COURINTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE
MEMOIRES,PLAIDOIRIESET DOCUMENTS
APPLICABILITE
DE LA SECTION 22 DE L'ARTICLE VI
".. ,.
DE LA CONVENTION SUR LES PRIVILÈGES
ET IMMUNITÉS DES NATIONS UNIES
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
PLEADINGS, ORAL ARGUMENTS, DOCUMENTS .
APPLICABILITY 01; ARTICLE VI, SECTION 22,
OF THE CONVENTION ON THE PRIVILEGES
AND IMMUNlTIES OF THE
UNITED NATIONS Référencaebrégé :e
C.I.J. Mémoires,Applicabililéde lu sectio22 de l'article VI
de la convention surlesprivilPges et immunitésdes Nations Unies
Abbreviated referenc:e
1.C.J. Pleadings, .4pplicability of Arficle VI, Section 22, of the
Convention on the Privileges and Imrnunifiesof thUnite Ndotions
No de vente:
ISSN 0074-4433 Salesnumber
ISBN 92-1-070687-0
i APPLlCABlLlTE DE LA SECTION 22DE L'ARTICLEVI
DE LA CONVENTIONSUR LES PRIVILÈGES ET IMMUNITES
DES NATIONSUNIES
APPLlCABlLlTY OF ARTICLEVI, SECTION22. OF THE
CONVENTIONON THE PRlVlLEGESAND IMMUNlTlES
OF THE UNITED NATIONS COUR INTERNATIODE JUSTICE
MÉMOIRES.PLAIDOIRIESET DOCUMENTS
APPLICABILITÉ
DE LA SECTION22 DE L'ARTICLEVI
DE LA CONVENTIONSUR LES PRIVILÈGES
ET IMMUNITÉSDES NATIONS UNIES
INTERNATIONAL COUJUSTICE
PLEADINGS. ORAL ARGUMENTS, DOCUMENTS
APPLICABILITYOF ARTICLE VI, SECTION22,
OF THE CONVENTION ON THEPRIVILEGES
AND IMMUNITIESOF THE
UNITED NATIONS L'affaire de I'Aoolicabiliréde la section22 de I'arricle VIde la convention sur
I~sprivrlPgeset im;hunites desh'ations Unies. inscrite au r6le générad l e la Cour
s<iu\le numero 81, a fait l'objet d'un avisconsuliatif rendu le 15décembre1989
~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ild de la section 22 de I'arricle VI de la convention sur lesorivil2-es
et imrnunirésdes Nations Unies, C.I.J. Recueil 1989, p. 177).
Le présentvolume reproduit la requêtepour avisconsultatif, lesdocuments.
les exposesécritset oraux et la correspondancerelatifs a cette affaire.
La Haye, 1992.
The caseconcerning Applicabiliry of Arricle VI, Section 22, of rhe Conven-
tion on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations was entered as
No. 81 in the Court's GeneralList and wasthe subjectof an Advisory Opinion
delivered on 15December1989(Applicability of Article VI, Section 22, of the
Convention on rhe Privileges and Immunities of the Unired Nations, I.C.J.
Reoorts 1989. D. 177).
~he present-volume reproduces the Request for advisory opinion, the
documents. the written and oral statements andthe correspondencein the case.
The Hague, 1992.REQUÊTE POUR AVIS CONSULTATIF
REQUESTFOR ADVISORYOPINION THE SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE UNITED NATIONS
TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL
COURT OF JUSTICE
1 June 1989.
1have the honour 10inform you that pursuant to ARicle 96, paragraph 2, of
the Charter of the United Nations, the Economic and Social Council at iis six-
teenih meetingheld on 24May 1989adooted resolution 1989/75entitled *Siatus
of special rapporteurs" requeiting an advisory opinion on a priority basis from
the Internaiional Court of Justice on "ihe legal quesiion of the applicability of
Article VI. Seciion 22. of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of
the United Naiions" of 13February 1946"in ihe case of Mr. Dumitru Mazilu
as Special Rapporteur of the Sub-Commission" on Preveniion of Discrimina-
tion and Protection of Minorities. A certified coov of the resolut-o~ in Enclish
and French is enclosed (Annex 1.A and B). ~hc'iords "on a prioriiy basis" in
opcrative paragraph 2 wcreproposed by the United States and wcrcadovted by
a recorded vote of 17in favou; and 9 a~ainst. with 22 abstentions i~nnex Ili.
The resolutionasa whole, asamended,was adopted by a recordedvote of 24
in favour and 8 against, with 19 abstentions (Annex III).
1also have the honour to inform you thatmaterials for submission to the
Court are being prepared pursuant to Article 65of the Statute and will be sub-
mitted to the Court as soon as possible.
(Signed)Javier PÉREZDE CU~LLAR. REQUEST FOR ADVISOR YPlNtON
Annex 1
A
1989/75. STANS OF SPECW RAPPORTEURS
The Economic and Social Council,
Having considered resolution 1988/37 of I September 1988 of the Sub-
Commission on Prcvcntion of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities and
Commirsion on Human Rights rnolution 1989/37 of 6 March 1989,
1. Concludes that a difference has arisen between the United Nations and the
Government of Romania as to the applicability of the Convention on the
Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations' to MI. Dumitru Mazilu as
Special Rapporteur of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination
and Protection of Minorities;
2. Requests, on a priority basis, pnrsuant to Article 96, paragraph 2, of the
Charter of the United Nations and in accordance with General Assemblyolu-
lion 89 (1) of II December 1946, an advisory opinion from the International
Court of Justice on thelegal question of the applicability of Article VI, Sec-
tion 22, of the Convention on the Privileges and lmmunities of the United
Nations in the case of Mr. Dumitru Mazilu as Special Rapporteur of the
Sub-Commission.
CERTIFED TRUE COPY.
New York, N.Y. I June 1989.
(Signed) Carl-August FLEISCHHAUER,
The Legal Counsel.
' OeneralAssemblyresolutio22A (1). Annexe 1
B
1989/75. STATUT DES RAPPORTEURS SPECIAUX
Le Conseil économiqueet social,
Ayanl examine' la résolution 1988/37 de la Sous-Commission de la lutte
contre les mesures discriminatoires et de la protection des minorités,en date du
septembre 1988, et la résolution 1989/37 de la Commission des droits de
l'homme, en date du 6 mars 1989,
1. Conclut qu'une divergence de vues s'est élevée entre l'organisation des
Nations Unies et le Gouvernement roumain auant à I'applicabilité de la
convention sur les privileges et immunités des Nations uniesb au cas de
M. Dumitru Mazilu. en sa qualitéde rapporteur spécialde la Sous-Commission
de la lutte contre les mesures discriminatoires et de la ~rotection des minorités;
2. Drnrandr Atitre prioriraiiela Cdur in[crnatiunale de Jusrice. ensppliza-
rion du paragraphe 2 de l'article 96de la Charte des Nations Unies et coniormé-
ment à la resoluiton 89 (11de l'Assembléeetnerale. en date du 1I décembre
1946, un avis consultatif's"r la question jurydique de I'applicabilitéde la sec-
tion 22 de l'article VI de la convention sur les privilkges et immunités des
Nations Unies au cas de M. Dumitni Mazilu en sa qualité derapporteur spécial
de la Sous-Commission.
coprE CERTIFIEE CONFORME.
New York, le le'juin 1989
(Signé) Carl-August FLEISCHHAUER,
le conseiller juridique.
' Résolution22 A (1)de l'Assemblégénérale. REQUEST FOR ADVlSORY OPINION
Annex II
The Economic and Social Council decided to include the woids "on a priority
basis" in ooerative.oar-.raoh 2 of a draft reauestine the International Court's
advisory opinion on the status of rnpportcu;~ (drnh resolution II. document
E/1989/88). bya recorded vote of 17in favour to 9againsi. with 22abstentions,
as follows:
In favour: Canada. Denmark. France. Germanv. Federal Reoublic of.
~rceic. Ireland. Italy, Japnn. Kenya. ~ethcrlands,'~ew naland: Norway,
Portugal, United Kingdom of Grcat Briiain and Northem Ircland. Unitcd
~tates~ofAmerica, uÏuguay, Venezuela.
Againsl: Bulgaria. Cuba, Czechoslovakia. Iran (Islamic Republic of),
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Nicaragua, Poland, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist
Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Repnblics.
Abslaining: Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Cameroon, China, Colombia,
Ghana. Guinea, Indonesia, Iraq, Jordan, Lesotho, Liberia. Niger, Oman,
Rwanda, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tunisia, Yugoslavia, Zaire, Zambia.
Absenr: Bahamas, India, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Thailand, Trinidad
and Tobago.
Annex III
VOTE ON STATUS OF SPECW RAPPORTEURS
The Economic and Social Council adopted, as orally amended, a resolution
on the status of specialrapporteurs(draft resolution III. document E/1989/88),
by a recorded vote of 24in favour to 8 against, with 19abstentions, as follows:
In favour: Bahamas, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada. Colombia, Den-
mark, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Greece, Ireland, Italy,
Japan. Kenya, Netberlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Trinidad
and Tobago, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
United States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia,
Againsl: Bulgaria, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Iran (Islamic Republic of),
Libyan Arab lamahiriya, Poland, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic,
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
Abstaining: Cameroon, China, Ghana, Guinea, Indonesia, Iraq, Jor-
dan, Lesotho, Liberia, Nicaragua, Niger, Oman, Rwanda, Sri Lanka,
Sudan, Thailand, Tunisia, Zaire, Zambia.
Absent: India, Saudi Arabia, Somalia. REQUBTE POUR AVIS CONSULTATIF
Annexe II
VOTE SUR L'AMENDEMENT DU TEXTE RELATm AU STATUT DE RAPPORTEUR SPkCW
Le Conseil economique et social a décidéd'inclure les mots«A titre priori-
taire)) dans l. Da-.nraDhe2 d'un ..oiet .ui demande l'avis consultatif de la
Cour internaiionale sur le statut des rapporteurs (projet de resolution II publie
dans ledocument E/1989/88). et ce par un voteenregistre. par 17voixcontre 9.
avec 22 abstentions, se répartissantcomme suit:
Ont voté Dour: Allemag-e (R..ubliaue fédérale d').Canada. Dane-
mark, Eiats:~nis d'Amérique. rance Cr;ece, lrlande. Italie. ~a~on,
Kenya, Norvège.Nouvelle-Zélande, Pays-Bas.Portugal. Royaume-Uni de
Grande-Bretagne et rl'lrlande du Nord, Uruguay. Venezuela.
Ont votécontre: Bulgarie, Cuba, lran (Républiqueislamique d'), Jama-
hiriya arabe libyenne, Nicaragua. Pologne, République socialiste sovié-
tique d'Ukraine. Tchécoslovaquie,Union des Républiques socialistessovik-
tiques.
Se sont abstenus: Belize. Bolivie. Brésil.Cameroun. Chine. Colombie.
Ghana, Guinde, Indonésie,iraq. or da n ieesotho, ~ibéria.~i~er,0man;
Rwanda, Soudan, Sri Lanka, Tunisie, Yougoslavie, Zaire, Zambie.
Absents: Arabie saoudite, Bahamas, Inde, Somalie, Thaïlande, Trinite-
et-Tobago.
Annexe II1
VOTE SUR LE STATUT DES RAPPORTEURS SPÉCIAUX
Le Conseil tconomique et social a adopté, telle qu'amendée oralement. une
reholution sur le statut des rapporteurs speciaux (projet de resolution Ill. docu-
ment E/1989/88). Bla suite d'un vote enreeisiré. Dar 24 voix contre 8. avec
19abstentions, se répartissant comme suit:- ..
Ont votd pour: Allemagne (République fédérale d'), Bahamas, Belize,
Bolivie, Bresil, Canada, Colombie, Danemark, Etats-Unis d'Am6rique.
France, Grbce, Irlande, Italie, Japon, Kenya, Norvkge, Nouvelle-Zklande,
Pays-Bas, Portugal, Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne et d'Irlande du
Nord, Trinité-et-Tobago, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yougoslavie.
Ont votécontre: Bulaarie. Cuba. lran (Ré~ubliaueislamiaue d'). Jama-
hiriya arabe libyenne, Pilogne. ~6Publtq;e soctali;te soviétt&ed'ükrainc,
Tch~coslovaqute. Union dcs Républiquessocialista soviktiques.
Se sont abstenus: Cameroun, Chine, Ghana, Ouin&, Indonksie. Iraq,
Jordanie. Lesotho, Liberia, Nicaragua, Niger. Oman, Rwanda, Soudan,
Sri Lanka, Thaïlande, Tunisie, Zaire, Zambie.
Absents: Arabie saoudite, Inde, Somalie. DOSSIER TRANSMIS
PAR LE SECRÉTAIRE GÉNÉRAL
DES NATIONS UNIES
DOSSIER TRANSMITTED BY THE
SECRETARY -GENERAL
OF THE UNITED NATIONS INTRODUCïORY NOTE
28 July 1989.
The Requesr
1. On 24May 1989the Economic and Social Council (hereinafter the "Coun-
cil"), at its 16th meeting of its first regular session of 1989,adopted resolution
1989/75 entitled "Status of Special Rapporteurs" (Dossier No. 99). By this
resolution, the Council decidedto request an advisory opinion from the Interna-
tional Court of Justice.
Framework of the Dossier
2. The Dossier, prepared pursuant to the President's Order of 14June 1989
and paragraph 2 of Article 65 of the Statute of the Court, mntains the docu-
ments and other materials likely to throw light upon the question on which
the advisory opinion of the Coun is requested. The items in the Dossier are
numbered consecutively and identified, as appropriate, by title or official
United Nations symbol.
3. The Dossier is divided into four Parts1. Part 1contains materiais relating
to the oroceedines leadine to the reauest bv the ~~uncil foran advisorv ooinion.
Pari il contîin~ materials relating to the Convention on the ~riM~e&sand
Iinmunities of the United Nations. Part III contains materials relating to the
status of experts on missions. Pan IV contains materials relating 10 the terms
of reference of the Commission on Human Rights and the Sub-Commission on
Prevcntion of Discriminarion and Proteciion of Minorities, and orhcr relevant
materiais.
Mnleriols Relnling Io the Proceedings Leading to the Requesl by the Councilfor
on Advisory Opinion
4. On 13 March 1984 the Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter the
"Commission") elected bv secret ballot, at its 53rd meeting of the fonieth ses-
sion, MI. Dumitru ~azik (who was nominated by ~omaiia) as one of the 26
members of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protec-
tion of Minorities (hereinafter the "Sub-Commission") for a three-year term
expiring on 31 December 1986 (Dossier Nos. 1, 1A and 2). which was later
extended by the Council to the end of 1987 (seepara. 10. below).
5. On 11March 1985the Commission. at the 51sl meeting of ils forly-first
session, adopted (without a vote) resolution 1985/13 requesting the Sub-
Commission to pay due attention to the role of youth in the field of human
rights (Nos. 3, 4 and 5).
6. On 29 August 1985thc Sub-Commission. at the 37th meeting of ils thirty-
eighth $ession,adopted (without a \ote) resolution 1985/12bywhich itrequested
' A furiherPart (Part V)wassubrnittedat a laterdate.sce p. 22infra.[Nolebyrhe
Registry.]12 PRNUECES AND IMMUNtTES OF THE UNITED NATIONS
Mr. Mazilu, in order to facilitate the Sub-Commission's discussionof the topic,
to prepare a report on human rights and youth analysing the efforts and
measures for securing the implementation and enjoyment by youth of human
ri-~~~~.naxticularlv the rieht to life. education and work. to be oresented to it
at its thirty-ninth &ssion?n 198(No .). The secretary-deneral'was requested
to provide al1necessaryassistance to Mr. Mazilu for the completion of his work
(ibid.). It was envisaged that Mr. Mazilu would come to Geneva for consulta-
tions for a period of up to 8 working days and present his report at the Sub-
Commission's thirty-ninth sessionin 1986(No. 7).
7. By a letter dated 18 March 1986, addressed to the Centre for Human
Rights (the "Centre"). Mr. Mazilu indicated his availability for consultations in
Geneva for vumases of the report (No. 8). In reswnse. the Centre sunn--ted
a visit between 26 and 30 ~ai 1986(NO..~).
8. Pursuant to decision 40/472 on the "Current financial crisisof the United
Nations", adopted by the General Assembly at its fortieth session, the thirty-
ninth session of the Sub-Commission was postponed to 1987. The Centre
accordingly informed MI. Mazilu of the deferral and requested information for
re-schedulinn his visit (No. 10). On 8 October 1986Mr. Mazilu was informed
that it was nit possible to finance in 1986his trip to Geneva for consultations
on the report but that sufficient fun& would beavailablein 1987todo so(No. Il).
Certain suaestions were also made for the oreoaration of the studv /ibid,J.
9. In ~aiary 1987requests wcresent out on bihalf of MI. Mwjlu toFovern-
mcnts. specialized agencics and non-governmental organizations 3eekinginfor-
mation and material to be used forthe oreoaration~of the studv: document
No. 12is a sample of ruch Notes verbale;. formatio neccived ia iesponse to
thoseNotes Verbaleswassubsequently transmitted fromtheCcntrcioMr. Malilu
between February and June 1987(NO. 13).
10. By its decision 1987/102, the Council at the 3rd plenaxy meeting of ifs
ornanizational session held on 6 February 1987,decided to extend the term of
office of the members of the ~ub-comm~ssionfor one year (i.e., 31 December
1987) "to ensure their participation in the thirty-ninth session of the Sub-Com-
mission to be held in 1987" (No. 14).
11. On 10March 1987the Commission adopied. by a roll-cal1vote of 34 io
nonc. with 8 absteniions, a1the 54th meeting ofils foriy-third session. resolu-
lion 1987/44 rakinn note with aor~reciaiionof resolution 1985/12 of rhe Sub-
Commission appointing Mr. M$IU to prepare a report on the topic of human
rights and youth (Nos. 15and 16).
12. On 14 May 1987the Centre informed Mr. Mazilu that the thirtv-ninth
session of the sub-commission had been scheduled and that he was in;ited to
attend the meetings of the Working Groups on Slavery (as a memher) and on
lndigenous Populations (as an alternate) before the Sub-Commission's meeting
(No. 17). MI. Mazilu was requested ta provide information in order 10make
arrangements for his travel to Geneva.
13. On 12August 1987auestions were raised in the Sub-Commission. at the
5th meetingof it;thiny.ninih session. regarding the whereabouts of MI. ~azilu
(No. 18).The Secretariat informed the Sub-Commission that a letter had becn
rcceived from the Permanent Mission of Romania stating that MI. Mazilu had
suffered a hcart attack in June and would nobe able to travel to Geneva (ibid..
paras. 14and 27).On 18August a telexunder the name of Mr. Mailu addressed
10 the Chairman of the Sub-Commission was received stating that he was not
in a position to attend the session (No. 19).
14. On 4 Seplember 1987the Sub-Commission dcferred consideration of the
sub-item dealing with human rights and youth (Le., the Mazilu report) to its INTRODUCTORY NOTE 13
next (fortieth) session, to be held in 1988 (decision 1987/12); the item was
included in its draft provisional agenda for that session (No. 18).
15. Between3 November and 17December 1981,communications were sent
from the Centre to Mr. Mazilu offering assistance for the preparation of his
report and enquiring as to his plans to visit Geneva for consultations (Nos. 20
and 21).
16. In a lette: postmarked 25 December 1987,addressed to the Under-
Secretary-General for Human Rights (USGHR) and receivedon 7 January 1988,
Mr. Mazilu stated that since May 1986 he had not received regular news from
the Centre and requested that al1documents of the Sub-Commission be sent to
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~). ,his ~ ~ ~hen followed~h~ M~ ~M-,il~'-~~etter nostmarked
29 December 1987to the Centre stating his willingnessto come to Geneva on
14February 1988for consultations (No. 23). He alsomentioned that hehad not
receivedani invitation to attend the~ub-~hmmission's las1sessionand annexed
to his letter a copy of his curriculum vitae.
17. On 31 December 1987Mr. MaTilu'smembership and those of the other
25 members of the Sub-Commission expired.
18. The Centre on 19January 1988cabled the United Nations Information
Centre (UNIC) in Bucharest requesting it to transmit a messageto Mr. Mazilu
inviting him to Geneva for consultations and for the preparation of his report
beginning 15February 1988(No. 24). On 20 January 1988the Acting Director
-..-. of UNIC Bucharest transmitted to the Centre a letter (undated) and enclosures
from Mr. Mazilu, addressed to the USGHR (No. 25). Mr. Mazilu again
expressed his willingnessto travel to Geneva to work on his report and stated
that he had tried but failed to obtain permission from his Government to come
to the Sub-Commission's session in Geneva the previous year. The Centre
accordingly sent a telex to UNlC Bucharest making travel arrangements for
Mr. Mazilu's visit to Geneva (No. 26).
19. On 21 January 1988the'~resid&~tof the Romanian Association for the
United Nations cabled the Centre stating that his predecessor, Mr. Mazilu, had
retired for health reasons (No. 27).
20. On II February 1988 the USGHR again wrote to UNlC Bucharest
requesting the latter to transmit certain messages to Mr. Mazilu (No. 28).
21. At ils fortv-fourth session in 1988.the Commission elected 26members
of the ~ub-~omkission (No. 29), including Mr. 1. Diaconu (nominated by
Romania). The Commission also adopted resolution 1988/43on the work of the
Sub-Commission (No. 30). which inter olio urged al1the special rapporteurs to
submit their reports on time and called upon al1members to attend its sessions
and working groups.
22. In a letter dated 5 April 1988,Mr. Mazilu informed the Centre that he
was unahle to obtain permission to travel and requested further assistance for
his visit to Geneva (No. 31).
23. On 8Aoril 1988the Romanian Mission transmitted a letter from Mr. Ion
Diaconu, daGd 29 March 1988, addressed to the Chairman of the Sub-
Commission, in whichMr. Diaconu offered to prepare a report on human rights
and vouth for the Sub-Commission (No. 32)
24: On 19Apd 1988Mr. Mazilu &oie io;he Chairman and mcmbers of the
Sub-Commis\ion regarding his report and the difficuliies hchad encouniercd in
ils nrc~araiion (No. 33). On the 5ame dav Mr. Mazilu informcd the USGHR
tha; héhad comileted ihe first version of ihe main ideas of hisreport on youth
and human rights and that he hoped to find a way to send it (No. 34).
25. Bya letter dated 6 May 1988,the USGHR transmitted to the Permanent
Representative of Romania the request of.,the Chairman of the Sub-14 PRMLEOES AND IMMUNITIESOF THE UNITED NATIONS
Commission, inviting Mr. Mazilu to come to Geneva for consultations and the
preparation of his report (No. 35). On the same day the Centre wrote to
Mr. Mazilu informing him of the latest arrangement made for his travel to
Geneva (No. 36).
26. On 8 May 1988Mr. Mazilu informed the Centre that he had finished a
new chapter (in Romanian) of his report and was trying to find a way to send
it and that he was ready to come to Geneva at the end of thaf month or at any
other time (No. 37). On the same day Mr. Mazilu also wrote to the Chairman
of the Sub-Commission (No. 38). On 17 May 1988 Mr. Mazilu informed the
USGHR that he was unable Io find a way to send his report to Geneva and
~.> ~ ~ ~ -~ ~ ~ ~s fact should be made known to al1concerned (No. 39).
27. On 19 ~a~l988 the Centre again transmitted to Mr. ~aziiu via UNIC
Bucharest documents for the preparation of his report, previously sent but no1
~.~~~ve~ ~v Mr. Mazilu (~0.~40)
28. In aletter dated ly~une 1988,addressed tothe Permanent Representative
of Romania. the USGHR ~roposed a procedure Io be followed in this matter
and requested the former's~ag~eement (NO. 41). The Permanent Representative
responded on 27 June 1988and proposed that Mr. Diaconu prepare the report
for the Sub-Commission (No. 42). This was followed by a telex dated 24 July
-. .- -~ -~~~~~ ~aconu addressed to the Chairman of the Sub-Commission
informing the latterof his availability to do so (No. 43). On 1 July 1988, the
USGHR informed the Permanent Representative of Romania that Mr. Mazilu's
mandate derived from a decision of the Sub-Commission and that only that
body or a higher policy-making body would be competent to change the assign-
ment (No. 44).
29. '~hefoitieth session of the Sub-Commission began on 8August 1988,and
alter a debate, decided on 9 August to invite Mr. Mazilu to come to Geneva to
present his report personally ta the Sub-Commission according Io established
practice (Nos. 45 and 61). A cable Io that effect was sent on the same day to
Mr. Mazilu (No. 45). This message was also cabled Io UNlC Bucharest for
transmission Io Mr. Mazilu.
30. On 10August 1988the Centre was informed by a telex from the officer-
in-charge of UNIC Bucharest that the cable of 9 August could no1be delivered
to Mr. Mazilu (No. 46). PTT Bucharest informed the Centre on the same date
that the cable of 9 August was not delivered as the addressee was on vacation
(No. 47).
31. On 11Auaust 1988the Sub-Committee decided Io request the officer-in-
charge of ~~l~~ucharesi Io providc furiher informalion on ihe wherîaboutr
of hlr. Mazilu (No. 48). The Ccntrc also cablîd Mr. Marilu directly informing
him ihat the Sub-Commission had ~chcduled30 August for hisprerentarion of
the report (No. 49). UNlC Bucharest informed the Centre on 12August that it
was unable to make the contact with Mr. Mazilu (No. 51). PT Bucharest also
informed the Centre on 15 Aunust that the cable of 11 August could no1 be
---- \- -.
32. In a lette; dated II August 1988Mr. Mazilu informed the Chairman and
members of the Sub-Commission that he was willinn to come to Geneva at any
time but he was refused permission to Uavel (No. 5%. Again, in a letter dated
19 August, Mr. Mazilu wrote to the USGHR that he was ready to come to
Geneva at any time (No. 53).
33. The question of Mr. Mazilu was discussed in a number of meetings
during the fortieth session of the Sub-Commission (Nos. 54-69). At the 7th
meeting, on 12August 1988,Mr. Eide and Mr. Joinet submitted a draft resolu-
tion (No. 56, para. 13)which was revised later (ibid.). On 15August 1988, the INTRODUCTORY NOTE 1.5
Sub-Commission at ils 10thmeeting adopted decision 1988/102by a vote of 15
to 2. with 4 abstentions and 3 not oarticioatina (Nos. 54 and 56). in whichthe
Sub-Commission requested the Se~retary:Gcn&al to crtablish contact wiih the
Governrneni of Romania in order to gel in touch uith .Ur. Mazilu. At ils 23rd
meeting held on 24 August 1988,an opinion prepared by the Office of Legal
Affairs on the question of the applicability of the Conveniion on the Privileges
and Imrnuniiies of the United Nations of 13February 1947(the "General Con-
vention") to the ritualion of hlr. Mazilu charged by the Sub-Commission in its
resolution 1985/12 with the prcparation of a repon on Human Rights and
Youth. was read oui in response 10 questions raised by members of the Sub-
Commission (Nos. 65 and 71). On 30 Auaust 1988the Leaal Counsel ~rovided
another legalopinion on a reservation b; Romania with ;espect to Séction30
of the General Convention (No. 72).
34. On 1Seotember 1988the Sub-Commission. at its 36th meetine. ado~ted -. .
bya roll-cal1vote (16votes to 4, with 3abstention;) resolution 1988/37(Nos. 55
and 56. paras. 416-420),requesting inleralio the Secretary-Generalto invokcthe
a~~licabiiitvof the General Convention in ihe case of Mr. Mazilu and to brinn
matter.10 the attention of the Commission, should Romania fail to appl;
the General Convention to MI. Mazilu. The Mazilu report was placed on the
orovisional anenda for the fortv-first session of the Sub-Commission (No. 70).
35. On 266ctober 1988the ~ecretary-Generalsent a Note Verbale to the ~e;-
manent Representative of Romania calling his attention to resolution 1988/37
of the Sub-~ommission and requesting-the latter to accord the necessary
facilities to Mr. Mazilu so as to enable him to mmplete his assigned task
(NO. 73).
36. The Secretarv-General in his reoort to the General Assemblv dated
7 November 1988regarding respect for tie privilegesand immunities of officiais
of the United Nations system mentioned Mr. Mazilu's situation (No. 79). The
case was mentioned in thedebate of the Fifth Committee on 18~ovembe; 1988
(,.- .7....,.
37. This was followed by a letter dated 19December 1988fromthe USGHR
to the Permanent Representative of Romania (No. 74). On the same day, the
USGHR also wrote (by registered mail with enclosures) to Mr. Mazilu in-
forming him of the actions taken by the Secretariat pursuant to the Sub-
Commission's decision and resolution (No. 75). The Resident Representative of
UNDP in Bucharest was at the same lime requested to transmit a copy of the
letter and enclosures, and to issue a ticket Io MI. Mazilu for travel to Geneva
(No. 76). On 3 Februarv 1989UNDP Bucharest informed the Centre that it was
"nable io deliver to M;. Mazilu the documents received (No. 77).
38. On 6 January 1989.the Permanent Re~resentativeof Romania transmit-
ted an ide-~emoire concerning the case oi~r. Mazilu to the Legal Counsel
(No. 78). and requested ils transmittal to the Commission.
39. The Commission, at ils forty-fifth session, in 1989,had before it a report
of MI. M. C. Bhandare. Chairman of the Su~-Com~ ~ ~ ~ ~t ils ~ ~~iet~ ~~--~ ~ ~ ~ ~-~-~ ~ ~
sion, prepared in accordance withparagraph 20 of Commission resolution
1988/43(No. 80)in whichs~ecialreference wasmade to studies and reoorts and
the aciivities of spccial rapporteurs (ibid.. sec. III, paras. 16io 22). ihc Com-
mission also had before ita note by the Secreiary-General prepared pursuant
io paragraph 2 of resolution 1988/37 of the Sub-Commission (No. 81). sum-
marizing the events that took plaw rince the adoption of that resolution and
artaching copies of Nos. 73 and 78 (see paras. 35 and 38. above). During the
discussions a number of representatives referred to the case of Mr. Mazilu
(Nos. 82-87).At ils 51st meeting, on 6 March 1989,a draft resolution wasintro-16 PRNILECES AND IMMUNIllES OF TEE UNITED NATIONS
duced by the representative of Germany (Federal Republic of), sponsored also
-< A~-~~-~~~~-,~~~~~~~,land. Luxembourg. and the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern lreland (No. 89, Para. 523). It was adopted without
change by a roll-cal1vote (No. 89, para. 524) as resolution 1989/37, entitled
tacus ofuSspecial ~a~~orteurs'' (NO. 88). The observer for Romania made a
statement relating to the draft resolution (No. 87).
40. In a letter dated 5 Mav 1989the USGHR transmitted Io the Permanent
Representative of Romania risolution 1989/37 of the Commission, requesting
at the same lime the Permanent Representative to facilitate contact with
Mr. Mazilu and to enable him to come to visit Geneva to complete his work
(No. 90). On the same date, the USGHR also addressed a letter to Mr. Mazilu
(by registered mail) informing him of recent developments and of the
travel arrangements made for him with UNDP Bucharest (No. 91).
41. In a letter dated 5 May 1989,addressed to the Secretary-General and the
Chairman of the Sub-Commission, Mr. Mazilu stated, inter alia, that be had
comoleted the first version of his reoort and that if he was orevented from ore-
senthg itto the Sub-Commission, tlie repon should be pbiished as is (No. 92).
42. During May 1989four lctters wcre received from Mr. Mazilu. The first
one was addressed to thc USGHR concerning Mr. Mazilu's situation and
preparalion of his repon (No. 93). The second one. also addressed Io the
USGHR. transmitted therein further chapters of his report and requcsted con-
- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~hird one was addressed to the Secretarv-General and
the chairianof i1;e~ub-~ommission (No. 95) in which Mr. ~aiilu statcd thai
his report should bc published as soon as possible; he also referred 10the human
riehts situation in his countrv and attached a conv of a "lenal action" he had
iGtiated in Romania against ihe Minister of lnteial ~ffairsand others (which
is not included in the Dossier). The fourth letter was addressed Io the President
of the General Assemblyandchairman of the Sub-Commission concerning his
own situation in particular and human rights in Romania in general (No. 96);
he also attached a copy of the above-mentioned "legal action".
43. The Council held ils first regular session of 1989in New York from 2 to
26 May 1989. On 19 May 1989 the Second (Social) Committee at ils 22nd
meeting adopted as recommended to it by the Commission and without change
draft resolution III. entitled "Status of SoecialRaonorteurs" bv a recorded vote
of 26 to 9. with 16abstentions (No. 97. bara. 15):~hrou~houi the proceedings
of the Council. the tex1of draft resolution III was no1separately reproduced.
T~ ~ ~-~~~~~~~ed~ ~ ~text contained in the reoort of the Commission. On
24 May 1989the Council ai ifs 16th meeting had bcfore ildra'ftresolution 111
recommended for adootion by its Second (Social)Cornmittee. The United States
re=~~~~ntati~ ~ ~allv nrooosed the addition of the words "on a oriorilv basis"
jn operative paragr&h i (No. 98). and this was agrîed to by a'recorded vote
of 17to 9. with 22abstentions (No. 98). Draft resolution 111.as amended. was
a~ -r~~~bv-,r~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ to 8. wiih 19abstentions lECOSOC resolution
1989/75, "Status of Special ~apporieurs", No. 99).
Introduction Io Pari II
Materials Relevant Io the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities
of the United Nations
44. In December 1945the Preparatory Commission of the United Nations
recommended. inter alia, in Chapter VI1of its Report 10the General Assembly,
that the Assembly, at ils first session, should make recommendations with a 1NTRODOCTORY NOTE 17
viewto determining the details of the application of paragraphs 1and 2of Arti-
cle IO5of the Charter. or propose conventions to the Members of the United
Nations for that purpose. lt aÏso transmitted in Appendix Bto the Chapter a
draft convention on privileges and immunities (No. 100, Appendix B). The
privilegesand immunities of the "Representatives of Members" and "Officials
of the Organization" werecontained respectivelyin Articles 5and 6 of the draft
convention. The draft did not contain an article on "experts on missions" or
provisions of a similar nature, but Article 7, paragraph 3, referred to facilities
to be accorded to "exoerts and other nersons who. thoueh not officiais of the
United Nations. have a ccriificate thai'ihey are tra"elling>n ihe businessof the
Organization". Ariicle II contained a settlement of dispute clause almosl iden.
tical to that later included in Section 30 of the GeneraÏ Convention .exce.-ine
the las1sentence).
45. The General Assembly. al the 16th plenary meeting of the first part of
its session. held on 19 Januarv 1946. referred to the Sixth (Leeal) Committee
for consideration and report 7~hapt& VI1 of the Report of the'preparatory
Commission. The Committee al its 6th meeting held on 24 January 1946
appointed a Sub-Committee on Privileges and Immunities to consider the mat-
ter (No. 101).
46. On 28January 1946,at the 7th meeting of the Sixth Committee, the Sub-
Committee recommended inter aliato the Sixth Committee that the General
Assembly should propoçe io the Members of ihe United Nations a general con.
vention which would deiermine the details of application of paragraphs I and
2 of Article 105of the Charter (No. 102). The Sixth Commitiee unanimouslv
adopted the recommendation of'the ~ubkommittee (ibid.).
47. The Sub-Committee prepared a series of documents concerning the
privileges and immunities of the United Nations, among them a resolution
reiating to the adoption of a general convention on Privilegesand Immunities,
to which the text of the draft Convention was annexed. These comments were
submitted to the Sixth Committee on 7 Fehmarv 1946(No. 103).In his Reoort
to the Sixth Committee, the Rapporteur stated that the discussionof the General
Convention on Privileges and lmmunities was particularly "exhaustive and
thoroueh" and that the text had been ao~roved unanimouslv hv the Sub-
~ommztee. During its discussion in the Sith Committee, soine delegations
expressedobjections with respect to Sections 18and 30. Whilethe entire Article
VI l,~-~r~~~~~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~.~ ~ ~w. no soecial reference was made to it in the
Report of ihe SubCommiitee or in'the discussion of the Sixth Commiitee, nor
was there any explanation of ihe origin of ihat provision. Before adoption, only
a minor amendment was made to Section 14in order to clarifv the text. this
heing the only amendment made by the Sixth Committee (No. 103).At its1 lth
meeting held on 7 February 1946, the Sixth Committee unanimously adopted
the draft recommendation concernine -he General Convention on ~rivileees-nd
lmmunities (ibid.).
48. At its 31stmeeting, held on 13Fehruary 1946,the General Assemblycon-
sidered the Reoort of the Sith Committee No. 105).While some orovisions of
the convention werecommented upon (incl'uding~;t. VIII, Sec. 30), no delega-
tions commented on any part of Article VI, nor was an). amendment proposed
thereto (No. 104). The Generai Assembly, without a vote. adopted resolution
22 (1)A by which it approved the annexed Convention on the Privileges and
lmmunities of the United Nations. as recommended by the Sixth Committee.
and proposed it for accession by each Member of the United Nations (No. 106).
49. Nos. 107and 109contain factual information (accession, succession and
reservations) concerning the General Convention and the Convention on the18 PRNnEGES AND IMMUNlllES OF THE UNITED NATIONS
Privileges and lmmunities of the SpecializedAgencies. It should be noted that
a number of States made reservations to Section 30 of the General Convention
and that Iwo States registered their objections to these reservations (No. 107).
No. 108contains the text of the Convention on the Privileges and lmmunities
-f~~~~-SoecializedAeencies. which the General Assemblvadooted on 21 Novem-
ber 194j and whichls largily modelled on the General ?onvention, exceG that
it contains no provision on "Experts on Missions"; however, such orovisions
are conrained iÏnmost of the ~nnexes to that Convention adopted inrespect of
each of the specialized agencies.
50. In August 1960the United Nations Department of Leaal Affairs gave an
opinion on certain rescrvaiions iobe made by a Member ~6te upon aciesdon
to the General Convention. These reservations would have denied both ofricials
and exoerts of that State's nationality certain privileges and immunities under
the ~ckvention. The Department explained why such resewations were not
acceptable and why Article VI, Section 22, must also apply to persons of that
State's nationality (No. 110). That Member State did not accede to the Con-
vention.
51. On 22October 1963the United Nations Secretariat sent an Aide-Memoire
to the Permanent Representative of a Member State which had orooosed to
accede io the General- onv ve ntbiont io a reservation denyingany United
Naiions official of ihîi Siaie's nationaliiy any privileges or immuniiies under
ihe Convention Mo. 111). This Aide-Mémoire relatesio the intcr~retaiion of
Articles IV, V Ad VI of the Convention. As a result, that ~émber State
acceded to the Convention without such reservation.
52. No. 112 is a copy of a statement made by the United Nations Legal
Counsel at the Sith (Legal) Committee on 6 December 1967, which referred,
interolio.to the legal statusof the General Convention.
Introduction to Part III
MoteriolsRelevontto theStoturof Expertson Missions
53. No. 113 contains extracts from Mr. Martin Hill's book on Immunities
und Privileresof InternotionolOfficiois. the Ex~erienceof the Leorue of
Notronspublish& in 1947,in whichLiwas ;ecognizédthat thrie was yet ;nothe;
ciitegoryof persons associaied with the Organizaiion who were neithcr "League
~fficials" nor "representatives of Members".
54. The rest of this Part contains materials having a bearing on the issue of
"expert on mission". Most of them are examples of categories of persons which
have been regarded by the United Nations as experts on missions within the
meanin~ of Article VI of the General Convention.
551~~1 a;memorandum dated 30~uly 1948,the Department of Legal Affairs
of the United Nations' stated that customarily. persons on committees similar
to the Advisory Committee on ~dministrative and Budgetary Questions
(ACABQ) had been considered in the category of experts within the meaning
of Article VI of the General Convention (No. 114).
56. On 9 May 1951 the Secretary-General issued a circular letter to al1
Governments classifying "Technical Assistance Experts" as "Officiais" of the
Secretariat as they wereengaged on suhstantially similar terms and served under
the same conditions as other members of the staff; he therefore distinguished
'Now called theOffico efLegalAffairs.20 PRNUECES AND IMMUNITIES Of THE UNITED NATIONS
63. In a memorandum dated 3 September 1981Io the Centre for Disarma-
ment. the United Nations Office of Leaal Affairs addressed the status of the
Groui of Experts ro lnvestigate the Chemical Weapons and concluded
that rhey should be accorded the status. privilegesand immunities of expertson
mission for the United Nations, as set out in Article VI of the Convention
(No. 127).This was repeated in a memorandum dated 15 July 1982from the
Office of Legal Affairs ta the Centre for Disarmament (No. 130).
64. In a memorandum dated 19November 1981to the Office of General Ser-
vices, the United Nations Office of Legal Affairs stated that the contracts
entered into bythe UnitedNations ReliefCo-ordinator (UNDRO)with personnel
whose services are made available bv their Governments free of charge-~re~ ~ ~
experts on missions for the United ~ations (No. 128).
65. No. 129is a CODY of a contract entered into between the United Nations
and Mr. Olof Palme for undertaking a snecial mission to Iran/lraa on behalf
of the Secretary-General. Under theferks of the contract it was spécifiedthat
he would not be an official or staff member of the United Nations but, for the
purposes of Article VI of the General Convention, would be an expert on mis-
sion for the United Nations. It was also provided in the contract that if
Mr. Palme was required by the United Nations to travel he might receive a
United Nations Certificate.
66. In a memorandum dated 22 August 1983to the Controller, the United
Nations Office of Legal Affairs, in response to.questions of taxation of
honoraria oavable to members of the Human Riehts Committee. stated that the
srarus of mehbers of the Human Righis ~omm$tee is substanti~lly the rat&&
that of mcmbers of rhc Commirtce on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination
to which an earlier ooinion bv the Office of LeealAffairs relared(No. 131).This
wasconfirmed in a litter datéd2 May 1984frcm the Legal~ounsil to a manber
of the Human Rights Committee (No. 132).
67. In a letter dated 28 February 1985 the United Nations Department of
Technical Co-operation for Development informed the Minister of Finance of
Cyprus of the terms for hosting an Interregional Training Programme in
Government Budgetary Methodsand Procedures in Nicosia, Cyprus. One of the
terms was that the participants invited by the United Nations "shall enjoy the
orivileaes and immunities accorded to exoerts on missions for the United
~ation-s undcr Anicle VI of the Gencral ~onvenrion" (No. 133). Ir should be
noted thai this provision is routinely embodied inagreements of this nature.
68. Bya letter dated 13May 1985the United Nations entered into an agree-
ment withthe Government of Tunisia for holding an Extraordinary Scssion of
rhe Special Commitree of hl in Tunisia (No. 134). One of the ternis of the
Agreement was thai thc participants invitcd by ihe United Nations "shall enjoy
the privilcgcsand immuniiies accorded to experts on missions for ihc United
Nations" in Anicle VI of the General Convention. Again. this provision
appeared in other agreements of a similar nature.
69. In a memorandum dated I August 1985the United Nations Office of
Legal Affairs informed the Office of General Services that the status of
language CO-ordinators paid directly by the Government of France is that of
experis on missions for the United Nations (No. 135).
70. In a memorandum dated 20 February 1986the United Nations Office of
Legal Affairs concluded that United Nations military observers who are
members of the United Nations Military Observer Group in lndia and Pakistan
are experts on missions under Article VI of the General Convention (No. 136).
71. In an Agreement dated 27February 1987betweenthe United Nations and
Nigeria for the convening of a United Nations 'Meetingof Experts on Space INTRODUCTORY NOTE 21
Science and Tcchnology and Its Applications uiihin thc Framcwork of Educa-
iional Systems. ArticVeprovided ihai participants attending the meeting "shall
eniovthe nrivileees and immunities accorded to exDertson missions under Arti-
cléYI of ihe Ggneral Coni,ention" (No. 137). ~uih participants included per-
sons nominaied by Governments and "experts invited by the United Nations to
serve as speakers as well as provide substantive contributions to the attainment
of the objectives of the Meeting"ibid., Arts. 11.1fa), fc) and V.2).
72. In a memorandum dated 24 January 1989 to the United Nations
Children's Fund on the subiect ofsignment of United StatesGovernment civil
5ervanisto UNICEF, the Ünitcd ali ionOsffice of Lrgal Affairs deierrnined
that sushloaned individuals are experts on missions and may be issued United
Nations Ceriificates for theurpose of official iravel (No. 138).
73. In a letter dated I Marsh 1989to the United Naiions Office ai Gene\a
regarding the status of French military personnel participating in the multina-
tional de.minina missions in Afehani\tan. ihç Uniied Nations Office of Leaal
Affairsdetermi& that such përsonnel aie considered as experts on missions
within the meaning of Article VI of the General Convention (No. 139).
74. In a letter dated I May 1989 to the President of the United Nations
Administrative Tribunal,the LegalCounsel addressed the question of thestatus
of members of the Tribunal and indicated inter alia that members of the
Tribunal are experts on missions for the United Nations and arehus covered
by the provisions of Sections 22, 23 and 26 of the General Convention
(No. 140).
75. Nos. 141. 141A and 142 are samnles of standard Snecial Service
Agreements (SSAs)for experts and for ronsuiiant~ l'hr\e forms cpecitythat the
person, cnrering inio such agreements tvith the Uniied Uations for the purpose
of performingfunctions &signed hy the latter are regarded as experts on
mi76. In 1967the United Nations Secretariat prepared for the use of the Inter-
national Law Commission a studs on the nractice of the United Nations. the
Specialized Agcncies and ihe ~ntc~national~tomic Energy Agencyconcerning
thcir\talus. privilegesand immunities.This study was subsequently broughi up
to date in 1985.NOS. 143and 144are relevant extracts from these studies.
IntroductionIo Part IV
General Materials
77. I'ari IV contains materials reletani io the terms of reierence of the Com.
mission and the Sub-Commission; descriptions of rhc uork and organization of
the Commission and the ~ub-commission; and a copy of the.~ules of Pro-
cedure of the Functional Commissions of the Council.
78. The Commission on Human Rights is a functional commission estab-
lished pursuant Io Article 68 of the United Nations Charter as a subsidiary
organ of the Council. 11sbasic terms of referencc were embodied in Council
resolutions 5 (1)and 9(11)adopted respectivelyon 16February and 21 June 1946
(Nos. 145 and 146). The Commission. o.iein-llv made un of 18 members
;h&ed particularlÿ with the task of drafting the internatioial Bill of Human
Riahts. is now comnosed of the representatives of 43 Member States elected for
three-vear terms. li meets each vear for a oeriod of six weeks. and it ooerates
underthe Rules of Procedure of the u unit io nomal ission; of the ~ouncil
(No. 157).22 PRNILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE UNITED NAilONS
79. On 21 June 1946the Council by ils resolution 9 (11)authorized the Com-
mission IO establish sub-cornmissionson the proieciionof minorities and on the
prevention of discriminaiion (No. 146) which were ihen immediately merged.
The basic terms of reference were aiven by the Commission at ils fifth session
(No. 147).On the basisof that initial mandate, some standing resolurionsofihe
Council and the Commission uerc subscquenily adopted which expanded the
tasks of the Sub-Commission (e.g.. Council rcsolurions 1235(XLII) and 1503
(XLVIII): Commission reaolutions 8 (XXII) and 13(XXIII)). By ils resoluiion
17 (XXXVII), adopted in 1981. the Commission reconfirmed the iasks of ihe
Sub-Commi<sion (Na. 153).Originally. rhe Sub-Commission had 12members,
but ihis ras subsequenrly expanded IO 14 in 1959. IRin 1965and 26 in 1969
(Commission resolution 9 (XXIV) and Council resolution 1334(XLIV)).
80. While the statu, of members of the Sub-Commission as acting in iheir
individuîl capaciry isnot expresslyprovided in the initial icrms of reference. this
has been e.~presslyspecified by rhe Sub-Commission iirelf and confirmed by the
Commission and the Council. The issue wasdicsussed durine the third. fourrh
and fifth sessions of the Sub-Commission (Nos. 148 an; 149). ~his was
reaffirmed at ils thirtieth session in 1977(Nos. 151and 152).The Council itself
also confirmed such status (No. 154). The Council in ifs resolution 1986/35
established new procedure for the election of members of the Sub-Commission
(NO. 155).
81. No. 156contains general descriptions of the work and organization of the
Sub-Commission and of the Commission.
82. No. 158 contains General Assembly resolution 89 (1) authorizing the
Council to request advisory opinions of the International Court of Justice.
29 Septemher 1989.
lntroduction to Part V
Materials Relating to Developments Following the Request by the
Economic and Social Council for onAdvisory Opinion
83. Part V contains materials pertaining to developments in the forty-first
session of the Sub-Commission which was held in Geneva from 7 Aurust t-
1 September 1989.
84. Mr. Mazilu's report was published as received, as document
E/CN.4/Sub.2/1989/41 (No. 159). The tex1 also received from Mr. Mazilu
entitled "A Special View on the Romanian Case" was published as an adden-
dum to the report (No. 160).
85. On 15 August 1989, the Permanent Mission of Romania to the United
Nations Office al Geneva requested the circulation of a Note Verbale addressed
to the Centre for Human Rights, as a document of the Sub-Commission
(No. 161). In this Note, the Romanian Mission expressed its surprise at the
Secretariat's decision to publish the report, and, inter alia. questioned
Mr. Mazilu's "intellectual capacity" Io make "objective analysis" (ibid.).
86. At ils second meeting held on 8 August 1989. the Sub-Commission
decided. ;n accordance wirh iÏsestablished praciicIO invite Mr. Marilu io par-
ticipaie in the meetings ai which hisreport wasto beconsidered (Nos. 162.para.
8. and 165).Ai itslOthmeeiina held on 14Auaust 1989.the Secretariat reoorted
that no reply had heen receiied from Mr: ~azilu to.the invitation exiended
(No. 169). INTRODUCTORY NOTE 23
87. Mr. Mazilu'swhereabouts wasraised bv some exoerts in several meetinas
of the Sub-Commission. Somc members exiresrid théview that his presen&
wasnecded for the discursion of the report (Nos. 164-169.176-177).Somemem-
bers also ex~rcsscdiheir viens about the contents of Mr. Mazilu'sreport libid.1.
88. On 30August, Mr. Diaconu, the expert from Romania. madea statement
at the Sub-Commission, regarding the report of Mr. Mazilu (No. 172). The
Secretariat made a statement in response to Mr. Diaconu's statement (No. 173).
89. At ils 40th meeting held on 1 September 1989, the Sub-Commission
adopted (by 12 votes to 4 with 2 abstentions), resolution 1989/46, entitled
"The Report on Human Rights and Youth Prepared by Mr. Dumitru Mazilu"
(Nos. 163, 174and 175).The Sub-Commission inreraliarequested Mr. Mazilu
to update his report and present it in person to the Sub-Commission at its
forty-second session.
- CONTENTS OFTHE DOSSIER
Part 1. Materials Relating to the Proceedings Leading to the Request by the
Economic and Social Couneil for an Advisory Opinion
1. Commission on Human Rights: Forlielh Session
(Geneva, 6 February-16 March 1984)
1. Note by the Secretary-General concern- E/CN.4/1984/47 and extract
ine nominations of candidates for elec- from Addendum
tion to membership of the Sub-Com-
mission on Prevention of Discrimination
and Protection of Minorities'
1A. Report on the Fortieth Session: Chapter XXIV. Election of Members of the
Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities
609. The Commission considered aeen-a item 24 at its 53rd meeting. o-
13March 1984'.
