Compliance with Vienna Conventions Critical in Protection of Diplomatic, Consular Missions, Personnel, Legal Committee Hears as Debate Begins
Faced with new challenges in protecting diplomatic and consular missions and representatives, speakers today called upon Member States to ensure compliance with the Vienna Conventions, as the Sixth Committee (Legal) today considered effective measures to enhance the protection, security and safety of those entities.
A representative of the European Union Delegation, condemning recent attacks on the Indian Consulate in western Afghanistan and the Turkish Consulate in Mosul, as well as the abduction in Yemen of an Iran Embassy staff member, underscored that no attack on diplomatic and consular missions or their staff could be justified. While receiving States were required, under the two Vienna Conventions, to take appropriate steps to protect diplomatic missions and consular premises, she said threats posed by terrorists and other armed groups also required particular attention.
Syria’s representative said his country’s diplomatic and consular missions and their staff, worldwide, had suffered over the past four years. Serious aggressions in the form of invasions, sabotage, destruction and looting, and physical attacks had negatively affected the safety of those missions and the ability of personnel to carry out their functions. Echoing other delegations, he said that in all States where such incidents occurred, comprehensive investigations must be carried out.
The representative of Costa Rica, speaking for the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), noted that the dramatic events that had taken place in recent years served as a reminder that the role of representing one’s country implied a risk to those who performed it. There were also new challenges, including the impact that State surveillance and interception of communications might have on the inviolability of diplomatic and consular archives and documents.
Echoing his counterpart, Brazil’s delegate said that the protection of archives, documents and communications, which were also covered by international law, must be considered in the Committee’s discussion. The Vienna Conventions affirmed that such documents were inviolable “wherever they may be”, he said, pointing out that such texts now existed on digital platforms as well, and should also be protected.
The Sixth Committee also considered reports of the Secretary-General on the administration of justice at the United Nations, with several delegations praising the achievements made to date by the system, and sharing several recommendations to improve it.
Canada’s representative, also speaking for Australia and New Zealand, said that the United Nations’ own practices in administering justice should reflect its values in promoting respect for individual rights and the rule of law. However, as the number of staff members representing themselves within the system had continued to rise in 2013, the need for a single code of conduct for counsel was amplified.
Switzerland’s delegate also subscribed to the idea that there be one code of conduct for counsel of internal and external representatives. As well, he recommended that the panel that would conduct the interim independent assessment of the system of the administration of justice include legal experts conversant with internal labour dispute mechanisms.
The Sixth Committee also concluded consideration of the status of the Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and relating to the protection of victims of armed conflicts.
A representative of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) emphasized that the principal cause of suffering during armed conflict was not a lack of rules, but insufficient respect for those that applied. The joint initiative with Switzerland aimed to create a new compliance system for international humanitarian law.
Also speaking today in the Sixth Committee (Legal) were representatives of Bahrain, Belarus, United States, China, Algeria, El Salvador, Sierra Leone, Finland (speaking for the Nordic countries), Russian Federation, Cuba, Ethiopia, Israel, Eritrea, India, Turkey, Guatemala, and Tonga, as well as the State of Palestine and the International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission.
Speaking in exercise of the right of reply were delegates from Israel and Syria.
The Sixth Committee (Legal) will next meet at 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, 22 October to commence consideration of criminal accountability of United Nations officials and experts on missions.
Background
The Sixth Committee met today to conclude its consideration of the reports on the Status of the Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and relating to the protection of victims of armed conflicts and its addendum. For background, see Press Release GA/L/3483.
It also had before it reports on the Consideration of effective measures to enhance the protection, security and safety of diplomatic and consular missions and representatives (document A/69/185) and its addendum (document A/69/185/Add.1).
Further to that, it would also take up the administration of justice at the United Nations and consider the Report of the Secretary-General on the matter (document A/69/227), the Report of the Secretary-General on activities of the Office of the United Nations Ombudsman and Mediation Services (document A/69/126) and the Report of the Internal Justice Council (document A/69/205).
