The
UN report
on Haiti
which was
debated in the
Security
Council on
March 24 has
two paragraphs
about cholera,
but no mention
of the UN's
role in
bringing it to
the country.
After the
Council
meeting, Inner
City Press
asked UN envoy
Sandra Honore
about the
recommendation
by UN expert
Gustavo Gallon
that
compensation
be paid to the
victims, and
about the
litigation
pending
against the
UN. Video
here, from
Minute 0:45.
Honore gave a
long answer,
about UN
support to the
Haiti
government and
about the UN's
Pedro Medrano
traveling in
search of
contributions.
She said
Gallon's
recommendations
are directed
to the UN
Human Rights
Council and it
would be
improper for
her to
comment. But
what about the
litigation?
Back
on February 28
Inner City
Press, having
twice asked
asked
Secretary
General Ban
Ki-moon's
spokespeople
to confirm Ban
has been
served with
legal papers,
on
February
28 asked
about Gallon's
report:
Inner
City Press: on
Haiti, there
is a recent
report just
out by Gustavo
Gallón, who is
the UN
independent
expert on
human rights
in Haiti, and
he says, as a
direct quote,
that full
compensation
for the damage
suffered by
the Haitian
people by the
introduction
of cholera to
the island
should be paid
as quickly as
possible. So,
I understand
that he is an
independent
expert and
doesn’t work
for the
Secretariat;
at the same
time, it’s a
respected
position and a
mandate formed
by the Human
Rights
Council, so I
wanted to know
what in the
face of this
sort of either
intra-UN or
intra-UN
system
critique, what
is the
response of
the United
Nations?
Spokesperson
Martin
Nesirky: Well,
simply, that
you answered
the question
yourself. The
Human Rights
Council-appointed
special
rapporteurs
and other
special
advisers of
various kinds
are
independent
and they are
not appointed
by the
Secretary-General
and I don’t
have anything
further to say
on that.
Inner
City Press:
But does the
UN system
expect, for
example,
countries when
when they are
subject to
these type
recommendations
or criticism
by an
independent
experts of the
Human Rights
Council to
respond in
some way to
them to say:
we agree or
disagree, or
that is why we
disagree?
Spokesperson
Nesirky:
That’s for
each
individual
Member State
to decide.
Ah,
leadership.
Meanwhile,
while the UN
has refused to
answer if Ban
was served the
court papers,
beyond this song,
Inner City
Press will now
publish the
sad litany of
attempts to
serve what
could be
described as a
scoff law:
On
December 19,
2013, at
approximately
3:11 PM, a
paralegal for
Plaintiffs’
counsel
contacted OLA
by telephone
and spoke to a
woman who
identified
herself as
“Mae” (who,
upon
information
and belief, is
Mae Arkoncel,
Assistant to
the UN Legal
Counsel). Mae
confirmed that
OLA had
received the
faxed
documents from
Plaintiffs’
counsel and
stated that
the UN was
currently
'reviewing the
documents'...
Service
of
process by
delivery to
Defendant Ban
personally
through the
use of a
private
process
server... was
attempted
again on
January 20,
2014, at
approximately
10:05 AM, at
Defendant
Ban’s
residence
located at
[redacted by
ICP]. A
security guard
informed the
server that
Defendant Ban
was not
present, and
refused to
open the door
or accept
service.
8.
Service of
process by
delivery to
Defendant Ban
personally
through the
use of a
private
process
server... was
perfected on
January 20,
2014, at
approximately
2:00 PM, at
Defendant’s
Ban residence
located at
[redacted by
ICP]. A male
who identified
himself as
'security'
answered the
door and
informed the
server that he
would not
accept service
and that
Defendant Ban
was not
present. The
server affixed
the process to
the front door
with masking
tape and
informed the
security guard
that he was
doing so with
the intention
that the
documents
would be
forwarded to
Defendant Ban.
The server
then mailed
another copy
of the process
to Defendant
Ban at the
same address.
That's
called
"nail-and-mail,"
and it's
what's used
with a
fugitive or
scoff law. Is
that what this
UN has become?
It's the basis
of this lyric,
can't serve
the papers up
in the
townhouse, song here.
Watch this
site.
, 
