Summaries of Judgments, ANot an official documenters of the Internationa
l Court of Justice
APPLICABILITY OFAR'I'ICLE VI,SECTION22,OFTElECONVENTION ONTHE
PRIVILEGES ANDIMM~ITIES OFTH~UNITEDNATIONS
AdvisoryOpinionof15 December 1989
The Court delivereda unanimousAdvisc~ryOpinionon The Court was composed as follows:President Ruda;
thequestion concerningthe ApplicabiyfArticleVI, Sec- JudgesLachs, Elias, Oda, Ago. Schwebel, JenninBed-
tion22, of the Conventiononthe PrivilegesandImmunitiesjaoui, Ni, Evensen, Tarassov, Guillaume, Shahabuddeen
of the UnitedNations. That opinionhad beenrequestedby andPathak.
the United Nationsconomicand SocialCouncilunderits JudgesOda, Evenr;enandShahabuddeenappendedsepa-
resolution 1989175of 24 May 1989,of whichthe integral rateopinionstotheAdvisoryOpinion.
textis asfollows:
"The Economic andSocial Council, *
"Having consideredresolution 1988137' 1 Septem- * *
ber 1988of the Sub-commissionon Preventionof Dis-
criminationand Protectionof MinoritiesandCommis-
sion on Human Rights resolution 1989137of 6 March I. (paras. 1-26)oceedingsandSummaryofFacts
1989.
" 1. Concludesthat a differencehas arisen between The Courtoutlinesthe successivestagesof the proceed-
the UnitedNations and theGovernmentof Romaniaasto ingsbeforeit (paras.-8)andthen summarizesthefactsof
the applicabilityof the Conventionon the Privilegesandecase(paras.9-26). Ariefsurveyofthosefactswillnow
ImmunitiesoftheUnitedNations [GeneralAssemblyres- bepresented.
olution22 A (I)]tor. Dumitru MaziluasSpecial Rap- On 13March1984theCommissiononHumanRights-a
porteurofthe Sub-CommissiononPreventionofDiscrim- subsidiary organof the EconomicandSocialCouncil(here-
inationandProtectionofMinorities; inaftercalled"the~incil"),createdbyitin 1946inaccord-
"2. Requests,on a prioritybasis,pursuantto ArticlencewithArticles55(c)and68oftheCharterofthe United
96,paragraph2, ofthe CharteroftheUnitedNationsand Nations-electedMr. DumitruMazilu,aRomaniannational
inaccordancewithGeneralAssemblyresolution89(I)of nominatedby Romania, to serveas a memberof the Sub-
11December1946,anadvisory opinionfro:m theInterna- commissiononPreventionofDiscrimination andProtection
tionalCourtofJusticeonthe legal questionoftheapplica-fMinorities-a subsidiaryorgansetupin 1947bytheCom-
bilityof ArticleVI,Section22, oftheConventiononthe mission on Human Rights (hereinafter called "the
Rivileges and Immunitiesof the UnitedPiationsin the Commissionw)-for a three-year term dueto expire on 31
caseof Mr.DumitruMaziluas SpecialRapporteur ofthe Sub-commissionon Preventionof DiscriminationandPm-e
Sub-Commission." tection of Minorities (hereinafter called"the Sub-
Inreplyto thequestionput toit, theCourt:expressedtheComlnission")topaydueattentiontotheroleofyouthinthe
opinionthat ArticleVI, Section22,oftheConventiononthe field of human rights, the Sub-Commissionat itsirty-
Rivileges andImmunitiesof theUnited Nationsis applica-eighth session adopted on 29 August 1985 resolution
bleinthe caseofMr.Dumitru Maziluasaspecialrapporteur 1985112whereby it n:questedMr. Mazilu to "prepare a
oftheSub-CommissiononPreventionofDiscriminationand reporton humanrightsand youthanalysing theeffortsand
ProtectionofMinorities. measuresforsecuringtheimplementationandenjoymentby
Continued on next pageyouthof humanrights, particularly,the rightto life, educa-charestwas unable tolocateMr. Mazilu.On 15August
tionand work" andrequeskd the Secretary-Generaltopro- 1988, the Sub-Commission adopteddecision 19881102.
videhimwith all necessaryassistancefortlrecompletionof wherebyitrequestedthe Secretary-General
his task. "to establish contactwith the Governmentof Romania
Thethirty-ninthsessionoftheSub-Comn~issicm a,twhich and to bring to the Government's attentionthe Sub-
Mr.Mazilu'sreportwasto be presented,wasnot convened commission's urgent needto establish personal contact
in 1986 as originallyschetluledbut was postponed until with its Special RapporteurMr. DumitruMaziluand to
1987. The three-yearmanclateof its members-originally convey the requestthatthe Governmentassistin locating
due to expire on 31 Dece:lmber1986-was extended by Mr.Mazilu andfacilitateavisittohimbyamemberofthe
Councildecision19871102 :foranadditionalyear.Whenthe Sub-Commission and thesecretariatto help him in the
thirty-ninth sessionof the Sub-Commission openedin completionofhisstudy onhumanrightsandyouthifhe so
Genevaon 10August 1987 noreporthadbeenreceived from wished".
