International Court of Justice – Applicability of Article VI, Section 22, of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations

By resolution adopted on 24 May 1989, the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations (ECOSOC) requested the Court to provide an advisory opinion on the question of the applicability of Article VI, Section 22, of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations in the case of Mr. Dumitru Mazilu, Rapporteur of the Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities of the Commission on Human Rights.

The Court clarified the scope of application of Section 22 ratione personae, ratione temporis and ratione loci.

The Court noted that the Convention does not provide a definition of expert on mission. However, as it emphasized “the purpose of Section 22 is nevertheless evident, namely, to enable the United Nations to entrust missions to persons who do not have the status of an official of the Organization, and to guarantee them “such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the independent exercise of their functions”. The essence of the matter lies not in their administrative position but in the nature of their mission”.

The Court explained that expert enjoy such functional immunity during the whole period of such missions.

The Court underlined that experts might invoke immunity, pursuant to Section 22, against the State of nationality or of residence, unless a reservation to Section 22 of the General Convention has been validly made by that State. In particular, as it affirmed, “the privileges and immunities of Articles V and VI are conferred with a view to ensuring the independence of international officials and experts in the interests of the Organization. This independence must be respected by all States including the State of nationality and the State of residence. Some States parties to the General Convention“.

In light of the above, the Court considered that rapporteurs of Sub-Commission fell into the category of experts on mission under the Convention. In particular, it found that the health conditions of Mr Mazilu did not affect his status as an expert on mission, pursuant to Section 22. Accordingly, such provision was applicable to Mr Mazilu.