Statements on Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions of 1949
Ms. ABDULGHAFFAR (Bahrain) said her country was committed to all international instruments to which it had become a party, such as the Geneva Conventions and the Additional Protocols relating to victims of armed conflict. Her country had a committee that was charged with all issues related to the implementation of international humanitarian law, including the development of related strategies and policies. In particular, it exchanged information with all domestic, international and regional Arab entities related to international humanitarian law. The committee was also charged with strengthening cooperation with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and spreading awareness on international humanitarian law. It participated in developing educational curricula related to humanitarian law in schools, and recommended programs and training courses as well. The Government was also keen on participating in international events related to the protection of victims in armed conflict. It had recently participated in the First World Summit to End Sexual Violence in Armed Conflict which had been held in London in June of this year.
ILYA ADAMOV (Belarus) said that his country was party to all major treaties on international humanitarian law, a fundamental component to the contribution of its military personnel to peacekeeping and peacebuilding activities. Work on the third Additional Protocol was being carried out in relation to the country’s implementation of the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict with Regulations for the Execution of the Convention 1954. Belarus was striving to disseminate international humanitarian law in the military and legal faculties of its higher educational institutions, including through an Olympics event testing knowledge of the law. Realities of the global situation made international humanitarian law one of the most dynamically developing areas. Modern technologies would be useful to its further dissemination.
STEPHEN TOWNLEY (United States) said that his country’s military operations in armed conflicts complied with international humanitarian law and all other applicable international and domestic laws. Ratification of Additional Protocol II was pending on the Senate’s Calendar, and an interagency review had indicated that current military practice was compliant with it. Furthermore, while he expressed concerns about Protocol I, he noted that the guarantees in article 75 for persons in the hands of opposing forces in international armed conflict would be treated as applicable to any individual detained in such a conflict by his country. It was also important to conduct legal reviews of weapons to determine their consistency with a State’s international obligations, as reflected in article 36 of Additional Protocol I. Expressing support for the joint Swiss–ICRC initiative on strengthening international humanitarian law, and for the multi-year ICRC project related to legal protections for persons deprived of their liberty in relation to non-international armed conflicts, he emphasized that nations would need to address the conduct of and frequent violations of international humanitarian law by non-State actors. He also expressed support for the establishment of a Montreux Document forum where issues relating to private security companies could be considered.
LI YONGSHENG (China) said that his country had become party to the Additional Protocols to the four Geneva Conventions in 1983, and was one of the first countries to do so. For over 30 years, his Government had adopted many active and constructive measures to study, disseminate and implement the Additional Protocols. Domestic legislation had contained explicit stipulations on the obligation to comply with the Additional Protocols. Education and awareness raising programs on international humanitarian law had been launched in universities. As well, a National Committee on International Humanitarian Law had been established in 2007 to conduct research and to coordinate related dissemination and implementation. Noting his country’s participation in the process initiated by the ICRC and the Government of Switzerland to strengthen the mechanisms of compliance with international humanitarian law, he said that such efforts should focus on enhancing the effectiveness of existing mechanisms and proceed from the real needs related to the application of and compliance with international humanitarian law.
MOHAMED SALAL EDDINE (Algeria), associating himself with the African Group, said his country was a State party to all major instruments of international humanitarian law. In accordance with article 90 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, his country had declared the competence of the International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission. Its Constitution granted compliance with those international commitments, integrating them into its legal system. International humanitarian law was disseminated among its armed forces, and was a basic component in its military schools and academies curricula. The Algerian Red Crescent was also actively involved in the dissemination of international humanitarian law among civil society and the local population. However, the recent devastating lethal war conducted by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Gaza Strip, still under blockade, constituted a grave violation of international humanitarian law, and he expressed strong support for the State of Palestine’s request for convening a conference of high contracting parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention to examine measures to ensure respect and enforce the Convention in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem.
EGRISELDA ARECELY GONZÁLEZ (El Salvador) said that only compliance with international humanitarian law could assist the victims of armed conflict. She underscored the importance of her country’s Inter-Agency Committee for International Humanitarian Law in complying with the major international treaties on the matter, to which it was a party. In that regard, the country provided institutional support on international humanitarian law in its national defence in accordance with Additional Protocol I. There was also a signage campaign to disseminate information on the protection of cultural heritage during time of armed conflict. She emphasized that international humanitarian law should be complemented with international human rights law.
