On
UN Cholera,
Lawsuits Eyed
in Haiti, US
& Europe,
Victims'
Lawyer Tells
ICP
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
February 21 –
After UN
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon's
spokesman
announced
Thursday that
the claim
the UN
introduced
cholera
into Haiti was
“not
receivable,”
Inner City
Press asked
him and
then one of
the claimants'
lawyers
questions
about the
ruling. Video
here from
Minute 10.
Beatrice
Lindstrom
of the
Institute for
Justice and
Democracy in
Haiti, which
filed the
claim in
November 2011,
told Inner
City Press
that “it's
disgraceful
that the UN
has taken 15
months to find
it not
receivable.”
She
said, “this
does not mark
the end... We
will proceed.
We are
preparing a
domestic
lawsuit and
we'll file.”
Inner
City Press
asked, in
Haiti?
Lindstrom
said,
“In Haiti, in
the United
States and in
Europe.”
What
would the
legal theory
be for filing
in Europe,
Inner City
Press
asked.
There's
“a
lot of
jurisprudence
there
protecting
victims'
rights to a
remedy... The
UN is not
prepared to
provide,”
Lindstrom told
Inner
City Press.
“Several
courts say
this does not
comport with
human
rights law and
set aside
immunity.”
Inner
City Press
asked if IJDH
had any notice
or inkling
that the UN
would
announce its
dismissal
today, after
15 months.
No,
Lindstrom
said, “We did
not know it
was
forthcoming,
there's been
no
communication
from the UN
since in
December 2011
when they
acknowledged
receipt.”
Inner
City Press
asked if the
UN mission,
MINUSTAH, ever
set up the
Standing
Claims
Committee
specified in
its Status of
Forces
Agreement
with Haiti.
Lindstrom
said,
“they
committed in
the Status of
Forces
Agreement but
never
did it in
practice to
our know or
anywhere in
world where
there is a
peacekeeping
operation.”
Again
Inner City
Press asked
about the
legal theory
to sue in
Europe, for
the UN
bringing
cholera to
Haiti and
killing some
7000 Haitians.
Lindstrom
said,
"we're working
with victims
from all over
the world,
that's one
way to get
jurisdiction...
There's also
jurisdiction
on a legal
level,
over the UN in
light of its
immunity... if
the
Organization
is trying
to defend
based on
immunity, it
can be enough
to get the
case kicked
up” for review
of if it's
legal “for the
domestic court
to uphold
immunity.”
With
Ban Ki-moon's
top lawyer
Patricia
O'Brien, who
refused
requests from
Inner City
Press and then
the Free UN
Coalition for
Access to take
question on
cholera in
Haiti, about
to leave to
represent
Ireland at
the UN in
Geneva, and
Ban heading
out on a trip,
they may think
it's
over.
But it does
not sound like
it's over.
Watch this
site.
Forward-looking
footnote:
Inner
City Press has
also asked the
head of UN
Peacekeeping
Herve Ladsous
what
safeguards if
any he's
implemented to
avoid
spreading
cholera
elsewhere.
Ladsous
refused to
answer,
then after FUNCA protested, on
February 6
purported to
answer
Inner City
Press on
cholera - with
no reference
to safeguards.
This continued,
this week, in
the UN Special
Committee on
Peacekeeping.
Could Ladsous'
defiance
trigger or
require
litigation and
a restraining
order? Watch
this site.
From
the February
21, 2013 UN
noon briefing
transcript:
Inner
City Press: I
want to ask
you a question
about the
Haiti
announcement
you made, when
you say it is
not
receivable,
what is the
legal
argument? Was
a Standing
Claims
Commission, as
required by
the
status-of-forces
agreement,
established?
It makes it
sound like it
is a legal
determination,
but is there
going to be
some kind of a
memo? What’s
the basis?
What took so
long, and “not
receivable”
in what way?
It was
received. Is
it basically a
claim of
immunity
by the UN? Can
you say more
about what
this “not
receivable”
means?
Spokesperson
Martin
Nesirky: Well,
I am not in a
position to
provide you
with any
details. It’s
not the United
Nations
practice to
discuss in
public
the details of
and the
response to
claims filed
against the
Organization.
Let me also
say I can
confirm that
we have
informed
counsel for
the claimants
that the
claims are not
receivable.
Consideration
of the claims
would
necessarily
involve a
review of
political and
policy
matters.
Accordingly,
the claims are
not
receivable,
pursuant to
Section 29 of
the Convention
on the
Privileges and
Immunities of
the United
Nations, which
was adopted by
the General
Assembly on 13
February 1946.
Just to answer
your
question about
the time
taken: we gave
serious
consideration
to the
matter, and
took the time
necessary to
properly
review the
various
claims raised
in all their
aspects.
, 