Mr. Mazilu,norwashe present.Bya letterreceivedby the The Under-Secretary-Generalfor Human Rights informed
UnitedNations OfficatGenevaon 12August1987,thePer- the Sulb-Commissionon 17 August 1988that, in contacts
rnanent Missionof Romania tothat officeinformedit that betwen theSecretary-General'OfficeandtheChargBd'af-
Mr.Maziluhadsufferedah~:ia-t-attacakndwasstillinhospi- faires of the RomanianPermanentMissionto the United
tal. Accordingto the writaenstatementof the:Secretary- NationsinNewYork, he had beentoldthatthepositionofthe
General, a telegramsigned "D. Mazilu" was receivedin RomanianGovernmentwas that any interventionby the
Geneva on 18 August 1987 and informed the Sub- UnitedNations Secretariatand anyformof investigationin
current session. In these circumstances, the Sub-tendtheintern;alaffairs.On1September1988,the Sub-Commission
1987, whereby it deferred considerationof item 14 of itsthe Segretary-Generalto approachonce more the Govern-d
agenda-under whichthe n:portonhumanrightsandyouth mentofRomaniaandinvoke theapplicabilityofthe Conven-
wast~havebeendiscussed--until itsfortieth sessionsched- tionon thePrivilegesandImmunitiesof theUnitedNations
uledfor 1988.Notwithstandingthescheduledexpirationon (hereinaftercalled "the GeneralConvention");and further
31December1987of Mr. NIazilu'stermas.a memberofthe requestedhim,intheeventthattheGovernmentofRomania
Sub-Commission,thelatterincludedreferencetoareportto did not concurin the applicabilityof the provisionsof that
be submittedby him, identifiedby name, undertheagenda Conventioninthatcase, to bringthedifferencebetweenthe
item "Preventionof discrilminationand p1:otectionof chilUnitedNationsandRomaniaimmediatelytotheattentionof
dren", andenteredtherep]% under thetit1.e"Humanrigha the Commissionin 1989.It alsorequested theCommission,
and youth"inthe "Listofstudiesandrepo1.tsnderprepara- inthatevent,tourgetheCouncil
tionbymembersofthe Sub-Commission inaccordancewith 90 quest, inaccordancewith~~~~~~~ l ~ ~ ~ ~eslolu-
theexistinglegislativeauthority". tion 89 (I) of 11December1946,from theInternational
After the thirty-ninth sessioneSub-Commission,the Corn ofJusticeanadvisoryopinionontJheapplicabilityof
CentreforHumanRightsofthe UnitedNationsSecretariatin therelevantprovisionsoftheConventiononthePrivileges,
Geneva made variousatterrlptstocontaMr. Mazilutopro- and Immunitiesof the United Nationsto the presentcase
vide him withassistancei.nthe preparatilonof his report, and withinthescopeofthepresentresolution".
including arranginga visitto Geneva.nDect:mber1987, Pulsuantto that resolutionthe Secretary-General,on 26
Mr. ~azilu informed the Under-Secretary-lGene forl
HumanRightsthathehadnotreceivedthe.previouscommu- ~~~~~~~~~i~~,ofd~~~~i~ to the united ~~~i~~~inmaN~~t
nications of the Centre. In January 1988,Mr. Mazilu York,inwhichheinvokedtheGeneralConventioninrespect
informedhimthathehadbeentwiceinhospitalin 1987and ofM, ~ ~ i l ~andrequestedthe ~~~~i~ G~~~~~~~~ to
that he ken forced to.retiras of accordMr.Mazilu thenecessaryfacilitiesinordetoenable
from his variousgoveme~ntalposts. He t~lsostated thathe him to completehis assignedtask.As no reply had been
waswillingtotraveltoGen:evaforconsultations,butthatthe meived to thatN~~~ verbale, theUn&r-Secretary-General
Romanianauthoritieswere:refusinghima.trav1~p1ermit. In for*urnan ~i~h~ on 19 be^ 1988wrote a letteof
AprilandMay 1988, Mr. IMazilu,ina seriesof lettefur- remindertothepermanent~~~~~~~~~~i~ of~~~~~i~ tothe
therdescribedhis personalsituation;inparticulru,heallegeunited ~~~i~~offic atG ~ ~ ~ in~,hichhe askedthatthe
thathe hadrefusedto complywiththerequestaddressed to ~~~~~i~ G~~~~~~~~assistinarrangingfor ~ ~ i l ~to
himon 22February1988 a cOn~ssion fromthe visit Geneva so that he could discusswith the Centre for
Romanian MinistryofForeignAffairsvoluntarjlytodecline ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ i ~ assistanceit mightgivehiminpreparing