KOUSSAY ABDULJABBAR ALDAHHAK (Syria), said it was regrettable that despite progress made in international humanitarian law and progress in the accession to conventions, none of that had impeded Israel from committing serious violations of international humanitarian law, as well as other atrocities, such as genocide, crimes of war, and crimes against humanity against the Arab population in the occupied territory, specifically in the occupied Arab Syrian Golan. The occupying Israeli power had pursued its systematic policy based on deliberate attacks on civilians, the murder of children, women, and older persons, the destruction of infrastructure, and displacement and exile of Arabs from the territory. The United Nations and the Commission of Inquiry had documented, in hundreds of reports, serious proof of infractions. Those crimes, committed for decades, had demonstrated that certain countries had accorded immunity to Israel in the area of international humanitarian law. Israel had also committed indirect violations, which had been committed by proxy, by terrorist fighters, and by mercenaries that certain countries had sent to his country. International humanitarian law, as well as the United Nations, must now prove their effectiveness and capability of enforcing the Geneva Conventions and its two Additional Protocols, which referred to the protection of victims in armed conflict. Those countries must be held accountable and not be treated with impunity.
REEM JULIA MANSOUR, Observer for the State of Palestine, said the tragedy that befell the Palestinian people this summer in the Gaza Strip had made it clearer than ever before that Israel, the occupying Power, which was responsible for providing protection to the Palestinian people, was violating its legal obligation under the relevant provisions of the Geneva Conventions. That was evident in the gross number of civilian casualties and injuries that had resulted from the Israeli aggression on Gaza, and the now eight-year illegal and inhumane blockade that had resulted in the collective punishment of an entire civilian population. Earlier this year, the State of Palestine had acceded to the four Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I, and thus was now a high contracting party of those international legal instruments. His Government had requested the Government of Switzerland, in its capacity as the Depository of the Geneva Conventions, to convene a meeting of the high contracting parties to consider measures to enforce the Convention in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and to provide protection to the Palestinian people due to the grave breaches of the Convention being committed by Israel. He urged that such a Conference be convened as soon as possible, appealing to all high contracting parties to support that call.
JOY ELYAHOU International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) said the principal cause of suffering during armed conflict was not a lack of rules, but insufficient respect for those that applied. Most of those rules were applicable to international conflict, while the majority of current conflicts were non-international in nature. The Switzerland-ICRC initiative, aimed at creating a new compliance system for international humanitarian law, would have as its central pillar a regular meeting of States that would serve as an anchor for several compliance functions, including national reporting and thematic discussions on international humanitarian law issues. A key challenge would be ensuring the system’s effectiveness on the ground, as most States were unwilling to amend the Geneva Conventions or to adopt a new treaty. Options and recommendations would be proposed in December 2015.
The Red Cross was also working to strengthen legal protection for detainees in non-international armed conflict situations, she said. Four key areas requiring clarification were: conditions of detention; particularly vulnerable groups of detainees; grounds and procedures for internment; and transfers of detainees. The Committee would prepare a final report presenting options and recommendations by the 2015 International Conference. She encouraged States to actively participate in the ongoing consultations to strengthen international humanitarian law. The recent accessions to the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols were welcomed, she said, drawing States’ attention to the ICRC’s International Humanitarian Law National Implementation Database, which contained information on national legislation and case law of 194 countries.
HUGO CORUJO, Vice President of the International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission, said that his Office was established by article 90 of Additional Protocol 1 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 as an instrument at the disposal of States, to ensure that international humanitarian law was applied during all types of armed conflicts. The Commission had offered its services in a number of situations, and had carried out delicate negotiations with several parties.
However, in order to operate, the Commission needed a specific mandate given by parties to the conflict, he said, adding “To date, that has not been forthcoming.” It would be helpful to receive comments from States and the relevant United Nations organs as to why they had not yet made use of the services offered by the Commission, and why there appeared to be a preference to appoint ad hoc Commissions, rather than to engage the only established body.
Right of Reply
In exercise of the right of reply, a representative of Israel said that the attacks upon his country by several delegations were cynical attempts to divert attention from tyrannical regimes. In response to Syria, he noted that the Government was illegitimate and had killed over 200,000 of its own people. Similarly, Algeria, whose Government was corrupt, also had no right to criticize.
Turning to the comments from the Palestinian representative, he said that much had been said about Israel, without once mentioning Hamas. Israel never targeted civilians but Hamas, placing its fighters among the civilian population, had, in August, targeted rockets at Israeli citizens every 15 minutes. Even the Human Rights Committee had said that each rocket launched against Israel was a crime against humanity, while Israel’s military actions had been within the compass of the law.
