation had been presented to the group.  Oral and written amendments and proposals to the paper were submitted by several groups and reproduced in Annex II to the Ad Hoc Committee’s report.  The Ad Hoc Committee had reiterated the recommendation that the Sixth Committee, during its current sixty-third session, establish a working group with a view of continuing the consideration of the report of the Group of Legal Experts.  It was her hope that the working group would continue where the Ad Hoc Committee had stopped.

Statements

ALEJANDRO ALDAY ( Mexico), speaking for the Rio Group of Member States, said the consequences of criminal activity carried out by United Nations officials and experts on missions must be considered in light of the principles of justice and international law, in particular respect for due process.  In that regard, the Rio Group reaffirmed its full support to the zero-tolerance policy in cases of sexual exploitation and abuse and other criminal conduct-–a policy which should be implemented in the observance of the rule of law.

Emphasizing that the United Nations was expected to set standards in meeting the needs of those whose rights had been violated, he said the Rio Group was well aware of the imperative to fight impunity and strengthen cooperation.  Accordingly, approval of resolution A/62/63 was a clear signal of the commitment of Member States to take a stand against “a phenomenon that is severe by definition of its consequences and extremely complex due to the challenges faced upon legal processing.”

Expressing gratitude to the Secretary-General for his report, A/63/260, he said he attached importance to receiving continuous information from the Secretariat on statistics about substantiated allegations.  In that connection, the Rio Group believed that a better reporting practice would increase the understanding of the problem.  It was the shared responsibility of the Secretary-General and Member States to take every measure to prevent and punish such criminal activities, he said, consideration of investigations in the field and during the criminal proceedings would present great challenges for the Sixth Committee in the future.

KERRY O’BRIEN ( Australia), speaking also for Canada and New Zealand (the CANZ Group), said the United Nations system must exemplify the rule of law principles it sought to foster.  There was a need to ensure that officials and experts of the United Nations were held to the highest standard by making them accountable when they committed criminal offences.  Resolution A/62/63, adopted on the matter last year, was a good first step.  However, it was still necessary to strengthen measures to enhance cooperation between States, between States and the United Nations, and within the United Nations itself.  Furthermore, steps must be taken to ensure that inadvertent jurisdictional gaps did not lead to impunity.

In the long term, he said, CANZ supported the Secretariat’s call for a convention on the matter, which would require Member States to exercise jurisdiction over their nationals who were participating in United Nations operations overseas.  Commending the Secretary-General for his report, A/63/260, he said he would further encourage the Secretary-General to continue to support programmes and policies designed to instil the highest standards for conduct and behaviour in United Nations experts and officials while on mission.

JUANA ELENA RAMOS RODRIGUEZ (Cuba), speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, said she attached great importance to the issue of criminal accountability of United Nations officials, and said the Non-Aligned Countries had contributed more than 80 per cent of peacekeeping personnel in the field.  Urging that peacekeeping personnel perform their duties in a manner that preserved United Nations integrity, she stressed the importance of maintaining a “zero tolerance” policy towards all cases of sexual exploitation and abuse.  Her delegation noted the work of the Ad Hoc Committee on criminal accountability of United Nations officials, and was ready to continue considering, in the Sixth Committee, the informal working paper on international cooperation prepared by its Chairperson.

She said she looked forward to the early implementation of the comprehensive strategy on assistance and support to victims of sexual exploitation and abuse by United Nations staff, since that would help mitigate the suffering of victims.  She also emphasized the need to implement General Assembly resolution 61/291 (2007) on amending the revised draft of a “Memorandum of Understanding”, adding that full implementation of resolution 62/63 (2007) by all States could help bridge any jurisdictional gaps.  She said progress on short-term measures was needed.  It was still premature to discuss a draft convention on the matter at hand; for the time being the Committee should focus on substantive matters.

HUBERT RENIÉ ( France), speaking for the European Union and associated States, said he supported the zero-tolerance policy with respect to serious crimes committed by United Nations officials on mission.  United Nations staff were responsible for promoting and upholding justice and the rule of law.  Such offences not only damaged victims but the United Nations as a whole, its reputation, credibility and ability to succeed in its operations.  States must ensure that the diplomatic status of officials on mission be not abused, especially in situations where the host State was unable to institute proceedings.  It was a question of overcoming obstacles while respecting the principle of the rule of law, human rights and the right to a fair hearing, and without prejudice to the necessary immunities of those on mission.