610. The Commission had before it the following documents:
Note by the Secretary-General containing nominations of candidates for
election toembershin of the Sub-Commission and bioer-.hical data on
the candidates (E/CN4/1984/47 and Add.1-7);
Letter dated 23 Fcbruary 19R4from the representative of Democraiic Kam-
ouchea addressed IOthe Chairman of the Commission on Human Rinhis-
;E/CN.~/I 984/64).
611. The attention of the Commission was drawn to Economic and Social
Council resolution 1983/32 of 27 May 1983concerning the election of alter-
nates.
612. The Commission elected by secret ballot the 26 members of the Sub-
Commission on Prevention of Discriminaiion and Protection of Minorities. The
following candidates were elected:
African States
Mr. Driss Dahhak Morocco
Mr. Mohamed Sbihi*
' Documentno1reproduced.[Noieby rhe Regislry.1
' For the summaryrecord, seeE/CN.4/1984/SR.53, and E/CN.4/1984/SR.I-63/
Corrigendurn,as appropriate. CONTENTS OF THE WSSIER
Mr. G. Dove Edwin Nigeria
Mr. O. O. George*
Mr. Aidid A. llkahanaf Somalia
Mr. Ahmad Khalifa E~YP~
Mr. C. L. C. Mubanga-Chipoya Zambia
Miss BeatriceMulamfu*
Mr. K. B. S. Simpson Ghana
Mrs. Kate Abankwa*
Mr. Fisseha Yimer Ethiopia
Asion Stores
Mr. Awn S. Al Khasawneh Jordan
Mr. Murlidhar C. Bhandare India
Mr. A. Sayeed Chowdhury Bangladesh
Mr. Masayuki Takemoto Japan
Mr. Nisuke Ando*
Mrs. Gu Yijie China
Mr. Li Daoyu*
EoslernEuropeon Stoles
Mr. Dumitru Mazilu Romania
Mr. Mircea Nicolae*
Mr. Vsevolod N. Sofinsky Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
Mr. Viktor M. Tchikvadze*
Mr. Ivan ToJevski Yugoslavia
Mr. Danilo Türk*
Lorin Americon Slores
MI. Enzio Giustozzi Argentins
Mr. Leandro Despouys*
Mr. Miguel A. Martinez Cuba
Mr. Julio Heredia Pirez*
Mr. Antonio Martinez Bhez Mexico
Mr. HéctorFix Zamudio*
Mr. A. J. Uribe Portocarrero Colombia
Mr. Fernando Cepeda Ulloa*
Mr. R. Valdez Baquero Ecuador
Mr. M. Aleman Salvador*
WesrernEuropeonand Other Srotes
Mr. Marc Bossuyt Belgium
Mr. Patrick Dubois*
Mrs. Erica-lrene A. Daes ' Greece
Mr. Jules Deschênes Canada
Mrs. Rita Cadieux*
Mr. Louis Joinet France
Mr. Alain Pellet*26 PRIVILEOES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE UNITED NATIONS
Mr. John P. Roche United States of America
Mr. John Carey*
Mr. Benjamin Whitaker United Kingdom of Great Britain
Mr. John Montgomery* and Northern lreland
* Alternate.
2. Summary Record of the 53rd meeting E/CN.4/1984/SR.53
(held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva,
on Tuesday, 13March 1984, at 3 p.m.)'
2. Commission on Human Righls: Forfy-Jrsl Session
(Geneva, 4 February-15 March 1985)
3. Report on the Forty-first Session: Resolution 1985/13. The Role of Youth
in the Field ofHuman Rights, Particularly in Achieving the Objectives of the
International Youth Year: Participation, Development, Peace*
The Commission on Human Righls,
Recalling that 1985 is the fortieth anniversary of the United Nations,
Awarethat peace constifutes one of the principal aspirations of rnankind and
that the attainment and preservation of peace is a universal responsibility.
Bearing in mind that the Charter of the United Nations expresses the deter-
mination of the peoples to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war
and to reaffirm faith in the equal rights of al1without any distinction and to
practise tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good
nei.hbours.
Considering that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaims that
recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal rights ofl1members of the
human family is the foundation of freedom. justice and peace in the world,
Recalling that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Interna-
tional Covenant on Civil and Political Rights proclaim that everyone has the
right to life, liberty and security of person,
Emphasizing the necessity to ensure full enjoyment by youth of the rights
stipulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the International Covenant
on Civiland Political Rights and al1other relevant international instruments, as
'Documentno1reproduced.[Noie by rhe Regisrry.1
>Adopled aithe 51slmeeting,on II March 1985.withauia vote. See Chap. XV. COhTENTS OF niE DOSSIER 27
indispensable for human dignity and the free development of the human per-
sonality,
Convinced of the importance of preserving peace and ensuring the inherent
right of every human being to life,
Sfressing the particular importance of ensuring the active participation of
youth in promoting the right to life as well as international peace and co-
operation,
Welcomingthe contribution of youth to the promotion of the ideals of peace
and international CO-operation, human rights and fundamental freedoms, the
exercise of the right to self-determination, the elimination of colonialism,
racism, racial discrimination and apartheid and the promotion of human
solidarity and dedication to the objectives of progress and development.
Welcorningalso the contribution of youth to achieving progressively the full
realization of economic, social and cultural rights,
Recogniztng thr importance of the direct participation of youth in shaping the
future of mankind and the valuable contribution that youth can make Io the
implementation of the new international economic ordei based on equality and
justice,
Recolling the emphasis placed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
on teaching and education, aimed at promoting human rights and fundamental
freedoms.
Aooreciaiina the efforts undertaken in oreoaration for the International
Youih Year: Participation, Development, ~éacéby the General Assembly, the
Advisory Committee for the International Youth Year and the Centre for Social
~evelo~ment and Humanitarian Affairs. which is a focal noint for the related
activitiés,
Reaffirrning the objectives of the International Youth Year: Participation,
Development, Peace, as well as their interdependence,
Mindful of the important role of youth in the field of human rights.
1. Reaffirms the role of youth in promoting the fulland effective enjoyment
of the entire ranee of human riahts and fundamental freedoms for al!:
2. ~eo/Jlrms &O the fact ihaÏyouth attaches crucial importance to the pro-
motion of international peace and <O-operation, the full and eflectite cnjoy-
ment of human riaht- and fundamental freedoms and the establishment of a
new international economic order;
3. Appeals to ail Governments to consider appropriate measures to ensure
that vounE- 7oole.have eaual oooortunities to oarticioate in the economic.
sociai, cultural, civil and politicaiiife of society ai wellas in the endeavour to
oromote human rights and fundamental freedoms. international peace and co-
operation, understanding, tolerance and friendship among al1nations;
4. Requesrs the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Pro-
tection of Minorities lo pay due attention to the role of youth in the field of
human rir-ts. ..rticularlv in achievina the obiectivesof the International Youth
i'ear: Participation. De~clopment. Peace, and taking into considcrarion the
Soecific Programme oï Measures and Activities to be undertaken prior to and
dking the lnternational Youth Year';
' A/36/215, Annex. Sec. IV.decision 1(1)28 PRMLEOES AND IMMUNI~~ESOF THE UNITED NATIONS
5. Requests the Secretary-General, in consultation with the relevant
soecialized aaencies.to eive soecial emohasis in 1985.as International Youth
?car, ioeducational macrialrand prog;ammcs for )o"th. in the lightol its ob.
jeciives. "Pariiciparion. De\elopmçni, Pca-e". as key clemenis in the ongoiny
orornotional activiiies of the Uniicd Nations in ihc field of human riahi,:
6. Decides to consider the matter at its forty-third session under Fhe item
"The role of youth in the promotion and protection of human rights, including
the question of conscientious objection to military service".
4. Report of the forty-first session: Chap. E/1985/22
XV. The role of youth in the promotion E/CN.4/1985/66
and protection of human rights including
the question of conscientious objection to
military service (paras. 376-385)'
5. Summary record of the 51stmeeting (first E/CN.4/1985/SR.51
part) (held at the Palais des Nations,
Geneva, on Monday, II February 1984,
at 3 p.m.) (paras. 12-22)'
3. Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of
Minoriries: Thirty-eighth Session fGenevo, 5-30 August 1985)
6. Report on the Thirty-eighth Session: Resolution 1985/12.
Human Rights and Youth'
The Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discriminorion ond Protection of
Minoriries,
Recolling General Assembly resolutions 38/21 of 22 November 1983and
39/21 of 23 November 1984which have underlined the importance of under-
taking concerted action programmes in favour of youth,
Beoring in mind ~conomic and Social Council resolution 1985/27of 29 May
1985regarding the measures for securing the implementation and enjoyment by
youth of human rights, particularly, the right to life, education and work and
ils resolution 1985/30 of 29 May 1985concerning CO-ordinationand informa-
tion in the field of youth,
Recollingthe Commission on Human Rights resolution 1985/13of 1I March
1985emphasizing the necessity to ensure full enjoyment by youth of the rights
stipulated in al1relevant international instruments as indispensable for human
' Document not reproduccd.[Note by the Regis1ry.j
' Adoptedat the 37th meeting. on29 August1985.withouta vote. See Chap.XVI. CONTENTS OF THE WSSIER 29
dignity and the free development of the human personality, and requesting the
Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities
to pay due attention to the role of youth in the field of human rights,
1. Keqf~esls.\lr. Dumitru Ma7ilu. inorder tu faciliiatc the Sub-Commirsion's
dis;ussion of the iopic. io prepaüereport on human rights and youth analysing
the efforts and miasures for securing the implementation and enjoyment by
youth of human rights, particularly, the right to life, education and work;
2. Requesrs the Secretary-General Io provide al1 necessary assistance to
Mr. Dumitru Mazilu for the com~letion of this task;
3. Decidesto deal witli the quesiion of "Human Rights and Youth" under its
item: "Promotion, protection and restoration of human rights at national.
regional and international levels" at its thirty-ninth session
7. "Administrative and Programme Budget E/CN.4/Sub.Z/l985/L.69
Implications of the Draft Resolution
Contained in Document E/CN.4/Sub.2/
1985/L.23" (in particular para. 6)'
4. Relevant Correspondence and Communications berween
18March 1986and 15 May 1987
8. Letter Dated 18 March from Mr. Mazilu to the Centre for Human Rights
18 March 1986
1 am writing to let you know that the Sub-Commission on Prevention of
Discrimination and Protection of Minorities has decided to entrust me with the
preparation of the Report on Human Rights and Youth for the next session of
the Sub-Commission.
In order to facilitate theelaboration of this report I will be available for con-
sultations with the Centre for Human Rights in Geneva any time in May or in
the first part ofJune.
If the above is agreeable. please make al1 necessary arrangements for my
round trip between Bucharest and Geneva. 1would also appreciate if you will
send me a letter of invitation for such consultations with the Centre.
(Signed) Dumitru M~ZILU.
9. Letter Dated 6 May 1986from the Chief, Research. Studies and Prevention
of Discrimination Section, Centre for Human Rights. to Mr. Mazilu
6 May 1986
1 would like to refer to your letter of 18 March 1986, addressed to Mr.
Herndl, in which you indicate your availability for consultations with the Centre
' Document no1reproduccd. [Note by lhe Regisrry.J30 PRNILECES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE UNITED NATIONS
this coming May or June in connection with the report on human rights and
youth that the Sub-Commission requested you to prepare in its resolution
1985/12.
1am pleased to inform you that you will be provided with a round-trip air
ticket from Bucharest to Geneva and payment of per diem for a period of five
working days. 1would also suggest that your visit be scheduled for the period
26 to 30 May 1986. In order to make the necessary arrangements, 1would be
grateful if you could let us know as soon as possible, if those days are con-
venient for you.
(Signed) Emmanuel MOMPOINT
10. Letter Dated 5 June 1986from the Chief, Research, Studies and Prevention
of Discrimination Section, Centre for Human Rights, to Mr. Mazilu
5 June 1986.
I should Liketo refer 10 my letter of 6 May and to Mr. Herndl's letter of
28 May 1986informing you that the General Assembly, at its resumed fortieth
session, adopted a number of economy measures including the deferral to 1987
of meetings already scheduled.
As a result of the Assembly's decision, the thirty-ninth session of the Sub-
Commission and its working groups, scheduled to be held this August, will not
take place. However, the Assembly's decision will no1 affect the Pace of work
as renards the oreoaration of documents to be submitted to the thirtv-ninth ses-
sionof the ~ib-~ommission. As to the preparation of your repoit, 1 would
appreciate your informing us whether you intend to come to Geneva for con-
sukations so that arrangements for your travel and stay could be made in time.
II. ett tDeared 8October 1986from the Chief, Research, Studies and Preven-
lion of Discrimination Section, Centre for Human Rights, to Mr. Mazilu
8 October 1986.
First, let me say how much 1regret that because of the current financial crisis
we have not had the resources to underwrite vour trio to Geneva for consulta-
tions on the report on human rights and youth which'youare requested to sub-
mit to the next session of the Sub-Commission Ii is our hope ihat sufficient
funds will be available in the 1987allotments to enable vou to come.
In the meantime 1am writing to you in order to determine how the secretariat
can be of assistance to you in the preparation of your report. which we consider
to be one of the most i-moortantthatwill be before the next session of the Sub-
Commission. We are,ofcourse, awareof your great experienceand knowledge
in the subject-matter but we would nevertheless like to assist you in any way we
can.
The Sub-Commission's resoluiion calls for a report on human rights and
youih analysing the efforts and measures for securing the implementation and
enjoyment by youth of human rights, particularly. the right to life, education CONTENTS OF THE DOSSIER 31
and work. The wording of that paragraph as wellas references in the preambule
indicate a desire bv the Sub-Commission to be informed of stem which are or
can be taken to ;ive reality to the human rights of youth, ëspecially those
expressly mentioned.
Basicinformation on what is being done or can be done both on the national
and international levels might be obtained from the specialized agencies,
selected parts of the United Nations Secretariat, regional intergovernmental
organizations and youth-oriented NGOs. We may also think of contacting the
World Bank, UNIDO, the EEC, COMECON and the lnteramerican Develop-
ment Bank in order to determine what steps they take to favour youth in their
respective programmes; this would at least make them aware of the importance
of the sub~.~~~
Should you wish, we csn send requests for information as background ma-
terial Foryour study to those indicated and to any others you might suggest. In
this regard, and should you so wish, wecould seek information via noteverbale
from Covernments.
The Centre for Human Rights already has in its files much information on
certain specific violations of human righis which can strike youth in particular.
1 think of, among others, the reports on disappearances; in some situations
.ounr-.oeoole have been svecific tarnets of disavvearances. Other areas for
rcviewmight be arbitrary $nd summar; cxccutions; torture and any information
receited rcgarding detention of young persons. Finally, in certain country ritua-
tions vouth find themsel\es esveciallv victimised by violations: 1 think of the
impact of aparfheid on youth in south Africa.
The various reports of the Centre in these areas may be studied to describe
the soecificitv of violations of human riahts of youth and oerhavs .unges--ome
speci'ficremédies. Shouldthe ~entre's-files bë incornplite on any important
point wewould, of course, make appropriateefforts to obtain the needed facts.
1would be most anxious to hear from you on these matters and on any other
things wemight do to assist you sothat wemay beginat the earliest opportunity.
12. A (Sample) Note Verbale Dated 9 January 1987to Governments
The Secretary-General of the United Nations presents his compliments to the
Minister for Foreign Affairs and Tourism of the Commonwealth of the
Bahamas and has the honour to refer to Sub-Commission on Prevention of
Discrimination and Protection of Minorities resolution 1985/12 of 29 August
1985.entitled "Human Rights and Youth". Acopy of the resolution is attached.
In paragraph 1 of the resolution, the Sub-Commission requested one of its
members, Mr. Dumitru Mazilu, irt order to facilitate the Sub-Commission's
discussion of the topic, to prepare a report on human rights and youth analysing
the efforts and measures for securing the implementation and enjoyment by
vouth of human riehts. oarticularlv the rieht to life. education and work.
~ r . Mazilu intend,Ïo s"bmit his reiort to tie thirty-ninth session of the Sub-
Commission schedulcd to be held from 10August to 4 Se~tember 1987.
The Soecial Raooorteur would welcomeanv relevant information and obser-
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
vations~ihat Hi5 ~;cellency's Government may wish to make on the subjcct of
youih and human rights. The Secretary-Ccncral would be grateful ifsuch infor.32 PRlVlLEGES AND IMMUNlTlE OP TM UNITED NAllONS
mation could, if possible, be forwarded to the Centre for Human Rights, United
Nations Office at Geneva, CH-1211 Geneva 10, by 30 March 1987.
13. Letter Dated 15 May 1987 from the Research and Studies Unit,
Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities Section,
Centre for Human Rights, to Mr. Mazilu Transmitting Information
Received in Response to the Notes Verbales of 9 January 1987
15May 1987.
In connection with the studv on human rinhts and youth. YOU will find
enclosed herewiih relevant infokmation from ihe Governments of Bangladesh.
Chad. Chilc. German Democratic Rcpublic, Mexico.Panama and Spain, as well
as from the International Labour Office. the African Association of Education
for Dcvclopment, Pax Christi Intcrnational and ihe Law Association for Asia
and the Pacific. 1am sending you under separaie cover the following Interna-
tional Labour Office pubiications: the reports of thc Dircctor-Gcne10lthe
68th and 69th ~~~~~~~ the lotrnationai~abour Conference: a report on the
changing world of work and another on youth submitied to the 72nd session of
the lnternational Labour Conference. to~ether with the orovisional record of
this session dealing with its fifth item'onthe agenda: yo"th; a general survey
on minimum age by the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conven-
tions and Recommendations; a resolution concerning young people and the
ILO's contribution to lnternational Youth Year; and a paper on social security
protection of youth.
(Signed) Etty LEISEIISON.
5. The Economic ond Sociol Council: Orglmizolionol Sessionfor 1987
(New York, 3-6 Februory 1987)
14. Decision 1987/102. Term of Oflice of the Current Members of the Sub-
Commission on Prevention .of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities,
Adopted on ,6Febmary 1987
At its 3rd plenary meeting, on 6 February 1987, the Economic and Social
Council, taking note of General Assembly resolution 4l/l43 of 4 December
1986. decided:
/O)To extend the term of office of the current members of the Sub-
~ommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities for
one year io ensurc their participation in ihe ihirty-ninth session of the Sub-
commission, to be held in 1987;
(b) To postpone until the forty-fourth sessionof the Commission on Human
Rights, in 1988,the election of new members of the Sub-Commission scheduled
to be held durina the forty-third session of the Commission. in 1987, and to
ensure that the eïection is governed by the procedure established in Economic
and Social Council resolution 1986/35 of 23 May 1986;34 PRlVILEOES AND IWAUNITIE OF THE UNITED NATIONS
exercise of the rinht to self-determination. the elimination of colonialism.
racism, racial disirimination and apartheid and the promotion of human
solidarity and dedication to the objectives of progress and development,
Recognizing the valuable contribution that youth can make to the implemen-
tation of the new international economic order hased on equality and justice.
Recolling the emphasis placed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
on teaching and education, aimed at promoting human rights and fundamental
freedoms,
Expressingitsoppreciotion to the General Assembly, the Advisory Committee
for the lnternational Youth Year and the Centre for Social Development and
Humanitarian Affairs for their important contribution to the whole process of
.re.aration and observance of the International Youth Year.
ReaJfirming the objecti\,cs ol the International Youth i'ear: Partiiipation.
Development, Peace. and taking note oi the guidelines for further planning and
witable follow-ur, in the field of vouth. endorsed bv the Gensral Assemblv in
1985 (A/40/256, innex) in order to maintain the impétusgenerated by the ~éar.
Mindful of the important role of youth in the field of human rights,
1. Rea/jirms ihe role of youth in promoting the full and effective enjoyment
of the entire range of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all;
2. Reo//irms olso the faci that youth attaches crucial importance IOthe pro-
motion of international peace and co-operation, the full and eifectiic enjo).
ment of human rights and fundamental freedoms and ihe establishment of the
new international economic order;
3. Appeols once agoin to al1Governments IO consider appropriate measures
to ensure that young people have equal opportunities to participate in the
economic. social. cultural. civil and oolitical life of societv as well as in the
endeavou; to promole human rights and fundamental freedoms, international
peace and co-operation, understanding. .oleranc. and friendship amonn al1
nations;
4. Tokes note with oppreciotion of resoluiion 1985/12 of the Suh.Com.
mission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities of
29August 1985,in which the Sub-Commission requested one of its members to
prepare a report on human rights and youth analysing the efforts and measures
for securing the implementation and enjoyment of human rights by youth,
particularly the right to life, education and work, and to suhmit it to theSuh-
Commission at its thirty-ninth session;
5. Requests the Secretary-General to provide al1necessary assistance to the
Rapporteur of the Sub-Commissionon human rights and youth for completion
of this task;
6. Decides to consiaer the matter at its forty-filth session under the agenda
item "The role of youth in the promotion and protection of human rights,
including the question of conscientious objection IO military service".
54th meeting
IOMorch 1987
[Adopted by a roll-cal1vote of 34 to none, with
8 abstentions. See Chap. XV.] CONTENTS OF DOSSIER
16. Report on the forty-third session: Chap. E/1987/18
XV. The role of youth in the promo- E/CN.4/1987/60
tion and protection of human rights,
includin- the auestion of conscientious
objection ta military service (paras.
457-463)'
7. Correspondence on 14May 1987
17. Letter Dated 14 May 1987from the Officer-in-Charge, Research, Studies
and Prevention of Discrimination Section, Centre for Human Rights,
to Mr. Mazilu
14 May 1987.
I have the honour ta send you herewith an information annex concerning
your travel entitlements in connexion with your attendance at the thirty-ninth
sessionof the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection
of Minorities, which will meet at the United Nations Office a1 Geneva from
10August to 4 September 1987and at the meetings ofthe Working Croups on
Slavery (as a member) and on lndigenous Populations (as an alternate) which
will also be held in Geneva from 3 to 7 August 1987.
In view of the time reauired to make the necessary travel arrangements. we
would nppreciate ii if you could forward deiails to-us at least four weeks in
advnnse as io your proposcd means of iravcl and anticipÿted dates of departure
and arrival. as well as vour contact address and teleuhone number. This infor-
mation may bc 1orua;ded IO the Ccntre for ~uman Righis. United Nations
Oifi:e, Gcne\a. Switzerland. The Unircd Nations willthen iake sieps io provide
vou with the necessary air tickets.
A sopy of the pro;isional agenda for the thiriy-ninth \es\ion of the Sub-
Commission and al1oihcr documenis uill be foruarded IO you as soon as ihey
becomcai,ailable. The rer>oriof the Sub.Commission ai ils ihiriy-eiahih session
as well as the texts of the resolutions adopted by the commission-on Human
Rights at its forty-second and forty-third sessions which contain provisions of
direct relevance to the work of the Suh-Commission will be sent to you under
separate cover.
If you have any further questions regarding arrangements for the forth-
coming session of the Sub-Cornmission, please do not hesitate to write
IO US.
' Document not reproduced.[Nore by rhe Regisrry.136 PRNUECES AND IMMUNmE SF W UNTTED NATIONS
8. Sub-Commission on Prevenlion of Discrimination and Protection of
Minorities: Thirty-ninlh Session (Geneva, 10Augusr-4 Seplember 1987)
E/CN.4/Sub.Z/l987/SR.5
17 August 1987.
18. Summary Record of the 5th Meeting
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva,
on Wednesday, 12August 1987, at 4 p.m.
Chairman: Mr. Despouy
The meeting woscalled to order ut 4.20 p.m,
REVIEW OF FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS IN FIELDS WITH WHlCH THE SUB-COMMISSION
HAS BEEN CONCERNED (agenda item 4) (conrinued) (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1987/3,
E/CN.4/Sub.Z/1987/4 and E/CN.4/Sub.2/1987/5)
[Paras. 1-13not reproduced]
14. IMr. Houshmond (Reoresentative of the Secretary-General)l. Finally.
with regard to the atrenda"ce.of experts ai the ~ub-~om~ission's resrions. on
the basis of information received by the Secrctariat. he wa<able to announce
thai Mr. Al Khasawnehand Mr. ValdczBaquero hadjust arribcd in Geneva and
should be able to ~articioate in the work of the Sub-Commission as of its next
meeting. In the case of ~r. Uribe Portocarrero and his alternate, Mr. Cepeda
Ulloa, the Secretariat had been informed that they would not be able to attend
the present session. In the case of Mr. Mazilu, the Secretariat had just received
a letter from the Permanent Mission of Romania, confirming that he had suf-
fered a heart attack last June and, being still in hospiral. would no1be able to
travel to Geneva.
[Paras. 15-16not reproduced]
17. Mrs. Daes thanked the representative of the Secretary-General for the
verv useful information he had communicated to the Sub-Commission. She
in4ired. since Mr. Mazilu had suffered a heart attack, why his alternate. Mr.
Nicolae had not come instead. Three experts usually represented the region Io
which Romania belonged; only two werépresent at the current session, in con-
sequence of which the result of some decisions might be distorted. She would
also like Io see the letter transmitted by the Permanent Mission of Romania.
18. Mr. von Boven commented that it was usual for corresoondence to be
exchanged directlybetween experts and the Sub-Commission, without involving
the Permanent Missions of Governments. Consequently. he also had reserva-
tions as to the manner in which the ~ecretariat had been informed that
Mr. Mazilu would not participate in the work of the Sub-Commission.
[Paras. 19-23 no1 reproducedl
24. Mr. Whifoker, supported by Mr. Joinef, tbought that the Chairman
should try to make direct contact with Mr. Mazilu by telephoning him at the
hospital in order to wish him a speedy recovery.
25. Mr. Aifonso Marlinez said that al1 the other members of the Sub- CONTENT3 OF THE DOSSIER 37
Commission who had made their excuses would then have to be treated in the
same way and without any discrimination.
26. Mr. Sofinsky thought that when a person was hospitalized for a serious
reason, it wasadvisable to consult his physicians before trying Io telephone him.
While the Sub-Commission was frequently urged not to politicize the issues it
debated. heart attacks were nowaooarentlv heeinnine to be a oolitical issue! He
agreed wirh Ir. AITonsohlartiné; that rhc ,:me triaiment ihould bc applied
to al1mcmbers of the Sub-Commission uho wcrc absent ai the opcning of a ,es-
sion or who left before it closed.
27. Mr. Houshmond (Representative of the Secretary-General) said that the
members of the Sub-Commission could, if they so wished, read the letter
transmitted that very morning by the Permanent Mission of Romania to the
United Nations Office at Geneva confirming that Mr. Mazilu had suffered a
heart attack in Junc and was still in hospital. The Permanent Mission of
Romania had also indicated that Mr. Mazilu's alternate, Mr. Nicolae, was
unable to take part in the work of the Sub-Commission because he had been
assigned another mission of a completely different nature in New York.
28. As a general rule, the Secretariat made direct contact with the members
of the Suh-Commission, After having tried unsuccessfully to reach Mr. Mazilu
at his home. the Secretariat had been informed bv the Romanian Ministrv of
Foreign Affairs that the 13erriianentMission of Roinania to thc United ~at;ons
Office at Gcnc\a uould givc the ncccssaryc\planations. That had hccn done in
the aforementioned letter.
29. Mr. Aljonso Morrinez inquired whether the Secretariat had also received
explanations in respect of Mr. Uribe Portocarrero, Mr. Valdez Baquero and
Mr. Al Khasawaneh. In the case of Mr. Mazilu. the Sub-Commission had at
least been informed of the reasons for his absence. He also inquired whether the
adoption by the Sub-Commission of a specific procedure would involve finan-
30. MI. Hoitsh!nond (Rcprc\cntatire of the Sc;rctary-Gcncral) sraicd thai
hlr. Uribe Portocarrero had indicaicd th31he uould iiot be able to take pliri in
the work of the current session because he did not wish to leave his sick wife.
The Secretariat had therefore contacted his alternate. Mr. Cepeda Ulloa, who
had written back to say that he would not be able to come to Geneva either be-
cause he had iust been aooointed Minister of Communications. He understood
that Mr. Al ~hasawanehand Mr. Valdez Baquero had just arrived in Geneva
and should be able to be present in the Sub-Commission the following day.
31. Mr. Simpson inquired whether the Secretariat had received explanations
concerning the absence of the expert from Nigeria, Mr. Dove-Edwin.
32. Mr. Houshmond (Representative of the Secretary-General) said that
Mr. Dove-Edwin had not replied to the cables and letters sent.to him by the
Secretariat. As the Permanent Mission of Nigeria to the United Nations Office
at Geneva had indicated on the previous day that Mr. Dove-Edwin would not
be able to come to Geneva, the Secretariat would contact his alternate,
Mr. George, immediately.
33. Mr. von Boven considered that it was unacceptable to imply that certain
members of the Sub-Commission were seekina to make uolitical capital out of
the absence of certain ehpert,. The ~ub-~omhission was genuincly conierned
by thosc absences and he kneu from ehperiencc that individual3had on occasion
been preventcd from taking part in certain meetings for purcly politisa1reasons.
It was therefore entirelv iüstified in nonderine the real reasons for the absence
of certain experts. It wa; to be hopid that oser United Nations bodies would
showthe same concern. Whileil was sometirnesperfectly proper IOplead illness38 PRIVILEGES AND 1MMUNlTIF.SOF THE UNITED NATIONS
in order to justify someone's absence, it was equally obvious that there were
occasions when the plea of illness was merely a pretext.
34. Mrs. Daes said that she agreed entirely with Mr. van Boven. By putting
forward candidates for election to the Sub-Commission, the many Governments
represented at the current session by observers had undertaken to simplify the
work of the Sub-Commission. Two years previously, the Sub-Commissioit had
adopted a resolution on alternates. Why did those Governments that were so
readv to~criticize the work of the Sub-Commission not trv to simolifv its task
by ailowing alternates such as Mr. George to attend the.sessions'of.the Sub-
Commission? She was particularly anxious to see Mr. Mazilu. who had clearly
indicated his intention of submitting the study assigned to hih in his capaciry
as Special Rapporteur.
35.Mr. Al/onso Marrinez said that he thought its very nature should make
the Sub-Commission proceed in a way that was non-discriminatory vis-à-vis al1
its members. One might well wonder why no one was concerned about the
absence of the expert from Somalia. Mr. Ilkahanaf. who had not attended the
~ub-~ommission's sessions for two years. Also, the reasons preventing
Mr. Giustozzi and Mr. Roche from participating in the Sub-Commission's work
had not alwavs been easv to understand. He was therefore surorised that for the
firsttime the ~ub-commission deemed it necessary to take measures that year
in respect of the absence of certain experts. However, the procedure followed
must be the same for all.
36. Mr. Joiner recalled the existence of a precedenr in that domain since the
Sub-Commission had in the pas1taken a decision concerning one of ils members
who had disameared when hehad in fact been the chairman of a workinn aroup
on disappearances. In an attempt to defuse the discussion, he proposed-that al
the opening of each session the Chairman should provide information on al1
experts who were absent.
37.Mr. Yimar, speaking on a point of order, moved the immediate closure
of the debare under rule 50of the rules of procedure.
38. Mr. Joiner said that he would not oppose the closure of the debare pro-
vided that the suggestion he had just made was taken into consideration.
39. The Chairman said that, if there was no objection, he would take it that
the debate was closed and Mr. Joinet's proposal was adopted.
40. If was so decided.
9.Correspondence and Cornmunicarions between
18 Augusl 1987 and II Februory 1988
19. Telex Dated 18 August 1987under the Name of Mr. Mazilu,
Addressed to the Chairman of the Sub-Commission
1would liketo inform you with regret that 1am not in the position to attend
the current session of the Sub-Commission due to a heart illness. Now under
medical care and unable to make any physical effort.
I also wish 10 mention that unfortunately my former alternate no longer
involved in matters of Sub-Commission.
D. MAZILU.
- CONTENTS OF THEDOSSIER
20. Letter Dated 3 November 1987 from the
Under-Secretary-General for Human Rights to Mr. Mazilu
3 November 1987.
As you know your colleagues, mernbers of the Sub-Commission on Preven-
tion of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, and your friends in the
secretaiiat were deenlv concerned bv the news of vour illness and inabilitv to
attend the most recent.sessionof tlie~ub-~ommission. We al1hope that you.are
now well on the way to recovery and that you will be taking up your activities
fullv in the near future
During the Sub-Commission regret was expressedthat the Sub-Commission
would not be able to consider the report on human rights and youth, particu-
larly the rinht to life. education and work which vou had been reauested to
prebare. ~genda item 14 under which your repori was scheduled Cobe con-
sidered was postponed by the Sub-Commission in its decision 1987/112 to its
coming fortieth session.
In view of the keen interest of the Sub-Commission and the non-govern-
mental organization community in your report, 1 am writing Io enquire if
there is an.thin- we mav ,o ~ ~assist vou in the oreoaration of this document.
A\ in the pas. ire shall of rourrc be $&ling sou'ihe information rubmiited hy
Go\ernrnenis. intergoiernnicntal organi~ations and non-governmenial organi-
zations, and any other information which cames to our attention with regard
to the subject of your report.
We would appreciate hearingfrorn you at your earliest convenience concern-
ing your plans with regard to this study. As you know, financial resourceshave
been approved for a mission to Geneva by yourself in connection with the
preparation of your report. We would be happy to discuss with you the most
opportune time for this visit.
(Signed) Jan MARTENSON
-
21. Cable Dated 17 December 1987 from the Under-Secretary-General
for Human Rights to Mr.'Mazilu
17 December 1987.
Further Io mv letter of 3November 19871would like to~re~er to the mandate
entrumd 10 you by Sub-Commission rcsolution 1985/ 12to preparc a report on
human riglits and souih particularly the righi to lifc. edu~ation and work, for
submission to the next session of the ~ub-~ornmission in 1988.
1would be grateful if you could let me know what you propose to do iegard-
ing the preparation of the report and what we can do to assis1you in your task.
In order for the Centre to make the necessarv arraneements. an urgent -eolv . .
from you would be appreciated.
22. Letter Postmarked 25 December 1987 from Mr. Mazilu
to the Under-Secretary-General for Human Rights
First of all. 1would like to convey to you and to al1Our colleagues my best
wishes for a happy New Year!40 PRIVaEOES AND -S OF THE UNITED NATIONS
Secondly, 1ask you to be so kind and to send me al1the documents that were
adopted by the last session of the Sub-Commission.
Taking into account the fact that since 5 May 1986,1have no regular news
from the Centre and 1 have not receivedthe ordinarv UN documents in Ourfield
@ossiblythcy have ben lost). I kindly requat you;o send me al1materials and
information throuah the UN Information Centre in Bucharest.
I am ready to continue a>-operation with you in order to fulfil. in the best
possible way. my duties to the Sub-Commission.
Please confirm the receipt of this letter.
23. Letter Postmarked 29 December 1987from Mr. Mazilu
to the Under-Secretary-General for Human Rights
1 would like to convey to you my best wishes for a very happy New Year!
Please acccot. Mr. Under-Secretarv-Generd. mv sincere annreciation for
your prodigioisactivity in the bcncfit of the nobie causes of ~uman Rightr and
Peace in the world. Regarding my report on "Human Rights and Youth", 1 am
readv to come to the Centre for consultations at 14 Februarv 1988.
I have to inform you that I have now my own documentation for the report.
1 have no documents from the Centre or from Governmcnts (possibly they
have been lost). but 1need them as soon asoossible. To this end .^ask vou to
be so kind and to scnd me these documeni through the Dircctor of rie UN
Information Centre in Bucharest with the receipt for confirmation.
It was unfortunate that 1have not receivedthe usual invitation and air ticket
to the most recent session of the Sub-Commission.
If the proposed period for consultations would be agreeable for you, please
let me know as soon as nossible.
In the meantirne, I wili ask my authorities to give me permission to camIO
the Centre. It is my hope that 1 will receivc il, in spitc of the fact that rince
5Mav 1986.when 1have receivedfirst invitation in connection wiih the . .nara-
lion of my ieport, 1 have had no permission to come to the Centre.
In luly and August 1987.1 have tried very hard to obtain permission to came
to the ordinary session of the Sub-Commission. But every effort was useless.
That is why,since 5 May 1986it was impossible for me to perform my inter-
national duties asa member of the Sub-Commission.
Takina into account that mv renort is not a national but an international
documerÏt and 1have toprepah iin rny personal capacity as an inrcrnational
independent expert, 1 hopc that my authorities will approve my trip to the
Centre.
1am determined to do everything possible to obtain permission to perform
my duties as an international independent expert and to serve, to the best of my
abilitv. the noble cause of ~uman Rinhts.
~l&se confirm the receipt of this letter.
Curriculum vitae'.
a Nol rcproduced.[Note by theRegisIry.1 CONTRNTS OF THE DOSSIER 41
24. Cable Dated 19 January 1988from the Under-Secretary-General
for Human Rights to the Acting Director,
United Nations Information Centre, Bucharest
19 January 1988
Reference study for the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination
and Protection of Minorities on Human Rights and Youth.
You may perhaps know that the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discri-
mination and Protection of Minorities in 1985charged Mr. Dumitru Mazilu
with preparing a report on Human Rights and Youth. This report is of im-
oortance IO both the Commission on Human Rinhts and the Sub-Commission
-
and 1would apprcciate very much your assistance in facilitating Mr. Mazilu's
work on this prolecl. In uarticular. il would be appreciaied if you could transmit
the messanebelow to him and if vou could act asa channel to orovide him with
a ticket for his trip to Geneva.'
"Professor Dumitru Mazilu, Secretary-General of the United Nations
Association of Romania, Str. General Praporgescu No. 27, Sectorul 2,
Bucharest, COD 70131, Telephone 130001.
Wish to refer to the study of Human Rights and Youtb wbich you are
nreoarinn oursuant to resolutions of the Commission on Human Rinhts
andits Gb-commission on Prevention of Discrimination and ~rotecïion
of Minorities. This is a study Io which both bodies attach great importance
and in order Io enable usri have itready for the next session of ihe Sub-
Commission itwould bc important for us to begin workon the iext as soon
as possible. For this reason 1wish to invite you to come to the Centre for
Human Rinhts in Geneva for consultations and oreoaration of vour reoort.
as foresechat the rimeof adoption of the resoluiioi'srelating toyour siudy:
May I suggest the two-week period beginning hlonday, 15February 1988.
Givm the-delav alreadv exoerienced in oreoa..n~. th-s reoort and the
amount of material avaiiable; I believea two-week period is iecessary. We
are issuing instructions relating to your travel and asking United Nations
Information Centre in Bucharest to provide you with a ticket. Please
inform us if you need botel reservations for your stay and if there is
anything else we may do to assist. Regards. Jan Martenson. Under-
Secretary-General for Human Rights."
25. Letter (Undated) from Mr. Mazilu to the Under-Secretary-General
for Human Rights Transmitted by a Letter Dated 20 January 1988
from the Acting Director, United Nations lnformation Centre, Bucharest
20 January 1988.
1 am pleased to enclose for your attention a letter from Professor Dumitru
Mazilu which he hand-delivered to me on 15January.
Professor Mazilu emphasized to me that he is prepared Io travel to Geneva
for the meeting and to remain in Geneva to finish the report. Whether he will
be allowed to do so remains uncertain.42 PRNILECES AND -S OF THE UNiTED NATTONS
Since mail to Geneva via Our New York pouch is slow, 1am also sending
copies of Professor Mazilu's letter through travellers (to Vienna this week and
from Moscow to Geneva next week)
(Signed) Noël EICHHORN.
1 would like to convey to you my best wishes for a very happy New Year!
Please accept, Mr. Under-Secretary-Generalm , y sincere appreciation for
your prodigious activity in the benefit of the noble causes of Human Rights and
Peace in the world.
Regarding my report on human rights and youth, 1am ready to come to the
Centre for consultations at 14 February 1988.
1bave to inform you that 1have now my own documentation for the report.
1 have no documents from the Centre or from Governmaits (possibly they
have been lost). but 1need them as soon as oossible. To this end. 1ask vou to
be so kind and to send me these document'sthrough the ~irector of the UN
Information Centre in Bucharest, recei~t for confirmation.
It was unfonunate that 1have not re&ived the usual invitation and air ticket
to the most recent session of the Sub-Commission.
If the proposed period for consultations would be agreeable for you, please
let me know as soon as oossible.
In the meantime, 1wili ask my authorities to give me permission to come to
the Centre. It is my hope that 1 will receive it, in spite of the fact that since
5 May 19861 have-had-no permission.to come to the Centre.
In luly and August 1987,1have tried very hard to obtain permission to corne
to the ordinary session of the Suh-Commission. But, every effort was useless.
That is why, since5 May 1986it was impossible for me to fulfil my interna-
tional duties as a member of the Sub-Commission.
Takinp-into account that mv .evo.t is not a national. but an international
document and I have to prepare itin my personal capacity a7 an international
indepcndcnt expert. 1 hope ihai my auihorities will approve my trip to the
Centre.
I am deiermined io do everyrhing possible to obtain permission to fulfil my
duties as an international independent expert and io serve ihe noble cause of
Human Rights.
P.S. Please confirm thc receipi of ihis letier and transmit ii to Mr. Leandro
Deswuy, the ChYrman of the Sub-Commission. and to Mrs. Erika-lrene Dîes.
former chairman of the Sub-Commission.
1. Since5 May 1986 1have had no permission to go to the Centre for Human
Rights for consuhations, in order to prepare my report on "Human Rights and
Youth".
2. Since 5 May 19861have no news from the Centre, in spite of the fact that
1sent 14letters through which 1have informed my friends in Geneva about my
unusual situation.
Possihly these letters have been lost? !
3. Because of this impossible situation, 1have suffered very much. In 1987,
for two limes, 1was in hospital.
4. Since 1 December 1987,1have been forced to retire from my activity, as
Minister-Counsellor and Head of Legal Department (compartment) in the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
5. Finally, after Iwo months, 1have received the letter from Mr. Martenson CONTENTS OP THE DOSSIER 43
through which I am invited to come to Geneva, in order to prepare my repori
on "Human Rights and Youth".
1 am ready to go to the Centre al 14 February this year!
26. Telex dated 21 January 1988 from the
Centre for Human Rights to the United
Nations Information Centre, Bucharest '
-
27. Cable Dated 21 January 1988 from the President
of the United Nations Association of Romania to the
Centre for Human Rights
Transloted from French
21'January 1988.
1 confirm receipt of your telegram 137/128. Mr. Dumitru Mazilu, former
Secretary-General of our association, retired on 1 December 1987and can no
longer undertake gainful employment because he is suffering from a heart
ailment.
I was obliged to replace him as Secretary-General of our Association.
1 regret that my receipt of your message was delayed, owing to my absence
on holiday.
Professor Alexandru BALACI.
28. Letter Dated II February 1988 from the Under-Secretary-Genera!
for Hnman Rights to the Acting Director, United Nations Information Centre,
Bucharest
11Fehruary 1988.
1wish to thank you very much for having fowarded the letters from Pro-
fesser Mazilu and for assisting us in this matter. May 1now ask you to inform
Professor Mazilu that we did in fact receive the two letters mailed from
Bucharest: one on 25 December 1987and the other on 29 December 1987and
that we also receivedthe letter which you transmitted to us under cover of your
letter of 20 January 1988.
1am looking forward to discussing these matters with you in Geneva during
your next visit here (19 to 22 February 1988). 1wonder if you could ascertain
' Documentnot reproduced.[Nole by rhe Regis1ry.l44 PRIVILEOE ASNDIMMUNITIES OF THE UNITED NATIONS
from Professor Mazilu in the meantime if he has encountered any further dif-
ficulties in accepting Our invitation to visit Geneva and work on his report. If
that is the case you might discuss with him what action, if any, the Secretariat
could take with a viewto facilitating his comingto Geneva. For example, would
it be helpful in his view if we were to take the matter up with the Permanent
Mission in Geneva or in New York?
IO. Commission on Human Righls: Forly-fourth Session
(Genevo, 1 February-Il Morch 1988)
29. Report on the Forty-fourth Session: Chapter XXIV.
Election of Members of Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination
and Protection of Minorities, Paragraphs 595-599
595. The Commission considered agenda item 24 at ils 39th meeting, on
29 February 1988.
596. The Commission had before it a note by the Secretary-General contain-
ine nomi~ ~ ~ ~ of~candidates for election ti membershin of the Sub.Com.
mission on I'reveniion of Discrimination and Proieciion of Minoriiies and
biographical data on the candidates (E/CN.4/1988/46 and Addl-6).
597.-ln accordance with resolution 1334(XLIV)and decision 1978/21 of the
Economic and Social Council, the geographical distribution of the membership,
of the S~ ~C~mmission is as follows:-/oJ seven members from African States:
(6) five members from Asian States; (cjsix members from Western European
and other States; (d) five members from Latin American States; (e)three
members from Eastern European States.
598. The attention of the Commission was drawn to Economic and Social
Council resolution 1986/35 and decision 1987/102, in accordance with which
the members of the Suh-Commission would be elected for a term of four years
and half of its membership and the corresponding alternates, if any, would be
elected every two years. The Council authorized the Chairman of the forty-
fourth session of the Commission 10draw lots to select the members and. as
applicable, iheir corrcsponding alierndte\ whose tcrms of office would expire
aftcr two years in accordance with the follouing pattern ihrec members from
African ~iates: three members from Asian tat te h ree members from Latin
American tat tes one member from Eastern European States; and three
members from Western European and other States.
599. The Commission elected by secretballot the 26 members of the Suh-
Commission. The following candidates were elected:
African States
Mr. Yawo Agboyibora Togo
Mr. Abdou Assoumab
Miss Judith Sefi Attah' Nigeria
Mrs. Christy Ezim Mbonub CONTENTS OF THB DOSSIER
Mr. Aidid Abdillahi llkahanaf Somalia
Mr. Mohamed Isa Turunjib
Mr. Ahmed Khalifa E~YP~
Mrs. Fatma Zohra Ksentini" Algeria
Mr. Boudjemâa Delmib
Mrs. Halima Embarek Warzazi Morocco
Mr. Mohamed Laghmarib
Mr. Fisseha Yimer Etliiopia
Asion Slares
Mr. Awn Shawkat Jordan
Al-Khasawnehn
Mr. Waleed M. Sadib
Mrs. Mary Concepcion Bautista Philippines
Ms Haydee Yoracb
Mr. Murlidhar Chandrakant lndia
Bhandarea
Mr. Ribot Hatano Japan
Mr. Yozo Yokotab
Mr. Tian JinY China
Mr. Shao Jin*
Easlern EuropeonSlales
Mr. Stanislav Valentinovich Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
ChernichenkoY
Mr. Teimuraz Otarovich
Ramishvilib
Mr. Ion Diaconu Romania
Mr. loan Maxim b
Mr. Danilo Türk Yugoslavia
Ms Lidija R. Bastab
Lalin Americon Slales
Mr. Leandro Despouyu Argentina
Mrs. Maria Teresa Floresb
Mr. Miguel Alfonso Martinez Cuba
Mr. Julio Heredia Pérezb
Mr. Rafael Rivas Posada Colombia
Mr. Eduardo Suescun Monroyb
Mr. Alejandro Sobarzo Loaizao Mexico
Mr. Héctor Fix Zamudiob
Mr. Luis Varela Quirosa Costa Rica
Mr. Jorge Rhenan Segurab
Western Europeon andOlher Stoles
Mr. Pheodoor Cornelis Netherlands
van Boven
MT. Cornelis Flintermanb46 PRMLEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE UNITED NATIONS
Mrs. Erica-lrene A. Daes" Greece
Mr. Asbjrarn Eide Norway
Mr. Jan Helgesenb
Mr. Louis Joinet' France
Mr. Alain Pelletb
Ms Claire PalleyY United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern lreland
Mr. William W. Treat United States of America
Mr. John Careyb
Y Electedfora term of Iwoyears.
Alternate.
30. Resolution 1988/43, work of the Sub-
Commission on Prevention of Discri-
mination and Protection of Minorities'
II. Correspondence and Communications berween
5 April und 19 Augus! 1988
31. Letter Dated 5 April 1988from Mr. Mazilu
to the Under-Secretary-General for Human Rights
5 April 1988.
It is my duty to inform you that my authorities have refused again to give me
oermission to come to the Centre for Human Riehts on 15 Februarv 1988.
' A Sperial Commivion from ihc linistry of totcigii Affairs has askcd mr on
22 February to transniii a iable io you through uhichIO inform sou thal I :an
not prepare my Report on Human Rights and Youth and to suggest to request
another expert to prepare if.
1have refused to sign such a paper and 1haveinformed Ihem that 1am deter-
mined to fulfil my duties as a Special Rapporteur on this subject.'
But, unfortunately, a strong pressure on me and on my family continues in
order to sign such a paper.
lnstead of the oermission to come to Geneva on 15Februarv. since that dav
extraordinary pilice measures have been taken against me and against m;
family. Every day and every night more than 20 policemen are following me,
my wife and my son.
Every talk is under police control.
My foreign correspondence and foreign calls have been suspended.
Dear Mr. Under-Secretarv-Generan l.lease inform the UN Secretarv-General
about rhis unusual and intherable siiation, and ask the ~omania" Govern-
activity as UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Youth.o facil'tate my
Documentno1reproduced.[Noreby rhe Regisrry.1 CONTENTS OF THE DOSSIER 47
To write such a Report it is not a political crime, but an important interna-
tionalduty of the Special Rapporteur and everyGovernment, including his own,
should help him to fulfil it in the hest possible way.
In spite of these extraordinary measures against me and against my family,
1want to prepare my Report on Human Rights and Youth and to submit it to
the next session of the Sub-Commission.
1an1 readg io iomc io Grneva for consultations an) iinie. But. I ihink chat
IIuould bc ncccssary to trînsniii a nen invitariun. I sugge5tyou [O transmit ii
ior 18 t\r>ril or fur3 hlîy. II nill bc your choice.
For iy part, 1 will try again t; obtain permission by the Romanian
authorities.
Since 5 May 1986, step by step, 1have lost everything, except for my faith
in the noble cause of Human Rights.
1would appreciate hearing from you through Mr. Noel D. Eichhorn, Director
of the UN Information Centre in Bucharest at your earliest convenience.
32. Leiier from 311.Ion Diaconu I>aied29 3larch 1988ro ihr Chairman uf the
Siib-Commission on Prevenrion of Di\criminaiion and Protection of llinoritie,
Transmitted bv a Note Verbale Dared 8Aoril 1988from the Permanent Mission
' of Romania to the unitid Nations in Geneva
Translared from French
Geneva, 8 April 1988.
No. 190
The Permanent Mission of the Socialist Republic of Romania in Geneva
presents its compliments to the secretariat of the Centre for Human Rights in
Geneva and has the honour to transmit the letter addressed to Mr. Leandro
Despouy, Chairman of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination
and Protection of Minorities, by Mr. Ion Diaconu, Romanian expert and
member of the Sub-Commission.
The Permanent Mission of the Socialist Republic of Romania in Geneva
requests the secretariat of the Centre for Human Rights in Geneva ta do al1it
can to ensure that the letter is delivered Io the Chairman.
Translared from French
Bucharest, 29 March 1988.
