For Impunity on Haiti Cholera, UN Wants It Both Ways, Public and Private, Won't Answer Questions of Inner City Press

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 way, 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: 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: 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.

On UN Cholera, Lawsuits Eyed in Haiti, US & Europe, Victims' Lawyer Tells Inner City Press

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.