First and foremost, he said, the aim was to encourage States to establish and exercise their criminal jurisdiction with respect to nationals who committed serious crimes in a host State while working with the United Nations.  Jurisdictional gaps now let crimes go unpunished.  The proposal to facilitate cooperation between States, and between States and the United Nations, should be thoroughly reviewed.  The cooperation was essential and would help the alleged offender’s State of nationality assert its jurisdiction to ensure United Nations officials were held fully accountable for their actions.

In the long term, he said, he was ready to consider the proposal for an international convention that would list the circumstances under which States could exercise jurisdiction, as well as the categories of individuals and crimes subject to the jurisdiction.  Points to consider would include whether the convention might facilitate international cooperation on the issue.

STELLA KERUBO ORINA (Kenya), speaking for the African Group of Member States, said many United Nations peacekeeping troops were deployed in African countries, which in turn contributed officials and experts to other countries under the auspices of the United Nations.  Thus the African Group took a keen interest in ensuring the accountability of peacekeeping personnel.  Pre-deployment training of officials and experts should be enhanced. 

There must be no impunity for crimes committed in host States if the good reputation of the United Nations was to be upheld, she continued.  The resolution on the matter adopted last year, which was meant to ensure that all Member States were in a position enabling them to bring to justice any peacekeeper who may be involved in sexual abuse and other crimes committed on mission, had been a major development.

The task now was to consider what was left to address from a legal perspective, she said.  The scope of implementation must be defined, and it had yet to be determined whether there was a need to address issues such as international cooperation.  In that regard, it could be affirmed that at present, there was no information about any situation in which there had been a lack of such cooperation.

EDEN CHARLES ( Trinidad and Tobago), speaking for the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), said there were many instances on missions where attention had been drawn to serious infringements of the law.  To that end, he commended the Sixth Committee and the Ad Hoc Committee for their efforts toward establishing a zero-tolerance policy, as it related to crimes and atrocities committed by United Nations personnel.  Pointing out that some of these crimes, such as sexual exploitation and abuse, were particularly heinous in nature, he said it was ironic that those whom the United Nations entrusted with responsibility to promote the rule of law and justice breached this trust by abusing their positions of authority.

He said that holding perpetrators accountable for their criminal acts would contribute to a restoration of faith and trust in the United Nations system by victims of these crimes.  He called on States to consider establishing jurisdiction, particularly over crimes of a serious nature, committed by their nationals while serving the United Nations abroad.  National jurisdiction could at least be extended where the conduct also constituted a crime under the laws of the host State.  However, what was needed were long-term solutions, such as establishing a common set of international rules and regulations, irrespective of existing domestic legal systems.  In that connection, CARICOM supported the conclusion of a comprehensive convention on the matter, which addressed not only incidents of sexual exploitation and abuse, but all crimes committed by United Nations personnel on mission.

CHRISTINE MÖHLER ( Liechtenstein) said she welcomed measures taken by the Secretary-General to strengthen pre-deployment and in-mission training aimed at preventing misconduct by United Nations personnel in the field.  She said there were grave consequences for the Organization’s reputation as well as for the victims and their families from such behaviour.  Perpetrators must be held accountable.

Towards that end, she continued, national law enforcement authorities needed a basis on which to cooperate with their counterparts in other Member States, and with the United Nations, as an essential step for sharing information, collecting and evaluating evidence, coordinating extradition and preventing perpetrators from evading prosecution.  An international convention to facilitate cooperation would add significant value in eliminating gaps where there were no domestic laws providing for legal assistance involving the Organization, or where bilateral agreements were lacking between States.

She said it appeared from the Secretary-General’s report that common-law countries, in some situations, lacked the necessary jurisdiction over crimes committed by their nationals working for the United Nations on mission.  A future convention focused on international cooperation could be supplemented by model legislation addressing the issue of jurisdiction.

EMMANUEL BICHET ( Switzerland) said it was the duty of Member States and of the Secretary-General to take the necessary measures to prevent criminal acts on the part of United Nations personnel and to ensure that crimes that had been committed did not go unpunished.  Such acts undermined the values and damaged the reputation of the United Nations, in addition to other harm they may cause.

The adoption of last year’s Assembly resolution 62/63 was a first step in the right direction, as it urged States to modify legislation to better encourage prosecution of nationals accused of crimes while employed by the Organization.  However, the Secretary-General’s report showed that the legal bases for States to prosecute their nationals in that situation, and for cooperation between States and the United Nations, were still disparate and in some cases insufficient.  An international convention would be the most effective way to resolve those problems in the long term.  Several States had even stressed that they could easily extend their jurisdiction to crimes committed by their nationals abroad on the basis of an international treaty.

