FINANCING OF ITY AND ICTR

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 001159

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: AORC AFIN KUNR ICTY ICTR UNGA
SUBJECT: FINANCING OF ITY AND ICTR


1. SUMMARY: The Fifth Committee will begin discussing the
financing of International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia
(ITY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda
(ICTR) on Monday, December 15, 2008. Member States will
consider the First Performance Report for ITY (A/63/559) and
ICTR (A/63/558),the revised estimates arising in respect to
Security Council resolution 1800 (2008) on the appointment of
additional ad litem judges at the ITY, and further discuss
the issue of establishing a possible financial retention
incentive for the Tribunals. END SUMMARY.


2. FIRST PERFORMANCE REPORTS FOR THE ITY (A/63/559) AND
ICTR (A/63/558): These reports reflect the
Secretary-General's (SYG) request for additional
appropriations for the Tribunals. The increased requirements
reflect changes with respect to exchange rates, inflation,
and standard salary costs. For the ICTR, the SYG report
requests the General Assembly (GA) to approve an additional
amount of $7,831,700 gross ($6,948,00 net) to the ICTR
Special Account for the biennium 2008-2009. For the ITY, the
GA is requested to approve an additional appropriation for
the biennium 2008-2009 in the amount of $13,117,900 gross
($11,404,700 net) to the ITY Special Account. The Department
may wish to take into account the observations and
recommendations in the report of the ACABQ, which will be
transmitted when available.


3. SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 1800 (2008): This SC
resolution decided that the SYG may appoint, within existing
resources, additional ad litem judges upon the request of the
ITY President in order to conduct additional trials,
notwithstanding the fact that the total number of ad litem
judges appointed to the Chambers will from time to time
temporarily exceed the maximum of 12 provided for in article
12 (1) of the International Tribunal statute. The SYG's
report on the revised estimates arising in respect of SC
resolution 1800 (2008) (A/62/809) estimates that the
requirements for the appointment of up to four ad litem
judges at any one time over the maximum of 12 would amount to
$374,500. However, the report claims that during this early
stage, the Tribunal is not in a position to determine whether
the additional costs can be met from within the approved
appropriation. The GA may wish to take note of the present
report and request the SYG to submit a report on the
implementation of SC resolution 1800 (2008)
in the context of the second performance report for the
biennium 2008-2009. The ACABQ report on this matter
(A/62/7/Add.38),however, expects the appointment of
additional ad litem judges will indeed be implemented from
within existing resources. Unless otherwise instructed, USUN
will endorse the conclusions of ACABQ on this item.


4. RETENTION INCENTIVE: In its resolution 61/274, the GA
requested the SYG to submit a report on possible measures for
staff retention no later than the first resumed session of
the 62nd UNGA. That report is contained in document A/62/681
and up for discussion during the current 63rd UNGA. The SYG
recommends a combination of monetary and non-monetary
incentives, of which the former is considered the most
effective. The SYG would like the GA to approve a financial
incentive for staff who remain in their posts until their
functions are no longer needed. The SYG report analyzes
three alternative approaches to the calculation of the amount
of a retention incentive.

--Option A: The incentive would apply to eligible staff
having completed at least two years of service with the
Tribunals at the time the incentive is due. The incentive
will be calculated in accordance with the recommended
methodology in A/61/824, which recommended that authorization
be granted to the SYG to apply the termination indemnities
set out under the heading "Permanent appointments" in annex
III to the Staff Regulations and Rules for the specific and
sole purpose of approving payments related to the retention
incentive package for the Tribunal staff. The financial
implications are estimated at $11.2 million for the ICTR and
$12.1 million for the ITY. (paras. 30 to 35 of A/62/681)

--Option B: The retention incentive would apply to eligible
staff having completed at least five years of service with
the Tribunals at the time the incentive is due, with all
other conditions remaining unchanged as in Option A. The
financial implications are estimated at $6.9 million for the
ICTR and $7.2 million for the ITY. (paras. 36 to 38 of
A/62/681)

--Option C: The retention incentive would apply to eligible
staff having completed at least five years of service with
the Tribunals and be capped at an amount to be set for the
GA, either in terms of a fixed number of months of salary or
a fixed incentive payment. The financial implications will
depend on what limits are approved of in the GA. (paras. 39
to 40 of A/62/681)


5. The SYG report recommends that this retention incentive
apply to eligible staff who have completed at least five
years of service with the Tribunals at the time the incentive
is due as outlined in Option B. Moreover, the SYG report
claims that designating this incentive to a limited group of
"key" staffers would be perceived as giving unequal treatment
and could undermine staff morale. The SYG recommends that
the retention incentive be applicable on an as wide a post
coverage basis as possible.


6. The ACABQ report as contained in document A/62/734,
however, recommends a different scheme. Noting that a
retention incentive is not provided for in the existing Staff
Regulations and Rules, the ACABQ recommends that the GA
authorize, on an exceptional basis, the payment of a
retention incentive to staff required to remain with the
Tribunals until their services and posts are no longer
needed, as set out in the drawdown plans of each Tribunal,
targeting staff with a minimum of five years of service in
the Tribunals as outlined in Option C in the SYG report. The
ACABQ also recommends the amount of the incentive be capped
at five months' salary for all staff members, irrespective of
the number of years of service at the Tribunals beyond five
years. This decision should be done on an ad hoc basis and
not on an amendment to the Staff Rules.


7. The International Civil Service Commission (ICSC) 2007
report as contained in A/62/30 advises that (a) special
financial retention incentives for the ICTR and ITY are not
considered appropriate because they are not provided for in
the common system and as such would set a precedent, which
should be avoided; (b) the existing contractual framework
should be used to grant contracts that would remove the
uncertainty with regard to future employment; (c) other
non-monetary incentives should be made available; (d) those
staff from the Tribunals who are offered appointments in
another common system organization should have their
reporting date for the new assignment to coincide with
completion of their work with the Tribunal.


8. Unless otherwise instructed, USDel will continue to
uphold the previously provided US position that the retention
incentive as envisioned by the Tribunals is inappropriate.
USUN would draw from the following points:

--US is concerned with the Tribunals' inability to target the
incentive to those who actually need to be retained through
the completion of the Tribunals' work.

--This retention incentive was not meant to be a universal
bonus, which may perpetuate the problem of grade inflation,
but rather it should be used to ensure that the most critical
staff stay with the Tribunal as it works towards the
completion strategy.

--US notes the ICSC recommendations, which clearly state that
providing a financial incentive is not necessary and such an
incentive is not provided in the common system and would thus
set a precedent.

--US does not support the proposition that all or the
majority of current staff are crucial and need to be given a
retention bonus to retain their services.
Khalilzad