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