YASIR ABDELSALAM ( Sudan) said peacekeeping operations were an important means to capacity-building and helping countries move beyond conflict.  Isolated acts of criminality were a failure in the system that called for radical measures to safeguard the Organization’s reputation and effectiveness.  The focus should be on the removal of legal obstacles to preventing impunity and promoting the rule of law.  That entailed questions of international cooperation, as well as cooperation between the United Nations and States.

He said it was important to start negotiations on a legal instrument, where the issue of judicial competence could be considered.  There had been cases where United Nations officials had been subjected to the jurisdiction of the host country and had lost immunity.  The scope of personal jurisdiction should apply to all those in a peacekeeping operation.  There was no justification for drawing a difference between those covered by different chapters of the Charter.  Competence should be broadened because serious crimes, beyond sexual crimes, occurred on missions.  Finally, the new system of establishing justice in United Nations peacekeeping operations must be developed in the context of overall United Nations reform.

IFEYINWA ANGELA NWORGU ( Nigeria) said her country appreciated the help of Member States in clarifying procedural and jurisdictional gaps on the issue of serious crimes committed by those serving as United Nations officials and experts on mission.

She noted that Nigerian Armed Forces personnel serving as United Nations officials or experts on mission were subject to military discipline and criminal investigation under the Nigerian Armed Forces Act of 2003, as well as various bilateral mutual legal assistance agreements with various countries.  He said there should be a policy of zero-tolerance toward criminal behaviour, and called for increased cooperation between States and the United Nations on the exchange of information, extradition, serving of sentences and all other measures to facilitate the effective exercise of criminal jurisdiction.

GUSTAVO ALVAREZ (Uruguay), reaffirming his full support for the policy of zero-tolerance, said criminal misconduct by United Nations officials and experts assigned to peacekeeping operations harmed the reputation of the Organization and its Member States and must to be repudiated.  In connection with ratione personae, or the consideration of granting immunity to certain individuals, he said special consideration must be given to the situation of military and police observers assigned to peacekeeping operations.  Because these individuals were fully financed by their home States, they remained linked to their State of origin.  However, he added, there were elements that could be added to a memorandum of understanding, signed by troop-contributing countries and international observers to protect victims.

On the question of investigations, he said there should be an improvement in cooperation between those in the field and those officials in the home State.  He recommended the appointment of a national legal adviser so that relevant domestic regulations of the home State were taken into account during criminal proceedings.

EL HADJ LAMINE ( Algeria) said United Nations officials and experts on mission made a huge difference throughout the world, but this could not put them above accountability for their conduct.  He said he supported the principle of zero-tolerance in the realm of criminal behaviour.  Ensuring the credibility of the United Nations was essential.  Pointing out that efforts to improve the code of conduct were noted in the Secretary-General’s report on the matter, he recalled that Assembly resolution 62/63 had called on Member States to report on the criminal activities of their nationals while abroad.  He said Algeria’s policy was to prosecute in Algeria the criminal activities of its nationals while abroad; therefore, there was no jurisdictional gap.  He said a comprehensive international convention on the matter would assist with the extradition process and would be especially helpful to developing countries.

ZENON MUKONGO NGAY ( Democratic Republic of the Congo) said the hardships and the difficult conditions endured by United Nations personnel did not excuse the commission of crimes.  Failing to hold accountable those, and giving them impunity, was an assault to the collective consciousness, but it did occur.  Often the host country was unable to do anything and handed the offending individual over to the United Nations, to be sent back to the contributing country which was often not in a position to take appropriate action.  The offender could be allowed to just go back to the army.

He said it was unfortunate that the elaboration of a convention had been considered premature because that was the way to ensure that criminal acts were condemned and punished.  Such a legal instrument would enable States to establish jurisdiction and would contribute to the development of international law.  Adopting a resolution on the matter was acceptable as a short term measure, but work should begin on a convention since the subject was so important.

He said that in situations of ratione personae, consideration should be given to ensuring that victims were not jeopardized and that double standards were not applied.  The work should not be limited to crimes of a sexual nature, but should also cover crimes such as harassment and disturbance of the peace, as well as financial crimes such as money laundering.  A relevant legal example involving his country was the recent case of a French national who had been arrested in connection with rapes in the Democratic Republic and had been convicted in France.  Troop contributors should investigate any allegations made by the United Nations, and they should report their findings to the Secretary-General.  Compensation to victims must be paid and preventive measures should be intensified.