A representative of Syria, in exercise of the right of reply, said the representative of the Israeli occupation was spreading lies. Many delegations, when they spoke about Israel’s violations of international law, were not speaking in a vacuum, but were speaking of well-documented facts. The Israeli occupation and its practices had been with the United Nations from its establishment until the present. The occupying authority had permitted every kind of war crime and crime against humanity over seven decades. Those vicious actions had affected not only Arabs, but peace activists as well.
“Who could forget Rachel Corrie?” he asked, deliberately run down by an Israeli tank. There were many such actions taking place on a daily basis. The wounds of victims of latest aggression against the Gaza Strip had not yet healed, and the debris of those attacks were still spread all over Gaza. The hostilities also practiced by terrorist organizations against the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) in the Golan Heights still echoed through the halls of the Organization. Israeli occupation always had new crimes to offer. The occupation itself was the most serious violation of international humanitarian law. As to Israel’s claims to democracy, he said that was not compatible with racism, the abduction of territory and the displacement of people.
EBUN ABEBOLA STRASSER-KING (Sierra Leone) said international humanitarian law was not lacking in jurisprudence. What was lacking was the commitment of States to abide by their international obligations, and leaders to provide political leadership. Impunity for serious crimes in armed conflict should not a have a place in modern society. All States had a moral duty to investigate and prosecute gross violations of international humanitarian law. Her country would continue to show strong support for the Rome Statute and the International Criminal Court, as well as the activities of the ICRC, the Red Crescent Society and the Sierra Leone International Red Cross Society. As a post-conflict country, the Government was aware that sexual violence in conflict was one of the greatest and most persistent injustices in the world today. At the regional level, her country had worked with the African Union and other regional organizations in the implementation of international humanitarian law, and in the enhancement of respect for its rules. Annual seminars that had been organized by the ICRC and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) had facilitated information-sharing and updating of good practices on international humanitarian law. At the national level, the formation of a national committee under the ICRC and ECOWAS Plan of Action ensured that her country honoured its international obligations. That national committee, whose membership was drawn from various stakeholders, advised and assisted the Government in the implementation and promotion of international humanitarian law.
Statements on Diplomatic Protection
GEORGINA GUILLEN-GRILLO (Costa Rica), speaking on behalf of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), said the dramatic events that had taken place in recent years served as a reminder that the role of representing a State implied a risk to those who performed it. Member States should redouble their efforts to ensure that the protection and safety of diplomatic and consular representatives, as well as diplomatic and consular missions, was a priority for all. Recalling that the topic had been included on the agenda in 1980, she said the Committee should not only consider the nature of situations that had been addressed over the last 24 years, but also the new challenges faced in the implementation of those equally important aspects of diplomatic and consular immunities.
The impact that State surveillance and/or interception of communications, including extraterritorially, might have on the inviolability of diplomatic and consular archives, documents and communications was of concern, she said. A transparent and constructive dialogue on that issue would be welcomed. Noting that States must ensure that their legislation conformed with public international law, she urged all States to take all appropriate measures at the national levels to prevent any acts of violence against diplomatic and consular missions and representatives, as well as against missions and representatives of international governmental organizations and officials of such organizations. She also urged all States to prevent abuses of diplomatic or consular privileges and immunities, especially those involving the use of violence, and to cooperate with the host State in cases where such abuses had been committed.
EGLANTINE CUJO, Delegation of the European Union, urged States to strictly observe, implement and enforce the provisions of international law governed by the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. Close cooperation on security matters was needed at the international and national levels, as well as between missions and local authorities. She condemned the recent attacks on the Indian Consulate in western Afghanistan and the Turkish Consulate in Mosul, as well as the abduction in Yemen of a Iran Embassy staff member, noting that no attack on diplomatic and consular missions or their staff could be justified. She called on all States to bring the perpetrators to justice.
Pointing out that receiving States were required, under the two Vienna Conventions, to take appropriate steps to protect diplomatic missions and consular premises, she said that particular attention must be paid to the threats posed by terrorists and other armed groups, which sometimes forced States to shut down their embassies and consulates, as seen in Libya and Yemen. She called upon States that had not yet done so to consider becoming parties to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.