Upon reading the documents of the Commission on Human Rights and the
Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of
Minorities. 1 have noted with interest that at an earlier session of the Sub-
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~
Commision ii was dezided IO preparç a report of the Sub-Commission on the
iheme "Youth and Human Rights". 1have also noted thar. as a resuli of unfore-
seen circumsranies. it ha\ no; yei bcen possible io prepare rhat report.
In [hi\ connection, 1 wish io inform you that Ipariicipated direcily in ihe
activities relaiing to ihc preparaiion and observance hg the United Naiions of48 PFXVUECE ASND fMMUNmES OF THEUNITED NATIONS
the International Youth Year. In sü doing. 1bccame awarc that many countries
throughout the world werc interëied in activities concerning al1 the variour
asoects of ~roblems relatine to vouth. For that reason. 1believe that a report
oiour sub-~ommission ohyouih-related issues would still be useful.
If the Sub-Commission, of which 1 have the honour of having bcen elected
a member. isstiUinterested in such a report, 1couldundertake. with thesupport
of my colleagues in the Sub-~ommissi6n and, of course, of the United ~&ons
Centre for Human Rights, to prepare a preliminary report, which would be sub-
mitted to the Sub-commission in accordance with that body's practice
1am taking the liberty of bringing the foregoing to your attention sothat you
may take this possibility also into account.
1 look forward to making your acquaintance.
(Signe don DIACONU.
33. Letter Dated 19April 1988 from Mr. Mazilu to the Chairman
and Members of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination
and Protection of Minorities
19April 1988.
Now 1have the first version of the main ideas of my Report on Human Rights
and Youth and I hope that itwould be possibleto find oui a way to send itto
you.
Many years 1have been hopeful regarding the posiiion of a Governmeni con-
cerning a concrete rubject in the iield of Human Right,.
It was a bitter surorise for IO find out that my own Government has becn
strongly againsi my~e~ort on Human Rights and \'outh. and to see that itdid
everything possible to discourage me Ioprepare it.
Since 5 May 1986. uhen I ha\,e nsked for the first time the approval by the
Romanian authorities IOcome to the Centre for Human Riglits in tieneva. so
poliiical leader? have tried to contince me to abandon this study, bccause "the
leadership of thecountry wouldn't likeIo hear somethingabout Human Rights".
In spire of the sirong pressure on me io abandon the study, 1 have insised
to prepare and ro submit to the Sub-Commissionon Prevention of Discrimina-
tion and Protection of Minorities my Report
Whv?
First, because a study on Human Rights and youth is absolutely necessary,
takine.into account the freauent violations of the riahts and freedoms of Young
in different countries, including my own. -
Second, because we have to draw the attention of the international public
opinion on this important subject.
Third, because the United Nations has the right to analyse this problem and
every Government, including my own, had the duty to help the Special Rap-
porteur to prepareand to submit a report on the subject, and not to prevent him
to do his job.
In my opinion this is a question of principle.
Wby to be indifferent when we see that someone. who happens to be a
political leader, would Iiketo act a1 one's rill in such an imp"r;iint matter?
Sincethat moment. when 1ha\,eexpressed my opinion on the ncccrsity of the
analysir of [hi\ rubject. for me the life became almost imposrible. For the mort CONTENTS OF THE DOSSIER 49
important politicai leaders was a very unpleasant surprise to hear that there is
a person, who has the boldness to have his own thouaht, which is contrary to
their thought. -
An arsenal of repressive measures, including police measures have been taken
against me, against my wife and my son.
Mycandidature to the election irthe International LawCommission has been
withdrawn; my passport has been suspended; my foreign correspondence and
foreign calls have beeninterrupted; every move, every talk have been put under
police control.
Because of this unusual and impossible situation, 1have suffered very much.
In 1987,for two times, 1was in hospital and since I December 19871have been
forced to retire from my activity as Minister-Counsellor and Head of Legal
Department in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Since 15February 1988, more than 20 policemen are following me, my wife
and my son day and night.
For my differences of opinion and conviction regarding to this study and the
person who has to write it, 1have lost everything, except for my faith in the
noble cause of Human Rights.
1 can not accept that in Our civilized world to continue to be the political
leaders readv to renress in such violent manner someone. because of his dif-
ierences of opinionand convirtior~on an international ini~iati~eof tlie United
Nations. the Organiraiion for which tlieyhavedeclared publicly repeîtedly "full
support". ~ ~
1am sure that the United Nations has to continue to fight for the noble cause
of Human Rights in Our complex and contradictory world.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, to freedom of opinion and
expression, to freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek,
receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of
frontiers.
The violation of these fundamental rights and freedoms has the grave conse-
auences on the education of the voune oe-. . evervwhere in the world.
' The United Nations, the ~ember States, al1Govmunents have to take the
necessarv measures to ut an immediate end to any violation of Human Riahts -
and to build a society-in dignity and liberty.
If in that moment, when you will read my first draft of the Report on Human
Rights and Youth, 1will be no longer freeman, the possibility on which many
friends now speak me out, please remember that 1swear you to serve the noble
cause of Human Rights until the last day of my life.
34. Letter Dated 19April 1988from Mr. Mazilu to the Under-Secretary-General
for Human Rights
19April 1988
First of all. 1 would like to address my sincere thanks and my profound
gratitude for vour constant helo in mv efforts to continue to serve the noble
Fause of ~uian Rights in the korld..
Now 1have the first version of the main ideas of my Report on Human Rights
and Youth and 1 hope to find out a way to send it to you.50 PR~V~EGES AND IM~ITIES OF THE UNITED NATIONS
Pleaseexcuse me thai I am sending IO sou a iexi which is panial in Romanian.
But. be so kind and undersrand me. In my unujual siluaiion it was too risky
for me to ask someone to help me to translate it inIo a perfect English.
Secondly, it was very important for me to make sure that the original version,
with al1political nuances, will be in your hands in time.
If in the meantime, in spite of Ourefforts, my authorities would continue to
refuse me the approval to come to Geneva, you will be free to use this text in
the best way possible to serve the noble cause of Human Rights.
In this version of my report, 1am referring IO a limited number of countries.
But, to finish it, 1 desperately need consultations at your Centre for Human
Righrs.
1would appreciare hearing from you ai your c;irliesrconvenience concerniilg
your plaiis with regard ro these consulrations.
P.S. Please ask Miss Yvonne Dialo, the excellent Secretary of the Sub-
Commission, to transmit the attached letter to Mr. Despouy, Mrs. Erika-lrene
Daes, Mr. Witaker, Mr. John Carey and Mr. Joinet.
35. Letter Dated 6 May 1988 from the Undcr-Secretary-General for Human
Rights to the Permanent Representative of Romania to the United Nations
Office at Geneva
6 May 1988
I am writine to vou with reeard to the renort on "Human rinhts and vouth"
under preparation by professor Dumitru ~azilu for the coking sesiion of
the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of
Minorities, scheduled for 8 August to 2 Septemher 1988in Geneva. As 1have
had the occasion to inform you in the past. the report is indeed of importance
to the Sub-Commission and 1 wish to do everything possible to ensure that
Professor Mazilu is able to prepare if in accordance with established practice.
Ambassador Leandro Despouy, during his visit IO Geneva last week, in-
formed me of his deep concern regarding the preparation of this report and
of his fear that a failure to prepare and present the report to the next session
of the Sub-Commission might well occasion consequences which he wished Io
avoid if at al1Dossible.Ambassador Des~ouv has informed me that as Chair-
man of the ~ub-commission. and xiih adesire IO facilitare the preparation of
the report, he informed sou of hir wish to consult with Professor hlazilu during
the iïrstu,eek of June 1988uhen Ambasrador Dçrpouy will nexr be in Ceneva.
AmbassdJor Despouy has asked me to ronvey his uish to Professor hla~ilu and
reque,i him io come io Geneva during the period 30 May IO 10 June 1988for
consultations and preparaiion of his repori. Professor Mazilu has indicîied his
readiness and willingnesr IO come to Geneva for ihat period, whilç respecting
the appropriaie procedures. We have raken steps through the United Nations
InformationCentre in Bucharest to nrovide him with the necessarv plane ticket.
In Ourcontacts with Professor ~azi~ ~he has in~ic~ted that overihe oast two
years heha5not receivedthe voluminous information sent to hini for hi?report ;
he ha, thus no1been able Io take inio arcuunt in the work he hlis îlready donc
the information submitted by Governrnents, specialized agencies and non-52 PRlVlLEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE UNITED NATTONS
37. Letter Dated 8 May 1988from Mr. Mazilu to the Under-Secretary-General
forHuman Rights
8 May 1988.
It is a pleasure for me to inform you that in spite of my unusual situation and
the extraordinary repression against me and against myfamily (myaccess to the
United Nations Information Centre in Bucharest was blocked by police; my
telephone has been disconnected after my talk with your Centre on 4 May), 1
have finished a new chapter of my report and 1willtry to find out a wayto send
it to you.
Please excuse me. but for the same reasons, the tex1is also in Romanian.
As 1have informed Mr. McCarthy, 1am ready to come to Geneva in last part
of this month or any orher time. It will be your choice.
The only problem is the approval by my authorities.
1would appreciate hearing from you at your earliest convenience concerning
this problem.
38. Letter Dated 8 May 1988from Mr. Mazilu to the Chairman of the Sub-
Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities
8 May 1988.
1would like to address to you my sincere and profound gratitude for your
help! You know better than any other member of the Sub-Commission whar
means repression. police measures . . .
Like you a fewyearsago, since5May 19861am livinga terrible and incredible
experience. MyGovernment has refused me constanrly the approval to come to
Geneva, in order 10 prepare my Report on Human Rights and Youth. Since
15Februarv 1988more than twentv oolicemen are followine.me. mv wife and
my son dai and night; my access io'the UN lnformation Centre in.~ucharest
was blocked by police; my telephone has been disconnected after my talk with
the Centre for Human Rights on 4 May; my foreign correspondence was con-
fircated . . .
In spite of these extraordinary police measures, 1am determined to prepare
mv Reoort on Human Ri~hts and Youth and to submit to the next session of
the ~ub-~ommission. -
1 hope that you and Mr. Martenson, with your ability and very known
experience, willsucceed in your efforts to convince my Government that to write
a report on human rights is not a political crime. To prepare such a report it
is my duty as a Special Rapporteur, and every Government, including my own,
has an obligation 10 facilitate my work on the subject, but not to prevent it.
1hope to see you in Geneva in the last part of this month . . .
39. Letter Dated 17May 1988from Mr. Mazilu to the Under-Secretary-General
forHuman Rights
17 May 1988.
You may know that for me it is almost impossible to find out a way to send
you my new chapter of my report. CONTENTS OF THE DOSSIER 53
But, in spite of these incredible difficulties. I will continue to try tu find out
such a way.
In addition to my letter from S May 1988, 1 would like to ask you to be
so kind and to inform Mr. L. Joinet concerning my unusual and intolerable
situation.
It would be your choice to inform every other friend. member of Our Sub-
Commission regarding this extraordinary repression against me and against my
family.
40. Letter Dated 19May 1988from theCentre for Human Rights to Mr. Mazilu
Transmitted through the Acting Director, United Nations Information Centre,
Bucharest
19 May 1988.
It would be appreciated if you would confirm receipt of the letter and
documents for Professor Mazilu and their transmission to him. 1attach a copy
of the letter for your information. Thank you.
T. MCCARTHY.
19 May 1988.
Attached tu the present letter please find photocopies of the information
relating to your report on human rights and youth which we have sent to you
over the last two years. You will find a lis! of the documents and a lis1of the
dates on which they were sent. In addition. we enclosecertain documents which
have just arrived and which we did not forward to you before.
You may wish tu bring these documents with you to Geneva in order IO avoid
the necessity of photocopying them here again.
Looking forward to seeing you soon.
(Signed)Tom MCCARTHY.
SUBIECT :UMAN RlCHTS AND YOUTH
Preliminary Lis1of DocumenrsSenr ro rhe SpecialRapporreur,
Mr. Dumilru Mazilu
Dore Conrenrs
23 January 1987 Relevant information received from non-governmental
organizations.
12 March 1987 Relevant information received from United Nations pro-
grammes and non-governmental organizations.
20 March 1987 A report by a specialized agency, and a book by Pro-
fesser George Vaideanu.
24 March 1987 Relevant information received from States Members of
the United Nations, United Nations organs, and a
specialized agency, aswell as from the United Nations. PRNILECES AND IMMUNlTLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS
54
7 April 1987 Relevant information received from United Nations
organs, from a State Member of ihe United Nations, and
from non-governmental organizations.
14 April 1987 Relevant information received from the United Nations,
from a State Member of the Uniied Nations and from
the press.
21 April 1987 Relevant information received from the United Nations
and non-governmental organizations.
24 April 1987 Relevant information received from a State Member of
the United Nations, and non-governmental organiza-
ions.
7 May 1987 Relevant information received from States Members of
the United Nations.
15 May 1987 Relevant information received from States Members of
the United Nations, a specialized agency and non-
governmentai organizations.
26 June 1987 Relevant information received from States Members of
the United Nations, and non-governmental organiza-
tions.
41. Letter Dated 15 June 1988 from the Under-Secretary-General for Human
Rights to the Permanent Representative of Romania to the United Nations
Office at Geneva
15 June 1988.
1 am writing to you with regard to the preparation by Professor Dumitru
Mazilu of the reoort on human riahts and vouth for the next sessionof the Sub-
Commission oh Prevention of Discrimihation and Protection of Minorities,
which will meet in Geneva from 8 August to 2 September 1988.As you know,
Professor Mazilu was aooointed bvthe Sub-Commission to carry out this task
in order to respond to a&quest froÏn the Commission on ~uman~ights regard-
ing the issue of human rights and youth.
On a number of occasions in the past 1have been able to inform you of the
importance attached to this report by the Sub-Commission and of my own
desire to do everything possible to ensure that Professor Madlu is able to
oreoare the reoort in accordance with established oractice. We have contacted
kr;fessor hlii;ilu on seicral occasions and in\,iteihim ro come to ticneva for
ihis purposeand authorization has been isrucd for his irïvel through the United
Nation\ Informaiion Centre in Bucharest. I'roferror .Varilu has inrormrd u5of
his readiness and willingness to do sa, while respecting the appropriate pro-
cedures applicable in such cases.
As 1was able to inform you in my letter of 6 May 1988,the Chairman of the
Sub-Commission, Ambassador Leandro Despouy. brought to my attention his
deep concern regarding the preparation of this report. For this reason, and
durine his meetine with vou on 29 Aoril 1988.he asked to be able to meet with
~rofGsor ~azilu>uringthe week oi30 May io 10June 1988for consultations
and preparation of his report. On hisbehalf 1confirmed that request in my let-56 PRNUECES AND IMMUNITIE OF THE UNtTEDNATIONS
43. TelexReceived24 July 1988from Mr. Diaconu to the Chairman of the Sub-
Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities
Translated from French
[Received24 July 1988.1
1would request youto transmit ihe following iexi IO Mr. Leandro Despouy,
Chairman of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discriminationand Protec-
tion of Minorities:
"Sir,
At ils next session. Our Sub-Commission is scheduled to consider a
~-~~ ~~~ ~~.
report on the theme 'Youth and human rights'. It appears that as a result
of unforeseen circumstances it has not thus far been possible to p~epa-e
this report.
If the Sub-Commission, of which 1 have the honour of having been
elected a member, is still interested in such a report, 1could undertake to
prepare a report on the subject, which would be submitted to the Sub-
Commission in accordance with that body's practice. At the same lime, 1
am in a oosition to inform vou that. desiring to orovide the Sub-
commission with food for thought on this subjectat the'samesession, and
thus enable it to make progress with its work, 1could submit immediately
in writinp the results of mv research on the theme 'Youth and human
rights'. ï have already reiuested my country's Permanent Mission in
Geneva to send you this document, so that you can take the necessarysteps
IO have it circul~ ~ ~ ~ the members of the Sub-Commission.
1look forward to making your acquaintance.
Ion DIACONU."
44. Letter Dated I July 1988 from the Under-Secretary-General for Human
Rights to the Permanent Representative of Romania to the United Nations
Office at Geneva
1 July 1988.
1wish to thank you for your letter of 27 June in which youinformed me that
you had trasmitted 10 your authorities my letter of 15 June dealing with the
oreoaration of the reoort on human riahts and vouth bv Professor Mazilu.
You have. in the iast. expresed yoir ~overhnîni's concern regarding the
health of Professor Mazilu and his inabililv for ihat reason to prepare his rcpori
in Geneva. Withthat in mind and in order to liehten the burden for Professor
Mazilu whicha long period of work in Geneva hight entail, 1informed you in
my letter of 15 June of my decision to authorize a staff member to travel to
Bucharest to assistProfessor Mazilu inthe preparation of his report. This would
entail only a short visit to Geneva by him for the presentation of his report to
the Sub-Commission and ils discussion of it.
In your letter of 27 June you reminded me of the suggestion you had made
that the newly elected memberto the Sub-Commission from your country, Mr. CONTENTS OF THE DOSSLER 57
Ion Diaconu, prepare the report on human rights and youth. 1have, of course,
discussed thismatter with the Chairman of the Sub-Commission. As 1have had
occasion to state in the past, Professor Mazilu's mandate comes from a decision
by the Sub-Commission in its resolution 1985/12 and it would be within the
competence only of the Sub-Commission, or a higher policy-making body. to
change that designation.
The Secretarv-General mus1act oursuant to the instructions aiven bv the Sub-
Commission inits resolution 3985112"10provide al1necessaryassistance to MI.
Dumitru Mazilu for the completion of this task".
Y~u~ ~ll understand. Mr. ~mbassador. mv res~onsibiiitv and dee~ desire to
facilitate to the maximum extent possible and in accordance with established
practice, the preparation of the report by Professor Mazilu for submission 10
the coming session of the Sub-CoÏnmission
45. Cable Dated 9 August 1988from the Under-Secretary-General for Human
Rights to Mr. Mazilu
9 August 1988.
1 have the honour 10 contact you on behalf of the Sub-Commission on
Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorilies concerning your
report on human rights and youth scheduled for discussion at the Sub-
Commission's present session.
Today, 9 August 1988, the Sub-Commission at its second plenary meeting
decided to invite you to come to Ceneva to present your report personally to
the Sub-Commission in accordance with established practice. The Sub-
Commission has not yet decided on when it willtake up the item relating to your
report. You will be informed when such a decision has been taken. However,
the Sub-Commissiondid request that you be invited to present your report and
that we ascertain your willingness and availability to corne.
The United Nations will provide you with the travel entitlements and living
expenses provided under existingrules. The United Nations Information Centre
in Bucharest has been instructed to provide you with a ticket for travel to
Geneva.
The Sub-Commission is anxious to be informed in the briefest delay possible
of your response to this invitation and intends to discuss this matter Friday
morning. 12 August 1988. For this purpose please contact me at the United
Nations Office ai Geneva via cable.
46. Telex Dated 10August 1988from theofficer-in Charge, United Nations In-
formation Centre, Bucharest, to the Under-Secretary-General for Human Rights
10August 1988.
Re your telex dated 9 August 1988concerning personal delivery to Professor
Dumitru Mazilu of the tex1conveyed by you, 1inform you that his mother-in-
law told us by phone that Mr. Mazilu, being sick, has left Bucharest together
with his family a few days ago, for a month. to undergo medical treatment for
heart disease, in a health resort not known by her.
Alexander PROKHOROV.58 PRIVILEGESAND IMMUN~~S OF THE UNITED NATIONS
47. Telex dated 10 August 1988 from P'IT
Bucharest to the Centre for Human
Rights (translated from French) '
48. Telex Dated 1I August 1988from the Under-Secretary-General for Human
Rights to the Officer-in-Charge. United Nations InformationCentre, Bucharest
II August 1988.
Referenre ms ielex dated 9 Augu\i conccrning Professor 51a211uand Sour
responje \Iisc 337of 10August. ivi.h to ihank sou for your assisiance in this
matter.
Chairman Sub-Commission informed members of the contents your cable
10August and, following a short debate, Sub-Commission decided, through its
chairman, Io request your assistance in identifying as soon as possible the
"health resort not known by her" as mentioned in your cable. Would much
appreciate your contacting Professor Mazilu's mother-in-law and any other
appropriate sources to determine location and telephone number of this health
resort.
Suh-Commission will return to this matter tomorrow. Friday 12 August. at
10.00 a.m. and would therefore wish to receiveas soon as possible any available
information.
49. Cable ~ated II August 1988from the Under-Secretary-General for Human
Rights Io Mr. Mazilu
11 August 1988.
1 would like to inform you that the Sub-Commission has approved its
timetable on 10 August 1988 and that your item is scheduled for Tuesday.
30 August 1988. The Sub-Commission would be very grateful if you could
present your report on this date.
50. Telex dated 15 August 1988 from PTT
Bucharest to the Centre for Human
Rights'
51. Telex dated 15 August 1988 from the
United Nations lnformation Centre.
Bucharest, to the Centre for ~uman
Rights'
Document not repraduced.[Nole by Ihc Regislry.] CONTENTS OF THE DOSSIER 59
52. Letter Dated II August 1988from Mr. Mazilu to the Chairman
of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and
Protection of Minorities
II August 1988.
1 would like to inform you that 1am ready to come Io the present session of
the Sub-Commission ony rime.
1 have no persona1 problems which can prevent me to come to Geneva in
order to finalize and to submit my Report to the Sub-Commission.
There is only one officiol problem: 1 need the approval of my authorities,
which since 5 May 86 persistently have refused me permission to come to
Geneva. ..
Dear Mr. Chairman, Dear Colleagues and Friends,
Please inform the Romanian authorities and their special expert to the Sub-
Commission that to prepare and ta submit a report on Human Rights and
Youth is an important international task, but in no case a political crime.
In conformity with the provisions of the UN Charter, the pertinent resolu-
tions of the General Assernbly, of the Economic and Social Council and the
Commission on Human Rights and its Sub-Commission, every Member State
has the duty to facilitate the work of a United Nations Special Rapporteur and
not to prevent it.
Consequently. please ask the Romanian authorities to put an immediate end
to the repressive measures and police terror against me and against my
family . . .
1am determined to do everything possible to fulfil to the best of my ability
my task as a UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Youth.
It is my firm conviction that this will serve to the noble cause of Human
Rights in Our complex and contradictory world.
So help me God !
53. Letter Dated 19August 1988 from Mr. Mazilu to the
Under-Secretary-General for Human Rights
19August 1988
1would like to inform you that 1 am ready to corne any time to Geneva to
submit my Report.
12. Sub-Commision on Prevention of Discriminofion and Protection of
Minoriries: Forriefh Session (Genevo, 8 AugusC2 Seprember 1988)
54. Report on the Fortieth Session: Decision 1988/102.Organization of Work:
Report by Dumitru Mazilu. Adopted on 15 August 1988
At its 10th meeting. on 15 August 1988, the Sub-Commission decided by a
roll-cal1vote of 15Io 2, with 4 abstentions to request the Senetary-General to60 PRNILECES AN0 tMMUNlTLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS
establish contact with the Government of Romania and to bring to the Govern-
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~the Sub-Commi~ ~ ~'~ ~~e~nt need to establish oersonal con-
tact with its Special Rapporteur Mr. ~umiGu Mazilu and Io convéythe request
that the Government assist in locatina Mr. Mazilu and facilitate a visit Io him
by a member of the Sub-Commission and the Secretariat to help him in the com-
pletion of his study on human rights and youth if he so wished. The Sub-
Commission invited the Secretary-General to inform it on developments in this
matter on Wednesday, 17August 1988.
[See Chap. 1111
55. Report on the Fortieth Session: Resolution 1988/37. Prevention of Dis-
crimination and Protection of Children: Human Rights and Youth. Adopted
on I September 1988
The Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of
Minoriries,
Recalling its appointment in 1985of Dumitru Mazilu, expert from Romania,
10prepare a report on human rights and youth, and that his membership in the
Sub-Commission exoired before the comoletion of the studv entrusted to him
as Special ~apporteir of the ~ub-comm~ssion,
Considering that Mr. Mazilu in his continuingcapacity of Special Rapporteur
enjoys the privileges and immunities, necessary for the performance of his
duties, as provided for in Section 22 of the Convention on the Privileges and
lmmunities of the United Nations of 13February 1946, to which Romania is a
Party,
Srressingthe urgent need to have the said report presented toit by Mr. Mazilu
as soon as possible,
Taking inro occounr that, if MI. Mazilu should be unable for whatever per-
sonal reasons to complete and present himself the said report Io the Sub-
Commission. he should be given any possible assistance by the United Nations
enabling him Io complete his report, with such assistance, in Romania.
Recalling that on 15 August 1988 it adopted to that end - by a vote of 15
in favour, 2 against, 4 abstentions and 3 not participating - the following
decision:
"The Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection
of Minorities requests the Secretary-General to establish contact with the
Government of ~omania and to b;ing Io the Government's attention the
Sub-Commission's urgent need to establish personal contact with its
Special Rapporteur, Mr. Dumitru Mazilu, and Io convey the request that
the Government assist in locating Mr. Mazilu and facilitate a visit Io him
by a member of the Sub-Commission and the Secretariat Io help him in the
completion of his study on Human Rights and Youth, if he so wishes.
The Sub-Commission invites the Secretary-General to inform it on
developments in this matter on Wednesday, 17 August 1988." CONTENTS OF THE DOSSIER 61
Having beeninformed, however, on 17August 1988by the Under-Secretary-
-~~~ral fo~ Human Riehts of a communication which the Government of
Romania had addressed ;O the United Nations Secretary-General statingthat the
Secretariat had no iuridical basis to intervene in atter between a citizen and
his Government and that the Ronianian Government rejected the request Io
allow a visit to Mr. Mazilu,
1. Reauesrs the Secretarv-General Io a..roach oncemore the Government of
Romania and invoke the applicability of the Convention on the Privileges and
lmmunities of the United Nations. and reauest the Government to CO-operate
fully in the implementation of the resolution by ensuring that
Mr. Mazilu's report be completed and presented 10 the Sub-Commission at the
earliest oossibledate. either bv himself or in the manner indicated above:
2. ~ukrherrequesri the ~ecietary-General. in the event the Government of
Romania does not concur in the applicability of the provisions of the said Con-
vention in the oresent case. and th& with the terms of the oresent resolution.
to bring thedifierence betkeen the United Nations and ~ohania immediately
to the attention of the Commission on Human Rights at ifs forthcoming forty-
fifth session in 1989;
3. Requesrs the Commission on Human Rights, in the latter event. Io urge
the Economic and Social Council to request. in accordance with General
Assemblv resolution 89 . .of II December 1946. from the International Court
of Jusiice an advisor) opinion on ilie applicïbility of ihr rclcvanr provisions of
the Conveni~onon ihz I'ri\,ilrge\ aiid Inimuniiies of the United Nations io the
present case and within the scope of the present resolution
36th meeting
1 Seprember1988
[Adopted by a roll-cal1vote of 16 to 4, with
3 abstentions. See Chap. XVI]
56. Report on the Fortieth Session, Paragraphs 11-25and 416-420
Quesrionof the Report Entrusred ro Mr. D. ~azilu
II. Within the framework of the Organization of Work, the Sub.Com.
mission considered the question of the report on human rights and youth
entrusted to Mr. Dumitru Mazilu by its resolution 1985/12 and scheduled for
consideration under agenda item 15 (c).at its 2nd. 5th. 7th. 9th. IOth, Ilth.
14th. 23rd. 25th. 30th. 32nd, and 36th meetings on 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17,24, 25.
29 and 30 August and I September 1988.
12. The Suh-Commission heard statements hy the Observer for Romania (7th
and Ilth).
13. At the 7th meeting, on 12 August 1988, a draft decision was submitted
by Mr. Eide and hlr. Joinet which read as follows:62 PRIVILECES AND IMMUNITES OF THE UNITED NATIONS
"The Sub-Commission decides to authorize its Chairman, in consulta-
tion with the Bureau, to nominate within the framework of the organiza-
tion a member of the Sub-Commission to proceed to Romania, as quickly
as possible, in order to visit with the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Mazilu, and
to assist hint in preparing a progress report of his study if for health
reasons he is unable to come to Geneva during the present session.
Furthermore. the Sub-Commission decides to request the Under-Sec-
retary-General for Human Rights to appoint a staff member of the Centre
for Human Rights to accompany and assist the Sub-Commission member
nominated for this task."
14. At the 9th meeting, on 15August 1988, Mr. Eide and Mr. Joinet sub-
mitted a revised draft decision.
15. At the 10thmeeting, on 15August 1988.Mr. Diaconu moved, under rule
65. paragraph 2, of the rules of procedure of the functional commissions of the
Economic and Social Council, that no decision be taken on the revised draft
decision submitted by Mr. Eide and MI. Joinet.
16. The motion made by Mr. Diaconu was rejected by 14votes Io 4, with 5
abstentions.
17. Mr. Alfonso Martinez requested a roll-cal1vote on the revised draft deci-
sion submitted by Mr. Eide and Mr. Joinet.
18. The revised draft decision was adopted by 15 votes to 2, nith 4 absten-
tions. The voting was as follows:
In fovour: Mr. Al-Khasawnen, Mr. Assouma, Mrs. Bautista, Mr. Carcy,
Mrs. Daes, Mr. Eide, Mr. Flinterman, Mr. Hatano, Mr. Ilka-
hanaf, Mr. Joinet, Ms Palley. Mr. Sobarzo. Mr. Türk,
Mr. Varela and Mrs. Warzazi.
Agoinsr: .Mr. Chernichenko and Mr. Diaconu.
Absroining: Miss Attah, Mr. Tian Jin, Mr. Rivas, Mr. Yimer.
19. For the text as adopted, see Chapter II, Section B. decision 1988/102.
20. At the 14th meetine on 17 Aueust 1988. the Under-Secretarv-General
made a statement transmitïing the rep6 to Sub-Commission decision~1988/102
of 15Auaust 1988.received by the Secretary-General from the Permanent Mis-
.~-~~o-~R~m~ni~ ~-o~ ~ ~-~ti~ Nations ~eadauarters
21. At the same meeting, the Sub-Commission requested the Secretary-
General to request [rom the Romanian authorities information as Io where
Mr. Mazilu was and how the Sub-Commission might contact him.
22. At the 23rd meeting, on 24 August 1988, the Sub-Commission heard a
statement made by the Senior Legal Officer of the United Nations Office
at Geneva in regard to the question of the applicability of the Convention on
the Privileges and lmmunities of the United Nations to the situation of Mr.
Mazilu.
23. At the 25th meeting, on 25August 1988.the Chairman made a statement
in regard to communications received from Mr. Mazilu.
24. At the 36th meeting, on ISeptember 1988,the Sub-Commission took up
for consideration draft resolutionE/CN.4/Sub.2/1988/L.25/ une vrilems
2 and 15 Ic).
25. For the consideration of the matter and the resolution adopted, see
Chapter XVI and Chapter II, Section A, resolution 1988/37. CONTENTS OF THE DOSSIER 63
Prevenrion of Discriminorion ond Protecrionf Children: Humon Rights ond
Yourh
416. At the rame meeting, Mr. Eide introduced draft resolution
E/CN.4/Sub.2/1988/L.25/ sponv.lrd by Mr. van Boven, Mrs. Daes,
Mr. Eide, Mr. Ilkahanaf, Mr. Joinet. Ms Palley. Mr. Treat and Mr. Yokota.
Mr. Varela subsequently joined the sponsors.
417. Statements relating to the draft resolution were made by Mr. Alfonso
Martinez, Mr. Diaconu and Mr. Joinet.
418. At the request of Mr. Eide. all-cal1vote was taken. Thedraft resolu-
lion was adopted by 16 votes to 4, with 3 abstentions. The voting was as
follows:
In fuvour: Mr. Assouma, Mr. Al-Khasawneh. Mr. van Boven, Mrs. Bau-
lista, Mrs. Daes,Mr. Eide, Mrs. Flores, Mr. Hatano. Mr. Ilka-
hanaf, Mr. Joinet, Ms Palley, Mr. Rivas, Mr. Sobarzo,
Mr. Treat. Mr. Türk. Mr. Varela.
Agoinsr: Mr. Alfonso Martinez, Mr. Chernichenko, Mr. Diaconu,
Mr. Tian Jin.
Absloining: Mr. Laghmari, Mrs. Mbonu, Mr. Yimer.
419. Statements inexplanafion of vote after the vote were made by Mr. Al-
Khasawneh, Mrs. Ksentini and Mr. Türk.
420. For the tex1 of the resolution, see Chapter II, Section A, resolution
1988/37.
57. Summary Record of the 1st meeting E/CN.4/Sub.2/1988/SR.I
(held at the Palais des Nations, Gen-
eva, on Monday. 8 August 1988, at
10.30 a.m.)'
E/CN.4/Sub.Z/I988/SR.Z
21 October 1988.
58. Summary Record of the 2nd Meeting
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva,
on Tuesday, 9 August 1988, al 10a.m.
Choirmon: Mr. Bhandare
[Paros. 1-15 nor reproduced]
The meeting wos colied 10 order of 10.15 0.m
ORGANlZATlON OF WORK
16. Mr. Vorela Quiros said that he did not understand why il had been
arranged for agenda item 15 to be considered only at the end of the session.
Document not reproduced[Noreby rheRegisrry.]64 PRMLEOES AND WITIES OF THE UNITED NATIONS
Among the matters which came under that item. the Sub-Commission oughi io
ha\e before iithe repori which Mr. Mazilu had bern rrqueued to przpare on
human riahis and vouth and whish wa, no1 available He would therefore like
to knowwhether the Sub-Commission, when taking up item 15 (c), would
consider the question of respect for human rights in the case of its own
members.
(Paros. 17-26no1reproduced]
27. /The Chairmon] The Sub-Commission mus1 be in a position to know
whether Mr. Mazilu, its Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Youth.
would be available. The situation in that respect had already been explained by
the outgoing Chairman at the first meeting of the fortieth session. He con-
sidered that the Sub-Commission should send a telegram to Mr. Mazilu and
wait, for two or three days perhaps, for a reply.
28. Mr. Joinet said that the telegram must be sent immediately. If there was
no reolv. consideration could be eiven to the oossibilitv of sendine.a member
of thé~"b-commission to Mr. ~izilu in ~oiania. H; himself was willing to
undertake such a journey. He pointed out that the discussion on the situation
which had alreadv been held ai the orevious session was reflected in summarv
record E/cN.~/&~.~/I~~~/sR.s and also ihat hlr. 3lazilu had sent. Io several
memhcrs of ihz Suh-Commis$ion. including himself. a leitcr dated 19April 1988
which he could read out to the Sub-Commission.
29. Mr. Dioconu objected that the Sub-Commission was departing from its
consideration of the organization of ils work.
30. Mr. Despouy said that he, too, had received the letter which Mr. Joinet
had just mentioned. In fact,the letter had been addressed to him as Chairman
of the Sub-Commission at its previous session, with a request that he should
communicate its contents to certain members. Among those members
Mr. Joinet was still a member of the Sub-Commission at the present session;
that was why he had just mentioned the letter.
31. Mr. Aifonso Marliner said that, although he was not opposed to
Mr. Mazilu's letter being read out, he wondered whether reading it out would
help the Sub-Commission to aitain its objective, which was to ensure that the
report on human rights and youth could he submitted.
32. Mrs. Wurzozi said that it would be better to await the reply Io the
telegram which it had just heen proposed Io send. If within two days there was
no reply, members of the Suh-Commission should discuss Mr. Mazilu's situa-
tion, but preferably in private.
33. Mr. Eide stressed that the Sub-Commission mus1 know exactly why
Mr. Mazilu was prevented from coming Io submit his report, and it must know
soon whether it would have that report or not. The situation should not
necessarily he discussed in private; on the contrary, a public discussion, in the
presence of thevarious participants in the session, was preferable.
34. Miss Allah said that the best course would be for the Sub-Commission
todecide promptly to send a telegram: it sliould then wait for a reply- for
example, until Friday, 12August. In the meantime, the text of the leiter men-
tioned by Mr. Joinet could be communicated to those members of the Sub-
Commission who were not acquainted with it.
35. Mr. von Boven, while recognizing the weight of Mr. Eide's argument,
proposed thaf for the moment the approach recommended by Miss Atfah
should be followed. CONTENTS OF THE DOSSIER 65
36. Mrs. Daes added that it would be necessary to request the observer for
-~~~~~~. who was oresent at the session. to contact his Government so that an
explanation could Geobtained from that quarter.
37. Mr. Joinel explained that he had merely wished to speed up the measures
which the Sub-Commission had to take in order to clarify the situation regard-
ing the study on human rights and youth.
38. After a discussion on the foregoing proposals in which Mr. Carey,
Mr. Sadi, Mr. Chernichenko, Mr. Tian Jin, and Mr. Alfonso Martinez look
part, the Chairman proposed that the Sub-Commission should immediately
send a telegram to Mr. Mazilu to ask him whether he would beable to come
to submit his study on human rights and youth and that the Sub-Commission
should wait until the end of the week, until 12 August. for a reply 10 the
telegram. In the meantime, the letter mentioned by Mr. Joinet would be brought
to the knowledge of al1 members. Subsequently, if necessary, the Sub.Com.
mission could consider sending one of its members to Mr. Mazilu, as had been
suggested.
39. II was so decided.
The meeting rose al 12.15p.m.
E/CN.4/Sub.2/1988/SR.5
15 November 1988.
59. Summary Record of the 5th Meeting
Held at the Palais des Nations. Geneva.
on Thursday, II August 1988, al 10 a.m.
Chairman: Mr. Bhandare
The meeling was called Io order al 10.15 a.m.
ORGANIZATION OF WORK
1. The Chairman recalled that the Sub-Commission had taken the decision
to invite the Soecial Ranoorteurs to be Dresent durinr: the discussion of their
reports.pursuant to thaidecision, the seCretaria1had sënt the required telegram
to Mr. Mazilu. In addition, because the Sub-Commission had wished for a rapid
response, a copy of the telegram had been transmitted to the United Nations
Information Centre at Bucharest. with the request that it, too. transmit thex1
of the telegram to Mr. Mazilu. The following reply had been received by
Mr. Martenson, Under-Secretary-General for Human Rights, from the officer-
in-charge of the United Nations Information Centre at Bucharest:
"ln reply Io your telex dated 9 August 1988concerning personal delivery
to Mr. Dumitru Mazilu of the tex1 conveyed by you, 1 inform you that
his mother-in-law told us bv telenhone that Mr. Mazilu, being sick, left
Bucharest together withhis Eamiiia few days ago, for a month, Ïo undergo
medical treatment for heart disease, in a health resort not known to her."
2. The text of the above statement, including the texi of the telegram received
from Bucharest. would be distributed to the members of the Sub-Commission CONTENTS OF THE DOSSIER 67
mation Centre at Bucharest. The Centre had informed Mr. Martenson that it
had not been possible to deliver the telegram to Mr. Mazilu, who, according to
his mother-in-law, had left Bucharest with hisfamily a few days before in order
to follow a course of medical treatment at a health centre whose address had
not been indicated.
56. Mr. Diaconu, speaking on a point of order, said that, since the Sub-
Commission was considering the organization of its work. he would like to
know whether the other special rapporteurs had replied to the invitations sent
to them to be present in the Sub-Commission during the consideration of their
reports and, if so, what replies had been received.
57. TheChairmanreplied that Mr. Singhvi had stated that he would be pres-
ent during the third week of the session. Mr. Mubanga Chipoya had also an-
nounced his arrival. and two of the other special rapporteurs were already
oresent. Mr. Bossuyt would aooarently also be oresent.
58. Mr. Eide said that, since Ïhe initial effortsmade to establish contact with
Mr. Mazilu had not produced satisfactory results, it was necessary to act
Before continuine his comments on that rioint, he would like to
oromotlv.
;ive iis-view of what the task of a special rapporte& involved. As everyone
was aware, the Sub-Commission was composed of independent experts,
and their independence was even more important in the case of specialrappor-
teurs, who had to endeavour to rise above their personal preferences or the
interests of their countries in order to take into account only the values set forth
in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. There was no doubt that
Mr. Mazilu had accepted the work entrusted to him in that spirit and had
undertaken to study how Young people could participate in the implementa-
tion of human rights throughout the world. Furthermore, he had read Mr.
Mazilu's letter and had no doubt that Mr. Mazilu had intended to continue his
work.
59. Bearing al1 that in mind, he proposed that a member of the Sub-
Commission should visit Mr. Mazilu, wherever he might be. ta assist him
at least in completing his preliminary report, and that Mr. Martenson
should designate an official of the secretariat to accompany the expert to be en-
trusted with that mission. He was confident that the members of the Sub.Com.
mission would approve that suggestion by consensus. He hoped that the
Romanian authorities would take the necessary steps ta facilitate the journey
of the two persons concerned to Romania so that they could establish con-
tact with Mr. Mazilu in the course of the following week. If such contact
was not established the Sub-Commission could then envisage taking other
measures.
60. Mr. Joinerrecalled that he himself had already made a similar proposal,
which he had subsequently withdrawn pending the receipt of a reply to the
telegram sent to Mr. Mazilu by the Chairman of the Sub-Commission. Other
solutions had been envisaged durine private conversations. One of them was to
send a delegation of four or five persons to Romania, but that might give the
impression that the Sub-Commission wished to check up on the Romanian
authorities. which had not been its intention. It had also been suggested that
Mr. Martensonshould berequested to persevereinhis representations. However,
in viewof the poor results of the efforts already made by both Mr. Martenson
and Mr. Despouy, and of the inadequacy of the replies given to the Sub-
Commission's requests. the only valid solution was to send one of the Sub-
Commission's experts to see Mr. Mazilu. Such an approach would, however, be
of a friendly nature. from colleague to colleague, as itwere. Consequently, it
would be necessaryto request the Romanian authorities to facilitate the issue,68 PRIVILECES AND IMMUNITLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS
at an early date, of two visas, one for the Sub-Commission's expert, who would
he designatedon the basisof purely logical criteria, and the other for an official
of the secretariat. who wouldbe responsible for assisting the expert in technical
and logistical matters. The mandate of the expert thus designated would, of
course, have Io be limited strictly Io the question of preparing the report on
human rights and youth.
61. He left it to the wisdom of the Sub-Commission to find asolution which
could be adopted hy consensus and receive the approval of the Romanian
authorities.
62. Mr. Flinlermon said that it was difficult Io believe that a man as devoted
to the causeof human rights as Mr. Mazilu could have left his home without
informing the Sub-~om$ssion that he would not be able to present his report.
Everything should therefore be done to enable him to participate in the Sub-
Commission's session. In his opinion, the proposal jus1 made by Mr. Eide was
the best way of establishing contact with Mr. Mazilu. If that initiative failed,
the Sub-Commission could then reconsider the matter and envisage other
measures.
63. Mrs. Allah wondered whether it was advisable Io sendIwo persons to see
Mr. Mazilu, in so far as his whereabouts was not known. In her opinion, it
would be better first ofal1to try to find out where he was, and perhaps to wait
until the United Nations Information Centre at Rucharest had established con-
tact with him.
64. Mr. Vorela Ouirds said that it was true that the oersons sent to
MI. Mazilu might no1 be able Io carry out their mission if théydid no1 know
his whereabouts. On the other hand, however, it was important that the Sub-
Commissionshould know what had become of the reoort on human riahts and
youth. 11would thereforebe hetter, in his opinion, fiist of al1to exhauit al1the
available means of obtaining the report before the end of the session. If al1the
efforts made proved vain, the appropriate decisions should then be taken ai the
end of the session.
65. Mr. Joiner raid the question must he settled with the utmost urgency. It
was tberefore imoortant that a decision should be taken oromotlv on the oro-
posal thai one ofihe ~ub-~ommission's experts and an ofiisial of ihe secretariai
should besentto seehlr. hlazilu. Thr Sub-Commih\ion mus1beahlc to coiitinue
its work.
66. Mr. Eide said, for Mrs. Attah's information, that it should not be dif-
ficult for the Romanian authorities to ascertain Mr. Mazilu's whereahouts.
lmmediate action was needed, so that the Sub-Commission could organize its
work promptly. He was sure that Mrs. Attah would appreciate the advisability
of a consensus.
67. Mrs. Worzozi said that, in order to be able to envisagea rapid solution,
it would first of al1be necessaryto be surethat the Romanian authorities would
grant a visa to the persons to be designated to travel to Romania.
68. The Choirmm said that it was essential to solve the oroblem orom. .v. ..
since a memher of the Sub-Commission was involved. It was. however, clear
that the CO-operationof the Romanian authorities would be needed. He accord-
inelv reauested the Observer for Romania to be so kind as Io inform the Suh-
-. .
Commission of his Govcrnment', intentions.
69. hlr. Chrrilo (Observer for Komania) said that his country's participation
as an observer in thc fortieth sessionof the Sub-Commission uas riroof of ihc
intrre>t whichit took in the Sub-Commission's work. which IIhad. morco\,cr.
already shown by nominaring Romanian experts for membership.
70. As far as the situation with regard to the report on humîn rights and CONTENTS OF THE DOSSIER 69
youth was concerned, he recalled that Mr. Mazilu. a former counsellor at the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, had been electeda member of the Sub-Commission
on the proposal of the Romanian Government and had participated in the Sub-
Commission's work until 1987.At the beginning of 1987,Mr. Mazilu had suf-
fered a heart attack and had frequently had ta be hospitalized since then. The
Permanent Mission of Romania IO the United Nations Office at Geneva had
iniormcd the United Kation\ Ceiitre fur Hunian Righi\ on se\cral o:ra\ions
th31>Ir. \Ia~ilu iras unahlr to rraiel and conseqiiently i~oiildnot beliblc tu par-
ticiv~tein the Sub.Comniission', 'e,,ion. For the sÿmcreasons. Mr. Mafilit had
dec.idedto retire as from 1 December 1987.A certified copy of the medical cer-
tificate attesting that the former counsellor had retired for health reasons had
been sent ta the Centre for Human Rights. Mr. Mazilu's state of health had
been confirmed in the telegram sent to the Centre for Human Rights by the
United Nations Information Centre at Bucharest. He did not therefore see why
that information was being questioned. and in his opinion al1that remained to
be done was to close the discussion on the matter, even though it was a pro-
cedural discussion. and to seek a solution to the problem of preparing the
reoort. in viewof the indisoosition of the exoert entrusted with that task. Anv
r0~1.1tiuthat cÿ\idoubt on'the iniurniation \;pplied by ihï RomariiaiiGorern;
nient to the Uiiited Natioiis Centre ior Huiiian Righis !iould be unacrept~ble.
71. Mr. Eide said that the Observer for ~omania might perhaps explain why
it had not been possible to obtain the address of the establishment where
Mr. Mazilu was reeeiving medical treatment.
72. Mr. Alfonso Morrinez ~. .nosed that. in viewof the late hour. the Sub-
Commi\\ion ;hoiild continue itr di\currion it the next meeting. He would Iikr
the te\t of Mr. EiJe'r prdpi>,<tlaiid al'thc comnients made on it by Mr. Joinct.
as wellasthe texts of the telegram sent by the United Nations Information Cen-
tre at Bucharest and of the statcment made by the Observer for Romaiiia, to
be distributed to the members of the Sub-Commission.
73. The Choirman said that it was not a question of doubting the validity of
the medical certificate which had been sent to the Centre for Human Rights. It
was. however, only to be expected that the members of the Sub-Commission
should beconcerned about Mr. Mazilu's situation and attemot to establish con-
tact with him, if only to tell himto discontinue his work if he was too il1to be
able to complete his report. It would therefore be useful to have his address in
order to be able IO wriie to him or to visit him. He requested the Observer for
Romania to be so kind as to hand the text of his statement to the Secretariat
so that itcould be distributed.
74. Mr. Joiner said that if Mr. Mazilu was in fact ill. he would need helo to
complete his report and it would be necessary to sent anbther expert to see him.
Moreover, the Romanian authorities should have no difficulty in ascertainina
the whereabouts of a retired civil servant.
The meetingrosear 1.15 p.m.70 PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITLES OF THE UNITED NA~ONS
E/CN.4/Sub.2/1988/SR.9
23 November 1988.
61. Summary Record of the 9th Meeting
Held al the Palais des Nations, Ceneva,
on Monday, 15 August 1988, at 10 a.m.
Choirmon: Mr. Bhandare
...........,,,...
ORGANIZATJON OF WORK (conlNIued)
31. 71zi~Choirrnonrrminded the Sub-C<immissionthai 3 furiher icle~rani hnd
been jeni 10 Bucharesi. and conr3ct niade by iclephone uiih the Buchareri
Uniicd Nnrioii, Iiifi)rmation Crnire. The Iîst niessagc rcceiied froni the Cenirc
read a? l'ollou\: "1 phoned repc;iteJl) nt \Ir. \1ïzilu'j honie atid ii~budy
nnc\rercd. trilm the preiiou\ ialk wiih the I'rofr~\ror'smotlicr-in-laiv, I under-
stood that she does no1 live permanently in Mr. Mazilu's house. 1 will repeat
the cal1during the following days." He noted that that new message told the
Sub-Commission nothing new, since il was already aware that Mr. Mazilu, his
wife and children had left Bucharest for a health resort where Mr. Mazilu was
to have medical treatment, and that the latter's moiher-in-law knew nothing
about the health resort in question. He accordingly invited members of the Sub-
Commission to aive their viewson that message. endeavourine to avoid oolitical
issues: the ~ub-Comnii~sion's aini should beio rnsure tliai tir riudy enirusied
1,)Ir. la~ilu u.a\ hrouçhi io a \oii,iîcior). Lonilusion. and îlso io Ir). ri)cn.ure
that he came to present it in person.
32. Mr. Dioconu said that the Sub-Commission ought to be concerning itself
with the report on human rights and youth. Everyone had heard what the
Romanian Government had had to say on the matter. The Government had
exnressed itself in c~ ~ ~ ~ ~orecise termi. Mr. Mazilu was ill~~-~ ~ ~act h~ ~be~~~-
.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
confirmed by the information provided in the medical file communicated to the
Sub-Commission in 1987. as well as bv the United Nations Information Centre
in Bucharest. Clearly, therefore, ~r: Mazilu would not be able to come to
Geneva to present his report. He himself had been present when Mr. Mazilu had
had 10 be taken to hosoiial. On two occasions the latter had tried to return to
work at the Ministry, and each time he had had to abandon the attempt. It was
an ordinary human story, and should not be made into anything else.
33. He noted that ~h~ draft decision before the Sub-Commissi~~aooeared to
. .
saIl in que,iiun the mcdical opinion un tihi~h the Romanian Cio\ertiiiierii had
relieil. or a1 leajt10 supgr\i thai the facts t11aihaJ giieii grouiidr for thai opin-
ion ihould bc ~hccked. The drnit dciijiun alio iiiiolied ihai if hlr. Xlazilu sa,
in fact unable to complete his work and come to Geneva, the expert sent to
Bucharest would be able to complete il for him. He himself considered that in
order to comnlete the reoort there was no need to ao to Bucharest: thaf could
be done in ceneva. For ihe present. the ~ub-Comm&sion should begin to tackle
the basic question, namely human rights and youth, and should try to Iind the
best possible way ofdoing it. He himself was ready to CO-operatewith the other
experts on the Sub-Commission, both now and in the future. He did not think
that adoption of the draft decision submitted to the Sub-Commission would
helo to advance work on the auestion. It would have no effect in oractice and
it &ht be detrimental to the prestige of the Sub-Commission and place the
Chairman and experts in an awkward position. It would be better no1 to take
a decision. but rGher to tackle the substantive issue. CONTENTS OF THEDOSSIER 71
34. The Choirnian pointed out that no one had questioned the competence
of the doctors involved, or the fact that Mr. Diaconu had been present when
Mr. Mazilu had had Io betaken to hospital. In any event, the point at issuewas
no1what the doctors had said but what Mr. Mazilu himself had Io say. It was
for him 10inform the Commission about the proeressof his report. and to sav
whether or not he wasin a position to continue hi; task. He thelefore requested
Mr. Diaconu and the observer for Romania to help the Sub-Commission to
make direct contact with Mr. Mazilu, so that the latter could state in person
what his intentions were.