to submithisreportto the !Sub-Commissicand, moreover, his on 6 J~~~~~ 1989thepermanent ti^^
consistently complained that strong pnssure had been of ~~~~i~ handed to the hgal counsel of the united
exertedonhimandon his family. Nationsan Aide-MBmoire inwhichwasset forththeRoma-
On 31 December 1987the termsof all membersof the nianGovernment'spositionconcerning Mr.Mazilu.Onthe
Sub-Commission,including Mr. Mazilu, expired as has factsofthecase, RomaniastatedthatMr. Mazilu,whohad
alreadybeenindicated.On 29 February1988he Commis- notpreparedorproduced anything othesubjectentrustedto
sion, upon nomination kf their respective Oovetnments, him,hadin 1987becomegravelyill;thathehadhadrepeat-
electednewmembersof th.~Sub-Comtnis~iionong whom edlynogointohospital;thathehad,athisownquest, been
wasMr.IonDiaconu,aRomaniannational. placedontheretiredlistongroundsofill-healthforaninitial
All the rapporteursndlspecial rapporteurs of the Sub- periodof one year, in accordancewithRomanianlaw; and
Commissionwere invited.toattend its fortierhsession (8 thatretirementhad beenextended afterhhad beenfurther
August-2 September1988),but Mr. Mxziluyain did not exmined byasimilarpanelofdoctors.Onthelaw,Romania
appear. A special invitationwas cabled to him, to go to expressedthe view that "the problemof the applicationof
Geneva to present his report, but the telegramswere not theGeneralConvention[did]notariseinthiscase". It went
delivered and the UnitedlNations Information Centrein on to explain,inter alia, that the Convention "doesnot
205equate rapporteurs,whose activitiesare only occasional, gestiveof the Council's intention th, avingrefed to a
withexpertsonmissionsforthe United Nations";that"even "difference", it "tlhendid not attetohave thatdifference
if rapporteursregiven someof the statusof experts, .. . as a whole resolvedby the question it addressedto the
theycan enjoy onlyfunctional immunitiesandprivileges"; Court", but "merely addressedapreliminarylegal question
thatthe"privilegesand immunitiesprovide:dbytheConven- totheCourt".
tion begin to apply only atthe moment when the expert
leaveson a journey connectedwith the pe:rformanceof his In. Competence su th eourttogiveanAdvisory Opinion
mission"; andthat "in the countryof whichhe is a national (paras.28-36)
respectofactualactivitie...lwhichhepelformsinconnec-in TheCourt beginsbypointing outthat the present request
tionwithhismission". Moreover,Romaniitstatedexpressly foradvisoryopinionisthefirstrequestmadebytheCouncil,
thatitwasopposed toarequestforadvisory opinion from the pursuantto paragraph 2of Article96of the Charter. Itgoes
Courtof any'kindinthiscase. Similarcontc.,ntioserealso on to notethat, in itccordancewiththatprovision,the Gen-
putforwardinthewrittenstatementpresentedbyRomaniato eralAssembly,by itsresolution89(I)of 11December1946,
the Court. authorizedthe Council torequest advisory opinionsof the
COWonlegalquestionsarisingwithinthe scopeofitsactiv-
1989137r,ecommendingthattheCouncilpterecluestanadvisoryon ities.Then,havingconsideredthequestionwhichis the sub-
opinion from the COG. The Council o~i24 May 1989 jectoftherequest,the Courttakestheview,firstly,thatit isa
adoptedits resolution 1989175,by which it requestedthe legd questioninthatitinvolvestheinterpretationof aninter-
Courttorenderanopinion. nationalconventiorlin order to determine its applicability
and,moreover,thatitisaquestionarisingwithinthescopeof
The Court has also been informed by the Secretary- theactivitiesoftheCouncil, asr.Mazilu's assignmenw t as
Generalof the following eventswhichhave occurredsince thetSub-Commissio.non,fwhichhewasappointedspecialrap
HumanRightsandYouthpreparedbyMr.Maziluwascircu-rt on porteur,is a subsidiary organof the Commission whichis
lated asadocumentoftheSub-Commission bearing thedate itselfa subsidiaryorganofthe Council.