HABIB MANSOUR ( Tunisia) said he fully supported zero-tolerance against crimes committed by officials on mission and all measures to combat impunity; that entailed the removal of obstacles to carrying out justice and the strengthening of training and orientation programmes.  The range of steps being taken to address the problem of criminal misconduct of officials on missions showed due diligence on the part of the United Nations and indicated how gravely important was the resolution of the problem.  Preventive measures should be strengthened and more States must be brought into the process to achieve stronger results.

He said States should establish their jurisdiction in regard to crimes of their nationals on mission, and they should have mechanisms for cooperating with each other and with the United Nations.  The Tunisian penal code had provisions for such cooperation.

He said priority should be given to studying the current obstacles to implementing a fully applicable legislative framework to ensure there were no loopholes allowing for impunity.  The elaboration of a convention at the present time was not appropriate, but was the long-term solution.  The instrument adopted should cover not just sexual crimes but also others, such as corruption.  Military observers and police advisers should also be covered.

ANA CRISTINA RODRIGUEZ-PINEDA ( Guatemala) said the Sixth Committee’s priority should be the effective implementation of Assembly resolution 62/63 and the further consideration of proposals made by the coordinator last spring.  On the issue of holding United Nations officials and experts on missions accountable, she said there were different levels of international cooperation:  among States, between States and the United Nations, and within the United Nations itself.

She said international cooperation could not be a substitute for inter-institutional cooperation within the United Nations system.  In that connection, the Organization needed to enhance coherence and cooperation system-wide, and improve its mechanism for following up on, and recording, complaints from the field.  She hoped that the high level of attention being paid to instances of sexual abuse and exploitation would not be at the expense of other criminal behaviour of equal gravity.  She said the question of waiver of immunity was as much a problem of jurisdiction as of immunity.  In that regard, Guatemala would be interested in information on subsequent measures taken by the Secretariat on complaints from the field, regardless of whether immunity had been waived or not.  Noting that there was corresponding work on the matter taking place in the Fourth and Fifth Committees of the General Assembly, the Sixth Committee must work closely with those Committees, so as not to duplicate their work.

MOHAMED HERY SARIPUDIN (Indonesia) said United Nations peacekeepers were the face of the organization, and those who engaged in criminal conduct must not only face justice, but be seen to be facing justice.  To that extent, he said, he strongly supported General Assembly resolution 62/63 and believed it was important for States to establish jurisdiction over any crimes committed by their nationals serving as United Nations officials or experts.  He also urged the United Nations to take appropriate measures to ensure the safety of those peacekeepers making practical contributions to peace, sometimes at the cost of their own lives.

He advocated a zero-tolerance policy in cases of criminal conduct, particularly where it related to sexual exploitation and abuse.  To ensure the effectiveness of this approach, he said, pre-deployment sensitivity training must be undertaken by United Nations officials.  He cautioned the Ad Hoc Committee not to make a short term agreement difficult by broadening the scope of the ratione materiale (functional immunity), but to focus on those crimes originally within the mandate.  Although existing criminal law in both sending and receiving countries was sufficient to bring perpetrators to justice, cooperation among Member States must be enhanced to facilitate investigation, collection of evidence, and prosecution of suspects.

CHEN PEIJIE ( China) said she welcomed the progress of the Ad Hoc Committee, and called for effective international cooperation among the United Nations, countries of nationality of the officials and experts in question, and their host countries.  She said such a collaborative effort in the exchange of information and personnel training would help in the prevention of crimes.  China had acceded to more than 20 multilateral conventions containing judicial cooperation provisions, and had concluded 102 treaties on extradition and judicial assistance with 58 countries, some of which China did not have treaty relations.  Ms. Chen voiced willingness for China to cooperate on a case by case scenario according to China’s Law on Extradition, other relevant legal provisions and the principle of mutual benefit.

Holding accountable those United Nations officials and experts who have committed criminal acts was important for the purpose of protecting the image, prestige and credibility of the United Nations.  Host countries should initiate investigations and proceed with prosecutions with United Nations assistance.  On the question of admissibility of evidence collected by the United Nations in administrative investigations of criminal proceedings in host countries, or countries of nationality, she said decisions should be made according to the domestic law of those concerned countries.

As to the domestic law in China, she said the Chinese court had jurisdiction over any criminal acts committed by Chinese citizens outside of the People’s Republic if the crime fell under the Chinese criminal code.  China would exercise criminal jurisdiction over any crimes under any international treaty to which it was a party, within scope of the obligations of that treaty.

