Human Rights Committee – M.L.D. v. Philippines

The case originated from an employment dispute instituted by a former employee of the Asian Development Bank against the latter organization, and it represent the first instance in which the Human Right Committee assess the relationship between jurisdictional immunity of international organizations and the right to judicial remedies.

M.L.D., an Australian citizen who had worked for the Asian Development Bank headquartered in the Republic of Philippines, institute a communication procedure before the Human Right Committee, complaining that Philippines had violated her rights of access to justice and fair trial, enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. After unsuccessfully resorting to internal dispute resolution mechanisms, she brought her claims before the judicial authorities of the Philippines. However, the national courts rejected the claim, considering that the Asian Development Bank was immune from national jurisdiction under the Headquarters Agreements. As she claimed, she has not enjoyed elementary safeguards of due process in accessing the internal grievance mechanisms, given the structural deficiencies of the Asian Development Bank Administrative Tribunal, including the lack of independence of its members, the absence of oral hearings, the disregarding of witness statements or other evidence and the absence of appeal. On the other hand, she claimed that, by granting immunity to the Asian Development Bank, the respondent State’s judicial authority conduct amounted to an unjustified denial of justice.

The Committee observed that “international organizations, as specific subjects of international law, benefit from jurisdictional immunity, whose purpose is functional. This functional immunity is not intended, however, to prevent access by staff to justice, before the internal grievance mechanisms or, alternatively, before the national courts“.

The Committee also stressed that the creation of international organizations by State parties might have implication in the protection of the rights under the Covenant. Thus, “It would therefore be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Covenant if States parties were thereby absolved of their obligations under the Covenant in relation to the field of activity covered by such transfer”. In this light, the Committee affirmed that international organizations shall provide reasonable alternative means of dispute resolution, including labour disputes.

However, it found that the author of the communication has not sufficiently demonstrated that the internal system of justice of the Asian Development Bank is inconsistent with the international standards of fair trial. Relying on the jurisprudence of international judicial bodies, the Committee affirmed that the standards applicable to internal dispute resolution mechanisms within organizations may differ from those required in proceedings before national courts. International organizations enjoy discretion in choosing internal remedies, provided that they comply with the principles of objectivity, necessity, and impartiality, and do not amount to arbitrariness or denial of justice.