35. Mr. Eide endorsed what the Chairman had said. As he himself had
already pointed out a few days ago, special rapporteurs, once appointed, had
an obligation to complete their tasks, either within the Sub-Commission or
outside it, unless it proved impossible for them to do so. The question was no1
therefore one which could be decided by either a Government or by the Sub-
Commission; in the circumstances, only Mr. Mazilu could say whether or no1
he was in a position to complete the mission entrusted Io him. He was glad to
see that there were Iwo persons present who were closely acquainted with
Mr. Mazilu and who had been present when the latter had suffered his heart
attack. They should therefore be able to help the Sub-Commission to find out
where he was. In any event, every State Member of the United Nations had an
obligation to CO-operatein the promotion and protection of human rights, and
the least that a Government could do in that regard was Io facilitate contacts
between a United Nations bodv and ils soecial rapporteur. He therefore
repeated the question he had put io the obserier for ~omania at an earlier ses-
sion. namely, whether it would be possible for the Romanian authorities to
obtain Mr. ~azilu's nresent address. and if not. .hv .ot. so that the Sub-
Commission could kn;u aiid undcr\r;nd the reasoiis for ~r.>lazilu's ab\ensc.
36. .Mr Jo~ne! f<>undIr Diaconu's arguments unsoniincing. It na> no1 3
matter of auestionine the comnetence of anv doctor in oarticular. or the stem
taken by the ~nited~ations information cintre. It w& a matte; of allowing
Mr. Mazilu to decide for himself whether or not he could accomplish the task
that had beenentrusted to him. and to inform the ~ub-~ommission accordinelv.
directly and in person. Mr. ~iaconu seemedto be very concerned to make.i
positive contribution to the Sub-Commission's work on human rights and
youth. and he undcrstood hc had already subrnitted a uorking paper on-the ruh-
jeci. At ihe moment. honevcr. the Sub-Commisrii~n -,as confroniçd with a dif-
fisulty of a coiistitutional nature, in vicw of the faci that a special rapporteur's
mission ended onlv bv his persona1resienation or bv his death. ~ccordinelv.
only Mr. Mazilu could decide whether hi should coniinue his work or wheché;
he should be replaced. Mr. Diaconu had stated that there would be no point in
an expert of the~sub-Commission, assistedby a member of the secretaria;, going
Io Bucharest merely in order to do Mr. Mazilu's work for him. As he saw it,
that was not the issue.The secretariat had always helped members of the Sub-
Commission in their work. and it would be for that ournose that a member of
the secretariat would be going Io Bucharest. In addition, in view of the con-
tradictory information transmitted to the Sub-Commission concerning Mr.
Mazilu. the exDer1sent bv the Sub-Commission would be instructed to obtain
from hlr. hlazilu's own mouth a decision conseriiing hi uork. He did not think
that sending an expert assi\tcd by a meiiibcr of the sccretariat could bedeirimrn-
ta1to the sub-commission. On the contrary, if it did not wish to lose prestige,
it should take action when, after a year's efforts, itstill had not succeededin
obtaining any reply to its questions regarding a situation which - if it were to
continue - could be likened to a 'disappearance".72 PR~V~EOES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE UNITED NATIONS
37. Mrs. Warzazi said the object of the masures taken by the Sub-
Commission was to assist Mr. MaYlu in preparing his report. It was for the
same reason that Mr. Eide and Mr. Joinet had submitted their draft decision.
With the same object in mind, she proposed that the text should be amended
as follows : in the penultimate line of the second paragraph, after the words "to
accompany", delete the rest of the sentence and substitute the words "the
member of the Sub-Commission thus desi-nated and to assist Mr. Mazilu in
accomplishing his task".
38. Mrs. Daes formallyproposed that the Sub-Commissionshould decide to
reauest the outnoine-Chairman to travel to Bucharest on its behalf in order to
as& Mr. Mazilu, and to request the Under-Secretary-General for Human
Rights to desianate Mr. McCarthy or Mr. Keilan, who were the members of the
secretariat competent to deal with the matter, to accompany Mr. Despouy.
39. Mr. Diaconu said that the amendment proposed by Mrs. Warzazi and the
explanations that had been given did not alter the situation and did not make
the draft~ ~ ~ ~ ~ anv more acceotable. Mr. Joinet seemed to have introduced
a new elemcni inro he debaie b;.suggesiing thai the Sub-Commission experi
who was to be seni to Bucharest would bcinsiructed io make contact personally
with Mr. Mazilu in order to aiauaint himself with the latter's decision reaarding
his work. and not to concern h'imselfwiih the actual report. Il thar warso. thé
drafi decision u,ouldeven raise moredifficuliies. He would likeIo takc the floor
ae-.n. after al1members of the Sub-Commission had ex~ressed their views.
40. Mrs. Atrah considered that the Chairman had made a very useful pro-
posai, which, if adopted. would enable the Sub-Commission to make progress
on the matter.
41. Mrs. Ksentini asked the sponsors of the draft decision to explain what
would be the practical effect of their proposal if, after the decision had been
adooted. the Romanian Government refused to do what was reauested of it.
. ~ ~ ~ ~
4i. Mr. Joinef replied that if - as be hoped - the reply of the Romanian
Government was positive, the Sub-Commission expert sent to Bucharest could
then ask Mr. lu directly which of the two alternatives was correct. On the
one hand, the Sub-Commission bad been given to understand that MI. Malilu
had resianed from al1duties. includina his duties as Special Rapporteur, while
on ihe oÏher hand, according to the U-"der-~ecreiary-~ KeirnMraazilu had
given ihc impression ihroughout al1the negotiaiions ihar he would likc io con-
tinue his activiiies as Special Rapporteur. Thur. il the Government's reply way
oositive. the secretaria; official~who was to accomoanv the Suh-Commission
éxpertkould be there to provide technical assistanci. 0; the other hand, if the
Romanian authorities were not prepared to comply with the Sub-Commission's
request, they would refuse to issue the two visas Ïequired. Of course, it could
be argued that if a refusal was anticipated it was not worth making the applica-
tion, but he himself believed that those involved should accept their respon-
sibilities, and that afusal to issue visaswas in a way an acceptance of respon-
sibility. At that stage,t could be considered that the Sub-Commission too had
accepted its responsibilitiesby making the request, and opinion would decide.
43. Mr~ Ei~e~~.n reni. .o Mrs. Ksentini. o.i.ted out that the observer for
Romania had not said that his Government was not willing to CO-operatewith
the Sub-Commission. He had simply stated that Mr. Mazilu was il1and could
not carry out his mission. That was the opinion of the Romanian authorities;
however, the Sub-Commission had its own opinion, and for that reason it
wished to make direct contact with Mr. Mazilu. He was confident that the
Romanian authorities would not refuse to CO-operatewith the Sub-Commission
on such an essentially practical matter. CONTENT3 OF THE DOSSIER 73
44. Mr. Desoouv shared the viewexnressed bv Mr. Eide and Mr. Joinet. but
said that befo;e Ldecision was adopted he would like once again to ask the
observer for Romania to indicate asclearly as oossible whether his Government
was prepared to co-operate with the ~ub-commission and whether it could
agree, in principle, to the idea of a visit from an expert of the Sub-Commission
accomoanied by a member of the secretariat. The time had come for the Roma-
nian authorities to Saywhat they thought about the draft decision under con-
sideration. He pointed out that he wasmaking a formal request, and hoped that
the reply yould be clear and specific.
45. Mr. Assoumo notedthat the case of Mr. Mazilu posed a difficult problem
for the Sub-Commission. He endorsed what had been said by the Chairman.
However, if certain experts were certain that they knew where Mr. Mazilu was.
they should Say so before the Sub-Commission began its consideration of the
draft decision.
46. Ms Polley welcomed the constructive statement made by the observer
for Romania. She was convinced that the Romanian authorities had ways of
making contact with al1 Romanian citizens, wherever they might be. In any
event, it would seemto be in the Romanian Government's own interest to allow
members of the Sub-Commission to go to Romania sothat the debate might be
concluded.
47. Mrs. Boutisto pointed out that until Mr. Mazilu was located, the Sub-
Commission would have no wav of ~~,~ ~~~~~- seriousness of his condition.
~ccordkgÏ~, the first ~hi& to do was to esiablish Mr. Mazilu's whereabouts,
because if that should prove impossible, or if Mr. Mazilu was not in a condition
to complete his study, the Sub-Commission's efforts would have been wasted.
The Sub-Commissionhad first of al1to establish whether or not Mr. Mazilu was
in a oosition to comolete his work.
48: Mr. Joinet su&ested that the Sub-Commission might defer a decision on
the draft text for two days, in order to give the Romanian authorities time to
locale Mr. Mazilu.
49. Mr. Eide said he could agree to defer consideration of the draft decision
provided that the observer for Romania was in fact prepared to give a reply.
50. Mr. VoreloQuirds thought that Mr. Joinet's suggestion, far from sinipli-
fying matters, would tend to hold everything up. The Sub-Commission should
take a decision without delay on the text before it.
51. Mr. Alfonso Mortinez. soeakine on a ooint of order. said he would like
to know wheher the sponso~soi the drkt dec'isioniniended io invokç rule 51(cl
of the rules of procedure. whish providrd that morions for the adlournment of
debate on the question under discussion had priority over al1other proposals or
motions (with the exception of those concerning the suspension or adjournment
of the meeting itseli).
52. Mr. Eide said he would simply like to hear what the observer for
Romania had to Say to the Sub-Commission.
53. Mr. Chirilo (Observer for Romania) said he had nothing to add to the
statement he had made on Fridav. 12 Auaust, in regard to the view of the
Romanian authorities as to the procedure lobe adopted. He wished to reiterate,
however, that any rneasure that might be regarded as a forrn of inspection or
control would not be acceptable tohis country's authorities.
54. Ms Polley said that since Mr. Mazilu continued Io be the Sub.Com.
mission Special Rapporteur until he resigned his office, it might be better to
amend the end of the first paragraph of the draft decision by substituting the
following wording for the last part of the sentence "and to ask the Special Rap-
porteur whether or not he wished to resign".74 PRMLEGES AND IMMUNIiiES OF THE UNITED NATIONS
55. Mr. Joiner pointed out that that question had been put ta Mr. Mazilu
repeatedly throughout the whole of the past year in the course of his contacts
with the secretariat and the outeoine Chairman. as Mr. Mazilu himself had
indicated in a letter. Accordingly. the sole task of the Sub-Commission expert
who was to go to Romania would beto find out whether or not Mr. Mazilu had
or had not changed his mind. He thanked the observer for Romania for not
having made the situation irreversible, and urged the Sub-Commission to decide
that day, or within a reasonable time, on the draft decision he was co-
soonsorine. as amended bv Mrs. Warzazi.
'56. ~r<~ide said he was somewhat surprised at the statement made hy the
observer for Romania. In fact, the Sub-Commission had never implied that it
could take any initiatives that resembled measures of inspection or control.
While on theone hand it appeared that Mr. Mazilu wishedto continue with his
study. on the other hand. if his condition was sufficientlv serious Io warrant
intensivetreatment, the Romanian authorities would knowbhere he was. Inany
event, Mr. Mazilu should he given the opportunity of stating whether or no1he
was able to complete his studv. if need he with assistance
57. Mr. vareh Quiros fearëd that if the Sub-Commission were to defer ils
decision on the draft text under consideration, a practical prohlem would arise,
becausethe expert proposed hy Mrs. Daesto ao -o Romania, Mr. Desoouv. .ad ..
to leave Geneia at the end OF the week.
58. Mr. Despouy pointed out that no formal decision had been taken on his
appointment. It might be advisahle to allow the Romanian authorities a little
time ta consider the situation and to define their position. In fact, if the Sub-
Commission were Io adopt the draft decision al the present meeting, and if
events subsequently proved that the initiative was viewed by the Romanian
authorities ai int&f&ence, the Sub-Commission's hopes would be dashed.
Accordingly, he would like tohave clarifications within two days hoth on the
scooe of the text in question and on the oosition of the Romanian authorities.
In iddition. lie>vuuldlike IOknow u.hi;tioiilie Sub-Con~niission'<riilccof pro.
cedurc \Ir. Juinci inicnded itiiniaikc in ,upport of hi>proposal.
59. .4!r Jo~nrrrrmiodcd ihe Sub-Coniinisïion ihat hr had \ratcd a i,,eekapo
ihat he uished Io a\oid a, muçh a, po,\ihle recour,c tu prosedural tasiiss.
hecause hc prcferred son\rnju\. Rules 49 and 51 of the ruIr\ uf pruicdurr Jid
not seem to support consensus. It was therefore for the ~ub-commission ta
decide now wheiher to take a decision without vote on the text under considera-
lion, under rule 57 of the rules of procedure, or to allow the Romanian
authorities more time by deferring a decision for two days.
60. The Choirmon wondered if it would not be better ta request the Sec-
retary-General ta use his good offices in order to achieve the abject sought by
the Sub-Commission. That solution would avoid anyconfrontation, and would
dispel any fears of interference or control.
61. Mrs. Allah was in favour of the idea of using the diplomatic Channel.
62. In reply to a question by Mr. I/kohonof, rhe Choirmon said that
the Sub-Commission might request the Secretary-General ta approach the
Romanian authorities with a view to ascertaining Mr. Mazilu's whereahouts,
and to establish through United Nations channels, the Special Rapporteur's
wishes.
63. Mrs. Warzaziconsidered that the Secretary-General's mission should not
be confined simolv to findine out where Mr. Mazilu was.
64 .\Ir.lo!nt;r&id he (va; 1101 clear hrhiln.35 IO bc undersiood by ..good
officri" in ihc <irciim\tance\;ii ii,ould be bciieIO givc the SccreiaryGcncrïl
3 clearlydciiiied briet, uith a iihed time-limit. uithoui deferring thedebaie uniil76 PR~VILEOES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE UNITED NATIONS
73. Mr. Diaconu said that the inclusion. in the Secretary-General's brief, of
the idea of a visit bv a member of the Sub-Commission Io Romania would cer-
tainly not easethe hay for a dialogue with the Romanian iuthoritiesIt would
therefore be better Io delete that idea from the proposal.
The Chairman. in reolv to a question from Mr. Tian Jin, said that he
74.
intended Io reformulate ~r: Éide's Goposal taking into account the comment
made by MF. Diaconu, and would submit a revised text to the Sub-Commission
at the next meeting.
75. Mr. Joiner said he understood the Under-Secretary-General had no
objection to the deadline being set for Wednesday. 17 August at 3 p.m.
76. Mr. Eide said he too would prefer the deadline to be set for Wednesday,
17 August. He would like to know whether Mr. Diaconu could suggest any
better way of quickly establishing contact with Mr. Mazilu. Would he like
Mr. Mazilu Io be asked to appear before the Sub-Commission in person?
The meetingroseal 1 p.m.
62. Summary Record of the 10th meeting E/CN.4/Sub.2/1988/SR.I0
(held al the Palais des Nations, Geneva.
on Monday, 15August 1988,at 4 p.m.1'
63. Summary Record of the Ilth meeting E/CN.4/Sub.2/1988/SR.II
(held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva,
on Tuesday, 16 August 1988, at
IOam.)'
E/CN.4/Sub.Z/1988/SR. 14
16 September 1988.
64. Summary Record of the 14th Meeting
Held at the Palais des Nations. Geneva,
on Wednesday, 17 August 1988, at 4 p.m.
Chairman: Mr. Bhandare
ORGANIZATION Of WORK
42 Mr. Morrmsun(Under.Se~.rerary.Generaltor Human Right,)said thai he
had just receivcd a verbal report on the contacts betaccn the Secretary-(;encra1
and the Government of Romania concernine the oossibilitv of establishine.con-
tact with Mr. Mazilu, the ~ub-~ommissi&'s ~pecial ~apporteur on liman
rights and youth. The Secretary-General's office had raised the question with
the chargéd'affaires of theRomanian Permanent Mission in New York. The
latter's reply had stated that Mr. Mazilu had beenilfor some lime and had
retired from the Foreign Ministry which he had so informed the Commission
on Human Rigbts and the Sub-Commission. He had thus been unable to
proceed with his study on human rigbts and youth, and the Government of
Documentnot rcproduced. (Nore by rhe Regisrry.1 CONTENTS OF THE DOSSIER 77
Romania had not presented him as a candidate for re-election to the Sub-
Commission. The reply went on to say that the Secretariat had no legal basis
for intervention in a matter betweeii a citizen and his Government. or for any
form of investigation in Bucharest. which would constitute interference in
Romania's infernal affairs. For the reasons given above. the Romanian Govern-
ment rejected the request that a meniber of the Sub-Commission and a member
of the Secretariat should visit Mr. Mazilu.
43. The Secretary-General's office had emphasized that the Sub.Com.
mission's decision had been based on the need to organize ils work and did not
constitute an investigation. It had also pointed out that Mr. Mazilu had been
appointed as Special Rapporteur in Iiis personal capacity. The appoiiitment wits
not contingent upon his membership of the Sub-Commission.
44. Mr. Eide expressed his gratitude to the Secretary-General for the rapid
action which had been taken. The information which had just been presented
Io the Sub-Commission showed that Romania might be intending to violate ils
basic oblieations under the Charter of the United Nations. However. he did no1
expect theumatter to end there, since the Sub-Commission had still "ot received
an answer on the Iwo fundamental points on which it needed information:
the whereabouts of Mr. Mazilu and how the Sub-Commission could establish
propcr :oiita;t ii,ith him \Ir hla,ilu uould remairi a Spe:ial Rapporteur of the
Suh-Coniiiiis~i~iniiniil he iiiiornieitpcr,unally ihai hc ria,iiiiabletùconiitiii;.
Anv further action on the matter should be oostnoned for a few davs to ,ll~ ~~~~~-
thL~ornanian Government th~~~portunity'to co-operate further.
45. Mr. Diaconu said that, once again, the tone ol the debate was becoming
more heated, which would not achieve any result. He could not accept the
allegation that his country intended ta violate its basic obligations under the
Charter of the United Nations.
46. Mr. Joinet said chat the Ronianian Government had rejected one of the
Sub-Commission's proposals, namely that of a visit to Mr. Mazilu, but it had
not yet rejected the others. Surely the Government could find some other way
for the Sub-Commission to establish contact with ifs Special Rapporteur? The
problem was basically a simple one, and itshould be possible to find a solution
acceptable to al1parties.
47. TheChoirman said that he was disa~nointed with the Romanian Govern-
ment's response, particularly since itdid noihing to solve the Sub-Commission's
main concern, which was to establish whether Mr. Mazilu would be able to
complete his study. He suggested that the Sub-Commission should inform the
Secretary-General of its response to the Romanian Government's statement,
and ask him to make further efforts to achieve a solution.
48. II wos so agreed.
The meetingroseut 6.10 p.rn
65. Summary Record of the 23rd meeting E/CN.4/Sub.2/1988/SR.23
(held at the Palais des Nations. Geneva,
on Wednesday, 24 August 1988, at
10 a.m.)'
' Documentnot reproduced. {Nole by the Rcgis1ry.J78 PRlVlLECES AND IMMUNlTlES OF THE UNITED NATIONS
66. Summary Record of the 25th meeting E/CN.4/Sub.2/1988/SR.25
(held at the Palais des Nations. Geneva,
on Thursday. 25 August 1988. at
Il a.m,)'
67. Summarv Record of the second Dari E/CN.4/Sub.2/1988/SR.30/
(public) of the 30th meeting (held ai the Add.1
Palais des Nations. Geneva, on Monday,
29 August 1988. ai 5.45 p.m.)'
E/CN.4/Sub.2/1988/SR.32
6 September 1988.
68. Summary Record of the First Part of the 32nd Meeting
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva.
on Tuesday, 30 August 1988, at 3 p.m.
Chairrnon: Ms Palley (later: Mr. Bhandare)
[Poro. 9 no1 reproduced]
10. IMr. vonBovenlThe situation reaardine.the orevention of discrimination
and protection of chiidren: human rights and you.th, was unsatisfactory. The
Sub-Commission had a Special Rapporteur in Mr. Mazilu who however had
been unable to attend the Sub-Commission in order to oresent his report. In that
connecrion, he greatly regretted the lack of co-opekation of the Romanian
authorities. The Sub-Commission mus1insist onMr. Mazilu'sattendance in the
future. The matter could not be ignored.
[Paros. 42-45 no1 reproduced]
46. [Mr. Eide] He was unable to comment on the substance of the study on
human rights and youth (sub-item (c)) because Mr. Mazilu, the Special Rap-
Dorteur. had been unable 10 come to Geneva to submit his studv. He understood
ihat the Romanian authorities had even refused to allow- United Nations
officiais in Bucharest to visit Mr. Mazilu's home in order to arrange for him to
travel Io Geneva. Any allegation that Mr. Mazilu was unable or unwilling to
carry out the study therefore lacked credibility. However. Mr. Mazilucontinued
to be the Special Rapporteur for the study on human rights and youth. He
should therefore be requested to attend the forthcoming sessions of the
Sub-Commission to present his study, unless he clearly indicated that be was
unable or unwilling todo so.The Sub-Commission had been informed that Mr.
Mazilu enjoyed the privilegesand immunities necessary for the performance of
his duties and the refusal by the Romanian authorities to allow him to attend
the current session must beseen as a breach of their duty to co-operate. Draft
resolutionE/CN.4/Sub.2/1988/L.25 urged the Government of Romania Io
respect the provisions of the Convention on the Privileges and lmmunities of
'
Documentnot reproduced.[Noleby the Regisrry.] CONTENTS OF THE DOSSIER 79
the United Nations. In the evsnt that the Government of Romania did not con-
cur in the applicability of the Cuniention. the Commission on Human Righrs
was invited to urge the Economic and Social Council to reauest an advisory
opinlon from theinternai~onai Court of Justice on the applicability of the reli-
\an1 provisions of that Convention to ihe present case. He had been informed
that the reservation to that Convention made bv the Romanian authorities
might preclude that course of action and he was.therefore requesting a legal
opinion from the Office of Legal Affairs. That request would read:
"Does the reservation which Romania has made under Section 30 of the
Convention on the Privileges and lmmunities of the United Nations pre-
vent the organ competentfo do so from requesting an advisory opinion
from the International Court of Justice with respect to the dispute which
has arisen between the United Nations and Romania, namely, on the
legal question of the applicability of Article VI and Section 22 of the said
Convention to the case of Mr. Mazilu, Special Rapponeur of the Sub-
Commission?"
and secondly. if the reply to the Tir$[question uas negative, what was the legal
implication of the reservation made by Romania? He would like rhat lcgalopin-
ion as soon as possible but, in the meantime, he re-emphasized that Mr. Mazilu
remained the Special Rapporteur on the agenda item.
47. Mr. Aljonso Marfinez reminded the Sub-Commission that the preceding
week he had asked the Secretariat if there was anv reason whv the Suh-. ~ ~ --.
Commission had not received, as it had on previous &casions, the original of
the document said to have come from Mr. Mazilu. Having received no reply,
he wished to ask whether there was anv ex~lanation of whv the orieinal or at
least a photocopy of the document had nbt been received and whether that
document could not be distributed to al1members of the Suh-Commission.
[Para. 48 not reproducedj
49. Mr. Diuconu pointcd out ihat Romania's reservation in no way precluded
the Secretary-General from requesting an ad\,isory opinion although it would
prevent the Iniernarional Court of Justice from dealina with the problem. He
would comment on the draft resolution once it had beei introducëd; however,
he thought it exaggerated to speak of a refusal to CO-operate.He had further
doubts concerning the question of privilegesand immunities, which applied only
from the time when the exoert beean his mission for the United Nations. Until
thdt time, they covered oniy whathe said and wrote in his capacity as an cxpcrr
50 The Charrmon wondered if Mr. Diaconu meanr that he ihought the Sub-
Commission should file a case with the International Court of ~usticewithout
obtaining any prior legal opinion and leave the decision to the Court.
51. Mr. Chernichenko, speaking on a point of order, expressed concern at
the amount of time expended on the case of Mr. Mazilu in wbich the Secretary-
General could take independent action without any prompting from the Sub-
Commission. The latter should show some sense of moderation and await any
additional information the Secretarv-General mieht be able to oronde.
52. Mrs. Worzozi, supported by ~r. Joinet. szd that any furiher discussion
of the matter should be postponed until the introduction of the relevant draft
resolution.80 PRNILECE SND IMMUNITaS OF THE UNITED NATIONS
E/CN.4/Sub.2/1988/SR.36/Add.I
30 September 1988.
69. Summary Record of the Second Part of the 36th Meeting
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva,
on Thursday, I September 1988,at 6.15 p.m.
Chairman: Mr. Bhandare
(c) Prevention of discrimination and proleclion of children: human rights and
youth
15. Mr. Eide said that the main purpose of the revised draft resolution was
to compress paragraphs 1and 2 of draft resolution E/CN.4/Sub.2/1988/L.25.
Members were familiar with its contents, and the Sub-Commission had sought
a legalopinion from the United Nations on the matter. He therefore hoped that
the draft resolution could be adooted auicklv.
16. Mr. Diaconu said that. fkst it 'was bis understanding that the Sub-
Commission had decided to ask for a general opinion on the question of ~rivi-
leges and immunities. However, the-Secretariat had taken the initiatiie of
seekingan opinion on the case at hand, which it had received inthe unduly short
timeof one day. In any event, that opinion would not resolvethe problem. since
it did not specify the privilegesand immunities that were involved or the time-
frame they covered but simply referred to the Convention on the Privilegesand
lmmunities of the United Nations. Furthermore, he considered that the Sub-
Commission was not competent to pass judgment on the question of privileges
and immunities.
17. Second, the members of the Sub-Commission had heen informed of cer-
tain letters, thetexts of whicb had not been circulated in the proper manner.
That was a highly irregular procedure, and he wondered whether the lettersdid
indeed exist
18. The draft resolution resembled adecision of an American court: it stated
the facts, without stating the reasons on which its requests were based. It also
contained a procedural element, namely the Suh-Commission's vote and the
results of the~vote.something he had never seen in a United Nations resolution.
19. The preamhle to the draft resolution stated the erroneous theory accord-
ina to which, if a ramorteur was unable to com~lete his reoort. he must be
heiped todo so. ~hai kas based on an illusion since there had been no report
for three years. Someone else should therefore complete it. Further, the Roma-
nian Government's reply was quoted in a truncated form, which was unac-
centable.
20. In the operative part of the draft resolution. the Government was
requested to CO-operate"by ensuring that Mr. Mazilu'sreport be com~letedand
oresented ...". It was difficult to cee how a Government cou~ ~ ~~&~ ~ ~~-~~ ~
ihing. Concerning the reference in operative paragraph 2 to the applicability of
the provisions of the Convention on Privileges and lmmunities of the United
Nations, he pointed out that not al1the provisions of the Convention applied
to the Romanian Government. As to the reference to a "difference" in the same
paragraph, according to the legal opinion, there was no difference as yet since
the prohlem had not been discussed withthe Romanian Government. CONTENTS OF THE DOSSIER 81
21. After beine told that United Nations bodiescould not reauest an advisorv
opinion on ihc bah oi Ariizlc 30 of the <:i>nvcniion.ihc \ponsors of thc Jrafi
resoluiion had found a procedural basi\ iiiGeiieral A\s<iiibly resolution 89(1).
As far as substance was-concerned, however, a jurist wouldhave to admit that
such a request should be based on the Convention. Invoking the General
Assembly resolution amounted to evading the provisions of the Convention,
which was unacceptable from a legal standpoint.
22. The resolution was based neither on facts nor on well-founded points of
law. It was designed not to open doors but to close them, and in adopting it the
Sub-Commission would run the risk of again having no report at ifs following
session. He himself would vote against the draft resolution, and he asked his
colleagues no1 to support il.
23. Mr. Cisse (Secretary of the Sub-Commission) said that the names of
Mr. Joinet and Mr. Varela Quiros should be added to the list of sponsors of the
draft resolution.
24. Mr. Joinet said that according ta Mr. Diaconu's reasoning, the Sub-
Commission was to blame for the fact that Mr. Mazilu had not been able to
complete his report. He was confident that each member would make a correct
evaluation of the strength of Mr. Diaconu's arguments.
25. Mr. Alfonso Martinez recalled that he had decided not to participate in
previous votes on the issue under discussion. However, the present case was
slightlydifferent. He believedthat, in accordance with rule 54of its rules of pro-
cedure, the Sub-Commission was not competent to take such a decision. He
would therefore vote ngainst the draft resolution.
26. A vole was laken by roll-cal1 on draft resolution E/CN.4/Sub.2/
1988/L,25/Rev. 1.
27. Mr. Laghmari, having been drawn by 101by the Chairman, was called
upon Io vole firsl.
In favour: Mr. Assouma, Mr. Al-Khasawneh, Mrs. Bautista, Mrs. Daes,
Mrs. Flores, Mr. Eide, Mr. Hatano, Mr. Ilkahanaf,
Mr. Joinet, Mrs. Palley, MI. Rivas Posada, Mr. Sobarzo,
Mr. Treat, Mr. Türk, Mr. van Boven, Mr. Varela.
Againsl: Mr. Alfonso Martinez, Mr. Chernichenko, Mr. Diaconu,
Mr. Tian Jin.
Abstaining: Mr. Laghmari, hlrs. Mbonu, Mr. Yimer.
28. Draft resolution E/CN.4/Sirb.2/1988/L.2Ci/Rev.l was adopted by 16
votes to 4, with 3 abslenlions.
70. Provisional agenda for the forty-first E/CN.4/1989/3
session of the Sub-Commission: Chap. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1988/45
XVII. Consideration of the future work
of the Sub-Commission and of draft
urovisional agenda for the forty-first
session of the-Sub-Commission (paras.
428-431) '
' Document narreproduced. /Note /,y the Registry.182 PRIVILEGES AND WNITIES OF THE UNITED NATIONS
71. Memorandum Dated 23August 1988from the Office of LegalAffairs to the
Under-Secretary-General for Human Rights
23 August 1988.
SCBJECT: Quesiion ofrhe applicabiliry of lhe Convenrion on the Prrvrlegesand
Immuniries of rhe Unrred Narrons IO the siruarion of Mr. Dumirru
Mozilu chorned br rhe Sub-Commission on Prevention olDiscrimina.
lion and Pritecrion of Minorities in ifs resolurion 198j/12 with the
prepararion of a report on human rights and youth
1. This responds to your request for a legal opinion on the above question
set out in your telex of 22 August 1988.
2. The members of the Sub-Com~is~io~ ~n Preven~ion~ ~ ~iscrimin~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
and Protection of ~inorities (the "Sub-Commission"), are not representatives
of Governments but are acting in their erso on calpacity. In order to be able
to ~erform their functions rndewndentlv thev mus1 .bene~.t from certain ~~
pri;ileges and immunities. ~herefok members of Sub-~ommission, during their
terms of office, are accorded the legal status of experts on mission for the
United Nations within the meanine of Article VI of the 1946Convention on the
Privileges and lmmunities of the Ünited Nations (the "General Convention").
3. In 1984the Commission on Human Riahts (the "Commission") by secret
ballot elected Mr. Mazilu asoneof the 26 mekbers of the ~ub-~ommission. for
~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~.
a ierm oi three ycars 10 expire on 31 December 1986.
4. By its resoluiion 1985/I2 adopted wirhoui a vote on 29August 1985al ihc
37th meetine of its 38th session. the Sub-Commission r~ ~esied M~. .-~~u. "in ~~~.
order to faGlitate the ~ub-~okmission's discussion of the topic, to prepare a
report on human rights and youth ..." (emphasis added). By paragraph 3 of
that resolution it was decided "IO deal with the question of 'Human Rights
and Youth' under [the Sub-Commission's] item: 'Promotion, protection and
restoration of human rights at national, regional and international levels'at its
thirty-ninth session" (to be held in 1986).Byparagraph 2, the Sub-Commission
requested the Secretary-General "to provide al1 necessary assistance to
Mr. Dumitru Mazilu for the completion of this task".
5. At the same session aooronriate arraneements were made to nrovide the
Sub-Commission at its 39th' ;ession with the-requested report in all'the official
languages of the Sub-Commission, including reproduction and distribution. In
addition. certain additional costs were estimated-for 1986.to include one round-
trip (~ucharest-Geneva-Bucharestf)or consultation at the Centre for Human
Rights at Geneva as well as subsistence (altoaether US81.900).
6. Due to financial reasons the Sub-~ornn&sion did ~~- meet in 1~-~.~As. ~ ~-~~ -~
however, during the same year the term of office of its members expired,
ECOSOC at the 3rd plenary meeting of its 1987 Organization Session, on
6 February 1987,decided "to extend the term of office of the current members
of the Sub-Commission . .. for one year to ensure their participation in the
39th session of the Sub-Commission to be held in 1987". This ECOSOC deci-
sion in effect extended by one year the time for Mr. Mazilu to present his report
on human rights and youth.
7. Mr. Mazilu was not present at the 39th session of the Sub-Commission.
and his reoort was not submitted. In exolainine the reasons for Mr. Mazilu's
-
absence, the Permanent Mission of ~omania in Geneva informed the3ub-
Commission that Mr. Mazilu had suffered a heart attack and would not be able
to participate in the proceedings.84 PRNILECES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE UNITED NAT~ONS
"Mr. Mazilu had been il1for some rime and had retired from the Foreign
Ministry, who had so informed the Commission and Sub-Commission in
Geneva. He was thus unable to proceed with the preparation of the report
on Human Rights and Youth. The Government had not presented him as
a candidate for re-election to the Sub-Commission. The ~écretariathad no
juridical basis to invervene in a matter between a citizen and his Govern-
ment. Moreover, there was no basis for any form of investiration in
Bucharest. which would constitute interference in interna1 affairs. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -~~~~
Romanian Government rejected the request to allow a visit to Mr. Mazilu
by a member of the Sub-Commission and the Secretariat for the reasons
given above."
(As reported to the Sub-Commission on behalf of the Secretary-General.)
13. From the above it appears that the Sub-Commission considers that
Mr. Mazilu, though now an ex-member, still has a valid assignment. It also
appears that this would no1 run counter to the established nractice of the Sub-
commission, which on several occasions has charged formérmembers with the
completion of reportsthat had been assigned to them as members (for example
- Special Rapporteurs on Religious Intolerance; Right to Leave; Death
Penaltv) '.
. ,
14. Consequently, Mr. Mazilu appears to have a valid assignment from the
Sub-Commission, and when working or attempting Io work on that assignment,
is, therefore, performing a task or mission for the United Nations. From this
it follows that he should be considered an "expert on mission for the United
Nations" within the me an in^of Article VI of the Convention ~ ~ .~~ .~~.-i~ ~~~---
and lmmunities of the unite2 Nations. As Rornania became a party to that Con-
vention on 5 July 1956, without any reservation to Article VI. Mr. Mazilu.
inter alio. is entitled under Section 22 to the "~rivileees an- immuni-i~s~ -~ ~ ~.. ~ ~.:
nesessary for the independeni exerciseof his funciions" during the period of hi<
assignmeni. insluding the rimespeni on iournevs in connesiion n,iih his mission.
and he isalso to beaccorded imÏnunity from leial process evenalter completion
of his assignment.
(Signedl Paul C. Sz~sz.
72. Memorandum Dated 30August 1988from the Legal Counsel to the Under-
Secretary-General for Human Rights
30 August 1988.
sceixcr : Requesr/or olegolupinion on rherecerialron made by Xo~nanrawrrh
respecl ro Secrion 30 oJ rhe Convenrion on rhe Privileges and
lmmuniries O/ rhe Unired Norions O/ 13 Februory 1946
1. This responds to your request for a legal opinion on behalf of the Sub-
Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities in
respect of the following two questions, conveyed to us by Ms Noll-Wagenfeld's
memorandum of today's date :
' The precise data shouldbe providedby CHR. CONTENTS OF THE DOSSIER 85
(a) Does the reservation which Romania has made under Art. 30 of the Con-
vention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations prevent the
ore-n co~ ~tent todo so. to reauest an advisor~ oni~ ~, f.om &e Interna-
rionlil cou;[ of Justice \ii;h resiccr 10 ihe Ji\pure which has arisen berueen
the Cnited Ysiions and Romania. namcly on the legal question uf the
a..lic~ ~~ ~ , ~ ~rri~leVI/Scction 22of the pa~ ~ -~~cni~ ~ to the car of
Mr. Mazilu, Special Rapporteur of the Sub-Commission ?
(bj If the reply to question (a)is negative (Le., the reservation does not prevent
a request for an advisory opinion) what is then the legal implication of the
reservation made by Romania?
2. The reservation made by Romania on acceding to the Convention on the
Privile-es and Immunities of the United Nations on 5 July 1956and referred to
in these questions reads as follows :
"The Romanian People's Republic does not consider itself bound by the
terms of section 30 of the Convention which provide for the compulsory
iurisdiction of the International Court in differences arisine. out of the
interpretation or application of the Convention : with respectto the com-
petence of the International Court in such differences, the Romanian
~eo~le's Republic takes the view that, for the purpose of the submission
of any dispute whatsoever to the Court for a ruling, the consent of al1the
parties to the dispute is required in every individual case. This reservation
is equally applicable to the provisions contained in the said section which
stipulate that the advisory opinion of the International Court is to be
accepted as decisive."
3. Section 30 of the Conventioii, to which the above-quoted reservation is
addressed, reads as follows :
"All differences arisine out of the interoretation or aoolication of the
present convention shall Gereferred to the.lnternationa1 court of Justice,
unless in any case it is agreed by the parties to have recourse to another
mode of settlement. If a difference arises between the United Nations on
the one hand and a Member on the other hand, a request shall be made
for an advisory opinion on any legal question involved in accordance with
Article 96 of the Charter and Article 65 of the Statute of the Court. The
opinion given by the Court shall be accepted as decisive by the parties."
4. It should first of al1 be noted that at present no dispute or difference
appears as yet to have arisen between the United Nations and the Romanian
6oternnien;, as rhe Organizaiion lia\ not yet formally invokcd rhe Convention
vis-&vis the C;o\rrnment. Ho!re\er, ir is forerecn in operative paragraph 2 ol'
the draft resolution that this will be done.
5. The answer to question (a) is that the above-quoted reservation by
Romania does not prevent a UniteclNations organ competent to do so from re-
questing an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice concerning
the applicahility of Article VI, Section 22, of the General Convention to the
situation of MI. Mazilu, but that such a request would then not be made within
the framework of Section 30 of the Convention but merely under the general
authority of the organ in question to request advisory opinions from the Court
pursuant to Article 96 of the United Nations Charter.
6. The answer to question (bj is that the legal implication or effect of the
Romanian reservation is that any advisory opinion given by the International
Court of Justice pursuant to Article 65 of its Statute in response to a request86 PRIVILEOES AND IMMUNlflES OF THEUNlTEDNATIONS
of the kind mentioned in para. 5 made by a United Nations organ, would no1
have to be considered as decisive or binding by either the Romanian Govern-
ment or by the United Nations.
(SignedJ Carl-August FLEISCHHAUER
13. Correspondence and Communicalions from 26 Ocrober 1988
ro 6 January 1989
73. Note Verbale Dated 26 October 1988 from the Secretary-General of the
United Nations to the Permanent Representative of Romania to the United
Nations in New York
The Secretary-General of the United Nations presentshis compliments to the
~e~manent Renrer~n~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ to the United Nations and has the
honour of calling to the attention of His Excellency's Government resolution
1988/37 adouted hv the Suh-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination
and protection of ~inorities on 1September 1988.A copy of the resolution is
attached.
In that resolution the Sub-Commission referred to ils appointment of
Mr. Dumitru Mazilu, an expert from Romania. Io prepare a report on Human
Rights and Youth and the urgent need to have the said report presented to il
by Mr. Mazilu assoon as possible. The resolution also stated that if Mr. Mazilu
should be unable for whatever persona1reasons to complete and present him-
self the said report to the Sub-Commission, he should be given any possible
assistance by the United Nations enabling him to complete his report, with such
assistance, in Romania. The Sub-Commission also referred to ils decision or
15August 1988on the matter and to the responseof His Excellency's Goverri-
ment transmitted to the Sub-Commission on 17 Auaust 1988.
Hy uperiliiie paragrilph I oi the rerolution. the ~ub-~ommisiion rcquïrted
th? Secretary-(;encra1 to appro3ch once niorc the Goiïrniiieiii i~iRoinaiiiï and
invoke the a~nliailhil~ts of the Convcnlion on the Privilcees and Immuniiic\ oi
the United Nations, and request the Government to CG-operatefully in the
implementation of the resolution by ensuring that Mr. Mazilu's report be com-
oleted and ~resentedto the Sub-Commission al the earliest oos'ible date. either
by hirncrlfor in the mannçr indicated in the resolution
!3) operatiie pangrilph 2. the Sub-Commission Iiirther requcstcd the Se~rc-
tary-General, in the e\eiii the Govcrnmcnt of Romsnia did not concur in the
applicability of the provisions of the said Convention in the present case, and
thus with the terms of the resolution, to bring the differences between the
United Nations and Romania immediately to the attention of the Commission
on Human Rights at its forthcoming forty-firth session in 1989.
The Secretary-General has the honour to refer in this connection to the legal
opinion on this matter dated 23 August 1988in which il is stated that Mr. Ma-
zilu appears to have a valid assignment from the Suh-Commission, and when
working, or attempting to work in that assignment, is, therefore, performing a
task or mission for the United Nations. That legal opinion further stated that
Mr. Mazilu should heconsidered an "expert on mission for the United Nations"
within the meaning of Article VI of the Convention on the Privileges and
lmmunities of the United Nations, which entitled him, inter alio, under Section
22 to the "privileges and immunities . . .necessaryfor the independent exercise CONTENTS OF THEDOSSIER 87
of his functions" durina the oeriod of his assienment. includine the time ~7ent
on journeys in connection wiih his mission, an? that he was, in Ïhis connection,
also to be accorded immunity from legal process even after completion of his
assignment.
In light of the above the Secretary-General would appreciate it if His Ex-
cellency's Government would accord the necessary facilities to Mr. Dumitru
Mazilu in order to enable him to complete his assigned task. In particular, the
Secretary-General urges that Mr. Mazilu be enabled to establish personal con-
tact with the Under-Secretary-General for Human Rights in order that the Cen-
tre for Human Rie-ts mieh- accord to Mr. Mazilu the assistancehe re~ui~ .~~~
The Secrctary.Geiiera1 wisher to e\press his ftrm hope that the responseof
111sEucellencs'~Go~ernment uill enable Iiim tu report positively on this maiter
to the Commis~ion un Humiin Rights ai 11%forthcoming fort)-firth sessinri.
26 October 1988.
74. Letter Dated 19 December 1988 from the Under-Secretary-General for
Human Rights to the Permanent Representative of Romania to the United
Nations Office at Geneva
19 December 1988
1 am writing to you with regard to the report on human rights and youth
which Professor Dumitru Mazilu was mandated to present 10 the Sub-Com-
mission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities.
As )ou nia) knou. the Sccretary-General. pur\u;int to Sub-Commission
resolution IYR7/37. addresseda note terbale on 26 Ostobcr 1988to the Perma-
nent Reprccntative oi Romaniii tu the United Nations in which the Secretary-
General rcquesred the Governmcnt of Romania to make available the necessary
facilities io enable Profescor MaziluIO complete hi\ report.
As we are now makina orev-.ati.ns for the next session of the Sub-
Commission. in pariisular conceriiing Our aj,istance to Spccial Rapporteurs. it
wuuld begreatly iippreciated if the Cçntrc for Human Kiàhts could discucswith
~rofessor~azilu the assistancewhich it mi- - eive him in..reoarine his .eoort.
1 would be most grateful to you if you could assist in arranging for Professor
Mazilu to visit Geneva early in the New Year.
As you know, this is a matter to which both the Sub-Commission and the
Secretary-Generalattach high importance and an early reply from you would
be most appreciated.
Mav 1sav that 1share the Secretarv-General's hooe that the resoonseof vour
Government will enable the ~ecretari-General to report positively Ln this matter
to the Commission on Human Rights at its next session.
75. Letter Dated 19 December 1988 from the Under-Secretary-General for
Human Rights to Mr. Mazilu
19 December 1988.
RegisteredMail
1 am writing to you concerning our continuing efforts to enable you to
prepare and present your report on human rights and youth to the Sub-
Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities.88 P~EGES AND IMMUNITIESOF THE UNITED NATIONS
As you know this isa rnatter of great importance to us and we haveon various
occasions heen in contact with the authorities of your country with a view to
enabling you to come to Geneva Io prepare your report.
Enclosed please find a copy of the report of the Sub-Commission on its for-
tieth session whichhasjus1recently been printed. In that report you willseethat
the question of your study on human rights and youth, which youare mandated
to submit to the Sub-Commission, wasdiscussed(paras. 11-19and 416-430)and
that decision 1988/102and resolution 1988/37were adopted in that regard. As
you might know, a copy of your letter of Il August 1988addressed to the Chair-
man of the Sub-Commission and a copy of your letter dated 19August 1988
addressed to me were distributed to members of the Sub-Commission, at the
Chairman's request.
Pursuant to Sub-Commission resolution 1988/37 the Secretary-General ad-
dressed a note verbale on 26 October 1988 to the Permanent Representative
of Romania to the United Nations requesting that the necessary facilities be
made available to you inorder to enahle you to completeyour report. Attached
is a copy of that note verbale and of the legal opinion mentioned therein.
For my part, 1have jus1 addressed a letter to the Permanent Representative
of Romania to the United Nations at Geneva asking for his assistance in ar-
ranging your visit to Geneva. A copy of that letter is attached for your infor-
mation.
1wishto inform you that the parts of the first draft of the main ideas of your
report, which you submitted in Romanian, have been translated into English
and we would wish to discuss them with you as soon as possible. Asthis is an
urgent matter it is Ourhope that you willbe able to come to Geneva in the near
future.
76. Memorandum dated 19 December 1988
from the Under-Secretary-General for
Human Rightsto the Resident Represen-
tative, United Nations Development
Programme. Bucharest'
77. Telex dated 3 February 1989 from the
Resident Representative, United Nations
Development Programme, Bucharest'
78. Aide-MémoireDelivered on 6 January 1989to the Legal Counsel by the
Permanent Representative of Romania
Translaredfrom French
With respect to the situation of the former Romanian expert on the United
Nations Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of
Minorities, Mr. Dumitru Mazilu, rhefacrs are asfollows:
Document no1 reproduced.[Noreby rheRegisrry.] CONTENTS OF THE DOSSIER 89
1. In 1985,Mr. Dumitru Mazilu. asamember of theSub-Commission, wasap-
pointed in his personal capacity to prepare a report on human rights and youth.
He was appointed Special Rapporteur by the Sub-Commission.
2. During 1985and 1986, Mr. Mazilu neither prepared nor produced any-
thing on the subject. It should be noted that neither the other members of the
Sub-Commission nor the Centre for Human Rights attached any importance to
this state of affairs.
In 1987.Mr. Mazilu became nravelv il1with a serious heart condition and was
hospitalized repeatedly over a period of several months.
In November 1987,he applied personally for disability retirement because of
this condition and submitted the avvrovriate medical certificates.
In accordance with Komanian lai;. he was examined by û panel of doctors
which decided to arant him retiremcnt on grounds oi ill-health for an initial
period of one ye&.
3. Mr. Mazilu's term as a member of the Sub-Commission expired at the end
of 1987.
For obvious reasons. the Romanian Government submitted the candidacv of
another expert who co"ld participait cffe~.iivelyin the Sub-Commission's wbrk.
4. To the Governmeni's rurprise. ai that point the Unitcd Nations Centre for
Human Riahts started to take a svecial interest in Mr. Madlu's situation and
in the report he had undertaken (O prepare.
Even more surprisingly,only a matter of months after applying for and being
granted retirement on the basis of the appropriate medical records which he
himself had submitted, the former expert began to maintain that he was able
to perform his task as Special Rapporteur and began to send a numher of
messages on the subiect to Geneva. either directlv or throunh intermediaries.
5. The Romanian authorities, acting responsibl; and withdue respect for the
steps taken again and again by Mr. Mazilu's former colleagues on the Sub-
Commission. therefore submitted his medical records to the Centre for Human
Rights in ~ebruar~ 1988.
6. The fact that certain individuals still questioned the explanations and
documents provided by the Romanian authorities created and continues to
create, doubts as to their real motives.
There isalso a question of the honesty of the former expert, which the Roma-
nian authorities ca~ ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~htlv..eso.ciallv,s~nc~ ~e was recentlv examined.
at theendof the first year of hisdisability retirement, by a similar panel of doc:
tors which decided to extend his retirement on grounds of ill-health.
The insistenceon making a case out of the situationof someone who isil1and
the attempts to involve him in a political campaign have nothing todo with any
concern for obtaining a report for the Suh-Commission.
In respect of the legal aspects of theproblem:
1. In viewof the doctors' opinion that the former expert is incapacitated for
mental work. which is whv he a..lied for and was er-nted his retirement. he
is in no position to prepare the report.
Accordingly, the Romanian authorities fail to seehow they might "CO-operate
. .. bv ensurinn that Mr. Mazilu's revort be comoleted and vresented to the
~ub-commissi& at ilie earlicsi po~riblc date". ilsmention;d in resolurion
IY88/37adoptcd by the Sub-Commission on Preiention oi Discriminîiion and
Proiecrion of Minoritics on I Sentzmber 1988. or "facilitate" that vroccs~a,
requested in the ~ecretary-General's note.
If the overriding concern is the preparation of a report, we would point out
that the new Romanian expert on the Sub-Commission has offered to perform 90 PRlVaEGES AND IMMUNITIE OF THE UNITED NATIONS
the task himself and has even transmitted a draft report to the Centre for
- -~~ ~ ~ ~ - ~~ ~ ~~~~.n~me. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
2. The question of applying the 1946Convention on the Privileges and Im-
munities of the United Nations. to which Romania is a oartv. .oes..ot arise in
this case.
First ofall, the Convention does not equate rapporteurs, whose activities are
onlv occasional. with exnerts on mission for the United Nations.
Éven if rapporteurs are givcn some of ihe status of experts. ilisquiie obviour
ihat they can enjoy only funciional immunities and privilegcs, that is, privileges
connected uith iheir activiiies for the Uniied Nations. durine the ~eriod of their
mission, and then only in the countries in which the; perf&m tie mission and
in countries of transit.
This is the onl. .ossible interoretation of Article VI. .ecti~ ~22. of the Con-
vention, which makes it un&nbiguously that experts are accorded
privilenes and immunitiesonly while thev are in thecountrv to which they have
been &nt on mission and duking the j&rney to or from ihat country.
