UNGA/C-6: UNGA'S SIXTH (LEGAL) COMMITTEE DISCUSSES

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 001061 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: UNGA SUBJECT: UNGA/C-6: UNGA'S SIXTH (LEGAL) COMMITTEE DISCUSSES CRIMINAL ACCOUNTABILITY REF: 07 USUNNEWYORK 900 ¶1. SUMMARY: The 63rd UNGA Sixth committee held its debate on agenda item 73, "Criminal Accountability of United Nations Officials and Experts on Mission," on October 10. Many delegations supported the UN zero tolerance policy with respect to serious crimes committed by its officials and experts on mission, saying that impunity cannot be permitted. Some countries asked whether the United Nations should create an international mechanism to cover gaps in jurisdiction. Many speakers argued that military and peacekeeping personnel should be included in the scope of criminal accountability agreements under the definitions of officials and experts on mission. Several members praised current efforts to train UN personnel on standards of conduct and urged Member States and the United Nations to increase such programs. Paragraph 5 lists the countries that spoke. END SUMMARY. ELIMINATING GAPS IN JURISDICTION -------------- ¶2. Many speakers supported the UN zero tolerance policy for criminal acts, saying these crimes violate trust and damage the reputation of the United Nations. CANZ, India, and Indonesia encouraged Member States to establish jurisdiction over nationals who are participating in UN operations, as proposed in A/RES/62/63. CANZ added that Member States must ensure that jurisdictional gaps do not lead to impunity. Although many countries participated in the process that contributed to the Secretariat's report on Criminal Accountability (A/63/260),delegates agreed that this information was not exhaustive. Egypt and others called for gaps in the current system of criminal accountability to be identified. The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) noted that while many countries have listed their legal provisions for trying this type of case, in practice, impunity prevails and then the host country has no recourse. ¶3. Several delegates called for the creation of an international mechanism to enhance cooperation between States and between States and the United Nations regarding investigations and legal proceedings. Many non-aligned movement (NAM) members pointed out that existing bilateral agreements are not a substitute for institutional cooperation within the United Nations. Kenya, speaking for the African Group, affirmed that it is not aware of any situations where there was a lack of cooperation, so as to require a consideration of the issue. The EU, several of its members, and the Caribbean Community spoke in support of the elaboration of a convention. However, Russia and several NAM members said that since many think the time is wrong for a convention, Member States at a minimum need short-term measures to resolve any gaps in the current legal framework. DEFINING AND TRAINING EXPERTS -------------- ¶4. Egypt argued that Member States need to clearly define "experts on mission." Delegates disagreed on whether to include military experts under the current definition. Several NAM countries said that military and police observers should have special consideration and that they should not be included under "experts on mission." Most delegations affirmed programs and policies that train UN personnel in standards of conduct before they departed for their posts. Several called for sending governments and the United Nations (where appropriate) to increase such training programs. LIST OF SPEAKERS -------------- 5 The following delegations gave interventions: Mexico (on behalf of the Rio Group),Australia (on behalf of CANZ),Cuba (on behalf of NAM),France (on behalf of EU),Kenya (on behalf of the African Group),Trinidad and Tobago (on behalf of CARICOM),Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Sudan, Nigeria, Uruguay, Algeria, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Tunisia, Guatemala, Indonesia, China, Israel, Egypt, Iran, India, Malaysia, Russia, Norway, Venezuela, Canada, and the United States. Khalilzad