Concluding Criminal Accountability Debate, Sixth Committee Speakers Say Improved Collaboration between UN, National Jurisdictions Could Address Legal Loopholes
Delegations Also Tackle UN Administration of Justice, Scope, Application of Universal Jurisdiction Principle
During an all-day meeting that tackled a wide range of topics, the Sixth Committee concluded its consideration on the topic of criminal accountability of United Nations officials and experts on mission, with delegates highlighting the importance of improving cooperation between the UN and national jurisdictions to address legal loopholes and avoid any perception of favouritism or negligence.
The United Nations “must embody the values of integrity and inspire trust”, stressed Cameroon’s representative, noting that privileges and immunities do not exempt UN personnel from respecting national law or excuse them from prosecution. Verification procedures must be strengthened to check criminal records of candidates during recruitment, he said, adding that Cameroon’s legislation extends the jurisdiction of its authority to crimes committed by its nationals abroad.
Similarly, Ethiopia’s representative noted that his country adheres to a zero-tolerance policy for misconduct — including when its own nationals are involved — and domestic criminal law provides for jurisdiction over its nationals regardless of their location. He expressed concern that crimes committed by some UN personnel on mission have continued to negatively impact executing the Organization’s mandate and “tarnish the sacrifices and relentless efforts of most of its employees in peacekeeping activities”. He, thus, urged all States to exercise jurisdiction over crimes committed by their nationals who enjoy immunity.
Adding to that, Colombia’s delegate observed that while most officials and experts discharge their duties with dedication and integrity, Member States must remain vigilant for any event that could affect the UN’s credibility. Encouraging UN bodies to ensure consistency and coordination in policies and procedures relating to alleged crimes, she emphasized: “Member States must also do our share.” It would be useful if the Secretariat studied mechanisms to offer continuous training to investigative and judicial authorities on the legal regime applicable to UN officials and experts on mission, she added.
“United Nations officials and expert of mission represent the image of the UN,” stressed China’s representative, noting that the Organization should combine preventive and punitive measures, strengthen training and identify root-causes of fraud cases on missions. Further, contributing countries and host countries should cooperate in extradition and mutual legal assistance and follow up on the progress in a timely manner. He also recalled that since 2007 the UN referred 367 alleged crimes to Member States, out of which only 42 cases investigations were initiated, and losses were recovered in only 2 cases.
However, the Russian Federation’s representative observed that “the number of cases noted hardly allows us to talk about an epidemic of crime at the UN what would require any measures to be taken”. She pointed out that the offences committed by UN officials are economic in nature. Noting that the current set of preventive measures is sufficient to address the problems in this area, she emphasized that the UN should strengthen cooperation with the States of citizenship of international civil servants.
On that, Costa Rica’s delegate said that the UN should collaborate with host countries to ensure that they have the necessary tools, training and legal frameworks in place to hold individuals accountable. Stressing that “immunity should not be a shield for impunity”, she called for improved transparency and reporting mechanisms. Echoing that stance, Indonesia’s representative commended the Secretary-General’s efforts to harmonize policies across the UN system to improve accountability and investigation. Nonetheless, Member States have the primary responsibility to adopt preventive measures, including through vetting, enhanced pre-deployment and in-mission training about UN conduct standards.
Building on that, the United Kingdom’s delegate said that, over the past year, his country has been developing a common approach regarding protection from sexual exploitation, abuse and harassment. The United Kingdom also delivers training to police officers in UN and African Union peacekeeping missions and supports the International Criminal Police Organization’s (INTERPOL) project “Soteria” to maintain and manage criminal records. “We want to see a United Nations that demonstrates zero tolerance to inaction on sexual exploitation and abuse,” he declared.
The Committee then turned to the topic of the administration of justice at the United Nations, with the representative of Australia — also speaking for Canada and New Zealand — stating that to attract top talent, the UN must be a safe and inclusive workplace. Underscoring the importance of a transparent and adequately resourced system for the administration of justice, he commended the increase in judicial and registry capacity in all the UN working languages, permitting pronouncements in Arabic and French.
Recognizing UN’s “significant progress” towards reinforcement of its administration of justice system, Mozambique’s representative said that the growing number of cases presented to the Office of the United Nations Ombudsman and Mediation Services — also from non-staff personnel — is a “signal of trust and confidence in the body”. For his part, Switzerland’s representative observed that the ability to report misconduct without fear of retaliation is essential to fostering a culture of integrity, transparency and accountability within the Organization. “This policy is the cornerstone of a well-functioning system of administration of justice,” he stated.