It is therefore obvious from the provisions of the Convention that an expert
does not enjoy privileges and immunities in the country in which he has his per-
manent resfdence butonly in the country in which hejs on mission and during
the period of his mission. Likewise, the privileges and immunities provided by
the Convention benin to apply only at the moment when the expert leaves on
a journey connecte2 uiih the performance of hi, mission. Asion; as he has noi
begun the journey. for rcasons which arc not connected with hisaciivities, thcre
are no legal grounds for claiming privileges and immunities under the Con-
vention.
Moreover. in the country of which he isa national and in countries other than
the country to which he is sent on mission, an expert enjoys privileges and
immunities only in respect of actual activities spoken or written which he per-
forms in connection with his mission.
Since that is the only correct textual interpretation of the Convention. there
are no grounds for claiming that there is a dispute between the United Nations
and Romania concerning the application or interpretation of the Convention.
3. As for the oossible reauest for an advisorv ooinion fromthe International
Couri of ~usiice'onthe appiicahilit!. of the ~otkeniion. a question to uhich the
above-meniioned Sub-Commissionreioluiion refers. it should be resalled ihai,
in ratifvinn the 1946Convention. Romania made a reservation to section 30 on
the settiement of disputes to the iffect that in order for a difference between the
United Nations and a Member State to be the subject of an opinion of the
Court, the express consent of al1parties to the dispute must he given.
Romania states expressly that it is opposed to requesting any kind of opinion
from the Court on this case.
In substance, even if a dispute did exist, there would be no legal basis for
requesting an advisory opinion from the Court since one of the parties is
opposed to referring the alleged difference to the Court.
Since the provisions of the 1946Convention. includina both those on aues-
tions of subitance and those on the settlementof disputes to which ~omania
made the above-mentioned reservation forma whole. an advisory opinion could
not be reauested on this case. and hence on the interpretation of the Convention
and 11saiplication to the case. on thr basis oi othe; arguments. Thai would be
laniamount to ridesiepping ihe provisions of ihe Convenrion. tvhich mu,i bç
applied io the Coniraaing Siaie Party in the linhi o- the rcscrvations made by
it at the time of ratification.
ln conclusion, the efforts being made hy certain individuals, for political or CONTENTS OF THE DOSSIER 91
personal reasons, to turn a case of illness inta political or legal issue are in
complete contradiction with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the
United Nations.
Romania therefore requests that this artificial case should be considered
closed. For reasons of principle, the Romanian authorities cannot agree, in
respect of a question of employment disability attested to by the person con-
cerned and by the appropriate medical documents, to be placed in the situation
of having to be guided not by the opinion of a panel of doctors but by opinions
that are politically motivated.
If the problem of the report which Mr. Dumitru Mazilu wasto have prepared
is really urgent, the Sub-Commission could decide, pending his recovery, that
the report should be prepared by the current Romanian expert on the Sub-
Commission.
If, on the other hand, the intention of certain members of the Sub-
Commission is to make it easier for Mr. Dumitru Mazilu to travel to Geneva,
that is an entirely different question.
14.Fifrh (Adminislralive and Budgetary) Commillee of the General Assembly,
Foriy-lhird Session (New York, 20 Seplember-22 December 1988)
79. Report of the Secretary-General: A/C.5/43/18
Personnel questions: Respect for the
privileges and immunities of officiais
of the United Nations and the
specialized agencies and related
organizations (para. 29))
79A. Summary Record of the 35th meeting A/C.5/43/SR.35
(held on Friday, 18November 1988,at
10am., New York)(paras. 45and 62)'
15. Commission on Human Rights: Forty-fiflh Session
(Geneva, 30 January-IO March 1989)
80. Report of Mr. M. C. Bhandare, Chair- E/CN.4/1989/37
man of the Sub-Commission, at its for-
tieth session, prepared in accordance
with paragraph 20 of Commission on
Human Rights resolution 1988/43
(Section III, paras. 16-22)]
E/CN.4/1989/69
13February 1989.
81. Note by the Secretary-General Pursuant to Paragraph 2 of Resolution
1988/37 of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and
Protection of Minorities
1. The Commission on Human Rights in paragraph 4 of its resolution
1985/13 requested the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and
' Document no1reproduced./Note by rheRegisrry.] CONTENTS OF THE DOSSIER 93
the Sub-Commission of Mr. Mazilu's statements of his willingness IO continue
with hisstudy and IO travel to Geneva for consultations. However, in the light
of the Government's reports of Mr. Mazilu's il1health, the Under-Secretary-
General for Human Rights had decided Io authorize, as an exceptional measure,
a staff member of the Centre to travel Io Mr. Mazilu's place of residence in
order to work with himon his reDort. He had done so on the understandine.that
hlr.Mïzilu nould be enîbled t<i'L.om cO Genrva during the ces\ion of ihe-~ub-
Commission to proent his report. Thar had no1beïn thc case. but >Ir. \lazilu
had sent the first version of the main ideas of his study and the Secretariat
had unsuccessfully sought to contact bim to discuss various matters in that
regard (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1988/S ARttIe)Sub-Commission's 7th meeting. the
Observer for Rornania informed the Sub-Commission that, because of his
health condition. Mr. Mazilu was not able Io travel, copies of medical cer-
tificates had been submitted to the Centre for Human Rights in that regard
(E/CN.4/Sub.2/1988/SR.7).
7. In connection with this matter, the Sub-Commission, at ils fortieth ses-
sion. adopted decision 1988/102 and resolution 1988/37.
8. In resolution 1988/37. the Sub-Commission. inter olia. reauested the
Secretary-General to approach once more the Go;ernment oi ~ornania and
invoke the applicability of the Convention on the Privileaes and lmmunities of
the United iiations. and reouest the Government Io ci-ooer~~e~7~llv in the
implementation of lhat resoiution by ensuring that Mr. Mazilu's report was
completed and presented to the Sub-Commission at the earliest possible date.
The Sub-Commission further requested the Secretary-General, in the event that
the Government of Romania did tiot concur in the applicability of the provi-
sions of the said Convention to that case, to bring the difference between the
United Nations and Romania imrnediately to the attention of the Commission
at ils forthcoming forty-fifth session.
9. Pursuant Io that resolution the Secretarv-General addressed a note verbale
on 26 October 1988to the Permanent ~epresintative of Romania IOthe United
Nations (see Annex 1). On 6 January 1989, the Permanent Representative of
Romania transrnitted to the Legal Counsel an aide-mémoireon the subject ask-
ing that il be circulated to the Commission on Human Rights (see Annex II).
The Legal Counsel made it clear that acceptance of the aide-mémoire for
transmittal to the Commission on Human Rightsdid not mean that he accepted
ils coittents.
10. Subsequent to the fortieth session of theSub-Commission,the Secretariat
has continued IO collect information relatina to Mr. Mazilu's study and sounht
unsuccessfullv to establish contact with him to dis~us~ ~n~ ~ ~ ~ ~latin- ~~ ~~~-
report. The under-~ecretary-General for Human Rights has also maintained
contact with the Permanent Re~resentative of Romania to the United Nations
Office at Geneva for the purpo;e of seekingthe Government's assistancein this
matter.
Il. The Secretary-General, in his report to the Fifth Commission of the
General Assembly at ils forty-third session(A/C.5/43/18, para. 29). referred IO
this matter in the following terrns:
"The Secretary-General regrets to mention that Mr. Dumitru Mazilu, a
former member of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimi-
nation and Protection of Minorities, who had been charged by the Sub-
Commission. oursuant Io its resolution 1985/12 of 29 A-eus~-1985. w~~.
the preparation of a report on thequestion ofhuman righi and youth. wa,
no1permiited by rhc Romanian aiithoritieç tu tra\el IO Gencva in order IO94 PRlVlLECES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE UNITED NATIONS
present his report at the recent fortieth session of the Sub-Commission.
Although no lon-er a member of the Sub-Commission. Mr. Mazilu had a
\alid arjigniiicni lroni the Sub-Coiiiiiiiçsion aiid i\. rlihccan-z. to
.idi.rcd>hd\.ing in that capacit) the ciaius of an expert on niisçioii ior ihc
I:nitrJ Sdiionr u~thiiithe meïniO! Arti:le \01 ille Conient;an oii [lie
Privileges and lmmunities of theUnited Nations."
Annex 1
NOTE VERBALE DATED26 OCTOBER1988 FROM THE SECRETARY-GENERAL
ADDRESSE DO THE PERMANENR TEPRESENTATI VFEROMANI AO THE
UNITEDNATIONS
[SeeNo. 73, p. 86, supra1
Annex II
[SeeNo. 78,p. 88, supra]
82. Summary Record of the 22nd meeting E/CN.4/1989/SR.22
(held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva,
on Tuesday, 14 February 1989, al
3 p.m.1'
83. Summary Record of the 23rd meeting E/CN.4/1989/SR.23
(held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva,
on Wednesday, 15 February 1989, at
10 a.m.)'
84. Summary Record of the first part of E/CN.4/1989/SR.24
the 24th meeting (held at the Palais
des Nations, Geneva, on Wednesday,
15 February 1989, at3 p.m.)l
85. Summarv Record of the 38th meetine. E/CN.4/1989/SR.38
(held at ihe Palais des Nations, ceneva,
February 1989)'
86. Summary Record of the 39th meeting E/CN.4/1989/SR.39
(held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva,
on Monday, 27 February 1989, at
10 am.)'
'Document not repraduced/Noreby rheRegisrry.] CONTENTS OF THE DOSSIER 95
E/CN.4/1989/SR.SI/Add.l
31 July 1989.
87. Summary Record of the Second Part of the 51st Meeting
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva,
on Monday, 6 March 1989, at 3 p.m.
Chairman: Mr. Bossuyt (Belgium) (later: Mrs. Ilic (Yugoslavia))
[Paras. 1-110not reproducedj
Draft resolufion E/CN.4/1989/L.36: Status of special rapporteurs
111. Mr. HileW. (Federal Reoublicof Germanv). ,,.roducine th- dr~~ ~ ~ ~ ~-~~~
lion on behaliof the sponsors, recalledthai ai iis iuo previous sesïi«ns the Sub-
Commission had studied the case of hlr. Malilu. the Sub-Commision exoeri
entrusted with the task of preparing a report on human rights and youth In
resolution 1988/37, the Sub-Commission had expressed the opinion that
Mr. Mazilu, in his continuing capacity of SpeciaJ Rapporteur, enjoyed the
privileges and immunities necessary for the performance of his duties, as
provided for in Article VI, Section 22, of the Convention on the Privilegesand
lmmunities of the United Nations of 13Febmary 1946,to which Romania was
a Party. In the draft under consideration, it was noted that the Romanian
Government did not concur in the applicability of those provisions; conse-
quently, the Commission recommended that the Economic and Social Council
should rcquest. pursuaiit io Article 96 (2) of ihc Charter of ihe United Nations
and General A\rembly resol~tion 89 (1) of II Desember 1946. an advisory
opinion from ihc Interndiional Court of Justice on ihat auejiion He hooed the
dÏaft resolution could be adopted without a vote.
112. Mrs. Raadi (Secretariat) said that Luxembourg had become a sponsor.
113. AI the reauesf of the re~resentative of the Germon Democrafic
Republic, o vote was taken by roll-rail on draft re~olutionE/CN.4/1989/L.36.
114. Japan, having been drawn by lot by the Chairmon, was called upon IO
votefirsf,
In favour: Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Cyprus,
France, Gambia, Germany, Federal Republic of, India, Italy,
Japan, Mexico, Nigeria, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Por-
tueal, Sao Tome and Princioe. Sene~al. Soain. Swaziland.
~weden, United Kingdom if ~reat- riti in and ~orthern
Ireland, United States of America, Venezuela.
Againsl: Bulgaria, Cuba, German Democratic Republic, Ukrainian
Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics.
Abstaining: Bangladesh, Botswana, China, Ethiopia, Iraq, Morocco,
Pakistan, Rwanda, Somaiia, Sri Lanka, Togo, Yugoslavia.
115. Draff resolution E/CN.4/1989/L.36 was adopted by 26 votes to 5, with
12 abstentions.
[Paras. 116148 no1 reproducedj
149. Mr. Maxim (Observer for Romania), speaking on resolution
E/CN.4/1989/L.48, deeply regretted the fact that the resolution substituted an96 PRNEEOES AND LMMUNITES OF THE UNïIED NATIONS
artificial problem for a real one. The real problem was that of establishing a
report on human rights and youth. He gave an assurance that Romania
was orenared to continue contributine to that task. However. resolution
~/~~.4;1989/~.48 distorted for politici ends the situation createdby the state
of health of Mr. Mazilu, the Romanian expert entrusted with the study.
Mr. Mazilu was seriouslv ill. and medical certificates submitted in that connec-
lion had no1 been coniested. The Romanian authorities were unwilling to
disregard medical advice.
150. Furthermore, in the memorandum they had submitted on the subject,
the Romanian authorities had stressed that in their view the problem of
privileges and immunities under the 1946 Convention did not arise, since a
Ünited~ations expert enjoyed such privileges only while on official mission,
and not at al1limes in any country he might visit for reasons unconnected with
that mission. The resolution also did not take into account the reservation made
bv Romania in resoect of the Convention. namelv that a reauest addressed to
the iniernationai Court of Justice wa\adm'issible~nls wirh théagreement of the
Statc conccrncd. His dclcgation thrrefore hooed ihat efioris uould be focused
more on the real objective, whichwas the establishment of the report on human
rights and youth.
151. The Chairman indicated that the Commission had concluded ils con-
sideration of draft resolutions and decisions relating to agenda item 19.
[Paras. 152-211no1 reproduced]
88. Report on the Forty-Fifth Session: Resolution 1989/37. Status of Special
Rapporteurs, Adopted on 6 March 1989
The Commission on Human Righfs,
Convrnced that the impartialiiy and objectiiiiy of thc Sub.Commis~ion on
Prei,ention oi Discrimination and Protrction of Minoririer and ilie independent
status of ils members, their alternates and ils special rapporteurs musi be
safeguarded in al1circumstances,
Recallinn that the Sub-Commission. in 1985.aooointed Dumitru Mazilu. an
expert from Romania, to prepare a report on hum& rights and youth. and that
his membership in the Sub-Commission expired before the study entrusted to
him as Special Rapporteur had been completed,
Concurring with the view expressed bythe Sub-Commission in its resolution
1988/37 of I September 1988 that Mr. Mazilu, in his continuing capacity as
Suecial Ra~oorteur. eniovs the orivileaes and immunities necessarv for the oer-
fbrmance bf hisduties,aiprovided fo;in Article VI, Section 22O; the ~oncen-
lion on the Privileges and lmmunities of the United Nations of 13 February
1946, 10 which Romania is a Party,
Having considered the note dated 13February 1989(E/CN.4/1989/69) sub-
mitted by the Secretary-General pursuant to paragraph 2 of Sub-Commission
resolution 1988/37 and in particular the aide-mémoiretransmitted to the Legal CONTENTS OF THE DOSSIER 97
Counsel by the Permanent Representative of Romania to the United Nations,
reproduced in Annex II thereof,
Noring that the Government of Romania does not concur in the applicability
of the provisions of the Convention on the Privileges and lmmunities of the
United Nations in the case of Mr. Mazilu,
Recommends the following draft resolution to the Economic and Social
Council for adoption:
[For the text, see Chap. 1, Sec. A, draft resolution III.]
51sI meeling
6 March 1989
[Adopted by a roll-cal1vote of 26 to 5, with
12 abstentions. See Chap. XIX.]
III.Stalus oJ'Special Rapporteurs
The Economic and Social Council.
Having considered Suh-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and
Protection of Minorities resolution 1988/37 of 1September 1988and Commis-
sion on Human Rights resolution 1989/37 of 6 March 1989,
1. C011~1ude.tshat a Jiffercncr. ha, aribcn bciticcn ihc United Niiiionj and
Roni3iiia as to the 3ppliiabiliiy of th<Cunvcntion on thr I'riiilcp~.\and Immu-
nitics of ihc Uniicd Saiions oi 13 Februar, 1946 to Slr. Dumitru Slalilu a,
Special Rapporteur of the ~ub-commission.;
2. Requests, pursuant to Article 96, paragraph 2, of the Charter of the
United Nations and in accordance with General Assembly resolution 89 (1)of
11 Decemher 1946,an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice
on the lecol question of the ap~licahility of Article VI. Section 22, of the Con-
vention on the Privileees andimmunities of the U~ ~ -~~~~~~n~ ~ ~13Fehruarv ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
1946 in the case of K. Dumitru Mazilu as Special Rapporteur of the Sui-
Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities.
[See Chap. II, Sec. A, resolution 1989/37, and Chap. XIX.]
89. Report on the forty-fifth sessioii: Chap. E/1989/20
XIX. Report of the Sub-Commission on E/CN.4/1989/86
Prevention of Discrimination and Pro-
tection of Minorities on its foriieth ses-
sion (paras. 503-506 and 523-526)'
' Document "or reproduced. /Noie byihe RegisiryJ98 PRNtLEOES AND IMMUNRIES OF THE UNITEDNATIONS
16. Correspondence and Communicalions during May 1989
90. Letter Dated 5 May 1989 from the Under-Secretary-General for Human
Ri-hts to the Permanent Reoresentative of Romania to the United Nations
Office al Geneva
5 May 1989,
1am writing to you in connection with resolution 1989/37 of the Commission
on Human Riahts. adouted on 6 March 1989. a cooy of which is attached for
your informatFon. In this regard 1wish to refcr to the Sesretars-General'? note
verbale of 26October 1988to the Perniancnt Reprcsentati\e of Romania to the
United Nations and mv lettcr of 19 December 1988to vou.
WCare "ou in the prbcessof making prîparations for.the ncxt sessionof the
Sub-Commissionon Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of hlinorities
and. in oarticular. of oreoarinr reoorts for that bodv. As vou know. the Sub-
~ommis.sion has included'in &<agenda for the coming session, a repoit by Pro-
fessor Dumitru Mazilu on human rights and youth, and iris urgently necessary
for us IO enter into contact with him with ieeard to the o.e~.ration of that
report. It is, therefore. Our hope that your Government will facilitate Our con-
tacts with Professor Mazilu so that we may assisthim in the preparation of his
report. In particular, we would be most grateful for your assistancein enabling
Professor Mazilu to visit Geneva this month in order to work on his report.
The successful preparation of the report by Professor Mazilu is a matter to
which the Commission, the Sub-Commission, and the Secretary-General attach
high importance. and an early reply from you would be most appreciated. It
would be Our hope that the Secretary-General would be able to inform the
Economic and Social Council during ils first regular sessionof 1989of the visit
to Geneva by Professor Mazilu and the progress madein establishing his report.
91. Letter Dated 5 May 1989 from the Under-Secretary-General for Human
Rights Io Mr. Mazilu
Regisrered
Return receipl requesfed
1 am writing to you concerning Our continuing efforts to enable you to
prepare and present your report on human rights and youth to the Sub-
Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities.
Attachedyou will find a copy of a letter 1addressedto you on 19December 1988
along with the enclosures mentioned therein. The Commission on Human
Rights, at ils forty-fisession, adopted resolution 1989/37 dealing with your
report and your status as a Soecial Rapoorteur. and 1 enclose a cooy of that
resolution for yourinformation. Also enilosed is a copy of my lettof today's
date to the Permanent Representative of Romania to the United Nations Office
in Geneva requesting that you be enabled to come to Geneva this month to
prepare your report.
The United Nations Information Centre in Bucharest has the necessary
authorization to provide you with a round-trip airline ticket Buch-
arest/Geneva/Bucharest for the above period. CONTENTS OF THE DOSSIER 99
92. Letter Dated 5 May 1989from Mr. Mazilu Io the Secretary-General and to
the Chairman of the Suh-Commission
Open Letter
5 May 1989.
1. You may know rhat since5 May 19861am in captivity in my own country.
You would admit rhai even one huur of dctention itis a very long period of
lime. But 25,998 hours?
In last year 1 have received threatening letters with the following content:
"Give up! Obey to them! or you willdie!", signed hy "The sonsof revolution".
You will understand that to kill an UN Raonorteur on Human Riahts it is
possible especially whenthe leaders of a couniiy have to their dispos2 a huge
police machinery, but to kill the tmth, to stop the fight for the noble cause of
Human Rights it is not possible.
2. In spite of the repressive measures and police terror against me and my
family, 1 have finished the first version of my Report.
Please do everything possible to determine my authorities Io allow me Io sub-
mit it to the UN competent bodies.
3. If my authorities willrefuse again to release me, 1am asking you to publish
my Report (its separafe part regarding the Romanian case).
In this way, the UN and the international public opinion will know better
what is the real situation of Human Rights in my own country.
93. Letter Dated May 1989from Mr. Mazilu to the Under-Secretary-General for
Human Rights
May 1989.
You may know that my situation is desperate.
1am in captivity, under an unprecedented police terror.
The life of my wife and my son are in danger.
Since 5 May 1986, when 1have received first invitation Io come Io Geneva
for consultations in order to prepare my Report, 1have understood that in my
country it is impossible to tell the truth about the existing situation of Human
Rights.
No*, on the bai, oi a profound analysis. I hare corne io ihe conclusion thai
ue hare to do everyihmg possible io >ubmitthis mafter Io the atiention of the
UN cornDeteni bodies and of the international ~ublic opinion.
~itached to th,, Irtrer. you will lind another one regarding the new iexis of
my Repi~rt.an open leiter io the Secretary-General and to the Chairman of the
Cornrnih.ii>non Human Righis and an open lerter io ihe Precident of the GA
and to the Chairman of thé~ub-~ommission.
With a hope for a better future!
With the most sincere thanks for your invaluable help and continuous
support.Io0 PRNILECES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE UNITED NATIONS
94. Letter Dated May 1989from Mr. Mazilu to the Under-Secretary-General for
Human Rights
May 1989
1have the pleasure to send you now, the Introduction, a new Chapter IV (the
actualChapter IV it willbe Chapter V), the Conclusions and Recommendations
and Bibliography of my Report.
In the view of mv unusual situation. 1have analysed the fundamental causes
of the disastrous status ofHuman ~ights in my own country. You will find out
the results of my research on thismatter in a separate Report on Human Rights
and Youth in Romania.
But, in order to cover al1important areas of the matter involved, 1desperately
need consultations at your Centre for Human Rights.
Insoite of m..caotivi.v and manv.reo.essive measures aa-inst me and aaa.nst
my famil). I continue io waii and hope
Your continuous help and cuppori and rhr continuou\ hçlp and wpport of
mv colleaa-es and fricnds from ihc Sub-Conimission rcoreseni tor me the ho~c
to survive . . .
95. Letter Dated May 1989from Mr. Mazilu to the Secretary-General and the
Chairman of the Sub-Commission
Open Letter
For immediate release!
May 1989.
In my capacity of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Human Rights
and Youth, 1consider that it is my duty to declare publicly the following:
Taking into account the fact that the Romanian authorities have used every
oossible means and wav to orevent me to oreoare and to submit mv Reo.rt i.
order to cover the truth about the existingsit;ation in this field in my country,
and having in mind the unspeakable repressive measures and police terror
anainst me and aaainst mv familv since ~üaust 1985. in order to determine me
to lie and to abandon miresearch, and taking into account the notorious fact
that the Romanian Government is refusing to CO-operate with the United
Nations in order to put end to my captivity and to allow me to finalize my
Report and to submit it to the UN competent bodies, I am asking you to publish
my Report. as soon as possible.
In this way, the international public opinion if willbe informed on the Roma-
nian tragic case.
As you know - because of my captivity and because of the fact that al1my
official corresoondence from the UN has been confiscated by the Romanian
secret police2 1have beenconsirained io insist in the firsr version of m) Report
on the exisiing siiuation in Romania and. in pariicular, on the fundamenial
causes of the disastrous situation of Human Rights in this country
It is my conviction that the publication of thisiersion of my ~eport it would
help the figbt of Romanians and of the UN to put an immediate end to the bar-
barous violations of Human Rights in Romania CONTENTS OF THE OOSSlER
Dear Mr. Secretary-General,
Dear Mr. Chairman,
During my research in different parts and regions of this country it hecame
absolutely clear that the actual leaders of Romania deliberately defying al1
national and international rules regarding Human Rights and that they have
total contempt for the human being.
On the basis of a thorough analysis, 1have corne to the conclusion that the
Human Rights situation in this country is extremely grave and, in many res-
pects, it is desperate.
1have to inform vou that now. after 40 vears since the Unive~s~l Declaration
of Human Rights has beenadoptédand afcer 200years from the French Revolu-
tion, the life, liberty and security of ~.ung people. of everyone in Romania,
except for the most important political leaders, are in a big danger.
Even to speak about Human Rights in this country it is forbidden.
The fundamental causesof this incredible situation are continuous abusesof
power, police terror, the total incompetence of Government. the wrong manage-
ment of economy and the absenceof democracy in al1 ils forms.
As a father and professor 1caniiot remain silent. becausemy authorities are
kee~ine me in caotivitv. when around me 1 see thousands and thousands of
yoi;ngpcoplc condcrrir;ed to dic of hunger and mith cold. becîurc ihc IeaJrrs
of ihc souiirr). deliberatcly continue Torscari tu rciusr thsrn the minimuni food
Io survive, the necessari space heating and lighting in maternity wards, in
schools and in their homes.
The chronic absenceof the basic food : milk, butter. meat and evenhread put
in danger the biologic existenceof the Romanian people. The foetus hasnothing
or almost nothing to eat. The mothers have no milk ta suckle their babies,
becauseof their malnutrition for rnany years. Their heart cannot enduring the
existing atmosphere cold as ice in their homes, in hospitals, in factories and
offices.
The chronic absenceof medicine, of extremely important drugs for medical
treatment has determined the increasing number of the stillbirth-rate and of
infant mortality.
Contrarv to al1national and international leaal and moral laws and repula-
tions, it has begun the destruction of 8,000 vifiages - more than half O? the
villages of Romania -, the displacement of large populations from their tradi-
tional life, the arbitrarv deprivation of over three million neasantsof their own
property and the elimi'nation, in this way. of the last individual liberties.
It has begun a barharous destruction of historic relics, religious temples,
national monuments and even of the graveyards.
In soite of the contin~ous ~ ~ strone oro~~-ts7o~ ~he~R~m~ni~ ~ ~tizens and
of the rivili~ed world. thi, unprccedented gros, \,iolation of Human Rights con-
tinuer undcr pcr.le~.nr loo- of million and million of rieople thro.chou~ the .
world.
Taking into account its profound human implications, on the basisof existing
laws and reeulations. this action itis comparable with a aenocide.
Becauseof the forced assimilation of minorities. thousaids and thousands of
Hungarians, Germans and Jews are leaving the country.
The fundamental constitutional rights and freedoms have been suspended.
After the large protest of workers in Brasov county in November 1987, ifhas
been instituted, in fact, the state of siege.
The elementary rights of everyone to freedom of opinion and expression, the
right of peaceful assembly and the right to freedom of association do no1exist.102 PRMLEGESAN0 IMMUNlTlES OF THEUNITEDNATIONS
Who has different opinions and has the courage to expressthem is labelling
and qualifying as a traitor and he is condemned for "treason" of the interests
of socialism.
The Romanian people have to confront serious difficulties in the exercise of
their right to freedom of thought. conscience and religion.
The leaders of the country have to their disposal a huge police machinery,
which is used aeainst the riehts. freedoms and the interests of the ~eople.
. .
After the increasing number of the Romanian protests as a consequence of
the letters of orotest of six former paru leadersand of some verv known Roma-
nian writers in March 1989againsi the-grossviolations of ~uman Rights, in the
country ithas been instituted the state of a general police terror.
At the will of the secret ~olice, anyone could be subject IO arbitrary inter-
ference with his privacy. family, home, correspondence and telephone, could
lose his job, could be thrown in jail, in psychiatric hospitals or could disappear
for ever at anv time.
Taking into.account the gravity of the matter, 1have recommended through
my Report to the United Nations to useal1the possibilities to their disposal to
determine the Romanian officiaisto organize. assoon aspossible, free elections
~n~ ~~ ~e UN-.une-~~sion.
~ ~~ ~~~ ~
Having in mind the tragic situation of Human Rights in this country, 1have
recommended in rnv Report to the United Nations to ask the Romanian Govern-
ment io abandon iinmcdiatel) il\ su-called plan of rural \)\tcmatiration; tu put
an immediate end IO the represrne mrururcs a11dpolicc terror xgdinrt popula-
tion and to restore constitutional riehts and to observe the urovisions of the UN
Charter and oi the orher iirrrrnüttonal Iegal inftrunicnts. &ned or ratiiied hy
Romania: IO ask the Romanian Goiernmeni IO stop the food sypurt. in order
to euarantee to everv member of society the minimum food to survive.
.Faking into arri,uni the unimaginabl; rrprcsri\e nieswrcr and poli~c terror,
the toriurc and other cruel, inhuman and dcgrading trr3tment and punishment
used aaainst the workers. who have orotested in Brasov county in November
1987, fstrongly recommend to the UN Io investigate the causesof this grave
situation and to find out who areguilty for such incredible violations of Human
Rights
Dear Mr. Secretary-General,
Dear Mr. Chairman,
In the view of the extreme urgency of the matter, pleasegive your full con-
sideration and general priority Io the Romanian case.
Attached you will find the copy of my legal action against Mr. Tudor
Postelnicu. the Minister of Interna1Affairs and al1other Dersonsnamed bv him
becauseth& are guilty for the gross violation of my and'my famil9 right;, and
a letter through which 1have protested against the unspeakable manŒuvres hy
my authoritiei aiming at creating of a false impression that 1am a sick man and
1Eannot prepare andsubmit my~eport on ~irnan Rights and Youth to the UN
competent bodies. CONTENTS Of THE DOSSIER
96. Letter dated May 1989from Mr. Mazilu
to the President of the General Assembly
and to the Chairman of the ~ub-
Commission'
17. The Economic and Social Council: Firsr Regular Session of 1989
(New York, 2-26 May 1989)
97. Report of the Second (Social) Com- E/1989/88
mirtee: Human rights questions'
98. 16th Meeting: Unofficial Sound Transcript
Tronsloredfrom Sponish
Drofr resolurion III
The Presidenl invited the Council to consider draft resolution III, entitled
"Status of special rapporteurs", contained in Chapter 1 of document
E/1989/20.
Mr. Tonasie (Observer for Romania) said his delegation had provided the
necessarvexolanations in the ao..oor.ate forums and considered the efforts that
had bcc" made IOiransform ncase OCilInes$into a political and Iegal issue to
bc unacccptablc and conirary 10 the purpose\ and principlrs of the Charter of
the ~nited Nations. Since the case involved incanach for work. the Romanian
auihoriiies had hccdcd the opiiiion ola mediial c'om~i~rionand çon,idered ihat
ihcrc uere no legalgrounds Correquesiing an advirory opinion from ihc Inter-
national Court of justice. as was done in the draft resolution.
In 1946,nhrn ihe Con\ention on the Pri\ileges and Irnmunitiesof the United
Naiionc uac adopted. Romania had formulated reservaiions concerning Sec-
tion 29. relating to the settlement of disputes between the United Nations and
a Member State, since in its view, the consent of al1the parties concerned was
necessary ifsuch a dispute was to form the subject of an opinion by the Court.
In the current case. the Romanian oartv did not aeree that the alleeed disoute
should be referred to the Court. If the réportthat the former ~omaman official
was to have submitted was really urgent, the Sub-Commission could easily
decide that the matter should be dealtwith bv the Romanian exoert who was
currently a member of that body.
MissByrne (United States of America) said that in her viewthe intent of draft
resolution 111wasto seeka or.mot ..inion of the International Court of Justice
on the applicabiliiy of Article VI. Section 22. of the Convention on the Privi-
leecs and Immuniiies of the United Nations. Houever. the rcsolution's curreni
wording might not permit the Court to act expeditiously and a long period of
tirne. even one full year, might elapse, before the Court was able to address the
issue. Accordingly, the United States proposed a technical amendment, namely,
the insertion of the words "on a priority basis" alter the word "Requests".
Before submitting the amendrnent, her delegation had consulted the delegation
'Documenino1 reproduced.[Nole by rheRegisrry.]104 PRIV~EOES AND IMWIES OF THE UNITED NATIONS
of the Federal Republic of Germany, which had taken a strong interest in the
topic. The amendment was essentially procedural and served only to make the
resolution's intent clearer: it did notchanee the substance of the text. and she
therefore hoped that the amendment courd be adopted by general agreement
and that the Council would thereafter take action on the draft resolution.
The President said that, in accordance with rule 66 of the Council's rules of
procedure, a vote would first be taken on the amendment proposed by the
United States.
Miss Byrne (United States of America) said that her intention had been that
the amendment should be adopted by consensus.
Mr. Mikulko (Czechoslovakia) said that the Council was not empowered to
give the Court guidelines with regard to priorities when it did not know what
other questions the Court had before it and he would therefore prefer that the
amendment be put to the vote.
Mr. Golemonov (Bulgaria) endorsed the view expressed by the delegation of
Czechoslovakia.
A recorded vole wosloken on the omendmenl proposed by the Uniled Slores.
In Jovour: Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Federal Rupublic of,
Greece. Ireland. Italy, Japan, Kenya, Netherlands, New
Zealand, Norway, Portugal, United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America,
Uruguay. Venezuela.
Agoinst: Bulgaria. Cuba, Czechoslovakia, lran (Islamic Republic of),
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Nicaragua, Poland, Ukrainian
Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics.
Absloining: Belize, Bolivia. Brazil,Cameroon, China, Colombia, Ghana,
Guinea, Indonesia, Iraq, Jordan, Lesotho, Liberia, Niger.
Oman, Rwanda, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Tunisia. Yugoslavia.
Zaire, Zambia.
The omendmenl Io operolive porogroph 2 oJdraJI resolulion III wosodopred
by 17 voles Io 9, wirh 22 obsrenlions.
A recorded vole wos roken on droJ1 resolurion III os omended.
In Jovour: Bahamas, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil. Canada, Colombia, Den-
mark, France. Germany, Federal Republic of, Greece,
Ireland. Italy, Japan, Kenya, Netherlands, New Zealand,
Norway, Portugal, Trinidad and Tobago, United Kingdom of
Great Britain aiid Northern Ireland. United States of
America, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yugoslavia.
Agoinsr: Bulgltrilt.Cuba, Czcchosloi,akia. lran (I$IltinicRepublun.
Libyltn Arab Jamahiri)a. Poland. Ukrainian Soilei Soci.ili,i
Republic. Union of Soviet 9i~ialisr Repiiblics.
Absloining: Cameroon, China. Ghana, Guinea, Indonesia. Iraq, Jordan,
Lesotho, Liberia, Nicaragua, Niger, Oman. Rwanda, Sri
Lanka, Sudan, Thailand, Tunisia, Zaire, Zambia.
DruJr resolurion III, os omended, wos odopted by 24 voles Io 8, wirh 19
obsrentions. CONTENTS OF THE DOSSIER
99. Resolution 1989/75. Status of Special Rapporteurs,
Adopted on 24 May 1989
(See pp. 4-5, supra]
Part II. Malerials Relating Io the Convention on the Privilegesand Immunities
of the United Nations
1. Reporr of the Preparatory Commission of the Unired Nations, 1946
100. Chap. VII. Sec. 1. Recommendations
concerning Privileges and Immunities,
Appendix B: Draft Convention on
Privileges and Immunities'
2. Ceneral Assembly: First Parr of rhe First Session, SYlh Commirree
(II January-8 February 1946, London)
101.Summary Record of the Sixth (Legal) A/C.6/17
Committee, sixth meeting, held on
24 January 1946, Annex 3 thereto: First
report of the Sub-Committee on
Privileges and Immunities '
102.Summary Record of the Sixth (Legal) A/C.6/19
Committee, seventh meeting, held on
28 January 1946, item I1, Privileges and
Immunities: First report of the Sub-
Committee (A/C.6/17)'
103. Summary Record of the Sixth (Legal) A/C.6/37
Committee, eleventh meeting, held on
7 February 1946, item 22, Privileges and
Immunities: Report of the Sub-
Committee (A/C.6/31); Draft Recom-
mendation and Convention on the
Privileges and lmmunities of the United
Nations (A/C.6/28)'
3. Ceneral Assembly: First Part of the First Session: Verbatim Records of
Plenary Meetings
104.Thirty-first meeting held on 13 February
1946, item 68, Privilegesand lmmunities
of the United Nations: Report of the
Sixth Committee: Resolutions (A/43)'
' Documenl na1 reproduced.[Nore byrheRegistry.1106 PRI~~OES AND IMMWITIES OF THE UNITED NATIONS
105.Thirty-first meeting held on 13February
1946, Annex 22 thereto: Privileges and
lmmunities of the United Nations:
Report of the Sixth Committee to the
General Assembly (A/43/Rev. 1)'
4. Orher Materials
106. General Assembly Resolution 22 A (I), Adopted on 13Fehruary 1946
XlII. RE~OLUTIOA NDSOPTED ON THE REPORT OSF THE SIXTHCOMMITTEE
6. Privileges and lmmunities of the United Nations
RES~LUTIO RELATING TO THE ADOPTION OF THE GENERAL CONVENTION ON
PRIVILEOES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE UNITED NATIONS. AND TEXI OF THE
CONVENTION.
TheGeneral Assemblyapproves the annexed convention on the privilegesand
immunitiesof the United Nations and proposes it for accession byeach Member
of the United Nations.
Thirly-firsr plenary meeting, 13 February 1946.
Whereas Article 104 of the Charter of the United Nations provides that the
Organization shall enjoy in the territory of each of its members such legal
capacity as may he necessary for the exerciseof its functions and the fulfilment
of its purposes and
WhereosArticle 105of the Charter of the United Nations provides that the
organization shall enjoy in the territory of each of its Mernbers such privileges
and immunities as are necessary for the fulfilment of its purposes and that
reoresentatives of the members of the United Nations and officiais of the
~i~anization shall similarly enjoy such privileges and immunities as are
necessary for the independent exerciseof the functions in connection with the
Organization :
Consequently the General Assembly by a resolution adopted on 13February
1946approved the followina convention and proposes it for accession by each
~ember of the United ~ations
ARTICLE 1
Juridical Personalily
Secrion 1.The United Nations shall possessjuridical personality. If shall have
the capacity:
(a) to contract;
(b) to acquire and dispose of immovable and movable property;
(cl to institute legal proceedings.
--
'Documentnot reproduced.[Nore by the Regisrry.1 CONTENTS OF THE WSSIER 107
ARTICLE11
Property, Funds and Assets
Section 2. The United Nations, its property and assets wherever located and
by whomsoever held, shall enjoy immunity from every form of legal process
except in so far as in any particular case it has expressly waived its immunity.
It is, however, understood that no waiver of immunity shall extend to any
measure of execution.
Section 3. The oremises of the United Nations shall be inviolable. The nro-
perty and assets if the United Nations, wherever located and by whoms~ever
held, shall be immune from search, requisition, confiscation, expropriationand
anv other form of interference. whetheÏ bv executive. administrativ.. iudicial or
legislative action.
Section 4. The archives of the United Nations, and in general al1documents
belonging to il or held by il, shall be inviolable wherever located.
Section 5. Without being restricted by financial controls, regulations or
moratoria of any kind,
. . The United Nations mav hold funds. eol. -~ currencv of anv kind and
operaie accounts in any currency;
(hl The United Nations shall be free to transfer ils funds, gold or currency from
one country 10another or within any country and toconvert any currency
held by it into any other currency.
Section 6. In exercising its rights under Section 5 above, the United Nations
shall pay due regard to any representations made by the Government of any
Member in so far as if is considered that effect can be given to such representa-
tions without detriment to the interests of the United Nations.
Section 7. The United Nations. ils assets, income and other property shall be:
. . exemnt from al1direct taxes: it is understood. however. that the United
~atiins will not claim exemition from taxes Whichare,'in fact. no more
than charges for public utility services;
lb) exemDt from customs duties and nrohibitions and restriaions on imoorts
and exports in respect of articles imported or exported by the ~nited
Nations for ils official use. It isunderstood, however, that articles imported
under such exemption will not be sold in the country into which they were
imported except under conditions agreed with the Government of that
country;
(c)exempt from customs duties and prohibitions and restrictions on imports
and exports in respect of its publications.
Section 8. While the United Nations will not, as a general rule, claim exemp-
tion from excise duties and from taxes on the sale of movable and immovable
property which form part of the price to be paid, nevertheless, when the United
Nations is making important purchases for official use of property on which
such duties and taxes have been charged or are chargeable, Members will,
whenever possible, make appropriate administrative arrangements for the
remission or return of the amount of duty or tax.
ARTICLE II1
Fociliries in Respect of Communications
Section 9. The United Nations shall enjoy in the territory of each member for
ils official communications treatment not less favourable than that accorded by108 PRNILECES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE UN~TED NATIONS
the Government of that Member to any other Government, including its
diplomatic mission, in the matter of priorities, rates and taxes on mails, cables.
telegrams, radiograms, telephotos, telephone and other communications; and
press rates for information to the press and radio. No censorship shall be
applied to theofficial correspondence and other officiaicommunications of the
United Nations.
Section 10. The United Nations shall have the right to use codes and to
dispatch and receiveits correspondence by courier or in bags, which shall have
the same immunities and privileges as diplomatic couriers and bags
ARTICLE IV
The Representotives of Members
Section II. Representatives of Members to the principal and subsidiary
oraans of the United Nations and to conferences convened bv the United
~Gions. shall, while exercising their funcrions and during rheir journes ro and
from the place of meeting. cnjoy the following privileges and immuniiies:
(al immunity from personal arresi or deteniion and from seizure of ihcir pcr-
sonal baggage. and. in respect of words spoken or writren and al1acts donc
by them in iheir capacity as represeniarivcs. immunity from legal prosess of
every kind;
(b) inviolability for al1papers and documents;
(c) the right to use codes and to receive papers or correspondence by courier
or in sealed bags;
/d) exemotion in resoect of themselves and their soouses from immieration
restrictions, alieis registration or national service obligations in th; State
they are visiting or through which they are passing in the exercise of their
functions :
(e) the same facilities in respect of currency or exchange restrictions as are
accorded to representatives of fore..n aovernments on temoorary official
missions;
If lhe same immunities and facilities in respect of their personal baggage as are
accorded to diplomatic envoys, and also;
(g) such other privileges, immunities and facilities, not inconsistent with the
foregoing, as diplomatic envoys enjoy, except that they shall have no right
to claim exemption from customs duties on goods imported (otherwise than
as part of their personal baggage) or from excise duties or sales taxes.
Section 12.In order to secure for the representatives of Members to the prin-
cipal and subsidiary organs of the United Nations and to conferences convened
bv the United Nations. comolete freedom of soeech and indeoendence in the
discharge of their dutiis, the.immunity from leial process in respect of words
spoken or written and al1acts done by them in discharging theirdutiesshall con-
tinue to be accorded, notwithstanding that the perso& concerned are no longer
the representatives of Members.
Section 13. Where the incidence of any form of taxation depends upon
residence, periods during which the representatives of Members to the principal
and subsidiary organs of the United Nations and to conferences convened by
the United Nations are present in a State for the discharge of their duties shall
not be considered as periods of residence.
Section 14. Privileges and immunities are accorded to the representatives of
Members not for the personal beneîït of the individuals themselves, but in order CONTENTS OF THE DOSSIER 109
io raiepuard the iiirlepciideni eucr.xc oi their iuiirrion~ in s<inne~.tiontiiih the
United Natior~s.C'o~i\equsnily 3 JIsmbcr not only lias the righr but is under a
duiy ro irai\,e the iniiiiuniiy ii\ rcprescniaiivc in an). caueherr in the opinion
01'ihc Xlcmbcr the imniuniiy would impcde the course oi jusrice. and ii <an br
waived without prejudice to the purpose for which the immunity is accorded.
Section 15. The provisions of Sections 11, 12 and 13 are not applicable as
between a representative and the authorities of the State of which he is a
national or of which he is or has heen the representative.
Section 16. In this article the expression "representatives" shall be deemed to
include al1 delegates, deputy delegates, advisers, technical experts and
secretaries of delegations.
ARTICLEV
Officials
Section 17. The Secretary-General will specify the categories of officials to
which the provisions of this Article and Article VI1shall apply. He shall submit
these categories to the General Assembly. Thereafter these categories shall be
communicated to the Governments of al1Members. The names of the officials
included in these categories shall from time to time be made known to the
Governments of Members.
Section 18. Officials of the United Nations shall:
/O) be immune from leeal orocess in resoect of words sooken or written and al1
. .
acts performed byfhek in their ofiicial capacity;'
/b) be exemDt from taxation on the salaries and emoluments paid to them by
the ~nited Nations;
fc) be immune from national service obligations;
/dl be immune, together with their spouses and relatives dependent on them,
from immigration restrictions and alien registration;
le) be accorded the same privileges in respect of exchange facilities as are
accorded to the officials of comparable ranks forming part of diplomatic
missions to the government concerned;
(fJ be given together with their spouses and relatives dependent on them, the
same repatriation facilities in time of international crisis as diplomatic
envoys;
(g) have the right to import free of duty their furniture and effects at the time
of first taking up their post in the country in question.
Section 19. In addition to the immunities and orivileees s~ecified in Section
IR,rhr Secreiary.<;cneral and al1As5isiant ~ecrcta;ir\-C;;nerdl $hall hc acsorded
in rcspcct oi themsel\er, ihcir \poii\cs and minor children, the privilcgrs and
immunities. exem~tions and facilities accorded to di~lomatic envoys, in accord-
ance with international law.
Section 20. Privileges and immunities are granted to officials in the interests
of the United Nations and no1 for the personal henefit of the individuals them-
selves. The Secretary-General shall have the right and the duty to waive
immunity of any official in any case where, in his opinion, the immunity would
im~ede the course of iustice and can be waived without nreiudice to the interests
of the United ~ation;. In the case of the ~ecretar~-Gene;al; the Security Council
shall have the right to waive immunity.
Section 21. The United Nations shall CO-operate at al1 times with the ap-110 PRrYlLECES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE UNITED NATIONS
propriate authorities of Members to facilitate the prover administration of
&&ce, secure the observance of police regulations, Gd irevent the occurrence
of any abuse in connection with the privileges, immunities and facilitiesmen-
tioned in this Article
ARTICLE VI
Expertson Missionsfor the United Nations
Secrion 22. Experts (other than officials coming within the scope of
Article V) performing missions for the United Nations shall be accorded such
privileges and immunities as are necessary for the independent exercise of their
functions during the period of their missions, including the lime spent on
journeys in connection with their missions. In particular they shall be accorded:
(a) immunity from personal arrest or detention and from seizure of their per-
sonal baggage;
lb) in respect of words sooken or written and acts done bv them in the course
of théperformance of their mission, immunity from légalprocess of every
kind. This immunity from legal process shall continue to be accorded not-
withstanding that the persan csncerned are no longer employed on mis-
sions for the United Nations;
(c) inviolability for al1papers and documents;
(d) for the purpose of their communications with the United Nations, the right
to use codes and to receivepapers or correspondence by courier or in sealed
bags ;
(e) the same facilities in respect of currency or exchange restrictions as are
accorded to representatives of foreign governments on temporary official
missions;
If) the same immunities and facilities in respectof their personal baggage as are
accorded to diplomatic envoys.
Section 23. Privileges and immunities are granted to experts in the interests
of the United Nations and not for the personal benefit of the individuals them-
selves. The Secretary-General shall have the right and the duty to waive the
immunity of any expert in any case where, in his opinion, the immunity would
impede the course of justice and it can be waived without prejudice to the
interests of the United Nations.
ARTICLEVI1
Uniled Nations Laissez-Passer
Section 24. The United Nations may issue United Nations laissez-passero its
officials. Theselaissez-passershall be recognized and acce~ted as valid travel
documents, by the authorities of ~embersrtaking into account the provisions
of Section 25.
Section 25. Applications for visas(where reauired) fromthe holders of United
Nations laissez-hsser.when acrompanied bis ccnifiçatc thîi thcy are travcl-
ling on t!ie business of the United Nations, shall bc dcalt with as speedily as
possible. In addition.such persons shall bc granted facilities for spcedy travel.
Section 26. Similar facilities to those specified in Section 25shall be accorded
Io experts and other persons who, though not the holders of United Nations
laissez-passer ,ave a certificate that they are travelling on the business of the
United Nations. CONTENTS OF THE DOSSIER 111
Section 27. The Secretary-General, Assistant Secretaries-General and Direc-
tors travelling on United Nations laissez-passer on the business of the United
Nations shall be granted the same facilities as are accorded to diplomatic
envoys.
Seclion 28. The provisions of this article may be aplied to the comparable
officiais of specialized agencies if the agreements for relationship made under
Article 63 of the Charter so provide.
ARTICLE VI11
Settlemenr of Disputes
Section 29. The United Nations shall make provisions for appropriate modes
of settlement of:
(a) disputes arising out of contracts or other disputes of aprivate lawcharacter,
to which the United Nations is a Darty:
(bj disputes involving any officia1 of ihe Üniied Nations who by reason of his
official position enjoys immuniiy, if immuniiy has noi hccn waived by Ihe
Secretary-General
Secrion 30. All differences arisina out of the interoretation or aoolication of
the prcscnt convention shall be refërred io the 1nte;national ~ou;<of Justice.
unless in any case it is agreed by the parties to have recourse to anoiher mode
of settlement. If a difference arises between the United Nations onthe one hand
and a Member on the other hand; a request shall be made for an advisory opin-
ion on any legal question involved in accordance with Article 96 of the Charter
and Article 65of the Statute of the Court. The opinion given by the Court shail
be accepted as decisive by the parties.
Section 31. This convention is submitted to every Member of the United
Nations for accession.
Section 32. Accession shall be effected bv denosit of an instrument with the
Secretary-General of the United Nations and ihe convention shall come into
force as regards each Member on the date of deposit of each instrument of
accession.
Section 33. The Secretary-General shall inform ail Members of the United
Nations of the deoosit of each accession.
Secrion34. Ii isunderstood ihar. whcnan instrument of accession isdeposited
on behalf of any Member. the Meniber will be in a position under its own law
10 give effect to the terms of this convention.
Section 35. This convention shail continue in force as between the United
Nations and every Member which has deoosited an instmment of accession for
so long as that ~ember remains a ~em-ber of the United Nations. or until a
~evised~enera~convention has been approved by the General ~ssembl~and that
Member has become a ~art~ to this revised convention.
Section 36. The Secretary-General may conclude with any Member or
Members supplementary agreements adjusting the provisions of this convention112 PRNILECES AND IMMUNITIE OSF THE UNITED NATIONS
so far as that Member or those Members are concemed. These supplementary
agreements sball in each case be subject to the approval of the General
Assembly.
[B. C,D, E and F no1 reproduced]
107. Accession, Succession and Reservations to the Convention on
Privileges and lmmunities of the United Nations, 1946
(Mulliloterol Trealies Deposited wilh the Secrefary-General, Slalus as al
31 December 1988, ST/LEG/SER.E/7, Chap. 111.1.)
CHAPTER III. PRNILECE S ND IMMUNITIE DSI,PLOMAT AIND CONSULAR
RELATIONS, ETC.
1. CONVENTIO NN THE PRIVILEGE AND ~MMUN~TIES OFTHE UNITED NATIONS
Adopted by rhe General Assembly ojthe United Narions on 13Februory 1946'
ENTny INTO FORCE:For each State, on the date of deposit of its instrument of
accession, in accordance with Section 32.
REOISTRATION : 14 December 1946,No. 4.
