Accountability of international organisations for human rights violations – Report

The report of the Rapporteur, Jose Maria Beneyto, of Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights, addresses the relationship between the accountability of international organizations for human rights violations and immunity, qualifying the immunity of international organizations as an obstacle to the implementation of such accountability. It highlights that “the accountability mechanisms most familiar and best accessible to individuals for remedying human rights violations are often national judicial systems. However, as a rule, international organisations are accorded jurisdictional immunity before national courts…. It hence shields international organisations from unwarranted pressure from the member States. As a mere procedural obstacle, however, immunity does not exempt international organisations from respecting human rights norms”.

The report observes that, while State immunity has been restricted over time, a comparable development has not taken place as regards international organizations. It also stresses that despite its functional nature, international organizations’ immunity has been often interpreted and applied as an absolute immunity. According to the Rapporteur, “instead of this absolute approach, it may be more appropriate for international organisations to possess only functional immunity”.

As highlighted by the report, the possibility of using the distinction between acta jure imperii and acta jure gestionis in the context of international organizations should be further explored. The Rapporteur also affirms that immunity of international organizations should not be recognized in case of violations of non – derogable human rights “given that these rights cannot be derogated from even during periods of war or emergency, it is not unreasonable to suppose that absolute immunity is inappropriate in these circumstances. Similarly, if the immunity of international organizations is to be functional, such violations of non-derogable rights can clearly never be considered to be part of the statutory functions of international organizations aimed at preserving peace, security and global or regional welfare”.

The report notes that the agreements granting immunity usually establish the obligation of international organizations to provide internal accountability mechanisms. However, it underlines that such mechanisms do not offer an adequate protection against human rights violations, as they are set up for a limited range of claims. On the other hand, it notes that “international organizations are particularly unlikely to waive their immunity when dealing with more controversial or highly widespread policies that implicate human rights concerns or actions decided at a high level within the organization”.