10July 1989;thetextof this reporthad beentransmittedby
Mr. Mazilu tothe Centre forHumanRightsthroughvarious "cannotfindthat itliasjurisdictiontogiveanadvisoryopin-
channels.On8August1989,theSub-Commissiondecided, ion" in this case, the Courtthen considers itsarguments.
inaccordancewithitspractice,toinviteMr. Mazilutoparti- Romaniaclaimsthat, becauseofthereservationmadebyitto
cipatein the meetings at which hseportwasto be consid- Section30 of the General Convention,the UnitedNations
ered: no replywasreceived tothe invitationextended.By a cannot, without Romania's consent, submita request for
Note Verbaledated15August 1989fromthePermanentMis- advisory opinionin respectof its differencewithRomania.
sion of Romaniato the United Nations Office at Geneva The reservation,iti.ssaid, subordinatesthe competenceof
addressedto that office, the PermanentMission referredto the Courtto "deal with any dispute thatmay have arisen
"the so-called report" byMr. Mazilu, expressed surprise betweenthe UnitedNations andRomania, includinga dis-
"that themedicalopinionsmadeavailableto the Centrefor pute within the frameworkoftheadvisoryprocedure,"tothe
HumanRights . ..havebeenignored" andindicated,inter consentofthepartiestothe dispute.Romaniapointsout that
alia, that sincebecomingill in 1987,Mr. Maziludid not it did not agree thatan opinion should be requestof the
"possess the intellectual capacity necessary r akingan Courtin the presentcase.
objective, responsibleanunbiasedanalysisthatcould serve Section30oftheGeneralConventionprovidesthat:
as the substanceofareport consistentwithlherequirements "All differenas arising out of the interpretationor
of the United Nations". On 1 September 1989, theSub- applicationof the present convention shallbefed to
Commission adoptedresolution 1989145entitled "The the International Court ofJustice, unlessin anycase it is
Mazilu" bywhich,notingthatMr.Mazilu'sreporthad beenru agreedby thepartiesto haverecourseto anothermode of
prepared in difficult circumstancesand that the relevant settlement. If a difference arises between the United
informationcollectedbythe Secretary-Genetalappearednot Nations on theonehandanda Memberonthe otherhand,
to havebeendelivered to him, it invitedhimto present the a requestshall be made for an advisory opinionon any
report in personto the Sub-commissionati.tsnextsession, legal questioninvolvedin accordancewithArticle% of
andalsorequestedthe Secretary-Generatlocontinueprovid- the Charterandkticle 65oftheStatuteofthe Court. The
ingMr. Maziluwithalltheassistancehe mightneedinupdat- opiniongivenbytheCourtshallbe acceptedasdecisiveby
ing his report, including consultationswith the Centrefor theparties."
HumanRights. Thereservationcontained inRomania's instrumenotfacces-
siontothatConventioniswordedasfollows:
U. The QuestionLaidbeforetheCourt "The Romaniar~ People'sRepublicdoes not consider
(para.27) itselfboundbythe termsof Section30ofthe Convention
whichprovideforthecompulsoryjurisdiction ofthe Inter-
TheCourtrecallsthetermsofthequestion].aidbeforeitby nationalCourt indifferencesarisingoutof the interpreta-
the Council. Itpointsout that,in his writtenstatement,the tionor applicationof the Convention;withrespecto the
Secretary-Generalemphasized that the Coi~ncil'srequest competenceofthe:InternationaCl ourtinsuchdifferences,
relatedtotheapplicabilityofSection22ofthe:Conventionin theRomanian Peojplels.Republitakes theviewthat, for
thecaseof Mr. Mazilu,but notto "the consequencesofthat thepurposeofthesubmissionofanydisputewhatsoever to
applicability,hat is.. .[thequestionofJ vvhatprivileges theCourtfor aruling, the consentof allthe partiesto the
andimmunities Mr.Mazilu might enjoyasanesultofhissta- disputeis requiredinevery individualcase.This reserva-
tus and whether ornotthesehad beenviolated". The Court tionisequallyapplicabletotheprovisionscontainedinthe
moreover notesthat, duringtheoralproceedings, therepre- said sectionwhichstipulates thattheadvisory opinionof
sentativeof the Secretary-Generalobservedtha itt wassug- the InternationalCourtistobeacceptedasdecisive." The Courtbeginsbyreferringto itsearlierjurisprudence, Courtthatthisdifference,ndthequestionputtotheCourtin
malling that the consentof Statesis nota conditionprece- the lightofit, isnottobeconfused withthe disputebetween
dent to its competenceunderArticle96 of'the Charterand theUnited Nations and Romaniwa ithrespecttotheapplica-
Article65of theStatuteto giveadvisoryopinions,although ' tion of the GeneralConventionin the case of Mr. Mazilu.
whenthe requestforan opiinionis seenas relatingto a legal son" torefusean advisoryopinion,and decidesto replyto
questionpending betweentheUnitedNatioinsandaMember the legal question on which such an opinion has been
State. TheCourtthen notesthat Section 30of the General requested.