TEXT: United Nations, TrearySeries, Vol. 1, p. 15, and Vol. 90,
p. 327 (corrigendum to Vol. 1).
Accession,
succession(d)
Afghanistan . . . . . ... . . . . ... ..... .... .... 5 Sep. 1947
Albania ................................... 2 July 1957
Algeria .................................. 31 Oct. 1963
Antigua and Barbuda. . . . . .. . . . .... ...... ... 25 Oct. 1988d
Argentina . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12 Oct. 1956 . .
Australia ..... .. . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
Austria .................................. 10 May 1957
Bahamas ................................. 17 Mar. 1977d
Bangladesh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . .d
Barbados ... ..... ......... . ........... ... . 10 Jan. 1972d
Belgium ................................. 25 Sep. 1948
Bolivia .................................. 23 Dec. 1949
Brazil ................................... 15 Dec. 1949
Bulgaria .... . ....... . . . . ... ... ......... .. 30 Seo. 19M)
Burkina Faso . . . . . . . . . . ........ . . . . .... 27 ~pr. 1962
Burma .................................. 25 Jan. 1955
Burundi ................................. 17 Mar. 1971
Byelorussian SSR ........ ..... .. ...... . . . . ..2 Oct. 1953
Cameroon ................................ 20 Oct. 1961d
Canada .................................. 22 Jan. 1948
Central African Republic . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 4 Sep. 1962d
Chile .... . . . . . ........................ . 15 Oct. 1948 CONTENTS OF THE DOSSIER 113
China ................................... II Sep. 1979
Colombia ................................ 6 Aug . 1974
Congo .................................. 15 Oc1 . 1962d
Costa Rica ................................ 26 Oc1 . 1949
Côte d'Ivoire .............................. 8 Dec .1961d
Cuba ................................... 9 Sep . 1959
Cyprus .................................. 5 Nov .1963d
Czechoslovakia ............................. 7 Sep . 1955
Democratic Kampuchea ....................... 6 Nov .1963
Denmark ................................. 10 June 1948
Djibouti ................................. 6 Apr .1978d
Dominica ................................ 24 Nov .1987d
Dominican Republic ......................... 7 Mar .1947
Ecuador ................................. 22 Mar .1956
Egypt ................................... 17 Sep . 1948
El Salvador ............................... 9 July 1947
Ethiopia ................................. 22 July 1947
Finland.................................... 31 July 1958d
France .................................. 18 Aug .1947
Gabon .................................. 13 Mar . 1964
Gambia .................................. I Aug . 1966d
German Democratic Republic ................... 4 Oc1 . 1974
Germany. Federal Republic of' .................. 5 Nov . 1980
Ghana ................................... 5 Aug . 1958
Greece .................................. 29 Dec . 1947
Guatemala ............................... 7 July 1947
Guinea .................................. 10 Jan . 1968
Guyana .................................. 28 Dec . 1972
Haiti ................................... 6 Aug . 1947
Honduras ................................ 16 May 1947
Hungary ................................ 30 July 1956
lceland ................................. 10 Mar . 1948
India ................................... 13 May 1948
Indonesia ................................ 8 Mar . 1972
Iran (Islamic Republic of) ..................... 8 May 1947
lreland.................................... 10 May 196749
lsrael ................................... 21 Sep . 1949
ltaly .................................... 3 Feb . 1958
Jamaica ................................. 9 Sep . 1963
Japan ................................... 18 Apr . 1963
Jordan .................................. 3 Jan . 1958
Kenya ................................... 1 July 1965
Kuwait .................................. 13 Dec . 1963
Lao People's Democratic Republic ................ 24 Nov . 1956
Lehanon ................................. 10 Mar . 1949
Lesotho ................................. 26 Nov . 1969
Liberia .................................. 14 Mar . 1947
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya ....................... 28 Nov . 1958
Luxembourg .............................. 14 Feb . 1949
Madagascar ............................... 23 May 1962d
Malawi .................................. 17 May 1966114 PRIVUECES AND UIMUNITIES OF THE UN~TED NA~ONS
Malaysia ................................. 28 Oct . 1957d
Mali .................................... 28 Mar .1968
Malta ................................... 27 June 1968d
Mauritius ................................ 18 July 1969d
Mexico .................................. 26 Nov .1962
Mongolia ................................ 31 May 1962
Morocco ................................. 18 Mar .1957
Nepal ................................... 28 Sep . 1965
Netherlands ............................... 19 Apr .1948
NewZealand' .............................. 10 Dec . 1947
Nicaragua ................................ 29 Nov .1947
Niger ................................... 25 Aug .1961d
Nigeria .................................. 26 June 1961d
Norway .................................. 18 Aug .1947
Panamaan ................................. 27 May 1947948
Papua New Guinea .......................... 4 Dec .1975d
Paraguay ................................. 2 Oct . 1953
Peru .................................... 24 July 1963
Philippines ............................... 28 Oct . 1947
Poland .................................. 8 Jan . 1948
Romania ................................. 5 July 1956
Rwanda ................................. 15 Apr .1964
Saint Lucia ............................... 27 Aug .1986d
Senegal .................................. 27 May 1963d
Seychelles ................................ 26 Aug .1980
Sierra Leone ............................... 13 Mar . 1962d
Singapore ................................ 18 Mar .1966d
Somalia ................................. 9 July 1963
Spain ................................... 31 Juiy 1974
Sudan .................................. 21 Mar . 1977
Sweden .................................. 28 Aug . 1947
Syrian Arab Republic ........................ 29 Sep . 1953
Thailand ................................. 30 Mar . 1956
Togo ................................... 27 Feb . 1962d
Trinidad and Tobago ........................ 19 Oct . 1965
Tunisia .................................. 7 May 1957
Ukrainian SSR................................ 20 Nov . 1953
Viet Nam ................................ 6 Apr . 1988
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics ............... 22 Sep . 1953
United Kingdom ............................ 17 Sep . 1946
United Republic of Tanzania ................... 29 Oct . 1962
United States of America ...................... 29 Apr . 1970
Uruguay ................................. 16 Feh . 1984
Yemen .................................. 23 July 1963
Yugoslavia ............................... 30 June 1950
Zaire ................................... 8 Dec . 1964
Zambia ................................. 16 June 197Sd CONTENTS OF THE DOSSIER 115
Declorarions und Reservations
(Unless otherwise indicated, the declarations and reservations were made upon
accession or succession.)
The People's Republicof Albania docs not consider itself bound by the provi-
sions of Section 30. which provide that any difference arising out of the inier-
pretation or appli&tion ofihe present convention shall be brought before the
lnternational Court of Justice, whose opinion shall be accepted as decisive by
the oarties : with respect to the conmetence of the Court in disputes relating to
the ;ntcrpr;taiion O; application ofthe Conveniion, the ~eo6le's ~cpublic of
Albania will continue to maintain, as ilhas hcreiofore, ihat in every individual
case the agreement of al1the oarties Io the dispute is reauired in order that the
dispute may be laid before the International court of justice for a mkng.
The Democratic and Popular Republic of Algena does not consider itself
bound by Section 30 of the said Convention which provides for the compulsory
jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in the case of differences aris-
ing out of the interpretation or application of the Convention. It declares that,
for the submission of a particular dispute to the International Court of Justice
for settlement,the consent of al1parties to the dispute is necessary in each case.
This reservation also applies to the provision of the same section that the
advisory opinion given by the lnternational Court of Justice shall be accepted
as decisive.
The People's Republicof Bulgaria does not consider itself bound by the pro-
vi~ ~ ~ ~~~e-~~~n ~ ~o~ ~h~ ~onvention whicb orovides for the com~ulsorv
jurisdiction of the Internaiional Court of Justice.and, with respect Io the coi.
petence of the Internaiional Couri in the case of differences arising oui of the
interpretation or application of the Convention. the position of the People's
Republic of Bulgaria is that. for the submission of a pariicular dispute IO the
International Couri for çeitlement. ihe conseni of al1parties 10 the dispute is
necessary in each case. This reservation also applies to the provision of the same
section that the advisory opinion given by the lnternational Court shall be
accepted as decisive.
BYELORUSSU SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLIC'
The Bve,~r~s~ ~ ~Soviet Socialist Reoublic does not consider itself bound bv
the prokision of section 30 of the cokention which envisages the compulsori
jurlsdictlon of the lnternational Court and, in regard ta the competence of the
lnternntional Couri in differences arising out of the interpretation and appli-
cation of the Convention. the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic will, as
hitherto, adhere io the position that, for ihe submission of a particular dirpute
for settlement bv the lnternational Court. the consent of al1the parties Io the
dispute isrequirédinevery individual case;~his reservation isequaily applicable
io ihe ~rovtsion contained in ihe rame section. whereby the advisory opinion of
the lniernational Court shall be accepted as decisive116 PRNILECES AND MMLINITIES OF THE UNITED NATIONS
CANADA
"With the reservation that exemption from taxation imposed by any law in
Canada on salaries and emoluments shall not extend to a Canadian citizen
residing or ordinarily resident in Canada."
CHINA'
The Government of the People's Republic of China has reservations on Sec-
tion 30, Article VI11,of the Convention.
CZECHOSLOVAKIA'
". .. The Cz-~ ~slovak Re~ublic does not cons~der~ ~self bound bv Section
30 of the Convention which envisages the compulsory jurisdiction of Ïhe Inter-
national Court in differences arising out of the interpretation or application of
the Convention: in reeard to the comoetence of the~inte~national court in such
differences, the ~zechoslovak ~epublic adheres ta the position that, for the sub-
mission of a ~articular dispute for settlement by the lnternational Courr. the
consent of ali parties to the dispute is requiredin every individual case. This
reservation is equally applicable ta the further provisions contained in the same
section, whereby the advisory opinion of the lnternational Court shall be
accepted as decisive."
GERMAN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC'
The German Wmocratic Republic does not consider itself bound by the pro-
vision of Section 30 of the Convention. which Drovides for the compulsory
)urisdtction of the International Court of ~usiice.'and, with regard to the com.
perencc of the International Court of Justice for disputes concerning the inler-
~retation or aoolication of the Convention. takes the view that in every single
~.
case the conse; of al1parties to the dispute shall be necessary to refer a par-
ticular dispute to the lnternational Court of Justice for decision.
This reservation applies equally to the provision contained in this section
amrding to which the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice
shall be accepted as decisive.
HUNGARY'
The Presidential Council of the Hun~arian People's Re~ublic exoressly
reserves its position with regard to ~ectiol30 of the 'Convention, since; in its
opinion. the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice can be founded
onlv on the "oluntarv pr..r acceotance of such iurisdiction bv al1 the parties
concerned.
INDONESU
"Article 1(b), Section 1 : The capacity of the United Nations to acquire and
dispose of immovable property shall be exercised with due regard to national
laws and regulations.
Article VII, Section 30:' With regard to competence of the lnternational
Court of Justice in disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the
Convention, the Government of Indonesia reserves the right to maintain that in CONTENTS OF THE DOSSIER 117
every individual case the agreement of the parties ta the dispute is required
before the Court for a ruling."
1. Laotian nationals domiciled or habitually resident in Laos shall no1 enjoy
exemption from the taxation payable in Laos on salaries and income.
2. Laotian nationals who are officials of the United Nations shall not be
immune from National Service obligations.
MEXICO
/O) The United Nations and ils oreans shall no1 be entitled Io acquire
,~, ~ ~ ~ ~
immovable property in Mexican territory, in view of the properly regulations
laid down by the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States.
(b) ~fficials and experts of the United Nations and its organs who are of
Mexican nationality shall enjoy, in the exerciseof their functions in Mexican ter-
ritory, exclusively those privileges which are granted them by Section 18,
paragraphs (a). (dl, If and (g), and by Section 22, paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d)
and If) respectively of the Convention on the Privileges and lmmunities of the
United Nations, on the understanding that the inviolability established in the
aforesaid Section 22, paragraph (c),shall begranted only for official papers and
documents.
".. . The Mongolian People's Republicdoes not consider itself bound by the
provisions of Section 30of the said GeneralConvention, which provide that any
difference arising out of the interpretation or application of the present Conven-
tion shall be referred to the lnternational Court of Justice; and in such a case
the position of the Mongolian People's Republic is that, for submission of a
particular dispute Io the lnternational Court for settlement, the consent of al1
the narties to the dispute is necessary in every case.
~his reservation is équallyapplicable to the~provisionthat the advisory opin-
ion given by the lnternational Court of Justice shall be accepted as decisive."
NEPAL
"Subiect to the reservation with regard to Section 18 (c) of the Convention,
t~a~ ~-~te~ ~ ~i~ ~ ~ ~i~ials of i en ale setionalitv shall no1 be exempt fr0m
service obligaiions applicable io [hem pursuani to Nepalese law ; and
Subjeci to the reservation' with regard io Section 30 of the Convention rhai
any difference arising oui of the inrerpretationor application of the Convention
10 which Nepal isa pariy. shall be referred to the Iniernaiional Couri of Jusiice
only with ihe specitic agreement of His Majesiy's Government of Nepal."
The Romanian People's Republicdoes not consider itself bound by the terms
of Section 30 of the Convention which provide for the compulsory jurisdiction
of the lnternational Court in differences arising out of the interpretation or
application of the Convention; with respect to the competence of the Interna-
tional Court in such differences, the Romanian People's Republictakes the view118 PRMLEOES AN0 IMMUNITIES OF THE UNlTED NATIONS
that, for the purpose of the submission of any dispute whatsoever to the Court
for a ruling, the consent of al1 the parties Io the dispute is required in every
individual case. This reservation is eauallv auulicahle to the ~rovisions con-
tained in the said section which stipulaie that (hé advisory opinion of the Inter-
national Court isto be accepted as decisive.
". . .Officiais of the United Nations of Thai nationality shall not be immune
from national service obligations."
TURKEY '
With the following reservations:
(a) Thedeferment, durinn ser-icewith the United Nations. of the secondperiod
of military servicc of Turkish nationals uho ocsupy ports with the ,aid
Organi7ation. will be arranged in accordanceu.ith the procedure, provided
in hlilitarv I.aw No. Ill 1. account brinr! taken of thzir Dosition ac reserie
officers or private soldiirs, provided ihat they cornpiete their previous
military serviceasrequired under Article 6 of the above-mentioned Law. as
reserve officers or private soldiers.
........................
(e) Turkish nationals entrusted by the United Nations with a mission in Turkey
as officiais of the Organization are subject to the taxes payable by their
fellow citizens. Thev mus1make an annual declaration of their salaries in
accordancewith thGrovisions setforth in Chapter 4, Section 2,of LawNo.
5421concerning income tax.
UKRAINIAN SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLIC'
The Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Rrpublic docs not ,on*ider itself bound by the
r>ruvi\ion of Section 30 of the Con\zntion which envi3agesthe compulcory
jurisdiction of the lnter~at~onal Cou~t~and. in reeard to the comDetenceof the
,~ ~ ~ ~ ~
International Court in diiferences ariring out ofyhe interpretation and applica-
tion of the Convention. the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic will. ashitherto.
adhere to the position that, for the submission ofa particular dispute fi>r sertle-
ment by the International Court. the consent of al1the parties to the dispute is
reauired in eters indiridual case. This rcrer\ation 1sequ3lly~app~ ~able Io the
contained in the same section, whereby the advisory opinion of the
lnternational Court shall be accepted as decisive.
The Soviet Union does not conrider itself bound by ttie urinisioii of Section
30 of the Conbention uhich cntisages the ioinpulrory jurisdiction of [lie Inter-
national Court. and in reeard to the comuetenceof the lnternational Court in
differences arising out ofïhe interpretati& and application of the Convention.
the Soviet Union will, as hitherto, adhere to the position that. for the submis-
sion of a particular dispute for settlement by the lnternational Court. the con-
sent of al1the parties to the dispure is required in every individual case. This
reservation is equally applicable to the provision contained in the samesection,
whereby the advisory opinion of the lnternational Court shall be accepted as
decisive. CONTENTS OF THE DOSSIER 119
WED STATES OF AMERICA
"(1) Paragraph (b) of Section 18 regarding immunity from taxation and
paragraph (c) of Section 18 regarding immunily from national service obliga-
tions shall not apply with respect to United Statesnationals and aliens admitted
for permanent residence.
(2) Nothing in Article IV, regarding the privileges and immunities of repre-
sentatives of Members, in Article VI, regarding the privileges and immunities
of United Nations officiais,or in Article VI, regarding the privileges and
immunities of experts on missions for the United Nations, shall be construed to
grant any person who has abused his privileges of residence by activities in the
United States outside his official capacity exemption from the laws and regula-
lions of the United States regarding the continued residence of aliens, provided
that :
Io) No oroceedinas shall be instituted under such laws or reaulations to reauire
any'such to leave the United States except withthe prior appÏoval
of the Secretary of Stateof the United States. Such approval shall be given
onlv after consultation with the aoorooriate Member in the case of a
rep;esentative of a Member (or membérof his family) or with the Secretary-
General in the case of any person referred to in Articles V and VI;
, , A reoresentative of the ~ember concerned or the Secretam-General. as the
case'may be, shall have the right to appear in any such proceedings on
behalf of the person against whom they are instituted;
/cJ Persons who are entitled to diolomatic orivileees and immunities under the
Convention shall not k requiied to leive theknited Statesotherwise than
in accordance with the customary procedure applicable to members of
diplomatic missions accredited or notified to the United States."
VIET NAM
Reservation in respect of Article VIII, Section 30:
1. DispuLesconcerning the inierpretation or application of the Conveniion
,hall be referred to the International Court of Justice for sertlement only with
the consent of all parties concerned.
2. The opinion of the [International] Court of Justice referred Io in Article
VIII, Section 30, shall be merely advisory and shall not be considered decisive
without the consent of al1parties concerned.
NOTES
' Resolutian 22 A (1).See Rerolutionrodopledby the CenerolAsremblydurina the
First Port oj ilsFirsSwion (A/&+).p. 25.
a In a communicationaccompanyingthc inrinimentof accesston.ihc Governmcntof
the FederalKcpubllsof Gcrmanydcclarcd ihatthe raid Conicnitonrhallalro applyto
Berlin(West) with cffcct from ihcdatc on which itcnterr in10force forthe Fedcral
Republicof Gcrrnany.
In this regardtheSecretaryûeneralreceived,onthedatcsindicated,thefollowingcorn-
munications :
Unionoj SovierSociolisrRepublics (9 November1981):
The declarationmadehy the Governrncntof rhcFedcralRepublicof Gcrmany
uhcn dcporiirngihcInrinimentof acccsrion.Io theeffect thaiihc raidCon%cntion
rhall exiendio Rcrltn(West).ir incompat~ble wiih thc QuadripaniicAgrccmcni
of 3 Scpicmbn 1971 Thal Agreemcni.as iagcncraUyknom, docr no1grani thc120 PRMLEGES AND MMUNIiIES OF TEE UNITED NATIONS
Fcderal Republic of Germany thc right ta extend to West Berlin international
agreements which affect mattcrs of security and status. The abave-menlioned Con-
vention belomr--r7e~r~~v~t~~~~~. cateporv of aereement.
In particular. the 1946Convcntion reg;lates ihe granting of privilegesand immu-
nities to United Nations organs and officiais in the State territory of couniriesparties
toit, including immunity from legal proceedings and immunity from arrest ordeten-
lion. Thus. the Convention concernr sovcreien riehts and abli~ations which cannot
be exercised by a State in a territory whichdoes-nat corne under ils jurisdiction.
In view of thc forcgoing, the Soviet Union considers the declaration made by the
Fedcral Republic of Gcrmany on extending the application of the Convention on the
Privileges and lmmunities of the United Nations to Berlin (West) to be illegal and
to have no legal force.
Germon Democralic Republic (23 December 1981):
"Concerning the application of the Convention on Privileges and lmmunities of
the United Nations on 13 February 1946to Berlin (West) the German Democratic
Republic statcs in accordance with the Quadripanite Agreement of 3 September
1971. that Berlin (West) continucs na1 to be a constituent part of the Fcdcral
Republic of Gcrmany and cannot be governed by il.
The dcclaration madc by thc Federal Republic of Germany to thc effect ihai the
raid Convention shall bc extcnded to Berlin (West) is contrary to the Quadripartite
Agreement in which it is stipulated that international agreements affecting matters
of security and status of Berlin (West) cannot be extendcd by the Fedcral Republic
of Germany Io Berlin (West).
In view of the foregoing. the declaralion made by the Federal Republic of Ger-
many will have no validity."
France, the Uniled Kingdom ofGreo1 Brilain ond Norlhern Ireland and the Unired Sloles
of Americo /8 June 1982):
"ln a iommunicaiion io ihc Garcrnmeni of ihc Union of Sariet Socialiri
Rcpublics, which ir an intcgral pari (Annex IV Al of ihc Quadripartiie Agrccmcni
of 3 Sep!cmbo 1971. ihr Govrrnmrnis of irancr, ihr L'niicd Kingdom and the
Uniicd Staics. confirmcd ihat. providcd milttrrs of srcuriiy and rinius arc no1
affcctcd and provided thai the exicntion Ir sph.ified in cach casc inicrndtional
agrecmcnts and arrangcmcnis cnicred in10by ihc Fedcral Rcpublic of Gcrmany msy
b-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~....~c<....~ ~ ~elor<of~ ~rlin ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~nc~~-~lh~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
cedures. Far its pan. the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist ~epubiics.
in a communication to the Governments of the Three Powers. which is similarlv an
intcgral pan (A;"& IV B)~& the Quadripartite Agreement of 3 September 1971,
affirmed that il would raise no objection to such extension.
The establishcd procedures referrcd to above which wcre endorsed in the
Quadripartite Agreemcnt, arc designed inrer olia to afford thc authorities of the
Three POWC~Sthe opportunity to ensure that international agreements and
arrangements cntered into by the Federal Republic of Cermany which are to be
extended to the Western Sectars of Berlin are extended in such a way that matters
of security and status are not affected.
When authorizing the extension of the abave-mentioned Convention to the
Western Sectors of Berlin, the authorities of the Three Powers took such steps as
were necessary to ensure that the application of the Convention ta the Western Scc-
tors of Berlin remained subject Io Allied rights and responsibilities in the field of
priviieges and immunitia of international organisations. Accordingly. the validity
of the Berlin declaration made by the Federal Republic of Germany in accordance
with established procedures is unaffected and the application of the Conveniion 10
the Western Sectors of Bcrlin continues in full force and effect. subject 10 Allied
..-...- -".
With reference ta the raid communication for the Government of thc Cerman
Democratic Republic we wish to state that States which are no1 party to the
Quadripartite Agreement are not competent to comment authoritatively an its provi-
sions. The three Covcrnments do no1 mnsider it necessary, nar do they intend io CONTENTS OF THE DOSSIER 121
respond 10 any funher communications from States which are not party to the
Quadripartite Agreement. We rish 10 point out that the absence of a responre Io
further communications of a similar nature should nat be taken to imply any change
in their position on thisatter."
FederolRepublicof Cermony(16 Augur 1982):
"By their note of 28 May 1982, . .. the Governments al France. the United
Kingdom and the United States answered the assertions made in the communication
referred Io above. The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany. on the
bais of the lecal situation set out in the noteof the Three Powcrs. wishesto confirm
that the appliiarion in Berlin (West) of the above-mentianed onv vent extended
by itnder established procedures continues in full force and cffect. rubject to Allied
rights and responribilities.
The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany wishesIo point out that the
absence of a response 10 further communications of a similar nature should no1be
taken ta imply any change of its position in this matter."
Union O/ SovierSociolisrRepublics(29 December1982):
The Soviet side once again confirms, as was already stated in the Mission's note
of 9 November 1981,that the declaration of the Federal Republic of Germany con-
cerning the extension 10 West Berlin ofthe application of the Convention on the
Privileges and lmmunities of the United Nations of 13February 1946ha violation
of the Quadripartite Agreement of 3 September 1971 and therefore has no legal
force.
The Quadripartite Agreement, as is well knawn. clearly determined that by no
means al1international treaties of the Federal Republic of Germany may be extended
to West Berlin, but only those which do not affect matters of staius and security.
The above-mentioned Convention. by reason of its content. directly affects such
matters.
The dcclarations by the Governments of France, the United Kingdom and the
United States ofAmeriw that in the extension of the Convention 10 West Berlin by
the Federal Reoublic of Germanv the ertablished raced duresare beinn -bserved do
nat alter the substance of the problem. Thase procedures may be applied only in
relation ta international treaties which the Federal Republic of Germany is entitled
to extend to West Berlin.The Convention of 13February 1946is no1such a treaty.
At the rame lime the Sovietside wishesIo point out that the Quadripartite ~gree-
ment of 3 September 1971contains provisions relating Io West Berlin whichhave
universal force of international law. Theextension of the Convention of 13February
1946to West Berlin bythe Federal Republic of Germany notwithstanding those pro-
visionsnaturally affects the interests of other parties to the Convention. which have
the right to express their opinions in thematter. That right canna1 be disputed by
anyone.
Accordingly. the Soviet side rejects as unfounded the assertions made by the
Governments of France, the United Kingdom and the United States of America con-
cerning the declaration by the German Democratic Republic [. . .]. The vie~ set
forth in that declaration by the German Democratic Republic as a party to the Con-
vention an the Privilega and Immunities of the United Nations is fully consistent
with the Quadripartite Agreement of 3 September 1971.
UniredSroreso/AmeNco, Fronceundthe UnitedKingdomo/Cre~r BriroinandNorihern
lrelond (7 July 1983):
'The three Missions wish to rccall the position set forth in their communication
to the Secretary-General's Note No. [.. .] dated 20 July 1982.They wish further 10
recall that the Quadripartite Agreement is an international agreement concluded
between the four contracting parties and not open ta participation by any othrr
State. In concluding this agreement, the Four Pawers acted on the basir of their
quadripartite rights and responsibilities, and thecorrerponding wartime and post-
war agreements and decisions of the Four Powers which are not affected. The
Quadripartite Agreement is pan of conventional. not customary international law.122 PRIVILEOESANDLMMUNIiIESOf THE UNITEDNATIONS
States which are no1parties Io the Quadripartite Agreement are not competent to
comment authoritatively on its provisions. The abscncc of a rcsponsc Io funher
communications ofa similar natureshould not betakcn to imply anychangeof their
position in thisatter."
' In a communication received on 25 November 1960,the Govcrnment of New Zealand
gave notice of the withdrawal of the reservation made upon dcposit of its instrument of
accession.For the tcxt of that reservationseeUnited Nations. TreorvSeries.Vol. II,
p. 406.
The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern lreland
notificd the Sccretary-Gcneral. on the dates indicated. that ir was unablc to accept certain
reservationsmadc bv the States listed below because in its vicwthcy were no1of the kind
which intending partics 10 the Convention have the right Io makc.
Dore of the receipr
of ihe objection, or
dore on whichir wu
cirnilored by the
Secrerory-Generol:' RecervingSrore:
4 August 1954' .................. Byelorusrian SSR
4 August 1954' .................. Ukrainian SSR
4 August 1954' .................. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
I Dccember 1955' .................. Czechoslovakia
6 Septembcr 1.956. .................. Romania
4 September 1956. .................. Hungary
3 October 1957. .................. Albania
20 June 1967 .................. Algeria
20 June 1967 .................. Bulgaria
20 June 1967 .................. Mongolia
20 June 1967 .................. Nepal
21 September 1972 .................. lndonesia
29 November 1974 .................. German Democratic Republic
8 November 1979 .................. China
'Bya notification rcccivcd by the Secretary-General an 20Junc 1957,the Government
of Turkey withdrew the second. third and fourth reservations contained in ifs instrument
of accession.For the tcxt of those resewations see: United NationsTreotySeries. Vol.
70, p. 266.
Vy a communication received on 5 January 1955, the Government of Lebanon
notified the Secretary-General chat it objected ta this rescmarion.
108. General Assemblv resolution 179 (11).
Convention on the Pri\ileges and Immu-
nities of the Specialized Agencies. 1947,
and annexes thereto. adopted on 21 No-
vember 1947'
109. Accession. succession and reservations Io Mullilareral Trearies De-
the Convention on the Privileges and posired wirh the Secretary-
Irnmunities of the Specialized Agencies' General, Starusas or 31 De-
cernber 1988, ST/LEG/
SER.E/7, Chap. 111.2
' Document no1reproduced. [Nole by rheRegislry.1 CONTENTS OF THE DOSSIER 123
110. Aide-Memoire Dated 26 August 1960 from the Department of Legal
Affairs to the Permanent Mission of a Member State'
1. The Permanent Mission of. . .to the United Nations, through MI. .. .,
First Secretary. intimated to the Office of Legal Affairs that there has been
under consideration in the Foreien Office at ...the accessionof. .. to theCon-
vention on the Privilegesand lmmunities of the United Nations subject ta cer-
tain reservations. The Permanent Mission informally asked for the opinion of
the Office of Leeal Affairs with reeard to those reservations. As the orooosed
reservations woild directly affect-the United Nations, the Office of iegal
Affairs welcomesthe opportunity informally to state herein below the viewof
the Secretariat.
2. The iext of the reservations under consideration ai . . . is as follows
(original in . . .English iranslaiion by the Secrciariat) :
"A. Having regard to the property system established by the Political
Constitution of the. ..the United Nations and ils Ornansactinn as anencies
- -
of execution may not acquire immovable property7n . . .territory.
B. Officiais and experts of the United Nations and ils organs who are
of .. . nationality shall, while exercisingtheir functions within .. . ter-
ritory, enjoy only those prerogatives which are accorded ta officials and
experts respectivelyunder Section 18,paragraphs (a), (d),Lf )nd (g)a .nd
Section 22..n.rae-ao.s . ... . . .cl. .and [fi.of the Convention on the
Privileges and Immuniiies of the Uniied ~iiions. on ihe undersianding
thai ihe in\,iolabiliiyesiablished under the caid Seciion 22. paragraph Ir),
shall be accorded solely in respect of officiai papers and documenis."
3. The Convention on the Privileges and lmmunities of the United Nations,
adopted by the General Assemblyof the United Nations on 13February 1946,
has its basis in Articles 104and 105of the Charter of the United Nations. It
defines the extent of the le-.l caoacitv as well as the orivileees and immunities
oi the Organizarion. of the r~~resenia~ives of 3lember~~tare;and of officials of
thc Organizaiion uhich the General Assembly deiermined as nesessary for the
indeoendent exercise of the functions and the fulfilment of the ourooses of the
~r~anization. Thus, any diminution of the legal capacity & privileges or
immunities provided for in the Convention may tend to affect the exercise of
functions or the fulfilment of the ourooses of the United Nations. For this
reason. any reservaiion on thr part &any Member Siste io iheConveniion can-
not fail to have an adverse effect upon the United Nations as an Organi7ation.
With reference to the particular reservations presently under consideration
at . ..,the following observations may be pertinent and are submitted for the
consideration of the Permanent Mission.
[Paras. 4-10 no1reproduced]
Reservationsin Respectof Expertson Missionfor the United Nations
Il. (a)Asfor theproposed reservationisn respectof experts onmissionfor
the United Nationsunder Section22 (d) and (e)of the Convention, it should
be emphasized, a1the outset, that these experts on mission are not to bc con-
fused with Technical Assistance experts. While the latter are usually officials of
the United Nations, the former are persons who, as the term denotes. are on
mission for the United Nations and who are neither representatives to nor
officials of the United Nations. Some examples of such experts on mission are124 PRIVILEOES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE UNITED NATIONS
the members of the International Law Commission and memhers of the
Advisory Committee on Budgetary and Administrative Questions. memhers
of the permanent Central ~p&m-~oard, the United ~adons piebiscite Ad-
ministrator for Kashmir, the military ohserversin lndia and Pakistan aswell as
those in Palestine: al1 serve in an individual ca~acity. For these nersons. the
right "to use codesand to receive papers or co;respondence hy chier or in
sealed hags" and the privilege of exchange facilities are at limes necessaryfor
the performance of their functions
12. /bj Wcrirhregard ru rhesroremenr in the proposed text of rcservaiions thai
"on rhc understanding ihat the inviolabiliiy provided for under porograph (s)
o/rhe a/oremenrioned Seclcrion 22 shall be accorded only u,ith regard IO official
papers and documents". \uch a staiemçnt seemssuperfluous. since iris obvious
that inviolabiliiy could only periain to official papers and documents.
13. In view of the foregoing considerations. it is to he ho~ed that .. .would
seeher way clear to acce&ng ;O the convention without the'reservations under
consideration.
Exisring Reservafions Io rhe Convention
14. Heretofore reservations have been made upon accessionIo the Conven-
tion only with reference to three of the provisions of the Convention: (1) with
reference to Section 18 (b) on income tax exemption: Canada. Laos, New
Zealand and Turkey; (2) with reference to Section 18 /cl on exemotion from
.. .,
national serviceobligations: Laos, Thailand, Turkey; (3jwith refeience to the
provision of Section 30 which envisagesthe compulsory jurisdiction of the Inter-
national Court of Justice for the sëttlement of differences arisine~~Ut-~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
interpretation or application of the Convention: Alhania. Byelorussia, Czecho-
slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Ukrainian SSRand the Union of Soviet Socialist
Reouhlics. ~hould the orooosed reservations bv the Government of. . .~ ~~ ~
mahtained the numbe; oEprovisions of the ~on\,ention Io uhich~reservation,
have bccn made would increaschy four, namely. ihox IO Sections I (b). 18le).
22 (d/ and 22 (el. and may suggcst rimilar reservations by other States.
Procedure in Respect of Reservafions
15. The practice of the Secretary-General in regard to an accessionto the
Convention has heento inform al1Members of the United Nations of theacces-
sion. in accordancewith Section 33of the Convention. In casean accessionwas
accompanied by a reservation, the text of the reservation was also transmitted
to al1 Memhers. Where a Memher State notified the Secretary-General of its
obiection to a reservation. the text of the ohiection is similarlv notified to the
~;mhcr Statcs. Thus whe" the United ~ingdom of Great ri taiand Northern
lreland expressedobjection, ro the reservations made by Turkey, the So\iet
Union, the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic. the Ukrainian SSR, Czecho-
slovakia. Romania and Hungary. her objections werecirculaied. on eachocca.
sion, Io al1Memkr States.This proccdurr is in sonformity wiih ihai esiahlished
under General Assembly rcsolution 1452/B (XIV) of 7 December 1959.
26 August 1960 CONTENTS OF THE DOSSIER 125
111. Aide-Mémoire dated 22 October 1963 United Narions Juridical
from the Department of Legal Affairs to Yearbook, 1963,Chap. VI.A,
the Permanent Reoresentative of a No. 22
Member State regardkg proposed acces-
sion to the General Convention subject Io
a reservation denvine anv United Nations
officials of that State's nationality any
privileges or immunities iinder the
Convention'
112. Statement hy the United Nations Legal General Assembly, Official
Counsel at the 1016th meeting of the Records, Twenty-second
Sixth Committee on 6 Decemher 1967' Session, Annexes, agenda
item 98, A/C.6/385, A/C.6/
SR.IOI6(XXII), paras. 22-32;
United Nations Juridical
Yearbook, 1967,Chap. VI.A,
No. 2
Part III. Materials Relevant Io the Status of Experts on Mission
113. Extracts from lmmunities and Privileges
of International Ofjiials, the Ex-
perience of the League of Narions by
Martin Hill. Washingt- . Carne-ie
Endowment for International Peace,
1947. . .8-13,
114. Memorandum dated 30 July 1943 from
the United Nations Legal Department to
the Comptroller '
115. Circular letter from the Secretary-
General to Governments, dated
9 May 1951, on the status of Technical
Assistance Experts'
116. Tax Exemption for short-ierm con-
sultants, Technical Assistance Board,
23rd meeting, New York, item 14,
TAB/Working Paper/5/23, Section B:
Extracts from memorandum from the
Department of Legal Affairs to the
Technical Assistance Board, dated 10
March 1953' \
117. Field Administration Handbook :,~nited
Nations laissez-passer. United Nations
Certificate,~niied Nations family cer-
tificate,national passport and visas,
Field Operations Service, April 1972
(extracts)
' Document not reproduced. [Nore by rheRegisrry.1126 PRIVILEGESAND IMMUNITIESOF THE UNITED NATIONS
IlS. Memorandum of Agreement of the
United Nations Economic Commission
for Asia and the Far East (in particular
para.
5)'
119.Telegram dated 25January 1973from the
Legal Counsel to the United Nations
Office inCeneva regarding the status of
members of the Joint Inspection Unit'
120. Letter dated 8 October 1973 from the
Legal Counsel addressed to a member of
the Joint Inspection Unit'
121.Memorandum dated 4 January 1974 Uniled Narions Juridical
from the Office of Legal Affairs to Yearbook, 1974,Chap. V1.A.
the Division of Human Rights regarding No. 14
questions whether a change of govern-
mental affiliation or nationality of an
expert would affect his membership in
the ad hoc Working Group of Experts of
the Commission on Human Rights'
122. Memorandum dated 15 September Uniled Nations Juridicol
1969 from the Office of Legal Affairs Yearbook, 1969,Chap. VI.A,
to the Division of Human Rights regard- No. 3
ing the privileges and immunities of the
members of rhe Commitiee on the
Elimination of Racial Discrimination'
123.Guide to the issuance of United Nations PAB/lNF.78/2
travel documents. dated I June 1978
(extracts'
124. Photocopy of United Nations Certilicate
issued for experts on missions'
125. Letter dated 9 April 1981from the Office
of Legal Affairs to the Counsel for the
General Counsel of (US) National Labor
Relations Board, regarding the status of
the S7ecial Representative of the
Secretary-General to the United Nations
International School'
' Document no1reproduced.[Nore by rhe Regisrry.1 CONTENTS OF THE DOSSIÈR 127
126. Memoranduni dated 17 April 1981 from the Assistant Administrator,
Bureau for Finance and Administration, to the Field Offices of UNDP and
UNDP Headquarters Staff
17 April 1981.
SUBIECTC : lariJication of the terms "ofjicials" and "experts on mission"
1. The distinction between "officials" and "experts on mission''for purposes
of .rivil~-es~~~~ im~ ~ities has. on occasion. caused someconfusion. This mav
haie steninied irom the populai use oi the term "expert" to reier io technicil
CO-operationr>roie<ipersonitel uheresq ihe terni "expert on niission" as used in
t~e~C-~ven~ ~ ~ ~ -~ivileees and lmmunities was intended to refer to a dif-
ïrrriit type oi person. Consequenil). iherc hss at tinics been a niiruriderrtanding
ihat orovisions in the Conrcntion oii Privilcgcsand Immuniiics for .'expertson
mission" are applicable to such project instead of the provisions in
respect of "officials" of the United Nations. In fact, technical co-operation
experts normally fall in the category of "officials" of the Organizations. In
order to eliminate such confusion, we have obtained from the UN Legal
Counsel a note of clarification of the meaning of both terms.
2. 1am pleased to attach a COPY of the noteof clarification, which it is hoped
will be helbful to you, particulaily paragraph 2. If there is any occasion where
a similar confusion arises in your country of assignment, you may feel free to
use the enclosed note in discussions and communications with the Government.
(Signed) Pierre VINDE.
NOTE
ClariJication of the Meaning of the Terms "Officiais "nd "Experts on Mis-
sions" as Usedin the Convenlion on the Privilegesand Immunities of the United
Nations and Ihe Relevant Annexes of the Convention on the Privileges and
Immunities of the Specialized Agencies
1. The basic distinclions
The Convention on the Privileges and lmmunities of the United Nations
distineuishes between two main cateeories of persons performing services for
the ~nited Nations, "officials" who~ëprivile~esand immunities a; enumerated
in Articles V and VI1 of the Convention, and "experts on missions for the
United Nations" whose orivileees and immunities are enumerated in Article VI
of the Convention. ~he ~onventiori on the Privileges and lmmunities of the
Specialized Agencies does not contain provisions similar to Article VI of the
United Nations Convention but the Annexes of the Specialized AgenciesCon-
vention applicable to the ILO, FAO. ICAO, UNESCO, WHO, IMCO, WIPO,
and IFAD refer to a category designated as experts other than officials.
2. Definition of "off"iu1s"
Section 17of the United Nations Convention provides that the Secretary-Gen-
eral shall .oeci,v the cateeories of officials to which Article V should a~plvand
,ubiiiit these caiegories tothe General Arsembly. On the basis oi the ~eireiary-
General'r rubmission in ihis regard the General Asrembly. in 1946, adopted
resolution 76 (1) approving the granting of the privileges and immunities128 PR~V~EOES AND IMMUN~S OF THE UNITED NATIONS
referred to in Article Vand Article VI1"to al1members of thestaff of the United
Nations. with the chcepiion of those who are recruited locally and are assigncd
to hourly rates". The catcgoriçs ebrabli\hcd in reroliition 76 (1)have remained
unchanee-. Conseauentlv. . .al1members of the staff of the United Nations. that
is to say persons serving on itaff appointments whether internationally or loc-
ally recruited, with the exception of persons who are both locally recruited and
paid on hourly rates are regarded by the Secretary-General as being entitled to
the privilegesand immunities specified in Articles V and VI1of the UN Conven-
tion. Technical assistance experts normally hold such appointments. The prac-
tice of the specialized agencies has followed closely that of the United Nations.
3. Definition of "experts on missions"
The term "experts on mission for the United Nations" used in Article VI of
the United Nations Convention, or the term "experts other than officials" which
is emp1o)ed in the Annexer IO the ~~ecialized~genç~esConvention, apply 10
persons performing missions for the United Nations or Speîialiled Agencies
who are neither re~resentatives of governments nor officials of the Oraaniza-
tions but who musi enjoy certain phvi~egesand immunities in order to Geable
to perform their functions. Examples of such persons are members of commis-
sions and committees of the United Nations or S~eciaiizedAzencies who serve
in their individual capacity and not as gover"mental representatives, and
military observers. This category includes such persons as UNTSO and
UNMOGIP militarv observers. the Headauarters staff of UNLFICYP. UNDOF
and UNlFlL and membcrr of the ~nited'Nationr Adminisirativc ~ribunal. thc
International Law Coiitn~isrionand the ACABQ.
4. Formol and substantive difjprences between the two categories
From the forma1point of view, the chief distinction between "officials" and
"experts on mission" is that while the former are accorded so-called "func-
tional" privilegesand immunities, the latter are accorded a status which isquasi-
diplomatic in nature. Substantively, the chief distinctions are (i) that "officials"
are exempt from taxation on the salaries and emoluments paid to them by the
United Nations or Specialized Agencies, whereas "experts on mission" are
accorded no such exemption ; and (ii) "officials" enjoy official act immunity
whereas "experts on mission" enjoy complete immunity from personal arrest or
detention.
5. The UNDP Standard Basic Assislance Agreement
While thetwo main categories of "officials" and "experts on missions" estab-
lished by the privileges and immunities conventions providc the basic
framework, the conventions have been supplemented by the UNDP Standard
BasicAssistance Agreement. the nrivileees and immunities nrovisions of which
are designed to ensire the application o'FtheConvention to 'al1"persons perfor-
ming services" for the United Nations. Such persons are defined as includine.
"onërational exoe.ts. .olunteers. consultants.-and iuridical a~ wcl~ as~ ~~~-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
persons and their employees ... governmental or non-governmental organiza-
tions or firms which UNDP may retain .. . and their emplovees". other than
Goiernment national, r.mplo)ed locall). (UNDI>SBAA. r;i~le IX.5 ) Thcse
perrons are accorded the ramr priiilcgcs and imniunitier as "offici;tl~" of thc
United Kations or tlic Spesialized Agcncir. in rc\pe<t oi scriises pcriornied iri
countries parties to the ÜNDP ~~rëement CONTENTS Of THE' DOSSIER
127.Memorandum dated 3 Septeniber 1981
from the Office of Legal Affairs to the
Centre for Disarmament concerning the
legal status of the Group of Experts to
investigate the use of chemicaleapons'
128. Memorandum dated 19 November 1981
from the Office of Legal Affairs to the
Office of General Services regarding
travelidentitv documents for the United
Nations ~eliéf Co-ordinator (UNDRO)
personnel on loan from Governments'
129. Contract (Experts) dated February 1982
entered intobetiveen the United Nations
and Mr. Olof Palme for undertaking a
special mission to Iran/lraq on hehalf of
the Secretary-General, pursuant to
Security Council documents S/ 14244and
S/1425I1
130. Memorandum dated 15 July 1982 from
the Office of Legal Affairs to the Centre
for Disarmament regarding an invitation
from Democratic Kampuchea for an on-
site visit by the Group of Experts to
lnvestigate Reports of Alleged Use of
Chernical Weapons'
131.Memorandum dated 22 August 1983
from the Office of Legal Affairs to the
Controller concerning taxation of
honoraria payable to members of the
Human Rights Committee'
132. Letter dated 2 May 1984from the Legal
Counsel to a member of the Human
Rights Committee regarding taxation of
honoraria payable to members of the
Human Rights Committee'
133. Letter dated 28 February 1985 from the
Department of Technical Co-operation
for Development to the Minister of
Finance of Cv~rus. reeardine the hostin~
of an lnterregional ~~aining~rogramme
in Government Budgetary Methods and
Procedures in Cyprus'
134. Letter dated 13 May 1985 from the
Under-Secretary-General for Political
Affairs, Trusteeship and Decolonization
to the Foreign Ministry of Tunisia
ocu urne ntt re~roduced.[Noreby rhe Regisrry.1130 P~EGES AND IMMIRIITIES OF THE UNITED NATIONS
regarding the holding of an Extraor-
dinary Session of the Special Committee
of 24 in Tunisia'
135. Memorandum dated 1August 1985from
the Office ofLeaal Affairs to the Office
of Personnel Services concerning the
status of Language Co-ordinators paid
directly by the Government of France'
136. Memorandum dated 20 February 1986
from the Office of Lenal Affairs 10 the
Officeof General services concerning the
status of members of UNMO'
137. Agreement dated 27 February 1987
between the United Nations and Nigeria
on United Nations Meeting
of Experts on Space Science and
Technology and Its Applications within
the Framework of Educational Systems
(extracts of Arts., II and V)'
138.Memorandum dated 24 January 1989
from the Office of Legal Affairs to the
United Nations Children's Fund concern-
ing the assignment of US Government
civil servants Io UNICEF'
139.Memorandum dated I March 1989from
the Office of Legal Affairs to the United
Nations Office al Geneva regarding the
status of French military personnelpar-
ticipating in the multinational de-mining
missions'
140. Letter dated 1 May 1989 from rhe Legal
Counsel to the President of the
Administrative Tribunal regarding the
status of members of the Tribunal'
141.Special Service Agreement, United
Nations Development Programme (SSA
(8-81) (sample), para. 5)'
' Document noi reproduced./Nole byrhe Regisfry.1 CONTENTS OF TW DOSSIER 131
141A. Sample of Special Service Agreement (Expert on Mission)
(TCD 25/A (3-85). para.4)
Special Service Agreement
(Expert on Mission)
MEMORANDU OF AGREEMENT MADE THIS ... day of. .. 19 .. .,hetween the
United Nations and .. .(hereinafter referred to as the "suhscriher") whose
address is...
1. NATURE OF SERVICES
The suhscriber shallperform the followingservicesaccording ta the following
schedule:
(Unless there is speciiic stipulation to the contrary under 3. below, the entire
period of serviceexcept for authorized travel time shallbe rendered ai the loca-
tion of the project herein specified, and within the working days and hours
observed by said project.)
2. DURATIO N F AGREEMENT
This agreement shall commence on the ... dav of ... 19. ...and shall
expire on-the satisfactory completion of theervicésdescrihed abo;e, but not
later than the. ..day of. . .19. ..,unless sooner terminated under the terms
of this -ereement. ~ither.,artv ma, terminate this -greement at anv time bv
giving ihe other parry.. .days noiice in wriiing of ii inieniitado sa, pro-
vided that whrn ierminaiion is at the subscriber's iniiiativethe suhscrihrr chall
be responsibleIO ihc Uniicd Naiions for iiny additional costs which may resuli
from su;h termination, in ihe samc manner a\ for the iuh~cribcr's failure io
complete seriicrs ,ari~faciurily under this agreement. and the amouni of such
costs may he withheld from any amount otherwise due ta the suhscriher from
the United Nations.
In the event of this agreement heing terminated prior ta its due expiration
date. or when the actual oeriod of servicesrendered is shorter than the duration
stip"lated the suhscriber'shall he compensated for the actual amount of work
~erformed to the satisfaction of the United Nations on a pro rata hasis, subject
io the proviso set forth in the previous paragraph.
3. CONSIDERATION
As full consideration for the services performed by the subscriber under the
terms of this agreement, the United Nations shall pay
NOTE:The suhscriber willbe responsihle for any taxes due on the remuneration
and as a consequence, no statement of earnings will he issued hy the
United Nations to the suhscriber.
4. STATUS OF THE SULISCRIBER
The subscriher shall be considered as having the legalstatus of an Expert on
Mission for the purposes of the Convention on the Privileges and lmmunities
of the United Nations. The subscriber shall not be considered in any respect as
being a staff memher of the United Nations. If required to travel hy the United
Nations the subscriber may receive a United Nations certificate.132 PRIVILEOES AND IMMUNITIESOF THE UNITED NATIONS
5. RIOHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE SUBSCRIBER
The rights and obligations of the suhscriher are strictly limited to the terms
and conditions of this agreement. The subscriber shall not be entitled to any
benefit, payment, subsidy, compensation or entitlement, except as expressly
provided for in this agreement. In the event of death, injury or illness attri-
butable to the performance of services on behalf of the United Nations under
the terms of this agreement, the suhscriber shall be entitled to compensation
equivalent to the compensation which would be payable under Appendix D
to the Staff Rules to a staff member of the United Nations earnine a cross oen-
"- .
sionable remunrraiion of $50,000 per annum.
The subsiriber shall neither seek not acccpt insiructionr rcgarding rhe prrrriii
services for the United Nations from anv Government or from aiv authoritv
external to the United Nations. The subscriber shall exercise theutmost discri-
tion in al1matters relating to the services under this agreement and may not
communicate at anv time toanvother oerson. Government or authoritv external
Io the United Narion, any information madr knonn Io the subsiriber by reason
of the subscribcr's as$ociation wiih ihz United Nations ih3i has nor been mide
~ublic. exceot as reauired bv the nerformance of the duties soe~rfi~d ~ ~this
agreement, 'or as éxpressl; authorized by the Secretary-General or his
designate; nor shall the subscriber at any time use such information to private
advantage. These obligations shall not lapse upon cessation of the suhscriber's
contractual relationship with the United Nations.
During the period of service under this agreement. the subscriber mav not
engage in anyactivity that is incompatible 4th the performance of the duties
specified in this agreement.
6. TITLE RIOHTS
The title rights, copyrights, and al1other rights of whatsoever nature in any
material produced under the provisions of this agreement shall be vested ex-
clusively in the United Nations.
7. SEITLEMEN TF DISPUTES
Any claim or dispute relating to the interpretation or implementation of the
present agreement that cannot be settled amicably shall be submitted to arhitra-
tion in NewYork hy a single arbitrator agreed upon by both parties. Should the
parties be unable to agree on a single arbitrator within 30 days of arbitration,
then each party shall proceed to appoint one arbitrator and the two arbitrators
thus appointed shall agree on a third. Failing such agreement, either party may
request the appointment of the third arbitrator by the President of the United
Nations Administrative Tribunal. The arbitrator shall rule on the costs which
may be divided between the parties. The decision rendered in the arbitration
shall constitute final adjudication of the dispute.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF ,e parties hereto have executed this agreement.