SARI MAKELA (Finland), speaking also for Denmark, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, said universally accepted principles and rules of international law, as reflected in the Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic and Consular relations, placed upon the receiving States a special duty to take all appropriate steps to promote the diplomatic and consular premises and the prevention of any attacks on the diplomatic and consular representatives. In a situation where the receiving State failed to offer the required protection in accordance with its obligations under the Vienna Conventions, the injured State was entitled to claim prompt compensation for loss or injury suffered as a result of such failure.
She went on to say that the special duty of the receiving State to protect and to prevent attacks extended also to foreign missions and representatives and international intergovernmental organizations and officials of such organizations. Effective measures to enhance the protection, security and safety of those missions, representatives and officials were crucial to enable them to fulfil their mandates. Also needed was close cooperation and information-sharing on security matters, not only at the international level, but also at the national level, between the missions and the competent local authorities, in order to prevent violations of the protection, security and safety of diplomatic and consular missions and representatives.
SERGEY A. LEONIDCHENKO (Russian Federation) said it was no coincidence that the most important element of diplomatic and consular law was the special duty of the receiving State to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of foreign missions against intrusion or damage, or to prevent any disturbance of such missions. The violence that had occurred against official missions demonstrated that no receiving State was immune from such incidents. It was unfortunate that a receiving State did not always take appropriate measures to prevent them. In June of this year, his country’s embassy in Kyiv had suffered attacks, including damage to its building, desecration of its flag and threats to the security of its staff. That situation was unacceptable. The inviolability of diplomatic missions and consular representatives was not subject to discussion, as had been recently emphasized by the Yemeni delegation. In all States where such incidents occurred, decisive measures must be taken to ensure the security of diplomats, as well as foreign diplomatic and consular missions, in accordance with international legal obligations. As well, comprehensive investigations must be carried out, in order to bring responsible persons to justice.
PATRICK LUNA (Brazil), associating himself with CELAC, said that over the last 24 years, discussions had been limited to the inviolabilities of diplomatic and consular staff and premises without adequate consideration to the protection of archives, documents and communications, which were also covered by international law. The Vienna Conventions affirmed that such documents were inviolable “wherever they may be”, and further recognized the inviolability of official correspondence. Such documentation now also existed on digital platforms, and should also be protected in that format. In that context, he expressed concern at the use of diplomatic and consular missions for surveillance and/or interception of communications in the receiving State, which clearly violated the Vienna Conventions. The draft resolution on the matter must reflect all those difficulties in ensuring the respect for diplomatic and consular immunities. The Assembly should recognize those new challenges, and call for full implementation of applicable international law.
TANIERIS DIEGUEZ LAO (Cuba), associating herself with CELAC, said communications and information technology should be used by all States, with the objective of improving capacities, in step with international law. She expressed concern about and condemned recently revealed practices of using diplomatic and consular locations as surveillance posts, and the interception and/or collection of data on nationally protected individuals, destabilizing countries whose Governments had been legitimately elected by their people. Those were fragrant violations of the Vienna Convention. Her country’s legislation had regulated or codified as aggravated crimes all aggressions or attacks on the dignity and honour of foreign diplomatic representatives and other internationally protected individuals. Also, firm sentencing guidelines for those who committed such acts were in place. There was a multi-front system for protecting diplomatic corps, and in particular, a security and protection system that ensured the full protection of those individuals on the whole. The system functioned throughout the country, 24 hours a day with translation services. Diplomatic personnel had numerous quick access phone lines to request any help they needed; that help was provided immediately by a specialized team that had been highly trained. The system of protection for diplomatic corps had shown a notable drop in criminal acts, and those that had been registered were of low danger levels. There was a climate of peace and security for the discharge of diplomatic and consular functions in Cuba.
YIDNEKACHEW G/MESKEL ZEWDU (Ethiopia) pointed out that host States were duty-bound by the Convention to protect diplomatic premises and persons, and to prevent crimes against them. Further, host States were obligated to punish or prevent such crimes. He expressed concern at violent attacks against missions and diplomatic persons, from which his country had also suffered. The perpetrators of such crimes should be held accountable. States must prevent illegal activities on their territories, and communicate measures taken to bring the perpetrators to justice. However, the necessary support was not always provided to the victims of such attacks. His government was undertaking the responsibility to protect those missions in his country, and believed that the same protections should be provided to his country’s premises and persons.