Convention operateson a different planeand in a different
contextfrom thatof Article96 of the Charters, whenthe V. Meaning of Article VI, Section22, of the General
provisionsof that Sectionrereadintheir totality,it isclear Convention
that their objectis to providea disputese:ttlenlentmecha- (paras.40-52)
nism.IftheCourthad been seisedwithaquest foranadvi-
sory opinion underSation 30,itwouldofcow have The GeneralConventioncontainsan Article VI entitled
had toconsideranyreservationwhicha partyto thedispute "Exprts on MissionsfortheUnitedNations", dividedinto
hadmadeto thatSection.However,inthe presentcase, the sections.Section22providesas follows:
CourtrecallsthattheCouncil'sresolutioncontainednorefer- '"Experts(otherthanofficialscomingwithinthe scope
ence toSection30 and considers thatit is evidentfromthe of ArticleV)performingmissionsfortheUnitedNations
dossierthat, inviewof theexistenceof the Romanianreser- shallbe accorded suchprivilegesand immunitiesas are
vation,it wasnotthe intentionof the Counciltalinvoke that necessaryfor the independentexerciseof their functions
Section.TheCourtfindsthat therequestwasnot madeunder during the periodof their missions,including the time
Section30andthatitaccorclinglydoesnotneedtodetermine spent on journeysin connectionwith their missions.In
theeffectoftheRomanian~eservation tothat provision. particular,theyshallbeaccorded:
Romaniahas,however, c:ontendedinteralia that "(a) immunity from personalarrestor detentionand
froinseizureoftheirpersonal baggage;
or the UnitedNations,night ask for disputes concerning
the applicationor interpretationof the Conventionto be donebytheminthecourseofthepokperfom~ancenoftheirmis-
brought before the Courton a basisotherthantheprovi- sion, immunity fromlegal process of every kind. This
sionsof Section30of theConvention, thatwoulddisrupt immunityfromlegalprocessshallcontinuetobeaccorded
theunityofthe Convention,byseparatir~gthe:substantive notwithstandingthat thepersonsconcernedare no longer
provisions from those irelatingto dispute settlement, employedonmissionsfortheUnited Nations;
whichwouldbe tantamountto a modificationof thecon-
tent and extent ofthe olsligationsentered intoby States "(c) inviolabilityforallpapers and documents;
whentheyconsentedto ttboundbytheConvention." "(d) forthepurposeoftheircommunicationswiththe
United Nations,the right to use codes and to receive
TheCburtrecallsthatthenatureandPurposeofthePresent papersorcorrespondencebycourierorinsealedbags;
bilityofapartofthe GeneralConvention,;andnotthebring-- "(e) the same facilities in respect of currency or
ing of a disputebeforethe Court for determination. Itadds foEignge restrictioonare officialmissions;vsf
thatthe"content andextent,oftheobligationsenteredinby
States"-and, inparticular,byRomania-,"when they con- "0 the same immunities andfacilitiesin respectof
sentedto be boundby theC:onventionW an: not modifiedby their personal baggage as are accorded to diplomatic
therequestandbythepresent advisoryopinion. envoys."
The 0m't considersfirstwhat is meant by ''ex~rts on
TheCourtthusfindsthatthereservationmadebyRomania R~~SS~O~Sfor thepurposesof Section22 andnotesthat the
Courfs juridiction toenteirtaintherequestsubmittedtoit. Gened Conventiongivesno definitionof "expertson mis-
sions". FromSection22it isclear,firstlythattheofficialsof
the Organization, evenif chosen in considerationof their
IV. ProprietyoftheCourtgivingan opi;;ion technical expertisein a particular fieldnot includedin
(paras.37-39) thecategoryofexpertswithin the meaningofthatprovision;
Whiletheabsenceof theconsentof Romania to the pro- and secondlythatonlyexperts performingmissionsfor the
ceedingsbeforetheCourtcan havenoefft:cton itsjuridic- Organizationarecoveredby Section 22. This Section does
tion, the Court findsthat thisasmatterto be considered not, however,furnishanyindicationof the nature, duration
whenexaminingtheproprietyof its givingan opinion.The orplaceofthesemissions.Nordothetravauxpr4paratoires
Court hasrecognizedin its earlierjurisprudence,interalia, provideanymoreguidancein this respect.TheCourt finds
thatin "certain circumstance... thelaclrofconsentof an that the purpose of Section 22 is neverthelessevident,
interestedStatemayrenderthegivingofan anadvisoryopin- namely,to enable theUnited Nationsto entrustmissionsto
ionincompatiblewiththeC:ourt'sjudicialc:hm:terWandhas personswhodonothave thestatusofan officialoftheOrgan-
observedthatan"instanceofthiswouldbewhenthecircum- izationandtoguaranteethem"suchprivilegesand immuni-
stancesdisclosethatto giveareplywouldhavetheeffectof ties aare necessaryfor the independent:exerciseof their
circumventing theprinciplethat a State is not obligedto functions". TheCourtnotesthatinpractice, accordingtothe
allowits disputestoesubmittedtojudicirllsettlementwith- infonmationsuppliedby the Secretary-Gt.neral,the United
outitsconsent". TheCourtconsidersthatiinthe:presentcase Nations hashad occasionto entrustmissions-increasingly
to give a reply would have no such efftxt. Certainly the variedinnature-to personsnothaving thestatusof United
Council,initsresolution1989175d, idconcludethatadiffer- Nations officials. Such persons have been entrusted with
encehadarisen between theUnitedNationsandtheGovern- mediation,with preparingreports, preparingstudies, con-
ment of Romania as to the applicabilityof the Conven- ductinginvestigationsor finding andestablishing facts.In
tion... to Mr.Dumitruhlazilu. Itnoneth.elesseemstothe addition,manycommittees,commissionsor similar bodies
207whosemembersserve,notasrepresentativesofStates,butin enjoy these functionalprivilegsndimmunitieswhetheror
a personalcapacity, havebeen set up wiithinthe Organiza- nottheytravel;andthatthoseprivilegesandimmunitiesmay
tion. In all these cases,the practiceof the United Nationbeinvoked asagainstthe Stateofnationalityorofresidence
shows thatthe personsso appointed,and in particularthe unlessareservatic~tnoSection22ofthe GeneralConvention
membersof these committeesand commissions,have been hasbeenvalidlyrnadebythat State.