By:
Certifying Officer (Subscriber)
Technical Assistance Recruitment and Administration
Service. Deoartment of Technical Co-o~eration for
~eielopment, United Nations ' CONTENTS OF THE DOSSIER 133
142. Sample of Special Service Agreement for
a Consultant, para. I'
143. The practice of the United Nations, the A/CN.4/L.118 and Add.1
specialized agencies and the Interna- and 2 Yeorbook of the
tional Atomic Energy Agency concern- Internarional Law Com-
ing their status, privileges and immuni- mission, 1967, Vol. II
lies: study prepared by the Secretariat' (extracts)
144. Relations between States and International Organizations (Second Part of
the Topic) (International Law Commission, Thirty-seventh Session, 6 May-
26 July 1985)(Extracts)
(The prarrice of rhe United Narions, the speciolized ogencies and the Inter-
national Aromic Energy Agency concerning rheir srorus, priv~leges and
immuniiies: suppletnentorj~ srirdy prepared by the Se~~rerariot)
A/CN.4/L.385/Add. I
24 May 1985.
CHAPTERV. PRIYILEFES AN0 IMMUNITIES OF EXPERTS ON MISSIONS FOR THE
UNITEDNATIONS AND OF PERSONS HAVINCOFFICIAL BUSINES S ITH THE
UNI'IEDNATIONS
Seclion 33. Persons Folling wirhin the Caregory of "Experts on Missions for the
United Narions"
77. The scope and meaning of the category of "experts on missions" in rela-
tion to the members of a treaty organ, as distinct from a subsidiary organ, was
the subject of memoranduni by the Office of Legal Affairs to the Director of
the Division of Human Rights in 1969 as follows:
"1. I have received your memorandum inquiring about the status,
Drivileges and immunities of' the members of the Committee on the
CliiiiiniiiiciiKail31 D~~iriii~~iialiotnd rncmbcr) oi ad Iluc ~>ii.~ili31ion
:ommi.\iiiii~ esiabli,hcd uiider hriiilç 12oi ilie Iniernliiioiirl Coii\eniion
on [lie Fliiiiinalidf -211toriii01 R;iiilil I)i~criniinîl:.IIIOuropinion,
members of the Committee and members of the conciliation commissions
are to be considered expertson missions for the United Nations within the
meanine of Sections 22.23 and 26 of the Convention on the-Privileees and
lrnmunzies of the ~nited Nations and Section Il of the ~eadquarters
Agreement with the United States. and are entitled to the privileges,
immunities and facilities therein laid down.
2. The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Racial Discrimination opened for signature on 7 March 1966, does no1
expressly provide for the status ol the members of the Committee. Never-
theless the Convention gives indications from which that status can be
inferred.
' UnitedNations, TreorySerrec,Val.660.
-
' Document no1reproduced.[Noreby iheRegisrry.1134 PRIVILEGES AND IMMZTNT~IESOF THE UNITED NATIONS
3. There is a group of organs which. though their establishment is pro-
vided for in a treatv. are so closelvlinked with the United Nations that thev
are considered organs 01 the ~r~ani~ïtion Thece inrlude the former ~er-
manent Ceiitral Opium Boîrd (established hy 3n Agreement of 1925' but
made a United ~ations orean hv G*neral ~ssembiv resolution 54 (11 of
19November 1946and the protocol of amendmentannexed theretoj,'the
former Drug Supervisory Body (established by a Convention of 1931' but
made a United Nations organ by the same resolution and protocol), the
International Bureau for Declarations of Death (established by the Con-
vention on the Declaration of Death of Missing Persans', adopted by a
United Nations Conference on 6 Aoril 1950). the Aooeals Committee
estîbli\hed under the 13rota~olior ~imitiii~and ~egulai~n~the Cultitation
oi the PODD)P13nt.the Pruduction of. lntrrnational and \\'holeralc Trade
in, and ÜSe of Opium' (adopted by a United Nations conference on
23 June 1953),and the International Narcotics Control Board (established
under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs', adopted by a United
Nations conference oii 30 March 1961).Other similar organs are provided
for in United Nations conventions which have not yet entered into force.
Except for the mode of their creation, these organs are inthe same position
as recognized subsidiary organs of the United Nations. The Committee
established under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Racial Discrimination falls in the same categorr.
4. That Convention, which in Article 8(paia.l) establishes the Commit-
tee, was adopted by the General Assembly in resolution 2106 (XX) of
21 December 1965.Of the oreans referred to in the orecedine.parariraoh.
only thr Permîiient Cciilral 6ptum Roard and the ~;ug ~upe~v~isoryl%ody
share rith the Committee on the Climination of Racial Dir~rimination the
distinction of havina been made United Nations Ornans by a treaty which
isa1the sanie time idecision of the General ~ssembly. ln-the oiher casrs,
it has beett nexssary for the Asseitibly ti)dccide to undertake the funciion>
conferred on the United Nations bv treaties adooted al a conference. and
thereby to confer the status of the United ~ations organs on the bodies in
question. Where the treaty itself is also a decision of the Assembly, how-
ever, no such separate decision on assumption of functions and conferment
of status is required.
5. The mode of creation of the Committee, the nature of ils functions,
their similarity to thoïe of subsidiary organs. and the continuing admini-
strative and financial ties which bind it to the United Nations remove al1
doubt that il is a United Nations organ, and it is thus without significance
that the Third Committee reiected a orooosal of the name 'United Nations
Committee on Racial ~iscr&ination'~.~one of the other organs referred
to inparagraph 3above has the words 'United Nations' in ils name, so that
~ -~
decision is not a strone basis for argument.
6. The purpose of th% ~onventionyand consequently of the Committee,
is. according to the preamble, to advance certain grinciples of the United
? League of Nations,TreotySeries.Vol. LI, p. 337.
Ibid.. Vol.CXXXIX, p. 301.
'UnitedNations,TreorySeries,Vol. 119, p. 99.
Ibid.. Vol.456, p. 56.
'Ibid.. Vol. 520.p. 151.
'Offici01Recordsofrhe GenerolAssembly.TwenrierhSession, Annexes,ozendo
irem 58, documentA/6181, paras.104 (a) and 110 fol (i). CONTENTS OF THE DOSSIER 135
NaiioiisCharisr. One ot the main funcrii)ns of the Conimiiiee (under Art.
9)i$to make nnnual rrporis io the General As*embly. and ihai function
ir Iike the ts~i-al aîtiiiof subsidiarv orran,. Anorher main function 01
. .
the ~ommiitee isconsidérationof allegations by a party that another party
is not giving effect to the provisions of the Convention (Art. II), and the
Committee may also he given conipetence hy a declaration of a party to
consider claims of violation submitted by individuals or groups of
individuals (Art. 14). Under Article 15 and General Assembly resolution
2106 B (XX), the Committee has functions relating to petitions from
inhabitants of Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories. These functions
seem to be of a judicial or quasi-judicial character; that character, how-
ever. does not orevent the Committee from beina a United Nations oraan.
The iarious narîoiiîs bodies reierrcd io in paragraph 3 abo~c pcrf;>rm
quasi-judisial functionr, and the Appeîls Commitree esiabli$hrd under the
1953 Ooium Proii)col i, of a fullv iudi~ialnature. Funcrions oi ihese tvoes
can also he performed by suhsi&ry organs; the International ~ou;t'of
Justice, in its advisory opinion of 13July 1954on the Effect ofAwards of
Compensation Made by the United Nations Administrative Tribunal
(I.C.J. Reports 1954, p. 47) has recognized the legal capacity of the
General Assembly to establish judicial bodies for the fulfilment of its
ourDoses.
' 7' Cnder Article 10,rhe seirciiiriat of the Commiiree is provided by the
Scîretary-Gencral oi ihe United Narions. and ihe mrriinns ot ihc Commit-
tee are normally held at United Nations Headquarters. ~hese are important
connexions with the Organization, and they ensure that the bulk of the
expenses of the Committee, which will be for servicing meetings and for
the secretariat. will be borne bv the renular hudeet of the United Nations.
Article 8, paragraph 6, of théconvention provides that 'States Parties
shall be responsible for the expenses of the members of the Committee
while they are in performance of Cornmittee duties'. The travel and sub-
sistence costs of members, however, are a minor fraction of the total
expenses of the Committee, and the payment of part of the expensesof an
oraan bv some means other than the reeular budeet of the United Nations
d&s no; prevent that body from being a United Nations organ. As regards
the expenses of the Permanent Central Opium Board, the Drug Super-
visory Body and the International ~arcotics Control Board, there~are
special arrangements for the assessment of contributions from States not
members of the United Nations which take part in activities concerning
narcotic drugs. If may be added that in practice the members of the Com-
mittee will be paid their travel and subsistence costs from a suspense
account alimented by the United Nations Working Capital Fund, as the
contributions of the parties are not paid in advance of expenditure. Recog-
nized subsidiary organs can also be financed by other means than the
regular budget (e.g., UNIDO, UNKWA, etc., which depend upon volun-
tarv contributions. and UNCTAD. to which contributions are made bv
paAicipating States which are not members of the United Nations). In vie;
of al1these facts, the rejection by the Third Committee of a pro~osal to
have al1the expenses of the cornmittee borne hy the regular budget of the
United Nations' is not significant.
* Ibid. paras. 109and Il0 U) (i).136 PRWILEGES AND ~MMU~S OF THE UNITED NATIONS
8. The General Assembly rejected a proposal thatitshould itself elect
the members of the Committee'Oand provided in Article 8 of the Conven-
tion that the members should be 'elected byStates Parties from among
their nationals'. This does not prevent the Committee from being a United
Nations organ. Two members of the Drug Supervisory Body were
appointed by the World Health Organization, the lnternational Bureau for
Declarations of Death is ao~ointed bv the Secretarv-General. and the
Appeals Committee under the rotoc col 19f3is appointed byihe Presi-
dent of the lnternational Court of Justice or the Secretary-General; thus
the status of United Nations organs does not require any particular mode
of election. The same is true of ordinary subsidiary organs. Thus, for
example. under Assembly resolution 1995(XIX) of 30December 1964,the
Trade and Develooment Board is elected bv UNCTAD. and the member-
ship ofother subsAiary organs has been lefi to be decidédby the President
of the Assembly.(cg., the Special Committee on Princioles of Interna-
tional Law concernine ~riendiv Relations and CO-ooeration amone States)
or by the ~ecretary-General (é.g.,the Tribunals for Libya and Gitrea).'
9. What has been said above concernine, the Committee aoolies with
equal force to ad hoc conciliation commissions establishednder Article
12of the Convention. Those commissions, like the Committee itself, are
oart of the machinerv for the execution of the Convention and for the
iettlement of dispute; about its application and interpretat;and the
Convention aims at applying principles of the Charter. The secretariat of
the Committee, provided by the ~ecretary-General, also serves commis-
sions (Art. 12, para.5).and their meetings 'shall normally be held at
United Nations Headquarters .. .'(Art. 12, para4), with the result that
the bulk of the exoenses of commissions will be borne bv the United
Nations. The factsihat commissions have judicial or quasi-judicial func-
fions, that members are appointed by the Chairman of the Committee, and
that the exoenses of their members are to be shared bv the oarties to the
dispute do-not prevent them from being United ~ations organs.
10. Members of the Committee and members of commissions serve 'in
their versonal caoacitv' (Art. 8. Dara. I and Art. 12. oara. 2). and are
thercforr no1rep;rsrniati"es of Go\ernmentsItfollous ihar thc'yhave the
same status. privilegesand immunitics a, those of members of other United
Nations organs who serve in apersonal capacity, that is, those of experts
on mission.'
'OIbid.. paras. 104Iand 110la) (vil."
A/CN.4/L.383/Add.2
27 lune 1985.
CHAPTER V. PRIV~LEGE ASD IMMuNITIE SF EXPERTS ON MISSION OR THE
SPEC~AL~ZA EGENCIE AND IAEA AND OF PERSONH SAVING
OFFICIAL BUSINES SITH THE SPECIALIZEA DCENCIE S ND IAEA
Section 33. Persons Falling wifhin rhe Caregory of Experts on Mission
for the Specialized Agencies and lAEA
206. FA0 regards the lollouing 8s "experis" uithin ihe tcrm5 of thc rclrvant
Annev of the SpecializedAgenziesContention. la) experts participat~ngin cim-
' UniledNarionsJuridical Yearbook,1969p.207 CONTENTS OF THE DOSSIER 137
mittees of the organization in their individual caoacity; lbl experts not staff
members of the irganization (in other words, noi subject Io it; Staff Regula-
tions and rules or responsible to the Director-General) performing servicesfor
the organization either on a contractual basis or on the basis of an agreement
with agovernment or on designafion by a governing body; (c)staff of the Exter-
na1Auditor's Office, while on the businessof FAO.
207. WHO considers persons appointed in an advisory capacity to the
organization or to a government for temporary periods, and who are not staff
members, to be "experts".
208. IAEA considers safeeuard insoectors. oroiect examiners and versons
other than officials travelling on mission forthe Agency to be experts.,
209. It is to be noted that not al1agencieshave in the relevant Annex to the
Soecialized Aeencies Convention reference to the nrivile-es and immunities to
béaccorded experts on missions.
Secrion34. Privilegesand Immuniries of Expertson Missions
for rhe SpeciolizedAgenciesand IAEA
210. For the soecialized -~encieswhich have in the relevant ~nnixes tothe
Speciîli?cd Agzncies Con\eniion rsierence to thc pri\,ileges and immunitiz$ to
bc aciorded ehperrson mi,sion\ aiid ior the IAEA IArti;le VI1 ofit,Agreeiiient
on Privileees and Iinmunities). virtuallv no oroblems or difficulties have arisen
in the experts in que*tion being aczurded pr;i.ileger and immunitier. There have
been no caïcs whcre uaiver of immunity hîs becn rcquerted. \\'HO iatcr rhat
it would waive the immunity of experts in orivate matters not related to their
official duties, in conformif;with its practice concerning staff members. IL0
reports, however. that in one case, an IL0 expert was arrested (seeSection 42
below)
Part IV. General hlaterials Relevant to the Case
1. Commissionon Human Rights: Tertns of Reference
145. Economic and Social Council Resolution 5 (1).
Adopted on 16 February 1946
(5)Commission on Human Rights and Subcommission on the Status of Women
Resolutionof the Economicand Socid Council of 16 Februory 1946 (docu-
ment E/20 of 15 Februory 1946). on the esroblishmenrof o Commissionon
Human Riehrsondo subcommissionon theSrotusof Womensu~~lemenredby
the octionÏoken by the Council on 18 Februory 1946. completr'n~ porogrophs
6 and 7 of secrionA ondporogrophs4 and 5 of secrion B concerning theinitiol
composirionof thesebodies
SectionA
1. The Economic and Social Council, being charged under the Charter with
the responsibility of promoting universal respect for, and observanceof,man
rights and fundamental freedoms for al1 without distinction as to race, sex,
language or religion. and requiriiig advice and assistance10 enable it to dis-
charge this responsibility.138 PRNILEOES AND QIMUWITES OF THE UNITED NATIONS
ESTABLISH ESCOMMISS~O ONHUMANRIOHTS.
2. The work of the Commission shall be directed towards submitting pro-
posais. recommendations and reports to the Council regarding;
(a)an international bill of rights;
(b) international declarations or conventions on civil liberties, the stalus of
women. freedom of information and similar matters;
(clthe protection of minorities;
(d) the prevention of discrimination on grounds of race, sex, language or
religion.
3. The Commission shall make studies and recommendations and provide
information and other services at the request of the Economic and Social
Council.
4. The Commission may propose to the Council any changes in ils terms of
reference.
5. The Commission may make recommendations to the Council concerning
any subcommission which it considers should be established.
6. Initially, the Commission shall consist of a nucleus of nine members
appointed in their individual capacity for a term of office expiringon 31March
1947.They are eligible for re-appointment. In addition to exercising the func-
tions enumerated in paragraphs 2, 3and 4, the Commission thus constituted
shall make recommendations on the definitive composition of the Commission
to the second session of the Council.
7. The Council hereby appoints the following persons as initial members of
the Commission:
Mr. Paal Berg ................................... (Norway)
Professor RenéCassin ............................. (France)
Mr. Fernand Dehousse ............................. (Belgium)
Mr. Victor Paul Haya de la Torre ........................ (Peru)
Mr. K. C. Neogi .................................. (India)
Mrs. Franklin D. Roosevelt .............. (United States of America)
Dr. John C. H. Wu' ............................... (China)
and, in addition, persons whose names will be transmitted to the Secretary-
General not later than 31 March 1946 by the members of the council for the
USSR and Yugoslavia*.
SecrionB
1. The Economic and Social Council, considering that the Commission on
Human Rights willrequire speciai advice on problems relating to the status of
women,
ESTABLISH AESUBCOMMISS IN NTHE STATUS OF WOMEN.
2. The subcommission shall submit proposais,recommendations, and re-
ports to the Commission on Human Rights regarding the status of women.
'
Inac;ordancrwiih ilic pro;cdurr laiddownby thet':onomi; andSocialCoDrcil.
C.1.. tlsia har rince hecnnominaicplaceofDr JohnC. H. Wu.
aDr Jcrlo RadmiIotic hasrincbwn numinxcd by ihc Mcmber of the Council for CONTENTS OP TE DOSSHR 139
3. The subcommission mav suhmit nrono. .s to the~Coun~i-~~~~~o.eh t~ -~ ~~-
Commission on Human ~ighis, regarding its terms of reference.
4. Initially, the subcommission shall consist of a nucleus of nine members
appointed in their individual capacity forterm of office expiring on 31March
1947. They are eligible for re-appointment. In addition to exercising the func-
tions enumerated in ~aragranhs 2 and 3. the subcommission thus constituted
shall make recomme"dat&n.on the definitive composition of the subcommis-
sion to the second session of the <:ouncil through the Commission on Human
Rights.
5. The Council herehy appoints the following persons as initial members of
this subcommission :
Mrs. Bodil Begtrup .............................. ; (Denmark)
Miss Minerva Bernadino ................... (Dominican Repuhlic)
Miss Angela Jurdak. .............................. (Lebanon)
Rani Amrit Kaur .................................. (India)
Miss Mistral ..................................... (Chile)
Mrs. Viénot ' .................................... (France)
Miss Wu Yi-Fang'. ................................. (China)
and, in addition, the names of one national each from Poland and the USSR
to be transmitted to the Secretarv-Cieneral. not later than 31March 1946.bv the
member of the Council for the union of~oviet Socialist Republics, and ihree
members appointed by the Commission on Human Rights to serve as ex officia
members ofthis subcommission.
-
146. Economic and Social Council resolu- E/56/Rev.l
tion 9 (II). Commission on Human E/84, para. 4
Rights, adopted 21 June 1946' (hoth as amended by the
Council)
2. Sub-Comm~ssronon Prewnrion of DIscriminarion
and Prolecrron of MrnorIries: Terms of ReJPrence
147. Commission on Human Rights, Report of the
Commission on its Fifth Session, Chapter IV, Paragraph 13
Terms of Reference of the Sub-Commission
The Commission on Human Rights
Resolves that the terms of reference of the Suh-Commission on the Preven-
tion of Discrimination and the Protection of Minorities be clarified and exten-
ded in scope to read as follows:
' In accordancewith the procedurelaid downby the Economicand SocialCauncil,
MadameLefaucheuxhas sincebeennominatedin placeof MadameVienot.Similarly,
Mrs. W. S. New hasbeen nominatedin place of MissWuYi-Fang.
Document notreproduced.[Nole(>yrhe Regisrry.1140 PRIYILEGES AND IMMUNlTtES OF THE UNITED NATIONS
(a) IOundertake studies, particularly in the light of the Universal Declarafion
of Human Riahts and to make recommendations to the Commission on
Human Righ< concerning the prevention of discrimination of any kind
relating tohuman rights and fundamental freedoms and the protection of
racial,national,religious and linguistic minorities; and
(b) to perform any other functions which may be entrusted to it by the
Economic and Social Council or the Commission on Human Rights.
Term of Office and Membership of rhe Sub-Commission
The Commission on Human Righrs
Resolves:
fol to extend the tcrm of office of the present members of the Sub-Commission
on the Prevention of Discrimination and theProiesiion of Minoririe5 for a
oeriod of three vears: and
(b) io add one additional member of the Sub-Commission to make it more
representative from the point of view of geographical distribution.
C
The Fore of Minorilies
The Commission on Humon Righrs
Resolves:
(a) to refer to the Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and the
Protection of Minorities the texts submitted to the General Assembly the
delegations of Denmark, the Union of Soviet Socialist Repuhlics and
Yugoslavia on the subject of minorities contained in A/C.3/307/Rev.2 for
its consideration in the light of the discussion of this subject by the General
Assembly a1 ils third session, by the Commission on Human Rights a1 ils
fifth session, and by the latter's Committee on the Prevention of
Discrimination and the Protection of Minorities; and
(b) to defer its own consideration of that subject until it has received the report
of the Sub-Commission's study.
D
Prioriry of Work
The Commission on Human Righrs
Requests the Sub-Commission to postpone consideration, until ils third ses-
sion on questions of implementation of human rights.
14. Each member of the Commission was asked to nominate, not later than
6 June 1949,one person, either a national or a non-national of his country, who
would be available to serve as an additional member of the Sub-Commis-
sion, and to indicate briefly his qualifications. Three communications were re-
ceived, each nominating Ambassador Joseph Winiewicz of Poland (docu- CONTENTS OF THE DOSSIER 141
menis E/CN.4/291, 294 and 295) and, at its one hundred and thirty-ihird
meeting. the Commission declared Ambassador Joseph Winiewicz electedas the
additional member of the Sub-Commission.
15. At ils eighty-eighth meeting the Commission considered a proposal by the
representative of Egypt concerning co-ordination between the Sub-Commission
on the Prevention of Discrimination and the Protection of Minorities and the
Trusteeship Council (E/CN.4/189.) This proposal, amended at the suggestion
of the representalives of China and France. was adopted by 9 votes for,
2 aaainsi. and 1 abstention. The Commission therebv recommended that the
l~c~noniizand Sozial Coun~il rcquc,i ihc Tru,icc ~ouazil io auihori~c ihc Suh-
Cummisiioii oii ihe Prcieiiiion of Uircriminiiiidn and the Proie-lion of
Minorities Io ~arlici~ate in visits to truste es hi^ Territories arr-.red bv the
Trusteeship ciuncil &th a view to the preparation of measures Io entend the
full enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms Io the non-self-
governing populations
Sub-Commission
148. Fourth session, Summary Record of the
sixty-fourth meeting (held ai Head-
quarters. New York, on Monday, I
October 1951, at Il a.m.)'
149.Report on the fifth session, dated
23 October 1952(para. II)'
150. Report on the twenty-seventh session,
dated 18 October 1974. Guidelines on
methods of work (paras. 18-26)'
151. Report on the thirtieth session, dated
24 October 1977 (paras. 14 aiid 15)'
152. Summary Record of the 787th meet-
ing (held ai the Palais des Nations,
Geneva. on Thursday, 25 August 1977,at
11.30 a.m.)'
153. Commission resolution 17 (XXXVII),
Re~ort of the Sub-Commission on
Pre\eniion 01 Discrimination and Prote:.
lion of hlinoriiies ai ils ihirty-thibej-
sion. ado~ted on 10 March 1981 '
154. Economic and Social Council resolution
i983/32, Report of the Sub-Commission
on Prevention of Discrimination and
Protection of Minorities atits thirty-fifth
session. adopied on 27 May 1983'
' Documentno1 reproduced.[Nole by the Regri1ry.j142 PRlVlLEOES AND IMMUNITIE OSF THE UNITED NATIONS
155.~conomic and Social Council resolution
1986/35. Procedure for the election of
members of the Sub-Commission on
Prevention of Discrimination and Protec-
tion of Minorities, adopted on 23 May
1986'
3. Other Moteriols
156. Unired Nations Action in the Field of
Human Righrs: 40th onniversory of the
UniversalDeclorolion of Hurnan Righls
1948.1988, United Nations publication
(extracts, pp. 14-19)'
157. Rules of Procedure of the Functional E/5975/Rev.l
Commissions of the Council'
158. General Assembly Resolution 89 (1)
89 (1). Aulhorization of the Economic and Social Cnuncil Io Request Advisory
Opinions of the International Court of Justice
The General Assembly, under Article 96, paragraph 2. of the Charter. is
emoowered to authorize other oraans of the United Nations and specialized
agencies to request advisory opinions of the International Court of justice on
legal questions arising within the scope of their activities.
The Economic and Social Council. as one of the orincioal oraans of the
United Nations and by virlue of the funclions and pouers conferied upon II
under Chapier X of the Charrcr of the United Nations. ha<widc rcspon~ibiliiies
in diverse fieldsof econornic and rocial co-operation. in the fulfilment of uhich
it mav need to reauest advisorv oninions ofthe International Court of Justice.
~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ . . 7~~~~ ~ ~
In addition. by virtue of the terms of Article 63 of the Charter, the function
of co-ordinatine. the activities of soecialized azencies brouaht into relationshio
with the united Nations has been conferred-upon the ~ionomic and social
Council. To enable the Council adequately to discharge its co-ordinating
resoonsibilitv..it should be authorized to reauest advisorv oo. .ons on al1leaal -
questions within its scope. including legal questions concerning mutual relation-
ships of the United Nations and the specialized agencies.
TheGenerolAssembly,lherefore, outhorizes the Economic and Social Coun-
cil to request advisory opinions of the lnternational Court of Justice on legal
questions arising within the scope of the activities of the Council.
Fify-fifth plenary meeting,
II December 1946.
Documentno1reproduced. [Note by rhe Registry.1 CONTENTS OF THE DOSSIER
Part V. Materials Relating to Developments Following the
Request bythe Eeonomic and Social Council for an
Advisory Opinion
I. Sub-Commission on Prevenlion of Discrimination and Protection of
Minorifies: Forfy-3rsf Session (Geneva, 7 August-I Seplember 1989)
E/CN.4/Sub.2/1989/41
10 July 1989.
159. Report on Human Rights and Youth Prepared by Mr. Dumitru Mazilu,
Special Rapporteur
Infroduclory Note by the Secretary-General
The Commission on Human Rights, in its resolution 1985/13 of II March
1985,emphasized the necessity ta ensure full enjoyment by youth of the rights
stioulated in al1relevant international instruments as indis~ensable for human
diinity and the free development of the human persanalit;, and requested the
Sub-Commission on Prevention of I>iscriminationand Protection of Minorities
to oav due attention to the role of vouth in the field of human rights, particu-
hiy in achieving the objectives of ihe International Youth ~ear.~t its thirty-
eighth session, the Sub-Commission, in resolution 1985/12, referring inter alia
to-commission resolution 1985/13, requested Mr. Dumitru Mazilu ta prepare
a report on human rights and youth analysing the efforts and measures for
securing the implementation and enjoyment by youth of human rights, par-
ticularlv the rieht ta life. education and work. in order to facilitate the Sub-
~omm~~~ion'~~dircu~sioonn ihe topis The Sub-Commission requesied the
Secrerary-General IO provide al1ihc necessaryasririancc io hlr. Dumiiru 3lazilu
for the com~letion of his task.
The ~ommission an Human Righis ai its forty-rhird <r\~ionadoprcd resi,lu-
[ion 1987,M in which ittook notr wiih apprciiaiion of Sub-Conimi~sionresolu-
tion 1985/12 requesting one of its members to prepare the report on human
rights and youth and requested the Secretary-General to provide al1necessary
assistance to the Special Rapporteur.
The report on Human Rights and Youth by MI. Mazilu was to he presented
to the thirty-ninth session of the Sub-Commission originally scheduled for
August 1986.Pursuant to General Assemblydecision40/472 of 9 May 1986and
due to the financial crisisthe thirtv-ninth sessionwas postponed until 1987.The
Secretary-General, following a diSctissionwith Mr. ~aziiu on obtaining infor-
mation relevant ta his study addressed, on 9 January 1987, notes verbales to
Governments and letters to specialized agencies and non-governmental
organizations in consultative status requesting information on Mr. Mazilu's
behalf. The information was dispatched regularly ta him as it was received.
Mr. Mazilu did not submit his reoort to the thirtv-ninth session of the Sub-
Commi,sion and the ~ub-Commis;ion by its decirion 1987,II2 posiponcd con-
<idcrationof the agenda item undrr whi~hrhe rcpori on human rights and youih
was to be considered ta its fortieth session.
The Secretary-General, with a viewto assistingMr. Mazilu in the preparation
of his report for the fortieth session of the Sub-Commission, contacted Mr.
Mazilu with regard ta a visit to Geneva for consultation with the staff of the
Centre for Human Rights and the finalization of his report. The Secretary-144 PRlVREGE SND IMMUNlTIES OF THE UNITED NATIONS
General also contacted the Permanent Mission of Romania in Geneva with a
view io facilitaiing htr. Mazilu's visit IO Geneva. Unfortunaiely. .MI. Mazilu
informed the Secretary-General of the failure of compeient authoriiies in his
country to authorize his nsit.
In April 1988,the Secretary-General received from Mr. Mazilu fivechapters
of his report partly in English and partly in Romanian and sought unsuc-
cessfully to contact him in order to discuss with him matters relating to the
presentation and editing of the report. The Secretary-General requested the
assistance of the Romanian authorities in this regard but wasstill unable to con-
tact Mr. Mazilu. In May 1989the Secretary-General received from Mr. Mazilu
the introduction,two further chapters including the conclusion and recommen-
dations. a bibliography and a separate text containing a "special view on the
Romanian case". The tex1receivedinMav 1989wasboth in Enplish and Roma-
nian. The Secretary-General again soughi unsuccessfully to contact Mr. Mazilu
with regard to the presentation and editing of his report. Not being able to
discusswith him these matters. t.e or.sent Ïenort is o;blished as r~ce~ved: t.e
part on Human Rights and Youth - "a speCialvie; of the Romanian case",
will appear as an addendum to the present document due to its length, and in
order to facilitate oublication of the nresent document which re~~ire~.o~lv,=ar-
iial translation (rom Rornanian into English.
For information on steus taken by the Sub-Commission. ihe Commission on
Human Rights and the Ëconomic and Social Council on this matter reference
may be made to the Secretary-General's report to the Commission on Human
Rights at ils forty-fifth session (E/CN.4/1989/69), Commission resolution
1989/37 (E/CN.4/1989/20, Chapter IA) and Economic and Social Council
resolution 1989/75 of 24May 1989by whichan advisory opinion on the matter
was requested from the International Court of Justice.
Introduction
1. Youna-.eo~l. in todav's world
II. A concise analysis of ihe state of human rights in the world
III. The rights and freedoms of youth as an important component of human
riahts in the world
IV. TE deprive ihe younger generaiions and people in gcncral of ilieir riglii
Io freedom of thoughi and exprevion i\ a barbarous crime
V. Ensuring iheenjo)mcnt b) souih of the rirhi . IOlifr. zdu~.aiionand uork
is of paiamount importance
VI. Measures which Governments should take to ensure and promote the
riahts and freedom of the younaer aeneration
VII. charter of the rights and freedom Of youth
VIII. Conclusions and recommendations
A. Conclusions
B. Recommendations
Bibliography
pexr of reporr no1reproduced] CONTENT5 OF THE DOSSIER 145
E/CN.4/Sub.Z/1989/Add. I
10July 1989.
IM). Report on Human Rights and Youth Prepared by
Mr. Dumitru Marilu, Special Rapporteur, Addendum
A Special Viewon the Romanian Case
CONTENTS
1. Unprecedented aggression agaittst the rights and freedoms of the younger
generations. Grave dangers to the moral health of young people
A. The attempt to mislead millions of people by empty promises and to
conceal from them the truth concerning the economic disaster into
which they have been plunged by a despotic Government is no1merely
a profoundly immoral act but an unspeakable crime
1. The high-handedness of dictators means the failure of a whole
national economy
2. Two worlds: the palaces of the despots and concentration camps for
millions of people
3. The megalomania of dictators means the proliferation of peoples'
sufferings
II. The younger generation has been swept clean of any faith in a political
régime which, while practising the most odious dictatorship, has the
audacity to maintain that it is profoundly democratic
A. Discretionary dissociation
1. The dictation of decisions. Unlimited power takes maniacal forms
2. The slavery of execution
B. Unprecedented aggression against man. Pulverization of freedom and
annihilation of the personality
1. Violence and barbarous aggression by bulldozers against human
beings
2. Hunger, cold and fear irtthe service of the subjugation of man
3. The destruction of human values is sweeping away some shining
ideals of the younger generation
C. Discriminatory policies and practices continue to do violence to the
human being, to trample his fundamental rights and freedoms
111.Manipulation of relations with other countries
IV. Non-interfering in domestic affairs is no1a tool for covering up the crimes
oftyrants against man
rexi of addendum no1 reproducedj
E/CN.4/Sub.Z/I989/53
15 August 1989.
161. Note Verbale Dated 15 Augiist 1989 from the Permanent Mission of
the Socialist Republic of Roinania Io the United Nations Office
at Geneva Addressed to the Centre for Human Rights
1.It has come to the knowledge of the Permanent Mission of the Socialist
Republic of Romania that the so-called report on the topic "Human rights and146 PRNUEOES AND IMMUNITLES OF THE UEmEDNATIONS
vouth" bv Mr. Dumitru Mazilu. a former member of the Sub-Commission on
~revention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, is at an advanced
stage of publication in the United Nations Centre for Human Rights.
2. In Ïbis reeard. the Mission exoresses ils surorise that the medical ooin-
ions made avaiïableto the Centre for Human ~i~htsconcerning Mr. ~um.itru
Mazilu's state of health have been ignored. The fact that the Centre's admini-
stration has aereed. in these circumstances. to soonsor the oublication of some
of hlr. Malil>s idca<and ludgmcnts und; ihc'auspiçes of the Unitcd Nation<
can only harm the standing and credibility of the Organization.
3. 1n view of the defamatorv and tendentious aÏleeations Mr. Dumitru
Mazilu is making against his country and ils policies, whereas before his illness
be had worked intensively as a publicist on the tooics, which he presented in an
entirclgdifierrnt light.,v;annex hrrrto sonie of the propositions he maintaincd
in numcrous uorks publirhed in Romania. .4 comparison of these tcxts u,ith the
vieuscontaincd in ihe 50-calledreport submirtcd to the United Nations is useful
for uhat ilrrve~ls about his intellecrual and moral integriiy.
4. Ihc Permanent hlission of the Sociali\r Republic of Romania is in a posi-
tion to ~rovide the Sub-Commission with imilar rorks which uere oublished
by Mr.'~umitru Mazilu before his retirement owing to incapacity ior work.
Obviously, since becoming il1in 1987, Mr. Dumitru Mazilu does not possess
the intellectual capacity necessary for making an objective, responsible and
unbiased analysis that could serve as the substance of a report consistent with
the requirements of the United Nations.
5. The Permanent Mission of the Socialist Reoublic of Romania reauests the
Centre for Human Rights to take due account'of the information mentioned
above. Should the so-called report be issued, the Mission requests the Centre to
circulate this note together with its annex as a document of the Sub-Commission
at the current session under agenda item 15 (b).
A. Dumitru Mazilu, Public Opinion and Socialism. Editura Politica,
Bucharest, 1971.
1. "Our entire socio-political structure, by virtue of its profound demo-
cratism. is a guarantee for the full expression of the spirit of responsibility of
the collectivitv as a whole in the effort to achieve sustained develonment in al1
areas of thc building of socialisni. The dc\elopmcnt of socialist democracy and
the hciqhtcning of the spirit of civic rcsponihility constitute not only a condi-
tion bit also the maio. .remise for the exe~~ise-of the active and nro.res-ive
\mial rolc oiour public opinion in the combined ciiorts of the workerr engagcd
in buildiiipï inultilaterallv and harmoniously dcvel<ipedsoiiali,t society on the
soi1of ~imania." (page-33.)
2. "The fundamental political factor which ensures the attainment of such
levels of maturity in our socialist public opinion is the Romanian Communist
Party, the guiding political force of our entire society. Throughout its history
over half a century. the Romanian Communist Party has gained this standing
in Ourcountry by its policies and activities devoted entirely to the realization of
the loftiest aspirations of the popular masses, in the struggle to overthrow
capitalism and establish people's power and in the efforts being made for the
building of socialism and for the material and spiritual development of the
Romanian people." (Page 56.)
3. "A special contribution to the realization of these aspirations is being CONTENTS OF THE DOSSIER 147
made by the organizations of the Union of Communist Youth, students'
as~ ~ ~tion~ ~ ~~~~ ~~reanizations of the Pioneers. In their activities. thev . .
devote particular attention to the employment of certain appropriate forms for
the education of vouth. for ils manifestation and for the exuression of its
opinions." (Page 73.)
4. "Mass and civic organizations - trade unions, youth organizations, co-
ooerative unions. creative unions and associations. etc. - have a ~articularly
important role to play in the common endeavour, carried out under the direc-
tion of the Party, to promote and constitute an active and progressive public
oninion in al1arias of social life. These oreanizations are themselves vaneuard "
forums of public opinion, exercisirig a decisive role in shaping a progressive
attitude towards work and collectiveownership and in fulfilling legal and moral
reouirements in relations between al1membeis of our societv." (Page 78.) .-
S. "Thex youth organizations are, by iheir coniposiiioii aiid nature. hound
Io have a dsnami~ îharïsicr and fi)stimulate ni3niiecratiuns oi the cnihuria\rn
and creativë energy inherent in young people for the purpose of guiding them
along the path of constructive labour in a spirit of responsibility towards the
country and the people and of devotion and abnegation in the struggle to imple-
ment the policies of the Party. It is the highly responsible duty of the organiza-
tions of the Union of Communist Youth to foster among their members an
uncom~romisine att-tude towards neaative ma-ifestations in the behaviour of
certain young people and to transform the discussion of such casesinto a school
for educating the collective opinion of youth." (Pages 83-84.)
6. "~urinp the years of the building of socialism in Romania, many
achievements have been recorded iii this area: the press, radio and television
have become active means for disseminating the truth, promoting the word of
the Party and realizing the fundamental interests of the people. The mobilizing
role and educative contribution of these media have increased with everypassing
year." (Page 96.)
B. Dumitru Marilu, The Funcrions of the Sociolist Store, Editura Academiei,
1972.
7. "ln the years of people's power, al1the intellectual resources of the people
have been develooed: raised to new heinhts. suiritual life is generating a new
culture whiîh i, uiitar) a, regards the go<ls itScr\,csand II,id~ological;ontcnt
and which incorporaie, e\erythinp thai i, drmocratic aiid progrc\ri\i in the
culture of the nist and in world culture." (Page 152.)
.
8. "Ai the 5arnr rime. OurSiatr arta;hc\ pariicular importance io de\.eloping
the systemoi highrr edu;aiion. irhot purpose i\ to train the contiiigrntq oi nien
of science andof culture and the soecialists needed for Romania's soaring
eionomy and cultural life. Yeu insiiiutes and facultie, hate bcen e,tablished.
ihc maierial hare oi highcrcducriiion ha5undcrgonc major dcvclopmcnt and the
number of teachers has increased." (Page 208.)
9. ..A significani illusiraiion ~iih~ssi~ntiiic. 5larxisi-Leninist orientation oi
the Romanian school s,stem isal$oto be iound in the de\elopment oieducation
for the various coexisting nationalities. In addition to the 2,290 establishments
teaching in theHungarian language and the various institutions teaching in Ger-
man and in the languages of other nationalities, newgeneral secondary schools,
soecialized secondarv schools. and vocational-training schools are beine.added
~r~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
in tvhich instruLti0n.i~ to bc &cn in tlungarian. (;&man. cic." (~ag; 225.)
10 "ln 28 yrar\ of rrvolutionary tr~nsiorm~iions under the direaion of the
Romanian ~ommunist Party, the workers of our country have qualitatively148 PRMLEGES AND IMMUNITIESOF THE UNITED NATIONS
changed the dimensions of freedom and - based on the increasina masterv of
the laws of social development - are directing social processes in-a conscious
and collective manner, whereby social existence is becoming truly human and
hence a free existence." (Page 260.)
II. "ln pursuance of the measures adopted by the Ninth Congress of the
Romanian Communist Party, the Constitution of Romania not only proclaims
each right and freedom but guarantees them materially, juridically and poli-
tically; its clauses and special laws provide for severe measures against those
who are tempted to restrict in any way the free and full emergence of every
individual." (Paae 261.)
12. "ln ou; soiialist tat tthe necessary conditions have been created for al1
State bodies, al1citizens, to take vart in the verformance of their social duties
while respecting the requirement; established by the authority of the State in
regulatory legislation." (Page 261.)
13. "On the basis of the Constitution and in accordance with its nrovisions.
the new Penal Code places personal rights and freedoms side by side with thé
highest values ofsocialism." (Page 262.)
C. Dumitru Mazilu, The Developmenl ond Defence of Colleclive Properry.
Editura Politica, Bucharest, 1968.
14. "The organizations of the Union of Communist Youth carry out
activities. under the direction of the Party, aimed at mobilizine.vounn oeo~le
for the performance of production iasks and for siudy. irnproremenioi ihcir
vocational skllls. assimilation of neu technologies. and thcir educatioii in the
spirit of \ociali$rn. thus makina a substaniial contribution io fulfilmcni of the
important demands of economic development and of the administration and
development of collective property." (Page 83.)
D. Dumitru Mazilu, Equity and Justicein Internotionol Life, Editura Poli-
tica, Bucharest, 1979.
15. "Romania is making a noteworthy contribution, as an active member of
the United Nations, as an active promoter of relations based on reciprocity and
on respect of national existence and national die-.tv. In this re-.rd. the active
position of our country is of particular significance(0) in the promotion of just
and equitable international relations; (b) in the building of peace and securitv
in Europe and throughout the world; and (c) in the impÏementation of concreie
and effective disarmament measures." (Page 235.)
16. "Socialist Romania made a specialand widely recognizedcontribution to
the vrevaration - on a democratic basis and in accordance with fa ~irand
equiiabie principles and criteria - of the Conference on Security and Co-
operation in Europe and has consistently souaht sincethe adoption of the Final
Act io givr effesi to ils pr(wi\ions. -hile-deploying extensiveand diverseaciiviiy
for ihis purpose ai the bilateral and the muliilatcral lebel." (Pages 238-239 J
17. Similar appraisals can be found in other works and articles published by
Mr. Dumitru Mazilu. He has also argued along the same lines as those cited in
this annex in special programmes broadcast on Romanian radio and television
over the past two decades. CONTENTS OF THE DOSSIER 149
162. Draft report on the forty-first ses- E/CN.4/Sub.2/1989/L.10
sion: Chap. 111. Organization of the
forty-first session'
163. Draft Report on the Forty-first Session: Chapter XVI. Promotion,
Protection and Restoration of Human Rights at National, Regional and
International Levels
[Pages 1-3nor reproducedj
Human righrsand youth
At the 40th meeting, on 1 September 1989,the Sub-Commission took up for
consideration draft resolution E/CN.4/Sub.2/1989/L.57 submitted by Mr.
Diaconu.
Referring torule 65(1)of the Rules of Procedure of the Functional Commis-
sion of the Economic and Social Council, MI. van Boven proposed that vote
should firstly be taken on draft resolution E/CN.4/Sub.2/1989/L.58.
The proposal was opposed by Mr. Alfonso Martinez and Mr. Diaconu.
An explanation of vote before the vote was made by Mr. Despouy.
The proposal was adopted by 8 votes to 5, with 5 abstentions.
At the same meeting, the Sub-Commission took up for consideration draft
resolution E/CN.4/Sub.2/1989/L.58 submitted by MI. van Boven, Ms Daes,
Mr. Eide, Mr. Fix Zamudio, MI. Hatano, MI. Ilkahanaf, Mr. Joinet, Ms
Palley, Mr. Treat and Mr. Varela Quiros.
Mr. Diaconu proposed amending the draft resolution as follows:
- Inserting, after the sixth preambular paragraph, a new paragraph reading:
"Noring that some experts expressed divergent opinions concerning the
contents and the form of this document";
- Inserting, after the tenth preambular paragraph, a new paragraph reading:
"Keu//,rtfrrn~the nccd io <ih\erir the puidclinesand practiier of ihc Sub-
<'~immisrionconcerning the Lonicnis and rhr srrusiure oi theme reporir" ;
MI. Joinet proposed sub-amending Mr. Diaconu's second amendment by
adding at its end "particularly the impossibility of discussing them in the
absence of the Special Rapporteurs".
Mr. Sadi proposed sub-amending Mr. Joinet's sub-amendment by replacing
"impossibility" by "inappropriateness".
Mr. Alfonso Martinez proposed amending the first operative paragraph by
replacing "update" by "revised" and inserting "the" before "light".
Ms Palley proposed amending the draft resolution by adding a new operative
paragreph after the second one reading:
"Decides to invite Mr. Mazilu now to present his updated report in per-
son to the Sub-Commission, at its forty-second session."
* Thisisa copyof the draft reporton ChapterXVI.Finalreportisnot yetavailable.
' Document notreproduced. [Nole by theRegisrry.1150 PRIVILEGES AND 1MMUNlTlES OF +HE UNITED NATIONS
Mr. van Bovenproposed amending operative paragraph 4 by replacing, in the
7th line, "an intensivere~ort" by "through the Secretary-General a note".
Statements relating to ihe draft resolution and the amendments thereto were
made by Mr. Alfonso Martinez, Mr. van Boven, Mr. Chernichenko, Ms Daes,
Mr. Despouy, Mr. Diaconu, Mr. Joinet, Mr. Laghmari, Ms Mbonu and
Ms Palley.
According to rule 50 of the Rules of Procedure, Mr. Despouy moved the
closure of the debate on draft resolutionE/CN.4/Sub.2/1989/L.58.
Mr. Alfonso Martinez opposed the motion.
The motion was accepted by 14 votes to 3. with I abstention.
A vote was taken on Mr. Joinet's sub-amendment, as amended by MI. Sadi,
on Mr. Diaconu's second amendment. The sub-amendment was adopted by
9 votes to 3. with 5 abstentions.
A vote was taken on Mr. Diaconu's second amendment, as amended. The
amendment was adopted by 7 votes to 5, with 5 abstentions.
A vote was taken on Mr. Diaconu's first amendment. The amendment was
reiected bv 8 votes to 6. with 3 abstentions.
A vote was taken on~r. Alfonso Martinez' amendment. The amendment
was rejected by 1I votes to 5. with no abstention.
A vote was taken on Ms Palley's amendment, which was adopted by ILvotes
to 3, with 2 abstentions.
At the request of Mr. Chernichenko, a separate vote was taken on the words
"with appreciation" in the first line of thesixth preamhular paragraph. The
words were deleted by 7 votes to 6, with 4 ahstentions.
At the request of Mr. Chernichenko, a separate vote was taken on operative
paragraph 4. The paragraph was retained hy Il votes to 4, with 2 abstentions.
The attention of the Sub-Commission was drawn to an estimate of admi-
nistrative and programme budget implications (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1989/L.75)
of draft resolution E/CN.4/Sub.2/1989/L.58.
An explanation of vote before the vote was made by Mr. Diaconu.
The draft resolution, as a whole and as amended, was adopted by 12votes
to 4, with 2 abstentions.
Explanations of vote after the vote were made by Mr. Despouy and
Mr. Joinet.
For thetex1of the resolution, as adopted, see Chapter II, Section A, resolu-
tion 1989/45.
At the same meeting, the Sub-Commission resumed consideration of draft
resolution E/CN.4/Sub.2/1989/L.57.
Ms Daes proposed amending the draft resolution as follows:
- deleting, in the second preambular paragraph, second line, the remaining
part of that paragraph after the parentheses;
- deleting in the first operative paragraph, first line, "not" and, in the tbird
line, the phrase "and that it is therefore";
- replacing in the second operative paragraph, first line, "that" by "which";
- replacing in the third operative paragraph. first line, "withdrawn from cir-
culation" by "circulated". deleting in the second line "because" and, in the
third line, "determine the authority and prestige of the United Nations".
Referring to rule 65 (2) of the Rules of Procedure, Mr. Despouy moved to
take no action on draft resolution E/CN.4/Sub.2/1989/L.57.
At the request of Mr. Alfonso Martinez, a roll-cal1was taken on the motion
made by Mr. Despouy. The motion was adopted by 1I votes to 4, with 1absten-
tion. The voting was as follows: CONTENTS OF THE DOSSIER 151
In favour: Ms Bautista, Mr. van Boven, Ms Daes, Mr. Despouy,
Mr. Eide, Mr. Hatano, MI. Joinet, Ms Palley, Mr. Fix
Zamudio, Mr. Carey and Mr. Türk.
Agoinst: Mr. Alfonso Martinez, Mr. Chernichenko, Mr. Diaconu and
Mr. Tian Jin.
Abstoining: MI. Ilkahanaf.
The text of the draft resolution E/CN.4/Sub.2/1989/L.57 was as follows:
The Sub-Commission onPrevention of Discriminotion and Protection of
Minorilies,
Recolling its resolution 1985/12 of 20 August 1989entitled "Human rights
and youth",
Bearingin mind the fact that the former Sub-Commission member, Mr. Du-
mitru Mazilu, submitted a document (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1989/41 and Add.1)
which clearlv shows that his obvious intention is to use his mission as Soecial
Rapporteur for personal political purposes in relation with the authorities of his
country, contrary to the mandate entrusted to him,
1. Considers that the document submitted by Mr. Mazilu does not meet the
criteria of impartiality and objectivity that should govern the fulfilment by
Special Rapporteurs of the task entrusted to them and that it is therefore inad-
missible;
2. Considersolso that the document does not correspond to the guidelines
and practice of the Sub-Commission with regard to the content and structure
of reports on particular topics;
3.Decides that thedocument willbe withdrawn from circulation as a United
Nations document, since it is likely, because of the way in which it was
prepared, to undermine the authority and prestige of the United Nations;
4. Decides to consider, at the forty-second session, the question of the
preparation of the report on the topic ofHuman rights andyouth" with a view
to adopting the appropriate decision".
The stotus of the individual and contempororyinternotionollow
At the 40th meeting. on I Scptembcr 1989, the Chairnian to~k up for :on-
\ideration draft resoluiionC. CN.4/Sub.2/ IYdY 1.7?, rubniitted by hlr.De,-
pou), \Ir. Eidr. Ur. Turk. hlr. Varela Quirb, and hl, \\'arlali.
The attention of the Sub-Corninisiion u.as drawn io an eitirnatç oi ad-
mini\trarivc and progressive budgetimpli;ationb (t.. CN4,Sub.2/ 1989/L.74) of
draft resolution E/CN.?/Sub 2/1989/L.73.
The draft resolution was adopted without a vote.
For the text of the resolution, as adopted, see Chapter II, Section A, resolu-
tion 1989/46.152 PRlVllEOES AND WMZTNITLESOF TM UNITrD NATIONS
E/CN.4/Sub.Z/I989/SR.I
14August 1989.
164. Summary Record of the 1st Meeting
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva,
on Monday. 7 August 1989, at 10.30a.m.
Temporary Choirmon: Mr. Bhandare
Chairman: Mr. Yimer
The meeting wos called Io order al 11.25 a.m.
