For
Impunity on
Haiti Cholera,
UN
Wants It Both
Ways, Public
and Private
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
February 22 –
The day after
the UN dismissed
the Haiti
cholera claim
it had left
pending for 15
months,
Inner City
Press
asked
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon's
spokesman
Martin Nesirky
more
questions
about the
basis of the
dismissal. Video
here, from
Minute 11:40.
While
the UN's
argument is
that the claim
is not a
dispute of a
private law
character,
Nesirky again
told Inner
City Press
that “it’s not
the
UN’s practice
to discuss in
public the
details of and
the response
to claims
filed against
the
Organization.”
So
is it public
or private?
The UN wants
it both ways,
to escape all
liability for
its
negligence.
Additionally,
UN
Peacekeeping
chief
Herve Ladsous
when asked by
Inner City
Press what
safeguards if
any
he has
implemented to
avoid
spreading
cholera or
other diseases
first
refused
to answer at
all.
Then after
protest by the
Free
UN Coalition
for Access,
Ladsous
on February 6
and since
evaded the
question.
Here's
from the UN's
February 22
noon briefing
transcript:
Inner
City Press:
yesterday, you
said that the
Haiti cholera
claim was not
receivable
under Section
29 of the
Convention on
the Privileges
and
Immunities.
So, I went and
looked it up,
and it seems
to say the UN
shall make
provisions for
appropriate
modes of
settlement of
disputes
arising out of
contracts or
disputes
involving
officials of
the UN
who enjoy
immunity if
immunity is
not waived by
the
[Secretary-General].
So, it wasn’t
clear to me
how this
Section 29
actually
applies to not
receiving a
complaint. And
separately,
one
of the lawyers
of the
complainants,
Beatrice
Lindstrom,
told me that
they have
received no
communications
or inquiries
of any kind
since
December 2011.
So, they have
some doubt
about what
took so long
to
end up just
saying we are
dismissing
your claim.
Can you
explain
those two
things?
Spokesperson
Nesirky: Well,
maybe just to
deal with the
second
question
first, if I
may. I did
answer that
yesterday.
Simply put,
this was
something that
needed to be
looked at very
carefully, and
it was. The
second
question, from
me, the first
one from you,
when a private
claim is
filed against
the United
Nations, the
Organization
determines as
a
threshold
matter whether
the claim in
question falls
properly
within
the scope of
Section 29 of
the Convention
on the
Privileges and
Immunities of
the United
Nations.
Claims found
to be outside
the
scope of
Section 29 of
the Convention
are not
receivable.
And the
consequence of
a finding that
a claim is not
receivable is
that the
claim will not
receive
further
consideration
by the
Organization.
Inner
City Press:
Just one
follow-up, I
really
appreciate it,
I’d rather ask
this
now than in a
future
briefing. It
seems to say
that Section
29
applies to
disputes
arising out of
contract or
other disputes
of a
private law
character, and
the allegation
is that the UN
introduced
cholera
inadvertently
and caused
this harm,
that seems to
to be of a
private law
character. So
is it possible
to get from
[Office of
Legal
Affairs],
because it’s a
matter of
worldwide
concern, the
UN
invoking
immunity in
this matter.
Why is this
not a dispute
of a
private law
character?
Spokesperson
Nesirky: Well,
I would refer
you back to
what I just
said, firstly.
And
secondly,
simply to
reiterate what
I said
yesterday that
I am not in
a position to
provide you
with any
further
details. It’s
not the
UN’s practice
to discuss in
public the
details of and
the response
to claims
filed against
the
Organization.
So
is it public
or private?
What it is, is
shameful.
Watch this
site.
, 