regardedas expertson missionswithinthemeaningof Sec-
tion 22. VI. ApplicabilityofArticleVI.Sectio22, oftheGeneral
The Courtthen turns its attentionto the meaningof the Conventionto Special Rapporteursof the Sub-
phrase "during the period of their missions, includingthe Commissiora
time spentonjourneys",whichispartofthatSection.Inthis (paras.53-55)
connectionthe question arises whether "expertson mis-
sions" =covered by Section 22 only during missions Having emphasizedthatthe situationofrapporteursofthe
rrequirintravelorwhethertheyare alsocoveredwhenthere ofrapporteursingeneralandisthusoneofimportanceforthe
is no such travelor apart from suchtrav,el.Toanswer this wholeoftheUnitedNationssystem,the Courtnotesthaton
question,the Court considersit necessaryto determine the 28 March 1947, the Council decided that the Sub-
meaningof the word "mission" in Engli.shand missionin commission would be composedof 12 eminentpersons,
French,the two languagesin whichthe GeneralConvention designatedby name,subjecttotheconsentoftheirrespective
wasadopted.Initially,thewordreferredtoataskentrustedto national governments,and that the membersof the Sub-
a person onlyif that person wassentmt:whereto perform Commission,at present25 in number, weresubsequently
it. It has,however, longsince acquireabroader meaning chosen by the Commission undersimilar conditions;it
and nowadaysembracesin general the tasks entrusted to a observesthat theCouncil,inresolution1983132 of27May
person,whether ornotthosetasks involvetravel. TheCourt 1983, expressly"recall[ed. .. that membersof the Sub-
considersthat Section22,initsreferencetoexpertsperform- commission are electedby thecommission .. .asexperts
ing missionsfor the UnitedNations, uses theword "mis- intheir individualcapacity".TheCourt thereforefindsthat,
sion" inageneralsense.While someexpertshave necessar- sincetheir statusisneitherthatofarepresentativeofaMem-
ily to travel in order to perform their tasks, others canberStatenor thatofaUnited Nationsofficial, andsincethey
perform them without having to travel.neither case, the perform independently forthe Sub-Commissionfunctions
expertsintheinterestsoftheOrganizationbyaccordingthemh contemplated in its remit, the members of the Sub-
theprivilegesandimmunitiesnecessary forthepurpose. The commissionmustbe regardedasexpertsonmissionswithin
Court accordinglyconcludesthat Section!2isapplicableto themeaningofSection22.
everyexpertonmission,whetherornothetravels. TheCourtfurthernotesthat, inaccordancewith the prac-
tice followedby many United Nationsbodies, the Sub-
missions can invokethe privilegesand immunities provided Commission has from timeto timeappointedrapporteursor
forinSection22againstthe Statesof whic.htheyarenation- specialrapportem; withthe taskof studying specified sub-
als or on the territoryof whichtheyresidc. In this connec-ects;italsonotesat, whiletheserapporteursorspecialrap-
tion, itnotesthat Section 15of theGeneral Convention pro-porteursare nody selectedfromamong member sf the
vides thatthe termsof ArticleV, Sections11, 12 and 13, Sub-commission, there have been cases in which special
relatingto therepresentativesofMembers,"arenotapplica- rapporteurs have 'beenappointed fromoutside the Sub-
ble asbetweena representative andthe r~uthoritieof the commission orhave completedtheir reportonlyafter their
Stateof whichhe is a nationalorof whichhe is orasbeen membershipof the Sub-commissionhad expired. In any
the representative",andobservesthat ArticleV,concerning event,rapporteursorspecialrapporteursareentrustedbythe
officialsof the Organization,and ArticleVI, concerning Sub-commissionwith a research mission. The Court con-
expertson missionsfor the UnitedNations,do notcontain cludesthat sinceheirstatusisneitherthatofarepresentative
any comparablerule. Itfinds thatthis differenceofapproach of a MemberStatenorthatof a UnitedNations official, and
can readily be explainedt:he privilegesd immunitiesof sincetheycarryoutsuchresearchindependentlo ynbehalfof
ArticlesV andVI areconferredwitha viewtoensuring the theUnitedNations,they mustberegardedasexpertson mis-
independenceof international officialsand experts in the sionswithin theme,mingofSection22,evenintheeventthat
interests of the Organization; this independencemust be Commission.ThisleadstheCourttoinferthattheyenjoy, in
respectedbyall States, includingthe St~Rnationalitand accordancewith that Section, the privilegesandimmunities
the Stateofresidence.TheCourtnotes,moi-eovert,hatsome necessaryfortheexerciseoftheirfunctions,andinparticular
StatespartiestotheGeneral Convention haveenteredreser- fortheestablishmenotfanycontactswhichmaybe usefulfor
vationsto certain provisionsof ArticleV or of ArticVI the preparation,the drafting and the presentationof their
itselfasregardstheirnationalorpersonshabituallyresident reportstotheSub-Commission.