OPENINO OF THE SESSION
[Paras. 1-4 no1 reproducedj
5. [The Temporary Choirmonj He recalled that in resolution 1985/12 the
Sub-Commission had entrusted Mr. Mazilu withthe preparation of a study on
human rights and youth. In 1987, Mr. Mazilu had~not attended the session
of the Sub-Commission and had not submitted his report. In 1988, the
Sub-Commission had adopted resolution 1988/37 expressing the view that
Mr. Madlu in his continuine caoacitv of Soecial Raooorteur eniosed. .e
privileges and immunities necessary for the performance of his duties, as
urovided in Section 22 of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of
ihe United Nations of 13 Februarv 1946. and reauestine the Commission on
Human~i~htr IOurge the ~conomir and social ~ounsil Ïo request an adtisor).
oninion from the lnlernalional Court of Justice on the a~~licabilityOCthe rele-
vant provisions of that Convention. That advisory opinion had been requested
and would be circulated to members as soon as it was available. In the mean-
time, he had received a letter from MI. Mazilu stating that he had been in cap-
tivity since 1986and that his lifeand that of his wife were indanger. Mr. Mazilu
had also submitted his study.The letter and the study would be discussed by the
Sub-Commission under the appropriate agenda item.
[Paros. 6-39 no1 reproducedj
40. [Mr. Mortenson (Under-Secretary-Generaflor Human Rights)] The pre-
vious year, the Sub-Commission had stressed the urgent need to receive the
report on human rights and youth from its Special Rapporteur, Mr. Dumitru
Mazilu, and had requested the Government of Romania to co-operate with a
view to enabling Mr. Mazilu to present his report. Since then, the matter had
been taken un with reoresentatives of the Government of Romania on numerous
occasions both in Geneva and in New York, by the Secretary-General and also
bv himself. Unfortunately. no propress had been made in the Secretar~at's
aitempts to consult with MI. ~aziluwith a viewto assisting him in the prepara-
tion of his report. However, a text had now been receivedfrom him and as the
Chairman announced it was beinn orocessedand would shortls be available to
the Sub-Commission. Bya resolution adopted at its first regu1a;session of 1989.
the Economic and Social Council had referred the question of the applicability
of the Convention on the Privileges and 1mmuniti;s of the United Nations to CONTENTS OF THE DOSS~R 153
the case of Mr. Mazilu to the International Court of Justice, as recommended
by the Commission on Human Rights al ils forty-fifth session.
[Para. 41 no! reproducedl
E/CN.4/Sub.2/1989/SR.2
165. Summary Record of the 2nd meeting
(held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva,
on Tuesday, 8 August 1989, at 10 am.)'
E/CN.4/Sub.2/1989/SR.4
14August 1989.
166. Summary Record of the 4th Meeting
Held al the Palais des Nations, Geneva,
on Wednesday, 9 August 1989, at 10 a.m
Chairman: Mr. Yimer (later: Mr. van Boven)
REVIEW OF FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS IN FIELDS WITH WHICH THE SUE-COMMISSION
KAS BEEN CONCERNED (item 4 of the provisional agenda)
(E/CN.4/Sub.2/1989/2-3, 5-7,26 and 45)
[Paras. 66-75 nof reproducedl
76. .~~. ~ ~ ~nson (Under-Secretarv-Genera fl r Human Rie-ts),-Rea-rd-
ing the issue of the status of special rapporteurs, it would be remembered
that. in resolution1988/37. the Sub-Commission had requested the Secretary-
Gencral once niorc to approîch the Govsrnnient of Romania and in\oke the
appli;abiliry of the Con\,cntion on the Pri\ilcges and Immunitie01 the United
Nations. and to reauest that Government to CO-operatefully in the implementa-
lion of resolution <988/37by ensuring that >Ir. ~lszilu's report should br com-
pletcd and pre,r.nted to the Sub-Commissi~n at the earliest possibledate. 11had
further reauested the Secretarv-General. in the event that the Government of
Romania did not concur in ihe applicability of the provisions of that Con-
vention, to bring the difference between the United Nations and Romania
immediatelv to the attention of the Commission at ils forthcominr forty-fifth
session.T~C Sub-Commission had îlso requested the ~ommission,;n the latter
c\ent, tu urge the Economic and Social Couiiiil. in aicordance siih Cieneral
Assemblv reiolution 89(. .f 11December 1946.to reauest an advisorv opinion
froni th;lnternaiional Court of Jiirtise on the appli.'ahi01tthe rclc-\an1pro.
visions of the Contention on the Privilege, alid Iiiii~iunitie\ of the United
Nations to the case, within the scope of the Sub-Commission resolution.
77. In response to that request, the Secretary-General had presented a report
to the Commission on Human Rights at its forty-fifth session, contained in
document E/CN.4/1989/69. The Commission, in resolution 1989/37, had con-
' Documentno1reproduced. [Noteby Ihe RegisIry.1154 PRNILECES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE UNITED NATIONS
curred with the viewof the Sub-Commission that Mr. ~azilu,in his continuing
capacity as Special Rapporteur, enjoyed the privilegesand immunities necessari
for the performance of his dulies. as provided for in Anicle VI. Section 22, of
the convention on the Privileees and lmmunities of the United Nations of
13Fcbruary 1946, IO which ~oriania was a pariy. Thc Commission had recom-
mcnded to the Economic aiid Social Counril that it request. pursuant to Article
96. ~araeraoh 2. of ihc Charter of the Uniied Nations and in acsordance with
Gkeral iskmbly resolution 89 (l), an advisory opinion fromthe International
Court of Justice on thelcgalquestion of the applicability of Article VI, Section
22. of the said Convention to the case of Mr. Mazilu.
78. As he had raid in his iniroductory statcment at the opening of the session.
the Economic and Social Council had submitted the question to the Interna-
tional Court of Justice, requesting a legal opinion on the matter
E/CN.4/Sub.2/1989/SR.6
16 August 1989.
167. Summary Record of the 6th Meeting
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva,
on Thursday, IOAugust 1989, at 10 a.m.
Chairmon: Mr. Yimer
46. [Mr. Bhondare] An essential ingredient of the right of expression was the
right to know. In that context, hesked himself how he could enforce his right
to know about special rapporteurs, for example. the whereabouts of Mr. Ma-
il~. A letter had been received and Mr. Mazilu had sent his report in hand-
writing in two volumes, and that had made members of the Sub-Commission
al1the more anxious to know about him. The current exercise in futility must
now corne to an end. The Sub-Commission would shortly be receiving an
advisor. .ninion from the lnternational Court of Justice. He a..ealed to the
Government of Romania to recognize that there was no prestige in keeping
Mr. Mazilu away from the Suh-Commission and he reauested the 0bse~er for
that country to ;ive a positive response at the end of the debate on the present
item, and an assurance that Mr. Mazilu would be present to submit his study.
He appealed also to the Under-Secretary-General for Human Rights, and
through him to theSecretaiy-General, to make every effort to see that MI. Ma-
zilu attended the Sub-Commission to submit his report.
E/CN.4/Sub.Z/I989/SR.8
18 August 1989.
168. Summary Record of the 8th Meeting
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva,
on Friday, LI August 1989, at 10 a.m.
Choirman: Mr. Yimer
41. [Mr. VoreloQuirosj Referring to the issue of special rapporteurs, he con-
sidered that. although the Sub-Commissionmust await the ruling of the Interna- CONTENTS OF THE WSSD3R 15s
tional Court of Justice which had been requested by the Economic and Social
Council, it should nevertheless no1 forge1the fate of one of its Special Rap-
porteurs, namely, Mr. Mazilu. lndependently of the legal issue, the Sub-
Commission should reiterate its appeal to the Government of Romania that it
should not only respect the rights of the Special Rapporteur and allow him to
submit his report but also guaraniee his full right Io freedom of expression.
E/CN.4/Sub.2/1989/SR.I0
22 August 1989.
169. Summary Record of the 10th Meeting
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva,
on Monday, 14 August 1989,at 10 a.m.
Chairman: Mr. Yimer
ORGANIZATIOK OF WORK (continued)
71. MI. Cisse(Secretary of the Sub-Commission) said that the previous week
the Sub-Commission had decidedIo invite two Special Rapporteurs Io come to
Geneva for the presentation and/or discussion of their reports. The Secretary-
General had immediately dispatched cables to the persons concerned.
[Para. 72 nof reproducedl
73. No response had been received from Mr. Mazilu. The Secretariat had
attempted Io establish telephone contact with MI. Mazilu that morning, but
without success. In addition, the United Nations Office in Bucharest had
reported that morning its inability to deliver to Mr. Mazilu a copy of the
telegram of invitation whichhad also been addressed to him through the United
Nations Office in Bucharest.
The meering rose af IO5 p.m
E/CN.4/Sub.Z/I989/SR.26
1 September 1989.
169A. Summary Record of the 26th Meeting
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva.
on Thursday. 24 August 1989,at 10a.m
Chairman: Mr. Yimer (later: Mr. Alfonso Martinez)
OROANIZATION OF WORK (confinued)
30. Mr. Eide asked whether thesecretariat had receivedany further informa-
tion about when Mr. Mazilu would be coming Io the Sub-Commission, in view156 PRNILECES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE UNITED NATIONS
of the note verbale of 15August 1989from the Permanent Mission of Romania
(E/CN.4/Sub.2/1989/53) which he had found rather strange.
31. The Sub-Commission had been informed earlier that Mr. Mazilu was
suffering from heart problems. The letter from the Permanent Mission of
Romania indicated that he was suffering from mental problems. Although
Mr. Mazilu might be a dissident it did not follow that he was mentally ill. He
was troubled that the Special Rapporteur was being retained in his country on
the pretext of mental illness.
32. Mr. Marfenson (Under-Secretary-General for Human Rights)said that he
had nothing toadd to the information already reported to the Sub-Commission.
The Centre for Human Rights had tried to contact Mr. Mazilu directly and
through the United Nations Office in Bucharest, but without success.
33. The first time he had seen any reference to mental illness was inthe note
verbale from the Permanent Mission of Romania.
34. Mr. Eide said that he still assumed that MI. Mazilu would be withthe
Sub-Commission when it dealt with item 15 (b)of its agenda. If he were not,
then a very strong reaction would be required by the Sub-Commission.
35. Mr. Radu (Observer for Romania) asked whether agenda item 15 (h) was
under discussion, since he wished to make some comments on the item.
36. The Chairman replied that the Sub-Commission had not yet begun its
consideration of item 15 fhl.
37. Mr. Bhandare said that there was a contradiction between the explana-
tion given by the Romanian Government the ~reviousyear that Mr. Mazilu was
suffeiine fiom heart trouble and the fact ihat Mr.~azilu had oroduced a
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~
l&ical &d rational handwritten report in two volumes, which woid not have
been possible had he been sufferingeither from heart trouble or mental illness.
38. He believedthat Mr. Mazilu wasbeine retained without adeauate reason.
~he ~ub-~ommission must find a solution~tothe problem before the end of the
session and secure MI. Mazilu's presence at its deliberations without delay.
39. The Chairman oointed out that item 15 lbJ of the aaenda was the
appropriate item for thédiscussion of Mr. Mazilu'; réport.The relevant discus-
sion should take place at that time and he therefore requested members of the
Sub-Commission not to open a debate on that issue.
40. Mr. Diaconu urged members no1to launch into far-fetched theories; such
a course would be dangerous.
41. Mr. Joiner said that he would be oreoared to take un aeenda item 15 (hl
immediately. The place scheduled for it iowards the tail eid 2 the agenda laid
the Sub-Commission open to charges of not wishing to discuss it.
l69B. Summary Record of the 34th meeting E/CN.4/Sub.Z/IY89/SR.34
(held at the Palais des Nations. Gen-
eva. on Wednesday, 30 August 1989.
at 10 am.)'
' Document no1reproduced. [Noreby lheRegisrry.1 CONTENTS OF THE DOSSIER 157
E/CN.4/Sub,2/1989/SR.35
20 septembre 1989.
169C. Compte rendu analytique de la première partie de la 35eséance
tenue au Palais des Nations, à Genhve,
le mercredi 30 août 1989, à 15 heures
Président: M. Yimer
1. M. Diaconu, intervenant sur le noint 15bi, rannelle aue c'est sur I'initia-
tive de la Roumanie que l'ONU a commencé à examiner en 1960les problèmes
concernant la jeunesse, ce qui a conduit à l'adoption de la Déclaration concer-
nant la nromotion varmi les ieunes des idéaux denaix. de resnect mutuel et de
. .
:ompréhen>ionenrrc lespeupler en 1965.3 la pruclamation de I'Annk interna-
tioitale de la jeunesse cn 1985cr 3 une confCrence internaiionale sur se sujct la
mêmeannée.
2. Le rapport sur les droits de l'homme et la jeunesse demandé par la Sous-
Commission dans sa résolution 1985/12 devait êtreun rapnort tbématiaue. éta-
bli conformément auxdirectivesénoncées oar la SOUS-co&missio~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~o- ~~
lution B, publiéedans le rapport de la Sous-commission du 5 février 1954
(E/CN.4/Sub.2/157) à propos de l'étudesur les mesures discriminatoires dans
le domaine de l'enseignement, et étenduesultérieurement à tous les autres rap-
ports et études.
3. Or, le rapport publiépar le Secrétariatau titre du point 15 b) de l'ordre
du iour de la Sous-Commission (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1989/4I et Add.1) n'est vas
coniorme ces dircctitej puisqu'il ne traite par de la que,tion à lse,xamcnFur
le plan mondial et se r2fi.r~i plujieurç reprise,6 la situaiion dan, un pals d6ier.
miné.n'indiaue.vas.les tendances d'ordre eénéralni les facteurs~ ~ ~ ~~~l'orieine de
ces tendances ri letir nature, n'est pasconcret et obje~.iifet coniienr toirc uni
:ri? d'ïllccations diflamatuires a I'erard d'un pars. de \a rit)litioue intériçurc
et de son svstèmeoolitiaue et social. Ce ravo,.t s'kscrit de tou~e é~ ~e~cedans
le rüdre de 13 campagne politique nien2epïr certains milieux L.ontrela Rouma.
nic, qui n'a rien à \,uir arec la reali~éni avec les droits de l'homme. L'additif
au rapport lüitd'ailleurs re\sortir Icsobjeciifs poliriques de ce do~ument. et sa
diifu,ion va il'encontre des di>pusitionsde la r2soluiion 661 (XXIV) du Conseil
économiaue et social, selon laauelle les monoaranhies Dar vavs . .doivent nas
être normalementpubliéesen tant que documentS, toute exception à cette regle
devant être approuvée parle Conseil lui-mêmeet viser bien sûr des études con-
cernant de nombreux . .s. En outre. ce ran..rt est établien termes iniurieux
qui sont inacceptables pour la Sous-Commission. Si on le compare à tous les
rapports et étudesprésentés la Sous-Commission, on constate aisément qu'il
s'a& en fait d'un i. .hlet oolitiaue et d'une collection de sloea-s reflétantwe
phiÏosophie politique partisane. .
4. Un tel rapport est de nature à embarrasser beaucoup de membres de la
Sous-Commission et à mettre en jeu la crédibilitéde celle-ci. C'est pourquoi,
M. Diaconu aimerait savoir pourquoi le centre pour les droits de l'homme ne
s'est pas assuréque ce rapport correspondait bien aux directives établiespar la
Sous-Commission avant de le distribuer, pourquoi le Secrétariat n'a pas jugé
bon, suivant la pratique établie,de demander à I'Etat Membre concernéde for-
muler des observations sur ce document, et pourquoi, s'il connaît les directives
de la Sous-Commission et la résolution 661 (XXIV) du Conseil économique et
social, il n'en a pas tenu compte, coinme il aurait dû le faire et a fait distribuer
ce document.158 PRIWLEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE UNITED NATIONS
5. 11est absolument indispensable de réaffirmer les directives établiespar la
Sous-Commission concernant la nature, le contenu et l'économie desrapports
et des étudesqui lui sont soumis ou d'en élaborer de nouvelles et de rappeler
que tous les rapporteurs et le centre pour les droits de l'homme sont tenus de
les respecter.
6. M. Morrenson (Secrétairegénéraladjoint aux droits de l'homme) dit qu'il
a déjàeu l'occasion de faire part de ses observations à l'égarddu rapporteur
snécial chargévar la Sous-Commission d'établir un raoport sur les droits de
l'homnie et'la'jeunesre au cours de diverses inicrventions devant la Sous-
Commission en 1987. 1988et pendant la sessionen cours. ainsi quedans la note
du Secrétaire eéneral oubliée,ou\ la cote E/CN.4/1989/69. IIraooelle en outre
que la Cour internationale de Justice doit se prononcer sur le principe en cause.
7. A son avis. certaines des remarques faites par M. Diaconu ainsi que les
observations formuléesvar la mission oermanente de la Reoubliaue socialistede
Roumanie dans sa note.verbale du 15août 1989(~/~~.4;~ub.i/1989/53) font
ressortir une méconnaissancedu concept de fonction publique internationale et
des responsabilitésque cela implique. -11va de soi que le secrétariat doit faire
preuve à tout moment de neutralité, d'impartialité. L'indépendancedes fonc-
tionnaires internationaux àl'égarddes gouvernements ou de toute autorité exté-
rieure à l'organisation est d'ailleurs éiabliepar l'articlIM) de la Charte des
Nations Unies. Leur tâche consiste en priorité à s'acquitter pleinement, fidele-
ment et efficacement des mandatsqui leur sont confiéspar des organes intergou-
vernementaux ou des oraanes d'experts comme la Sous-Commission.
8. Cette nîuiralitb cjt-un objectif qui n'est ni jimple ni facile. Elle constituc
un defi permanent pour tous Ics fonctionnaires inicrnationaux. et est aussi au
cŒur detous les efforts dénlovésDar l'ONU en faveur de la oaix. de la iustice
et de la dignitéhumaine. 'Cokmé le soulignait Dag ~ammarskjrild, if s'agit
essentiellement, en définitive,d'une question d'intégrité etsi l'intégritéau sens
du respect du droit et de la véritédevait conduire le fonctionnaire international
à entrer en conflit avec tel ou tel intérët, ce conflit serait alors lesigne de sa neu-
tralité et non de son incapacité à rester neutre et est compatible et non pas
incompatible avec ses devoirs en tant que fonctionnaire international.
[Par. 9-24 non reproduits]
25. M. Dioconu, prenant la parole pour une motion d'ordre, rappelle qu'il
a osé des auestions au Secrétariat et au'il souhaiterait au'on v réoonde.
.26. M. ~c~urlhy (Secretariat), répondant aux posies pk M. Dia-
conu au sujet du rdle du Secrétariatdans l'établissementet la distribution du
raooort dont se trouve saisie la Sous-Commission au titre du ooint 15 bJ
(~/C~.4/~ub.2/1989/41 et Add.l), déclareque le Secrétariata ten; compte d&
différentes résolutions adoptées par la Sous-Commission concernant ses mé-
thodes de travail. de mêmeauedes deux résolutions citéesnar M. Diaconu.
ainsi que des directivesrevis&&de 1974. Quant aux directive;formulées par la
Sous-Commission pour l'établissement desrapports, il est à noter que celles-ci
s'adressent aux raooorteurs soéciauxet aue cesont donc ces derniers au'il con-
vient d'interroger.& sujet déleur appli;ation.
27. LeSecretariat sonnait lesdispositions du r&glementinterieur et lessugges-
tions de la Commission et de la sous-commission. et il en tient le olus &and
compte dans sescontacts avec lesrapporteurs sp&sia;x. lorsqu'il lesa;deà plani-
fier leurs rapports,à recueillir des renseignementsà rédigeraussi, si ceux-ci le
souhaitent. ainsi qu'à distribuer ledocument qu'ils ontétéchargésde préparer.
28. Le Secretaire general a présentéà la Commission des droits de l'homme CONTENTS OF THE DOSSIER 159
le document E/CN.4/1989/69, faisant ressortir comment il s'est efforcé de
fournir une assistanceà M. Mazilu. conformément à la demande aui lui avait
été faitepar la Commission des droits de l'homme et le Conseil économique
et social. Le Sccretariat a égalementtentéd'établir descontacts en vue de per-
mettre an rapporteur de présenterson étude. Comme chacun sait, ses efforts
n'ont malheureusement pas abouti.
29. Ce n'est pas la premièrefoisque la question ducontenu d'un rapport sou-
lèveune controverse au sein de la Sous-Commission, et M. McCarthy se réfère
à cet égardaux discussions qui ont eu lieu en 1985et qui sont reflétéesdans le
rapport de la Sous-Commission à la Commission des droits de I'homme
(E/CN.4/1986/5), dans lequel on voit clairement que le contenu d'un rapport
et l'angle sous lequel la question étudiée esatbordée sontlaissésà l'entière dis-
crétiondu rapporteur spécial.
30. M. McCarthy se réfèreenfin au règlement intérieurdu Conseil écono-
mique et social, dont l'article 26 b) prévoitque le Secrétariat«reçoit, traduit et
distribue les documents». Comme on le voit donc., les réponses aux questions
poséespar M. Diaconu peuvent êtretrouvéesdans les principes et la pratique
de la Sous-Commission elle-même.Quant à la communication préalable des
rapports aux pays intéresséspour commentaires éventuels,il s'agit là, bien
entendu. d'une auestion aui relèveentièrement du raooo. .ur snécial.
31. M. U8rrronun'est pas satispair par lei réponses quiont Cietournies par
le Secrétariat.En effet, un document qui calomnie un pays de facon arbitraire
a étémis en circulation en tant aue document de la Sous-Commission, ce aui
est contraire aux buts et aux prindpes de la Charte des Nations Unies, organisa-
tion de coopérationet non de confrontation. Cela créeen outre un dangereux
orécédentvour les futurs ramorteurs soéciaux. II est évidentaue ceux aui
éncouragentla diffusion dc tel; documcnis. en dépit desrégla et der pratiqies
des Nations Unies, utiliwnt l'Organisation des iins qui leur sont propres et
engagent leur responsabilité. L'ONU n'est pas une maison d'édition pouvant
publier n'importe quoi même sli'auteur est un rapporteur spécial.Le Secrétariat
ne peut donc pas se soustraireà sa responsabilitéen invoquant sa neutralité ou
l'impossibilitéd'établirdescontacts. L'auteur de cedocument - et M. Diaconu
doute qu'il soit réellement l'auteurde tout cerapport, qui ne ressembleàaucun
des rapports examinés par la Sous-Comission - a agi ou bien sous l'effet de la
maladie. ou bien à de, fins politiqua pcr<onncller. lien résulteque ledocument
en question n'est absolument pas conforme aux régiesconcernant le L.i)ntcnuet
la forme des rapports présentés à la Sous-Commission.
32. M. Eide dit. avec tout le resnect au'il a oour M. Diaconu. aue celui-ci
. -
met la charrue avant les bŒufs conime le pensent sans doute aussi les autres
membres de la Sous-Commission qui ont certainement en mémoirelesdifférents
épisodesde l'histoire de ce rappok.
33. 11est probable qu'à mesure qu'il avançait dans son travail, M. Mazilu se
soit aperçu que, pour étudierla question des droits de l'homme et la jeunesse,
il fallait avant tout reconnaître aux ieunes le droit de oenser et de s'exprimer
librement. de critiquer les traditions et les approches choisies par leurs ainéset
de rechercher des solutions novatrices et des voies nou\elles. I.'csrentiel, donc.
comme l'a bien notéM. Mazilu. est la liberté d'exoression.M. Eide reconnaît
que l'étude de M. Maziluest assez spécialemaisestime qu'il faut tenir compte
du fait qu'elle reflète lasituation dans laquelle celui-cise trouve. Tous les rap-
porteursspéciaux doivent accepter les critiques des autres experts, ce qui leur
permet d'approfondir leur pensée. M.Mazilu aurait dû venir à Genèveen 1987,
puis en 1988, pour discuter de son étude avec les membres de la Sous-
Commission, qui lui auraient sans doute fait des commentaires et suggestions,160 PRIYaEOES AND MMUNlTE3 OSF THE UNITED NATIONS
dont il aurait pu ensuite tenir compte. Malheureusement, il ne lui a pas été pos-
sible de venir et les efforts de la Sous-Commission pour obtenir du Gouverne-
ment roumain qu'il revienne sur son interdiction ont étévains.
34. M. Eide est suroris de la réaction de M. Diaconu. aui a nortéuniaue-
ment sur certains aspects de l'étude finale, sans tenir aucun compte des condi-
tions dans lesquelles le rapporteur spéciala travaillé. II continueoéreraue
la SOUS-Comkissionpouria discuterde cetteétudedirectement avec M..~aziiu,
peut-êtreà sa session suivante, lorsque la Cour aura rendu un avis consultatif,
qui sera sans doute favorable à la Sous-Commission. M. Eide s'abstient donc
pour le moment de tout commentaire sur les nombreuses bonnes idéesconte-
nues dans le rapport considéréet sur certaines qui lui semblent peut-êtrecriti-
auables.
35. M. van Boven juge etrange que le Secrétariatsoit blâmépar un expert au
sujet d'un document. alors que la resvonsabilitéincombe entièrement au Gou-
bernement roumain. qui n'a autoriséil. hla~ilu nia berendre a Geneve afin de
icnlr compte d'éi~cntuellecritiques ou suggestion>.nià maintenir des contacts
avec le Secrétariat vour des consultations. II serait en fait contraàrI'esvrit
mêmedu travail des rapporteurs que le Secrétariat ne puisse pas discuter des
questions traitées avecceux-ci.
36. M. Joiner oartage entièrement le voint de vue ex~rimévar MM. Eide et
van Boven. IIdemandélui aussi de repo;ter l'examen durapphrt de M. Mazilu
à la sessionsuivante. car il est impensable d'examiner cedocument en l'absence
de son auteur.
37. M. Despouy appuie MM. Eide, van Boven et Joinet et rappelle qu'en tant
que présidentde la Sous-Commission,l'annéeoù M. Mazilu aurait dû venir pré-
senter son ra..ort.réliminaire.il.n'a épa-enéaucun effort à cet effet. II a fait
en\,o)cr des télégrammes.suggéré d'cnrrer en coiliait avec le rapporteur sp6rial
et pric le Secrétaire généradl'iitterienir. Aucune de cesinitiïii\er n'a cependant
abouti. M. Despouv constateque la Sous-Commission se trouve devant la situa-
tion paradoxale oLle secrétariat est critiqué pour une action dont il devrait au
contraire êtrefélicité.Pour sa part, il tientdire que toutes les initiatives qui
ont étéorises alors au'il étaitoresident l'ont sous son entièreresponsabilité
et il remercie uneok encore 1;Secrétariatpour la manière dont il s'éstacquitté
des tâches qui lui étaient confiées.
[Par. 38-62 non reproduits)
63. [M. Bhandare] A propos du point 15 b), et du rapport de M. Mazilu
(E/CN.4/Sub.2/1989/41 et Add.l), M. Bhandare dit que la Sous-Commission
ne doit vas créer unprécédenten examinant ce ravoor..en l'absence de son
auteur. il regrette vivement que des critiques aient été adresséeasu Secrétariat
et rappelle que c'est lui qui a proposéen 1987,Année internationale de la jeu-
nesse, de confiercette étudeM. Mazilu. 11orovose formellement aue l'examen
du rapport Je hl. hlïlilu soit reportéila ses;ioi; wiiante et que la Quesiionirai-
t2e dans le rapport soit maintenue AI'urdrc du jour de la Commission jusqu'i
ceque M. Mazilu soit en mesure de présenter lui-mêms eon rapport, et demande
que sa proposition soit mise aux voix si nécessaire.
[Par. 64-75 non reproduits)
76. M. Chernichenko, se référant au rapport de M. Mazilu
(E/CN.4/Sub.2/1989/41 et Add. l), constate que les opinions qui y sont expri-
méessont essentiellement d'ordre politique, ce qui est regrettabletantdonné CONTENTS OF THE DOSSIER 161
que la Sous-Commission s'efforce au maximum de dépolitiser sesdébats. Il
comprend la situation particulière de M. Mazilu, mais il estime qu'un rappor-
teur spécialdoit pourvoir être au-delà de certaines contingences. Par ailleurs,
sur le plan de la procédure, la Sous-Commission devrait attendre, pour exami-
ner le rapport de M. Mazilu, que la Cour internationale de Justice ait rendu
l'avis consultatif qui lui a été demandé à ce sujet.
[Par. 77-79 non reproduits]
80. [M. Türk] Le rapport de M. Mazilu (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1989/41) suscite
naturellement quelques réflexions, mais il importe d'indiquer clairement que
tout rapport doit obligatoirement être examiné en présencd eu rapporteur spé-
cial et aue les observations doivent lui êtreadressées directement. En consé-
quence,l'examen du rapport de M. Mazilu devrait être reportéà la session sui-
vante de la Sous-Commission Alaquelle il faut espérerque M. Mazilu pourra
participer.
[Par. 81-84 non reproduits]
E/CN.4/Sub.2/1989/SR.39
19 September 1989.
170. Summary Record of the 39th Meeting
Held at the Palais des Nations, Geneva,
on Friday, 1 September 1989, at 10 am.
Chairman: Mr. Yimei
18. Mr. Radu (Observer for Romania) said that under agenda item 15 (b)
the Centre for Human Rights had circulated two documents under symbols
E/CN.4/Snb.2/1989/41 and 4VAdd.l purporting to be a report presented by
the former Romanian expert Mr. Dumitru Mazilu. From a cursory perusal it
could be seen that the document was a wild, incoherent, vindictive and de-
famatory attack on a member State, and completely devoid of trutb. The most
basic standards regarding preparation and publication of documents, even in
the context of the strictestrocedures admitted bv States in the field of human
rights and by general practice, reqiiired that a text containing such allegations
against a member State, its political and social system and its leaders should be
rëiected without further action. and in no circumstances ~ublished.
-19. Romania had iniornied the Sub-Commission promprlg ihat \Ir. \lailu
had fallen ill, had rctircd on I Dccember 1987and uas no longer capable of per-
forminr saiisfactorilv thc tÿskihat hîd bcen cntrusied io hini. His medical file
had bein made avaiiable to the Centre for Human Rights.
20. The content of the so-called report and the way in which Mr. Mazilu had
interpreted his task as Special Rapporteur for human rights and youth fully
confirmed that he was in no state to carry out that task. Moreover, he was
attempting to turn his mission to political ends, which was unacceptable.
21. The fact that the Centre had accepted and worked on the text in question
- which did not constitute a report under existing criteria, but rather an at-162 PRMLEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF TH^UNITED NATIONS
temot to vilify a member State - was both surprisinc!and incomprehensible.
Itraised serio& doubts regarding the wholc ofimpartiality; in the con-
text of the çampaign waged against Romania by certain political and ideological
groups.
22. It was clcar ihat the publication of the material submitted by Mr. Mazilu
as the work of a "special rapporteur" appointed by the Sub-Commission had
serious reoercussions on the institution of "soecial ravvorteur". A vrecedent
had been created whereby that institution, whicb had i&ially been conceived as
an instrument for objective analysis of a topic of international interest, was
transformed into an oooortunitv for an indiridual to attack his own country for
reasons unrelated to ihe themi of the report. For that reason, the so-called
report must be rejected as contravening United Nations standards in the matter
and as profoundiy injurious to the ~nited Nations and its authority.
23. Without going into details, he wished to stress that al1 the derogatory
allegations levelled against Romania in the report were completely false, and
reiiected well-known calumnies fabricated and circulated bv hostile elements in
the media. The quoiations contained in the note verbale ;rom the Permanent
Mission of Romania distributed undcr symbol E/CN 4/Sub.2/1989/53 rcvealed
the differences and contradictions in M;. Mazilu's opinions before and afterthe
termination of his mandate as a member of the Sub-Commission.
24. As for Mr. Mazilu's personal circumstances, he continued to live in
retirement for health reasons and was in receipt of adecent pension. He under-
went an annual medical examination, in accordance with Romanian law, his
next examination being scheduled for November 1989. He enjoyed freedom of
movement and was living at his home in Bucharest. All references to "cap-
tivity", "disappearance", "persecution" and so forth were utterly without foun-
dation. He had twice been admitted to hospital, on both occasions during a
period when he had held a senior official post at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Both admissions to hospiral and his retirement had been at his own request.
25. The content of the so-called report, together with other "messages"
transmitted bv Mr. Mazilu. oroved that. throueh his conduct. he had become
a potential rhieat to the inteiests of the RomaGan State. ~hat fact was largely
attributable to the way in which various diplomatic missions in Bucharest had
manipulated him, despite his statî of healih. to the press campaign that had
been unlcashed. and to the fact that no account had bcen taken in the Sub-
Commission and other United Nations bodies of the officiai information madc
available by the Romanian authoriiies. rcvealing his truc state of hcalth. All
those circumsianccs had coniributed IO the prescnt situation.
26. In viewof his current condition. the functions and dulies he had excrcised
in the past, his behaviour and the wa; he was manipulated by various groups,
Mr. Mazllu's presence abroad during the current period would be prejudicial to
the Romanian State. Both national lawsand international human rinhts conven-
tions cstablished various rights and frcedoms. but also obligation; and condi-
tions under u,hich such rights could beexercised. Rightscould no1be exercised
against the security of States, public order, public morals or the rights of other
persons. Under the law of Romania -and indeed of other States- a passport
could be withheld from nationals who, by their departure abroad, might harm
the interests of the State.
27. Mr. Mazilu had not, to their knowledge, requested permission from the
Romanian authorities to go to Geneva. In other words. he had not requested
any travel document other than the diplomatic passport under which he had
travelled until his retirement in December 1987.But because of his conduct. he
was subject to the aforementioned law. The Romanian authorities thus felt CONTENTS OF THE DOSSIER 163
obliged Io identifv the possible sources of provocation in the camuainn
associated with ML . a&. On the basis of the scirniy information avai~ab~e
thus far, he wishedto stress ihat the Romanian Party had noi yer found answers
to a number of factual and procedural questions reaardina the ori~in. mepara-
rion and distribuiion of iheso-called report. ~ho,foexample, had requesied
the \eparate disiribution of an addendum eniitled "A sperial viewon the Roma-
nian case". and whv? Ev~No~~knew that no s~ecial report on vouth in Ro-
mania hadbeen rquested. The Sub-Commission must askitself one basic, clear
and simple question: was il perrnissible to use the noble idea of a report
intended as a alobal approach to a verv specific subiect in the socio-humani-
tarian field as the baiCs for distributi& 'a document which was manifestly
defamatory vis-à-visa member State, and which failed to comply with the most
basic standards and oractice in thematter?
28. His delegation requested the immediate withdrawal of documents
E/CN.4/Sub.2/1989/41 and 4UAdd.l. It was for the Sub-Commission to exa-
mine the situation, draw appropriate conclusions and act accordingly
[Paras. 29-37 not reproduced]
38. [Mr. Green (Observer for the United States of America)] Human rights
violations and disrespect for the rights of religious and ethnic minorities had
been the root cause of more suffering during the tweutieth century than the
scouree of war. The Sub-Commissioncould olav a role in reducine the numher
and siverity of abuses. It could do so by exianèing the frontiers of mankind's
common understanding of international human rights obligations and by con-
tributing to the formation of effective national; regional and international
institutions to protect human rights. It could do so also by investigating and
speaking out forcefully on the most flagrant contemporary human rights
abuses. No more glaring example of individual cases of human rights abuse
could be giventhan the treatment of the Sub-Commission's Special Rapporteur
on human rights and youth, Mr. Mazilu, by the Government of Romania. He
felt sure that the Sub-Commission would speak out forcefully in calling on
Romania to fulfd its international obligations.
[Paras. 39-44 no! reproduced]
47. [Mrs. DaeslShe noted that Mr. Mazilu had submitted a report to the Sub-
Commission and that the Sub-Commission had considered it. A maioritv of
members had commenred quiie fa\ourably on the report. and a drafi résolu;ion
on ii had been submiiied for the Sub-Commission'5 consideration. The com-
plaints of the observer for Romania were not valid or relevant. The reoort
ihould be updated and the Komanian Governmeni should enable Mr. Mazilu
to come to Geneva and present his updated report to the Sub-Commission.She
had worked on the nrotection of meiltallv-disturbed oersons inthe oast and was
conierned at allegaiion, that Mr. ~azilu.mighi be méntallyill. II wasimportant
Io avoid the administration of dmgs for political purpo5es. as the physical
and menial inteeritv of the individual could be adverselv affecied iherebv. She
trusted tbatsuch su-bstancesbad not been used on Mr. ~azilu; she would con-
tinue to follow the matter with concern.
[Paras. 48-56 no! reproduced]
57. [Mrs. Ksenrini/ Wiih reference to the report by Mr. Mazilu. sheexpressed
surprise ihat such a report should have been extended to cover conditions in a164 PRlVlLECES AND IMMUNITIESOF THE UNITED NATIONS
particular country. In her view, the Sub-Commission should not consider the
report; however. if itdecided to do so, it should study the report in conjunc-
tion with the note verbale transmitted by the Government of Romania
(E/CN.4/Sub.2/1989/53).
171. Summary Record of the first part E/CN.4/Sub.2/1989/SR.40
(public) of the 40th meeting (heldat the
Palais des Nations, Geneva, on Friday,
1 September 1989, at 3 p.m.)'
171A.Summary Record of the second part E/CN.4/Sub.Z/I989/SR.40/
of the 40th meeting (held a1the Palais Add.1
des Nations, Geneva, on Friday, 1Sep-
tember 1989, al 6.40 p.m.)'
1718. Summary Record of the third part E/CN.4/Sub.2/1989/SR.40/
(closed) of the 40th meeting (held at Add.2
the Palais des Nations, Geneva, on Fri-
day, 1 September 1989, at 8.25 p.m.)'
171C. Summary Record of the fourth part E/CN.4/Sub.2/1989/SR.40/
(public) of the 40th meeting (held at Add.3
the Palais des Nations, Geneva, on Fri-
day, 1 September 1989, at 8.45 p.m.)'
172. Statement of Mr. 1.Diaconu. the Expert from
Romania, made on 30 August 1989'
Translaled from French
Mr. Chairman.
1. Sub-Commission resolution 1985/12 of 29August 1985,entitled "Human
rinhts and youth", reauested the orevaration of "a reDort on human rights and
yiuth anal;,sing the eifort, and rncaiures for securing the implcmentaÏion and
enjoyment by youth of humati right,. parti;ularly the riphi to lifc. erlucaiion
and work". As that same resolution stated. the . .vose was "Io facilitate
discussion of the topic".
1 should like 10 recall in passing that the problems concerning youth were
~laced on the agenda of the United Nations in 1960. al the initiative of
Romania. Thai I& to the adoption in 1965of the Declarittioii on the Promotion
among Youth of the Ideals of IJeace. hlutual Respect and Under\tanding
between Peoolo. thevroclamaiion in 1985of the International Youth Year.and
the holding of a ~o;ld Conference that same year.
Documentnot reproduced. [Nole by the Regisrry.1
' This text was communicatedto the Officeof LegalAffairs from the Centre for
HumanRights.The Sumrnory Records inwhichilappears arena1yetavailable. CONTENTS OF THE DOSSIER 165
2. What was required, in the Sub-Commission's view, was a report by suhject
or topic, as in the case of many reports on other subjects.
The Sub-Commission drew up rules and guidelines governing the nature and
content of such reports.
In resolution B, contained in its report of 5 February 1954 (E/CN.4/
Sub.2/157) on the future study of (liscrimination in the field of educatiou, the
Sub-Commission decided as follows:
(a) Under the heading "Production ofa report", the Sub-Commission stated
that :
"(i) it should he undertaken on a global basis and with respect Io al1the
groundsof discrimination condemned by the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, but special attention should be given to instances of
discrimination that are typical of general tendencies and instances
where discrimination has been successfully overcome;
(ii) the report should be factual and objective and should deal with the
de facto as well as the dejure situation regarding discrimination in
education ;
(iii) the report should point out the general trend and development of
legislation and practices with regard to discrimination in education;
(iv) the report should also point out the factors which in each instance
have led to the discriminatory practices, pointing out those which are
economic, social, political or historic in character and those resulting
from a policy evidently intended to originale, maintain or aggravate
such practices;
(v) the report should he drawii up not only to serve as a hasis forthe Sub-
Commission's recommendations, but also with a view to educating
world opinions ;
(vi) in drawing up the report, full advantage should be taken of the con-
clusions already reached with respect to discrimination by other
bodies of the United Nations or by the specialized agencie~.~
(b) Under the heading "Melhod of Production", it stated that:
"(i) A special rapporteur shall draw up a draft report along the lines laid
down in paragraph (a),bearing in mind the observations made in the
debates by members of the Sub-Commission during ils fifth and sixth
sessions ..."
As to setting a deadline, the Sub-Commission stated:
"Should he fail to complete his work for that date, he shall suhmit a pro-
gress report in which he shall give an account of the material assembled and
of the methods adopted or which he intends to adopt in carrying out his
work.
In addition to the material and information which he is able to collect
and which he shall embodv in his reuort in the form of an analysis, the
special rapporteur shall inci~de su:h ;uncliirion, and proposal5 3rhc ma).
~udg-~proper IO eiiable [lieSub-Commissionio make re:ommendaiions lor
action."
The Suh-Commission decided that those guidelines would apply, mulotis mu-
tandis, to subsequent studies and reports.
Thus, in resolution C, contained in its report of 31 January 1956 (E/CN.4/
Sub.2/177), the Sub-Commission stated, with regard to further studies
entrusted to some of its members:166 PRIVUEGES AND IMMUN~TIESOF THE UN~D NATIONS
"2. Uecid~smoreovcr thai the Special Rapporteurs, in carrying oui thesc
studies.shall be guided. as appropriate, by the gencral instructionr in ihe
resolution concehg the st"dy of discrimination in the matter of educa-
tion adopted by the Sub-Commission."
In short, such reports or studiesshould deal with the question on a global basis,
should be factual and obiective. should indicate eeneral tendencies and the fac-
tors underlying those teidencies and their natu;, and should serve as a basis
for the recommendations while taking full advantage of the conclusions already
reached bv United Nations bodies. The method indicated had been desiened -o
ensure the implementation of those guidelines.
3. With reaard to the various thematic studies or reports, the problem of
country studi;r on cach subjeci had already arisen during the ).vars-1958-1964.
For ihe report on diïcriminaiion in religious rights and practices. more than 50
country studies were drawn up and were sent to Governments for their com-
ments. The Sub-Commission took no decision with regard to their publication.
The question was submitted to the Economic and Social Council which, in its
resolution 664 (XXIV)of 1957, decided:
"That wiih regard to the programme of studies of discrimination on
which the Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discriminaiion and the
Proiecrion of Minoriiies is engaged, the country repons utilized in the
preparation of these studies be nor normally issued as documents."
Therefore. ifa rapporteur utilizes country siudies. he should firsi bcgin wiih
studies conserning a large number of countries.
Secondls. such siudies should not normally be oublished as documents, in
order not i6 infringe the aforementioned resoÏution'of the Economic and Social
Council. Any exception to this rule should be approved by the Council itself
and. of course. involve studies relatinx to a number of countries.
4: ~owever; what the Secretariat his distribnted as a report nnder agenda
item 15 (b) is in no way in keeping with those guidelines.
It is not a study made on a global basis, with consideration of the situation
in al1countries. It repeatedly refers to one country; it does not indicate general
tendencies, nor is it factual and objective.
The report contains a list of defamatorv statements and accusationsrenardinn
one coun.try. its interna1policy and its poliiical and social syrte- allegations
so fanciful and irrational ihat Ido not even sce fitio make any comments. Even
before the oreoaration of the oaoer. those alleeations had been soread bv the
radio and Gh& media of certain Circieswhich had launched a political campaign
against Romania, a campaign having nothing to do with human rights. The
oaoer is clearlv oart of thatcamoaien.
?he sosall~d'addendum reveals &en more clearly the political campaign
objectives which determined the content of the paper and led Io its distribution,
in "iolation of the aforementioned Council resolution,
Similarly, the paper contains a whole series of insulting and abusive expres.
sions which wehave rejeiied e\en in Ouroral staiements. Under the confidenrial
orosedure set fonh in Coiincil resolution 1503IX'VIIIJ. c..munications con-
iaining abusive language are inadmissible.
That is al1 the more reason why a study or report submitted to the Sub-
Commission should meet such a requirement.
In the final analysis, except foa few passages, the paper is a political tract,
a collection of slogans.
It suffices to compare the paper with al1the reports and studies submitted to CONTEN'CS OF THB DOSSIER 167
It suffices to compare the paper with al1the reports and studies submitted to
the Sub-Commission, such as the reports prepared by Mrs. Daes on the
individual and international law, by Mr. Eide on racial discrimination, by
Mr. van Boven on religious freedoms, by Mrs. Warzazi on traditional practices,
and many others.
None of those reoorts was based on the ranor.teur's nersonal viewreeard0ne -
the situation in a particular country, whether his or her own or another;
none of them is a collection of slog-ns or the expression of a biased oolitical
philosophy.
5. The paper in question does not meet the requirements for the preparation
of reoorts and studies to be submitted to the Suh-Commission.
II doe, not help us. and iiis likrlyIOembarras, many member of the Sub-
Commir\ion and jeopardi~r thai body's credibiliiy. Itrîprcsenrs a distortion of
the concept of reports and studies on human rights, since it pursues other
objectives.
Thus, many questions arise in this regard:
(O) Was it not the responsibility of the Centre for Human Rights to ensure
that the papers which it circulated as reports or studies were in keeping with the
guidelines laid down hy the Sub-Commissionregarding the nature and content
of such reports or studies?
lb) As is well known. it is the standard oractice of the Commission on Hu-
man Rights to send thecommentaries regarding individual States contained in
thematic reports to the States concerned for their observations which are
reflected in the report.
Why did the Secretariat not deem it necessary, in this case, to solicit theom-
ments of the Member State concerned?
(c)If the Centre for Human Rights was aware of those guidelines and had the
obligation to adhere to them, why did it circulate the paper in this form?
(d) Question for the Sub-Commission :
It is ahsolutely necessary to reaffirm the guidelines laid down hy the Sub-
Commission on the nature, content and format of reports or studies submitted
to it, on the hasis of the guidelines laid down in the years 1954-1960.
A11rapporteurs, as well as the Centre for Human Rights, should adhere to
those guidelines, so that we are no longer obliged to consider papers unworthy
of that name.
-
173. Statement of the Under-Secretary-General for
Human Rights, hlade on 30 August 1989'
Mr. Chairman, distinguished members,
In my capacity as the representative of the Secretary-General, I do not feel
it would be useful or appropriate to engage in a lengthy debate on the issue
raised by the expert from Romania. My observations with regard to the Special
Rapporteur appointed by the Sub-Commission to prepare a report on Human
Rights and Youth are on record in the statements 1made before this body in
1987, 1988and again this year as well as the Secretary-Generai's report on the
issue in E/CN.4/1989/69.
' This tex1was communicatedta the Officeof LegalAffairs from the Centrefor
HumanRights. The Surnrnary Records in which it appearsare not yetavailable.168 PRIVaEOES AND QlMUNlTlE OSF THE UNITED NATIONS
I will therefore not rehearse anain the detailed historv of this case. The orin-
ciple at stake, of course, is of Geat significance and will be considered b; the
community of nations' highest legal body. the International Court of Justice.
But 1believe that some of the remarks just made, as well as in the note ver-
bale from the Permanent Mission of the Socialist Republic of Romania.
E/CN.4/Sub.2/1989/53, denote a rnisapprehension of the concer>tof an inter-
national civilservice, and of the respon;ibilities which that service impliIris
axiomatic that an international Secretariat such as ours must at al1 times be
neutral. factual. obiective and unbiased. We are nuided hy the Durposes and
principles laiddown in the Charter and, to recali its ~rtiile 100, are strictiy
enjoined from paying any heed to governments or to any other authority exter-
na1 to the Organization.
Our priority task is to implement - fully. faithfully and effectivel- the
mandates given us by the intergovernmental or expert bodies such as this.
Such neutralitv is of course no facile eoal nor simole code. but rather a con-
stant challengeto the members of the inïernational &il service. It is one which
my colleagues and 1in the Centre for Human Rights exert Our best efforts to
meet. ~nd it is a challenge which has always lak at the heart of the United
Nations endeavour for peace, justice and human dignity. As a compatriot of
mine and the second Secretary-General - Dag Hammarskjold - noted some
28 years ago:
"At thr final last. ihis is a quc5tion of integriiy, and if intrgriiy in [lie
rense 01respect for lawand respect for truih ucre io drivc ihc iniernarional
civil servant into ~osiiions 01 conflici wiih this or ihai intcreri. ihrn th31
conflict isa signof his neutrality and not of his failure to observe neutrality
- then il is in line, not in conflict with his duties as an international civil
servant.''
174. Draft resolution submitted by Mr. van E/CN.4/Sub.2/1989/L.58
Boven, Ms Daes, Mr. Eide, Mr. Fix-
Zamudio, Mr. Hatano, Mr. Ilkahanaf,
Mr. Joinet, Ms Palley, Mr. Treat and
Mr. Varela. The report on human rights
and youth presented by Mr. Dumitru
Mazilu '
E/CN.4/Sub.2/1989/L.I 1/Add.7
13 September 1989.
175. Draft Report on the Forty-first Session
Rapporleur: Mr. Ribot Hatano
Resolution 1989/45. The Report on Human Rights and Youth Prepared
by Mr. Dumitru Mazilu
The Sub-Commissionon Prevenrion of Discrimination and Prolecrion of
Minorilies,
' Documentno1reproduced.[Nore by rheRegisrry.J170 PRIVILEOE ASND IMMUNlTIE OSP THE UNITED NATIONS
4. Requests the Secretary-General to continue to gather and furnish to
Mr. Mazilu information relatina to his studv, and to orovide Mr. Mazilu with
al1the assistance he might needin updating-his repori, including consultations
with the Centre for Human Rights;
5. Expresses ils deep concern at the reports of the personal situation of
Mr. Mazilu and his family and requests the Secretam-General to follow closely
the persona1situation of Mr. Mazilu and his family in order that he informs the
Special Raooorteur on the human rinhts of United Nations staff members. ~~~,
eXpcrrsand ~heirramilies accordingly;and requesls this Special Rapporteur to
report to the Sub.Commission on this matler at ils forty.sccond session. and to
vresent throunh the Secretarv-General a note to the commission ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ights, at itsfony-sixth session, on the situation of Mr. Mazilu;
6. Decides to consider the updated report on human rinhts and vouth at its
forty-second session under its agenda item "Promotion, and restora-
tion of human rights at national, regional and international levels".
40th meeting
1 September 1989
[Adopted by 12votes to 4, with
2 abstentions. See Chap. XVl.]
2. Press Releoses Published by the United Notions
Deportment of Public Informotion
176. Human rights Sub-Commission con- HR/CN/84
cludes debate on right to leave any coun-
try, 28 August 1989'
177. Human rights Sub-Commission re- HR/CN/93
ceivesreports on protection of minorities
and United Nations staff members, 6
Seotemher 1989'
178. Human righis Sub-Commission ends HR/CN/94
session ai Geneva. 7 Scptcmber 1989'
179. Sub-Commission on Prevention of HR/CN/95
Discrimination and Protection of
Minorities concludes ifs forty-first ses-
sion at Geneva, 8 September 1989'
Document na1reproduced. [Note by the Regirrry.1
Requête pour avis consultatif (y compris le dossier de documents transmis à la Cour en vertu du paragraphe 2 de l'article 65 du Statut)