MEITAR NIR-TAL (Israel) noted that her country’s diplomats and premises had long been subject to terrorist attacks and failed plots throughout the world. The international community should cooperate closely in all spheres, particularly on the operational legal and intelligence sharing levels, and take all necessary measures to provide adequate protection for all diplomatic and consular missions and representatives, as required by the two Vienna Conventions. She urged Member States and the international community as a whole to cooperate closely to ensure a safe international environment, which would allow diplomatic and consular missions and representatives to carry out their essential duties free from fear and harm.
ELSA HAILE (Eritrea) said diplomatic and consular officials were discharging their responsibilities in a more complex environment. Access and transparency and use of communications technology could largely describe the essence of modern diplomacy. Despite the increased vulnerability of diplomatic missions and consular personnel, it was the responsibility of the host country to protect the inviolability, safety and security of diplomats and missions. Today, diplomats and diplomatic missions relied more on more on electronic technology. However, the secret and illegal collection of electronic data was a violation of the Vienna Convention and international principles. It was unacceptable behaviour and must be stopped.
STEPHEN TOWNLEY (United States), tracing the history of diplomatic protections to ancient times, pointed out that States had also always had the duty to protect diplomats from harmful acts by non-State actors. Such attacks had increased in numbers, and more often involved non-State armed groups. There had been 200 such attacks against his country’s diplomatic facilities and personnel in the last ten years, resulting in the deaths of 40 personnel. Nor was the United States alone in that regard. The Convention on Internationally Protected Persons, adopted by the General Assembly in 1973, which had 176 United Nations States parties, required the punishment of violent attacks against foreign Government officials and the prevention of the commission of such crimes. As the facts and circumstances of attacks on diplomatic and consular personnel were changing, so must preventive measures. Among such measures, he stressed the need for collaboration with local authorities.
M. KOTESWARA RAO (India), condemning all acts of violence against the security and safety of diplomatic and consular missions and representatives, said it was a serious concern that needed to be addressed effectively. He enumerated international instruments on the matter, to all of which his country was party, and stressed the need for those States that had not yet done so to become party to them. He also took note of the comments made by the Brazilian delegation, and expressed his support for them.
PAN KUN (China) condemned recent incidents against diplomatic premises, and asked that States adopt more effective measures to enhance the protection of diplomatic personnel. As stated in the Vienna Convention, receiving States would be obligated to take all appropriate preventive measures. However, with “serious security concerns”, consideration could be given to allow sending States to dispatch security personnel to protect its own diplomatic corps. States should also continually improve measures to pursue and punish the perpetrators following an incident, and should adopt measures to investigate the acts. The receiving State should also be held accountable for failing to fulfil its obligations under the Convention.
ĪPEK ZEYTINOĞLU ÖZKAN (Turkey), associating herself with the European Union, condemned all attacks perpetrated against diplomatic and consular missions and representatives worldwide, and underlined that her country took all measures to effectively protect missions and diplomats stationed on its territory. Cooperation between States and the fight against terrorism were crucial. Noting that Turkish diplomatic and consular officers had been subjected to attack over the last two years, she expressed gratitude to the delegation of the European Union for its condemnation of the attack against its consulate in Mosul in June of this year.
MOHAMED SALAH EDDINE BELAID (Algeria) condemned the attacks against the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA), and conveyed his country’s “deepest and sincere condolences” to the families of fallen peacekeepers and their Governments. He also strongly condemned all and any acts of violence against diplomatic and consular missions and representatives. The receiving State was under special duty to protect diplomatic personnel and entities against intrusion or damage, and to prevent disturbances. Algeria was committed to its obligations under international law and the Vienna Conventions to provide appropriate protections and security. He advocated for a close cooperation on practical and preventive measures to enhance protection, security and safety of diplomatic and consular missions and representatives, and the prompt and timely exchange of information regarding the violations.
EGRISELDA ARECELY GONZÁLEZ (El Salvador) noting that her country had been party to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations since 1965, drew attention to article 25 of that document, which required host States to take all measures to protect the safety of all diplomatic premises and persons. Therefore, any violence committed against diplomatic facilities or personnel was clearly illegal. Measures were needed to prevent such acts. Pointing out that El Salvador had internal domestic mechanisms allowing for the protection of diplomatic premises and personnel, she called for ongoing consideration of the topic in the Committee, as its principles were essential to governing relationships between States.