ontheirterritory.Initsview,the veryfactthatitwasfeltnec-
essary to make these reservations confims that in the VII. ApplicabilityofAMcleVI,Section 22,ofthe General
absenceof suchreservations, expertson missionsenjoythe ConventionintheCaseof Mr.DumitruMazilu
privilegesand immunities providedfor un.derthe General (paras.5660)
Conventionin their relationswiththe Statesof which they
arenationalsorontheterritoryofwhichthe:yreside. The Courtobserves, inthelightothefactspresented,that
Tosumup, the Courttakestheviewthat Section22ofthe Mr.Maziluhad,from13March1984to 29August1985, the
General Convention is applicable to persons (other than statslsof a memberof the Sub-Commission;that from 29
United Nationsofficials) to whom a mission has been August 1985 to31Ikcember 1987,he wasbotha member
entrustedbythe Organizationandwho aretlnereforeentitled and a rapporteurof the Sub-Commission; and finallthat,
to enjoythe privilegesand immunitiesprovidedfor in this althoughsincethelast-mentioned dathehas nolongerbeen
Sectionwithaview totheindependentexerciseoftheirfunc- amemberoftheSub-Commissionh , ehasremainedaspecial
tions; that duringthe whole periodofsuchmissions.experts rapporteur.TheCourtfindsthatat no timeduringthisperiod
2(has he ceased to have the statusof an expert on missionsought; whilethe Courthadnotbeenaskedtogivea general
withinthemeaningof Section22,orceasedto be entitledto opinionon therangeofprivilegesand immunitiesenjoyedby
enjoy for the exerciseof his functionstht: privilegesand Special Rapporteur,the questionput by ECOSOCdid
inununitiesprovidedforhenein. quencesof Mr. Mazilu's entitlementto the benefitsof Sec-
The Court nevertheless=ails that doubtwas expressed tion22,oftheConvention.
by Romaniaas to whether]Mr.Maziluwas,capableof per-
forminghistaskasspecialrapporteurafterking takenseri- InJudge Oda'sview, the Court did noftocus sufficiently
ously illin May1987and beingsubsequentlyplaced onthe upontlieessentialaspectsoftheconcretecaseofMr.Mazilu,
mired listpursuant todecisionstakenbythecompetentmed- includingthefactthathe wasunable toreceivedocumenta-
ical practitioners,in accordance withthe alpplicableRomtionfrom, enter into contact with,or be approachedby the
nianlegislation;tMr. Maziluhimselfinft~rmetheUnited UnitedNationsCentreforHumanRightsinGeneva,andwas
Nationsthat the stateof hisalthdid not preventhimfrom preventedbyhis GovernmentfromtravellingtoGenevafor
preparing his reportor frogoing to Geneva;and finally consultationswiththeUnitedNationsCentre. Thoseaspects
that, whenareportbyMr. Maziluwascirculatedasa docu- werefundamentalto thecaseofMr.Mazilu,whichtheCourt
ment of the Sub-Commissi,cwR, omania cidledin question hadbeenasked to lookinto.
his "intellectual capacity"raft"a report consistentwith In his conclusion, JudgeOda statedthat the final para-
therequirementsoftheUnitedNations". Afterpointingout graphof theOpinioncouldhavebeenslightly expanded.It
thatit is notfor it toouiiceon thestateof Mr.Mazilu's shouldhavestatedmoreexplicitly:firstly,thataSpecialRap
healthoronitsconsequencesontheworkhe:hasdoneoristo porteurof the Sub-Commissionfallswithinthe categoryof
for the United Nationsto decide whethe:rin the circum- "Exp:rts onMissionfor theUnitedNations"; secondlyt,hat
stancesit wishedo retainI&. Maziluas spcial rapporteur Mr. Maziluwas,atthetimeoftherequestfortheopinionby
andtakesnotethat decisiotothateffecthaveLnxntakenby theEC:OSOC,a SpecialRapporteuroftheSub-Commission
theSub-Commission. andthathe stillexercisesthat functionand, finally, thatMr.
