© Van Diepen Van der Kroef Advocaten

More documents

Recommendations

Info

exercise of their functions in connection with the United Nations. Consequently a Membernot only has the right but is under a duty to waive the immunity of its representative inany case where in the opinion of the Member the immunity would impede the course ofjustice, and it can be waived without prejudice to the purpose for which the immunity isaccorded.’83. A similar provision is included under Section 20, for the ‘Officials’ of the UN and in Section23 for ‘Experts on missions’. Although a similar provision is not expressly stated for the UNitself, the same rule should apply also to the United Nations itself that immunity should notserve to prevent claims for compensation but rather that the ‘course of justice’ shouldprevail. Moreover, it should be emphasized yet again that this case concerns the worstpossible violations of human rights. Frowein also comes to the conclusion in the article citedabove that in this type of cases the UN are obliged to waive any possible claim to immunity(see number 74 of these Grounds of Appeal).Where the UN wrongly fails in its obligation to waive immunity, the Court may not upholdthat claim to immunity.Significance of Section 29 Convention84. The District Court dealt with Section 2 of the Convention. Where it was amazing that theDistrict Court did not include Sections 14, 20 and 23 in its judgment, it is totallyincomprehensible that the District Court actually ignored Section 29 of the Convention,under the Chapter ‘Settlement of disputes’. Section 29 reads:‘The United Nations shall make provisions for appropriate modes of settlement of:(a) disputes arising out of contracts of a private law character to which the United Nationsis a party; (…)’What emerges from the above is that already in 1946 account was taken of the possibilitythat the United Nations would be involved in a private law dispute and that it should beensured that access to justice would exist for such a dispute. That firmly establishes that© Van Diepen Van der Kroef Advocaten page 36 of 99
the decision of the District Court that an absolute immunity of the United Nations shouldexist is irreconcilable with the Convention. The fact that the United Nations has failed tocreate a legal remedy does not entail that the United Nations are unassailable. That shouldhave been all the more reason for the District Court to take jurisdiction. The Association etal. will return to this in the context of the discussion of the decision of the District Courtconcerning the right of access to the Court on the ground of Article 6 ECHR and Article 14ICCPR. With regard to those Articles the District Court for incomprehensible reasons failedto address Section 29.Interpretation in accordance with the Vienna Convention on Treaties85. The District Court has correctly held that the Convention of Vienna on the Law of Treaties(Trb. 1977, no. 169), hereafter: ‘the Vienna Convention on Treaties’, must be taken intoconsideration in the judgment of immunity norms (see legal consideration 5.11). It is notactually clear from the judgment in the case that the District Court actually reviewed theVienna Convention on Treaties and that it underpins its judgment. In that respect thejudgment suffers from an absence of grounds. If the District Court had reviewed the ViennaConvention on Treaties it would have come to a different judgment. The following serves asexplanation.86. Article 31 paragraph 1 of the Vienna Convention on Treaties reads:‘A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to begiven to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.’Article 32 of the Vienna Convention on Treaties reads:‘Recourse may be made to supplementary means of interpretation, including thepreparatory work of the treaty and the circumstances of its conclusion, in order to confirmthe meaning resulting from the application of article 31, or to determine the meaningwhen the interpretation according to article 31:a) leaves the meaning ambiguous or obscure; or© Van Diepen Van der Kroef Advocaten page 37 of 99
Page 2: Against:1. The State of the Netherl
Page 6 and 7: - the motion by the State of the Ne
Page 8: options exist side by side and do n
Page 11 and 12: 22. The Public Prosecutions Departm
Page 13 and 14: Explanation of ground of appeal 427
Page 15 and 16: eferred to the fact that the proces
Page 17 and 18: No legal relevant interest of the S
Page 19 and 20: The Article envisages a situation i
Page 21 and 22: The Hague District Public Prosecuto
Page 23: 54. The District Court is evidently
Page 26 and 27: functional necessity. In that conte
Page 28 and 29: only in Germany. It was not dispute
Page 30 and 31: immunity of the UN has no absolute
Page 32 and 33: ‘Darüber hinaus kann gefragt wer
Page 34 and 35: the purpose would become subservien
Page 38 and 39: ) leads to a result which is manife
Page 40 and 41: 90. The ICJ gave an Advisory Opinio
Page 42 and 43: of functional necessity for immunit
Page 44 and 45: 100. Even where the District Court
Page 46 and 47: 105. The District Court referred un
Page 48 and 49: necessary that change is there effe
Page 50 and 51: 115. It is also incomprehensible th
Page 52 and 53: consideration 3.3.6). Under legal c
Page 54 and 55: desirable that national courts do n
Page 56 and 57: evidence of the necessity of conduc
Page 58 and 59: The whole point of the Genocide Con
Page 60 and 61: prevent the genocide. Worse still,
Page 62 and 63: 137. It was known at the UN - and b
Page 64 and 65: 144. It is established as a result
Page 66 and 67: 151. The Basic Principles provide t
Page 68 and 69: Convention and the Geneva Conventio
Page 70 and 71: uling of the European Court of Huma
Page 72 and 73: torture must be accountable is not
Page 74 and 75: is in that connection incorrect. Th
Page 76 and 77: Ground of appeal 14178. The Distric
Page 78 and 79: human rights treaties, ECHR and ICC
Page 80 and 81: they rely for their effectiveness o
Page 82 and 83: Association et al. will below furth
Page 84 and 85: And also:‘Reaffirming their profo
Page 86 and 87:
eason enjoys immunity from jurisdic
Page 88 and 89:
the maintenance of international pe
Page 90 and 91:
is liable to become overly responsi
Page 92 and 93:
lack of jurisdiction of the Communi
Page 94 and 95:
would occupy in the hierarchy of no
Page 96 and 97:
209. To conclude, the Association e
Page 98 and 99:
Explanation of ground of appeal 172
show all

© Van Diepen Van der Kroef Advocaten

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?