KOUSSAY ABDULJABBAR ALDAHHAK (Syria) said successful diplomacy required the provision of an appropriate environment, and conditions of peace and safety, to enable diplomats to carry out their functions. He condemned attacks against diplomatic and consular missions, which, regardless of their motives, were criminal acts, and could not be justified under any circumstances. Perpetrators must be held accountable and must be punished. Syrian diplomatic and consular missions in various capitals throughout the world, and diplomats working therein, had suffered over the past four years and had continued to suffer to this day. Serious aggressions and gross intrusions in the form of invasions, sabotage, destruction and looting, and physical attacks, had affected negatively the safety of those missions and their personnel and their ability to carry out their functions. While the Governments of some States had dealt positively with that phenomenon and had respected their obligations under international law, the responsibility of other States had not risen to the “required level”. His Government, which exerted all efforts to guarantee the safety of accredited diplomatic missions in Syria, reaffirmed the need for all States to respect their obligations arising from the Vienna Conventions, among others.
Statements on Administration of Justice
GILES NORMAN (Canada), speaking also for Australia and New Zealand, said the United Nations’ own practices in administering justice should reflect its values in promoting respect for individual rights and the rule of law. It should continue to be independent, transparent and professional. He welcomed General Assembly resolution 68/24, which recognized the need to ensure that all individuals acting as legal representatives, whether staff members representing other staff members or themselves, or external counsel representing staff members, were subject to the same standards of professional conduct in the United Nations system. As the number of self-represented staff members had continued to rise in 2013, the need for a single code of conduct was amplified.
Expressing support for the principle that all parties in a dispute should be equal, he recommended that the Secretary-General consider the feasibility of extending the proposed code of conduct to cover all counsel, rather than limiting it to external representatives. Acknowledging the role of the Office of Staff Legal Assistance in the internal justice system, he said an effective and efficient way for staff to contribute to funding the Office was needed. Thus, he welcomed the introduction in April of this year of an automatic payroll deduction with an opt-out provision. He also encouraged efforts to enable settlement of disputes through informal means, which could avoid unnecessary litigation and its associated costs and resources.
GEORGINA GUILLEN-GRILLO (Costa Rica), speaking for CELAC, stressed that the Community would continue to support all measures enabling the Organization to become a better employer. Recalling the important role of the Committee in making the administration of justice fully operational, she said that the proposal to conduct independent interim evaluation on all aspects of the justice system was of great importance. The plan addressing the mechanism for additional voluntary funding for staff legal assistance should be complementary, and take into account the views of stakeholders. Noting the substantive volume of the United Nations Dispute Tribunal and Appeals Tribunal’s work, she said CELAC was ready to explore new ways to improve their working methods.
On the work of the Office of United Nations Ombudsman and Mediation Services, she emphasized that the informal resolution of conflict was a crucial element in the administration of justice. Incentives must be implemented to encourage more recourse to informal resolution. That office should not only reflect the responsibility for oversight, but also continue with necessary support to reinforce due process within the Organization, and ensure transparency and accountability by holding managers responsible for their actions. The Sixth Committee must continue to coordinate and cooperate closely with the Fifth Committee, to ensure an appropriate division of labour and avoid an overlapping or encroachment of mandates.
GILLES MARHIC, Delegation of the European Union, said that the processing of cases through all phases of both the formal and informal systems of justice at the United Nations had improved markedly, although some challenges remained. In light of the revised proposal for an assessment of the system, 2015 would be important. The view of the Internal Justice Council and the independent review panel in charge of the system’s assessment would be well-placed to consider the issues at stake, and recommend to the General Assembly whether changes to the statutes of the Tribunals were needed. He expressed support for efforts by the Office of the Ombudsman and Mediation Services to advance and encourage use of the informal conflict resolution, and praised the Management Evaluation Unit’s systematic efforts to identify requests, with the potential for settlement through the informal system.
Pointing out that the number of new cases in the Dispute Tribunal seemed to be stabilizing and that progress was being made in disposing of them effectively, he expressed concern, however, at the number of decisions and judgments that were being appealed to the Appeals Tribunal with markedly different success rates. As well, the Tribunals had not yet amended their rules of procedure to provide that judgements imposing financial obligations on the Organization were not executable until the deadline for appeal had expired, or the appeal had been concluded. The interim assessment could also evaluate the impact of case law on the work of the Organization’s managers. Consideration should also be given to the scope of the code of conduct, which could also apply to in-house counsel. Caution should be taken towards proposals to amend the Statute. All possible systemic consequences should be explored. On the issue of legal protection of non-staff personnel, he favoured a differentiated system that provided an adequate, effective and appropriate remedy.