The Sixth Committee also took up the topic on the scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction, with the representative of Uganda, speaking for the African Group, recalling that the Group introduced this topic in 2009. The Sixth Committee, he stressed, “can and must take steps to address the inclination of non-African States to apply the principle of universal jurisdiction on Africans outside of the multilateral processes without the consent of African States and outside the safeguards of cooperation within the international system”.
He pointed to evidence showing use of the principle in Africa with the consent and cooperation of concerned African States and in line with the commitment of African States to end impunity for atrocity crimes. Consent and cooperation, when regulated within the multilateral system, can limit the abuse and misuse of universal jurisdiction, he observed, noting that agreed norms must be established for the scope and application of the principle.
Cuba’s representative stressed that the General Assembly should regulate or create international guidelines to avoid the improper use of the principle. “Universal jurisdiction cannot be used to diminish the integrity and values of different legal systems,” nor can it be used selectively with political purposes, she said, expressing concern over the improper use of the principle by courts from some countries against physical and legal persons from others. The application of universal jurisdiction should be based on sovereign equality, political independence and non-interference in the internal affairs of States.
Iraq’s delegate said that, while Member States must respect the principles of international law — “namely the sovereignty of States and non-interference in their internal affairs” — there are some courts that have exercised the principle of universal jurisdiction “in a very commendable way”, including the International Court of Justice and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Nevertheless, the exercise of universal jurisdiction should complement efforts taken at the national level, and he encouraged cooperation in matters of extradition. “In doing so, we will prevent perpetrators from reaching territories where they could escape justice,” he said.
Lithuania’s representative, also speaking for Estonia and Latvia, observed that universal jurisdiction is rooted in the peremptory norms of international law and should be used to combat impunity and prevent future international crimes. He noted that the principle can also fill in the gaps “left by those unwilling to prosecute or to support those unable to do so”; it can offer multiple ways to contribute to international justice by securing evidence, exchanging information and pooling expertise. “When properly implemented, it can also serve as a strong deterrent against the commission of international crimes,” he said, urging States to adopt national legislation that enables the effective exercise of this principle.
Given its history with the 1994 genocide, Rwanda’s delegate said that his country is interested in the fair application of the principle. “Universal jurisdiction was meant to address impunity, yet we see instances where it has been selectively applied to target political adversaries or infringe on State sovereignty, damaging international relations,” he noted. More so, many genocide fugitives reside in countries that fail to act against them. To prevent misuse of the principle, he suggested fostering international cooperation, monitoring and reporting misuse and encouraging extradition and prosecution.
“German prosecutors are currently conducting over 100 investigations into international crimes,” reported that country’s representative, as he detailed the scope and application of universal jurisdiction in Germany. The Federal Court of Justice confirmed the conviction of a former senior Syrian officer in March, which “brought the first case on State-operated torture in Syria worldwide to an end”. He also reported that a regional court in Celle rendered a judgement in November 2023 — “the first of its kind worldwide” — when it sentenced a former soldier from the Gambia to life imprisonment for murder in conjunction with crimes against humanity. “The message is clear,” he stated: “Those who commit atrocities cannot feel safe — they will eventually be held accountable.”
However, Syria’s delegate, exercising his right of reply, questioned if certain States are “truly committed” to the application of universal jurisdiction, and said that several statements by Western delegations on the principle of universal jurisdiction contained “examples of contradictory and political practices in a provocative manner”.
In other business, the Sixth Committee turned to two requests for Observer Status in the work of the General Assembly, including a request from the Regional Anti-Corruption Initiative. Introducing the draft resolution, Romania’s representative said that this intergovernmental organization — composed of nine Member States — operates in South-Eastern Europe and aims to lead regional cooperation to support anti-corruption efforts by providing a common platform for sharing knowledge and exchanging best practices.
The Committee also considered an Observer request for the International Coffee Organization. Introducing the relevant text, the representative of Brazil noted that, as the only intergovernmental organization dedicated to coffee — established in 1963 under the aegis of the UN — it brings together the Governments of exporting and importing countries responsible for 93 per cent of world coffee production and 63 per cent of world consumption. “At the United Nations, it is a fixture, a reliable companion and a savory elixir for overcoming stumbling blocks in negotiations,” he observed, adding: “How many deals were closed over coffee at the Delegates Lounge?”