GIL LIMON ( Israel) said criminal activity by United Nations officials or experts on mission harmed not only victims of the crime but had adverse effects on the population of the host country, impeded the effectiveness of a United Nations mandate, and harmed the image of the United Nations as a whole.  In that regard, Israel supported the zero-tolerance policy with regard to criminal conduct of this kind.

Taking note of the report of the legal experts (A/60/980) and the subsequent note by the Secretariat (A/62/329), he spoke of the “jurisdictional gap” and the absence of a regulated process for cooperation in criminal proceedings among States, between States and the United Nations, and among United Nations units and departments.  In that regard, he said, General Assembly resolution 62/63 was a significant step towards tackling those potential obstacles and ensuring criminal accountability.

Recalling disagreement during the last meetings of the Sixth Committee and the Ad Hoc Committee over developing a new international convention to address issues of criminal accountability, he said Israel was of the view that it would be more effective, at this stage, to focus on substantive matters, leaving questions of form to a later stage.  However, enhancing cooperation among States and between States and the United Nations could be a basis for progress.  In particular, special emphasis should be given to the timely notification of allegations of misconduct to OIOS and the relevant national authorities.  Attention should also be focused on assistance, as appropriate, to the host state in the conduct of criminal investigations and the enhancement of the capacity of OIOS to conduct investigations.

NAMIRA NABIL NEGM (Egypt) said her country supported the Organization’s efforts to safeguard its image and position among peoples and, in that regard, it reaffirmed its strong belief in the zero-tolerance policy in addressing cases of sexual exploitation and abuse committed by members of peacekeeping operations.  It was therefore important to confront the issue, and to identify gaps in the current system of criminal accountability.  She welcomed efforts made by the United Nations to train members of peacekeeping operations and to raise their awareness about the standards of the Organization in relation to sexual exploitation and abuse.

She said it was important to study claims brought against peacekeepers before making any decisions on the incidents.  There also was a need to study further the elements of criminal accountability of United Nations personnel before proceeding with a new legal instrument; in particular, a clear definition of “experts on mission” needed to be derived, concerning the reservation about including military experts in that definition.  An agreement must also be reached on the means to deal with, and lift, the immunity of officials on missions before establishing jurisdiction.  The level of cooperation among States and the United Nations had to be identified, in that regard.  Egyptian laws, whether military or criminal, adopted a wide scope of the ratione personae extraterritorial jurisdiction to ensure the pursuit and prosecution of Egyptians who committed crimes while abroad.

ESHAG ALHABIB ( Iran) said United Nations officials must be held accountable for crimes, particularly those of a sexual nature.  That was crucial for preserving the Organization’s credibility.  There must not be any room for impunity.  Iran’s penal code allowed for the prosecution by Iran of any crime committed by a national anywhere in the world, as long as the action was a crime under Iranian law.  That jurisdiction related to crimes committed by all Iranians, including diplomats who had immunities in foreign countries.  The principle of universal jurisdiction and bilateral agreements made sure Iranian citizens were held accountable for actions.

Noting that the group of experts working on the matter recommended a comprehensive approach, he said consideration of jurisdiction should proceed on the basis of taking into account the domestic jurisdiction of the host State.  The elaboration of an instrument to close jurisdictional gaps and define international cooperation would be ideal, but since many States considered such an instrument premature, any short-term measure that was expedient could be adopted.  The United Nations and Member States should continue the effort of safeguarding the integrity of the United Nations and preventing impunity by holding officials accountable for misconduct on a mission.

NIRUPAM SEN (India) noted that resolution adopted on the matter last year strongly urged all States to consider establishing jurisdiction over crimes committed by their citizens while serving as United Nations personnel on mission, at least where the conduct also constituted a crime under the laws of the host State.  Implementing the resolution should help fill the jurisdictional gap in respect of States that did not assert extraterritorial jurisdiction.  India’s penal code extended to such jurisdiction; it also had a well-developed law to enable it to seek and extend cooperation in respect of mutual legal assistance in criminal matters.

He said that pre-deployment and in-mission training were crucial with regard to criminal accountability of United Nations officials on mission.  Careful preparation in terms of a democratic, multi-cultural, pluralistic and tolerant outlook was as important as subsequent swift punitive action once culpability was established.  The strengthening of the existing training regime to include mission-specific training that took into account cultural aspects of the host population was welcome.  The comprehensive strategy related to victims should be promptly implemented.