Maziluwas,inthe interestoftheUnitedNations, entitledto
The Courtis of the opinionthat in these circumstancesreceivefromall partiesto the Convention on thePrivileges
Mr. Mazilucontinuestohavethestatusofspecialrapporteur, andImmunitiesoftheUnitedNations,including hisnational
that as a consequencehe nrustberegardedam experton State,allfacilitieswithintheirpowerforthefulfilmentofhis
mission within the meaninof Section2:2of the General mission.If the Courthad made sucha pronouncement,it
ConventionandthatthatSectionisaccordirlglyapplicablein would usefully have drawnattention to the necessity of
thecaseofMr. Mazilu. allowingMr. Mazilu unimpededcommunication withand
accesstotheUnitedNationsCentreforHumanRights.
W. OperativeRaragraplz
(para61) SeparateOpinionofJudgeEvensen
The complete text of the operativeparagraph will be IntherequestofECOSOCtheCourtwasaskedtoexamine
foundbelow: "thelegalquestionoftheapplicabilityofArticleVI,Section
"For thesereasons, 22,of the Convention onthe Privilegesand Immunities"..
bbT~ ~OURT, TheClourtwasnot requestedtoexpressitselfonconcretevio-
lationsoftheseprovisions.But it seemsevidentthatthepres-
"Unanimously, surescomplainedof have causedconcernand hardshipnot
"2s of the opinionthrltArticle VI, Section22, of thonly tor. Mazilubutalsotohisfamily.Theprotectionpro-
Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the videdfor inArticleVI, Section 22,of 1946 Convention
United Nationsis applicablein the caseof Mr. Dumitru cannotbeconfinedonly tothe"expert Mazilu"butmusttoa
Maziluasa specialrappxteur oftheSulb-Commissionon reasonableextentapplytohisfamilyaswell.
Prevention of Discrimination and hotection of Theintegrityofaperson'sfamilyandfamilylifeisabasic
Minorities" humanright protectedby prevailing principlesof interna-
tionallawwhichderivenotonly fromconventionalinterna-
tionallaworcustomaryinternationallawbutfrom "general
principlesoflaw recognizedbycivilizednations".
Thus in the Universal Bclaration of Human Rights
SUMMAR OYFOPII~ONA SPPENDEDTO THE adopuedby the United Nations General Assembly on 10
ADVISOR OYF'I[NIOF THECOURT December 1948 the integrityof familyand familylife was
which states: "The familyis the natural and fundamental
SeparateOpinionofJudget3da groupunit ofsocietyandisentitledto protectionbysociety
JudgeOdaexpressedsolnndeoubtsasto1;~hetiireCourt, andtheState."
bysimplygivingtheanswer asstatedintht:Cow's Opinion,
had adequately respondedto what ECOSOC had inmind Therespectfor aperson's familyandfamilylifemustbe
when formulatingitsrequestfor an advisory opinion.The consideredas integral partsof the "privilegesand immuni-
wayin whichtherequest vwaactuallyfrannedgavescope, in ties" thate necessaryfor theindependentexerciseof the
his view,tocertainpronouncementsonthemodalitiesofthe functionsof United Nationsexpertsun&r ArticleVI, Sec-
applicationofSection22oftheConvention. tion22, of the 1946Convention onPrivilegesandImmuni-
He reconstructed thet~ackgroundto the request for an ties.
advisory opinion in a slightly differenter from that
ad0~te.dbv the Court. i accordance withhis view that SeparateOpinionofJudgeShahabuddeen
greiterembhasiscouldhavebeenlaiduponcerfainfactsseen Inhis separateopinion,Judge Shahabuddeendealt with
asmoredirectlyrelevanttsothe subject-matteroftheopinionthecompetenceoftheCourt todeterminequestionsofprior-ityinthehearingofcases.AstotheRomardanreservation,in nationof his stateof healthlaywithin Romania'sexclusive
his viewthisdid notaffect the Court's advisory jurisdiction domesticjurisdiction. Judge Shahabuddeh,owever,con-
underArticle96oftheCharterbecause, forreasonswhichhe sidered that theexclusivenessof thatjurisdictionwasquali-
gave,it couldnotapplytothelatter.AstothequestionofMr. fied by Romania's obligations under the Convention.
Mazilu'sstateofhealth,hethought thatRomaniawastaking Finally,hegavehisreasonsforholdingthatanexpertonmis-
thepositionthatillnessdisabledMr. Mazilufromfunction- sionwasentitledtoinvoketheprivilegesandimmunitiesfor
ingandsodisentitledhimtoany oftheprivilegesandimmu- thespecificpurposeofcommencing a journeyinconnection
nities (thesebeingfunctionally based)andthat thedetermi- withhis mission.
Summary of the Advisory Opinion of 15 December 1989