ANA CRISTINA RODRIGUEZ PINEDA (Guatemala), associating herself with CELAC, said that while achievements had been significant, a lot remained to be done to achieve a system that met the expectations of all sides. The informal system of dispute settlement should be used as much as possible to avoid unnecessary judicial proceedings. She commended the Ombudsman and Mediation Services for their efforts in encouraging staff to use the informal system. The interaction between the formal and informal systems should continue to be examined, given the low number of cases submitted by the Tribunals to the Office of the Ombudsman. The Secretariat should continue to disseminate information on the system, so that staff could be informed of its benefits. The recently launched modern and updated search engine would facilitate access to the Tribunal’s jurisprudence. Regarding the request to extend to the end of 2015 the posts of three ad litem judges and their support staff, given the volume of their work, permanent judges must be considered, rather than having part-time or ad litem judges. In regards to the Committee’s substantive contributions on legal aspects in the administration of justice, she had identified the draft amendment of article 3 on the Statutes of the Appeals Tribunal and the prerogatives and immunities of judges, among others, as possible topics for the current session.
MAXIM V. MUSIKHIN (Russian Federation) expressed satisfaction with the number of cases handled by the Office of the Ombudsman and Mediation Services, which demonstrated their effectiveness. It was difficult to overestimate the usefulness of pre-trial methods to resolve conflicts, which helped to avoid litigation. In most cases, the parties could come to an agreement. In that context, he said the Office of the Ombudsman should step up its efforts to inform staff of the non-judicial means available for the resolution of conflicts.
DAMARIS CARNAL (Switzerland) made recommendations for elements to be included in the letter of the Sixth Committee (Legal) to the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) on the administration of justice at the United Nations. It was important to ensure the independence of the Dispute and Appeals Tribunals. An adequate solution must be found for non-staff personnel, regardless of the type of contract they had concluded with the Organization. He welcomed the revised proposal for conducting an interim independent assessment of the system of administration of justice. However, the proposal did not set out the qualifications for the panel members who would conduct that assessment. He recommended that it include legal experts conversant with internal labour dispute mechanisms. He further expressed support for the proposal to amend the Statutes of the Dispute and Appeals Tribunals, with a view to clearly specifying the privileges and immunities enjoyed by the judges of both. Finally, on the proposed code of conduct for external representatives, he subscribed to the Internal Justice Council’s view that there should be one code of conduct for internal and external representatives.
T. SUKA MANGISI (Tonga) emphasized the importance of judicial independence in the administration of justice at the United Nations, to which all staff members should have access. He expressed support for the proposed code of professional conduct for external legal representatives contained in the Secretary-General’s report. Recognizing the importance of addressing the accountability of individuals whose violations had led to financial loss, he also expressed support for the mechanism for addressing potential complaints under the code of conduct for the judges in the United Nations Dispute and Appeals Tribunals. Regarding the under-resourcing of the Office of Staff Legal Assistance, and the voluntary funding mechanism which he was in support of, he said that he was waiting for the final report on the system’s implementation. The Secretary-General’s revised proposal for an independent assessment of the system for administrative justice was welcomed, as well as an upgraded, streamlined search engine to access jurisprudence and past cases.
STEPHEN TOWNLEY (United States) expressed concern at the Dispute Tribunal’s practice in recent years of ordering suspensions of action after completion of the management evaluation in cases where such suspensions were not authorized by article 10 of its Statute. There was also concern that the Tribunals might be awarding moral damages in some cases where it appeared the claimant had not suffered harm. He pointed out that the Appeals Tribunal’s recent decision stated that the Dispute Tribunal had “`acted unlawfully’” by ordering suspension of action in a case involving non-renewal of appointment. He voiced hope that that decision would put the matter to rest. He also voiced concern that for damages to be moral, as opposed to exemplary, there must be a finding of harm. However, the jurisprudence of the Tribunals did not draw that clear line. On other matters, he supported the amendment to the Statute of the Appeals Tribunal relating to qualifications of judges, saying that such an amendment might be considered for the Dispute Tribunal as well. He also sought clarification on what the proposed code of professional conduct for external legal representatives was meant to address, and expressed support for the protection of whistleblowers.