WIRA AHMAD HAMZAH ( Malaysia) said his country accorded privileges and immunities to United Nations officials and experts under its domestic law, as provided for by the General Convention on the matter.  In that regard, it was “trite law” that United Nations officials and experts were granted functional immunity (ratione materiae) only for acts performed in pursuit of their official tasks.  The commission of crimes, especially sexual offences, should under no circumstances be under impunity.  Establishing criminal accountability and enforcing it were two separate matters.  In that connection, there were issues to be addressed, such as the capacity to investigate and prosecute, particularly where it applied to overlapping jurisdictions.

He said he welcomed the opportunity to clarify and elucidate an applicable law in the Sixth Committee, and he supported the development of a practical mechanism to ensure criminal accountability of United Nations officials and experts on mission.  However, this mechanism must not compromise the operational requirements of United Nations personnel, or impinge on existing and future status-of-forces and status-of-mission agreements.  For Malaysians, the jurisdiction of their country’s criminal law was largely limited to acts occurring within domestic borders.

On cooperating with other States and the United Nations to exchange information and facilitate investigations, he said Malaysian law already enabled the provision of relevant assistance to States with or without a bilateral treaty.  However, cooperation with the United Nations itself would have to be rendered on an informal basis.

GENNADY KUZMIN ( Russian Federation) said he was convinced of the need to step up action on crimes that negatively affected the prestige of the United Nations.  He noted the report of the Secretary-General on the matter, particularly with reference to the extraterritorial jurisdiction of States over crimes by their own citizens.  In that connection, Russia had jurisdiction over nationals serving as United Nations officials abroad.  However, long-term measures were needed to remove hindrances to the prosecution of perpetrators, which would ensure their right to a fair trial.  The lead role in these prosecutions should lie with the State whose nationality the perpetrator had.

Although there should be cooperation among States to move criminal proceeding forward, the delegate said it was also necessary for the Secretariat, in a timely fashion, to inform States about criminal incidents that had occurred.  This machinery for activities between States and United Nations regarding criminal prosecutions needed improvement.  He felt that information gathered through internal administrative investigations by the Secretariat should play a limited role for background use in prosecutions, but should not be submitted as evidence in a criminal court.  On the matter of developing an international convention on the matter, he said the idea should be studied further to ensure that perpetrators did not escape punishment.

AASMUND ERIKSEN ( Norway) said the phrase, “serious crimes cannot go unpunished”, was more than a slogan.  It was a guiding principle for the United Nations.  The principle of “no impunity” should apply to all serious crimes, because impunity fostered anger, suspicion and mistrust.  The effectiveness of the function and mandate of the United Nations depended on people’s trust and belief in the Organization.  Effective safeguards must guarantee access to justice, including for the victims of grave crimes.  The whole-heartedly supported policy of “zero-tolerance” would only be achieved if short and long-term measures were implemented.

All States should extend their criminal jurisdiction to serious crimes committed by their nationals serving with United Nations missions, he said.  States should also provide information about relevant legislation.  Moreover, cooperation among States, and between them and the United Nations needed to be strengthened, and that would best be done by establishing an internationally binding legal framework.  The relevant resolution should be strengthened by including development of more specific guidance.

GLENNA CABELLO de DABOIN ( Venezuela) said she fully supported the zero-tolerance policy.  It was unthinkable that United Nations officials were preying on those already suffering in refugee camps.  The accountability of United Nations officials on mission entailed questions of both general principles of law and of jurisdiction.  Consideration should be given to gaps in State legislation that allowed for impunity, but it was premature to begin elaborating a convention.  However, the principles of taking action to punish wrongdoing and to protect human rights must be implemented.  That should be done by continuing with the dynamics that had been set in motion in the General Assembly.

KEITH MORRILL ( Canada) said he would just make a brief comment on one narrow aspect of the question, that of the scope with relation to sexual misconduct.  Other instruments being elaborated within the United Nations looked at other aspects of accountability on missions, such as corruption.  The Conference of States parties working on that aspect had called for coordination between the various venues in which accountability of United Nations staff was considered.  Those other instruments should be considered in these deliberations.

JAMES DONOVAN ( United States) said he appreciated the broad range of actions being taken to address the situation of accountability on United Nations missions.  The efforts with regard to pre-deployment and mission training were also appreciated, as was the recall of officials who committed crimes to be subjected to national judicial process.  More efforts must be taken by both the United Nations and States to promote accountability.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record