Inner City Press -- Investigative Reporting From the United Nations to Wall Street to the Inner City

By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 14 -- The US has said it is aware of the start of forced deportations to Haiti from the Dominican Republic, past 8 pm on Friday, August 14, full text here (note that the UN, at this time, said nothing, following Inner City Press' question - will candidate Rand Paul?)

"Dominican Republic: Start of Deportations

The United States is aware of the decision by the Dominican Republic to begin deporting persons who are deemed illegally present in the country.  We recognize the prerogative of the Dominican Republic to remove individuals from its territory who are present without authorization.  At the same time, we urge the Dominican Republic to avoid mass deportations and to conduct any deportations in a transparent manner that fully respects the human rights of deportees.  Deportation procedures must adhere to clear, publicly available and verifiable protocols and procedures.  Dominican nationality and migration policies and practices should be consistent with Dominican law and the Dominican Republic’s international obligations and commitments. 

We urge the Government of the Dominican Republic to permit the observation of deportation proceedings by civil society groups and international organizations, such as the International Organization for Migration and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, including at the borders.  We remain deeply concerned that individuals with a right to citizenship or otherwise eligible to remain in the Dominican Republic may not have had sufficient time and means to access the processes to regulate and formalize their status and have their claims adjudicated.  Therefore, it is imperative that the Dominican Republic effectively screen people potentially subject to deportation to determine if they are Dominican citizens, require international protection, or are eligible for naturalization or regularization.  In all cases, the Dominican Republic should take measures adequate to prevent the risk of statelessness and the discriminatory confiscation of documents. 

We encourage the Dominican Republic and Haiti to consult and collaborate with each other to develop effective processes and procedures for the safe and orderly return of migrants across their shared border.  These processes should be consistent with each country’s international obligations and commitments, uphold the rule of law, provide procedural safeguards to guarantee appropriate treatment of deportees, and facilitate the immediate return of individuals deported from the Dominican Republic who have a right of citizenship or presence in the country. 

The United States will continue to actively monitor developments in the Dominican Republic, and engage the Government of the Dominican Republic to ensure the protection of human rights, encourage social inclusion of all people, and work to prevent the arbitrary deprivation of nationality for legal citizens."

Back on June 16 with mass deportations threatened from the Dominican Republic to Haiti, Inner City Press asked the UN, who deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq called it "hypothetical." A day later, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio issued a statement of concern about the threatened deportations.

 On June 18, Inner City Press again asked the UN about the deportation threat, and if the UN might follow Jose Ramos Horta's advise that it compensate victims of the cholera it brought to Haiti:

Inner City Press: On Haiti I think it's, I guess, on Tuesday, I'd asked you about this planned repatriation from the Dominican Republic.  And now that a variety of… the Mayor of the City of New York has spoken on it and most poignantly the President of Haiti, Mr. [Michel] Martelly, had said they won’t accept individuals that were not born in Haiti, which would stand to leave a lot of people stateless; meaning, Haitians… “Haitians that were born in Santa Domingo”.  And I've also read that UN was attending meetings planning for what was to happen, so what is the UN's position on this?

Deputy Spokesman Haq:  What I can say on that is the Dominican Government has given assurances that it will apply due process standards on an individual basis and will protect individuals against unlawful deportation.  The United Nations urges respect for international law and humanitarian principles.  In the event of an increase in the scale of deportations, the United Nations calls for close coordination between the Haitian and Dominican Governments to ensure an orderly and transparent process open to observation by the UN and the international community.  The United Nations remains commits to resolve the problems of the people who are deprived of nationality as a result of the 2013 ruling of the Dominican Constitutional Court.

Inner City Press:  Thanks.  Also on Haiti, I wanted… I meant to ask you this yesterday, but I'll ask today, José Ramos-Horta of the panel in this room on Tuesday, on cholera in Haiti, said that he said he would believe, you know, I'm going to paraphrase here, that the UN should have paid compensation and he brought up as two examples peacekeepers in Timor-Leste, upon knowing that death had been caused inadvertently, they just offered to pay one individual, paid his salary over his remaining deployment there.  I wanted to know, given he is a highly respected person to be the head of the panel, you know, not as a “gotcha”, but is there some response to the approach, the way that he laid it out, that making victims whole comes before any kind of legal argumentation?

Deputy Spokesman:  Basically, of course, as you're aware well aware, he is essentially expressing his personal opinion on this.  His panel's work was not on the question of Haiti.  We have heard, as you know, a wide range of opinions over the years and have respected a wide range of views on this.  The Secretary-General has tried as hard as he can to make sure that the situation of cholera in Haiti is resolved.  As you have seen from the efforts of Pedro Medrano, what we are trying to do is coordinate efforts with the Government of Haiti and the international community to see what can be done to bring this cholera epidemic to an end.  And so, we will continue with those efforts and we respect the views of people around.  On the legal question, our position remains as it was.

What is wrong with this picture?

From the UN's June 16 transcript:

Question:  I wanted to ask about, well, it's about the Dominican Republic but regards Haiti for the UN — there is this pending, sometimes postponed decision to basically declare stateless tens of thousands or some people say even over 100,000 people of Haitian ancestry that are in the Dominican Republic.  It was said that the deadline was today, and then it said the deadline was in two days, but it's basically reported that the Dominican Republic intends to expel a number of people they believe came from Haiti in large numbers and set up camps on the border to do it and have chartered buses.  So, I wanted to know, first of all, what the UN has any comments on this decision but also what preparations given the strain it might put on Haiti where there continues to be cholera, which has some link to the UN, and otherwise, what preparations is the UN making for what seems to be a decision by the Government to expel these people?

Deputy Spokesman:  Well, we made our concerns about this issue clear repeatedly in the past, both through UNHCR in terms of its concerns about the principle of non-refoulement and also concerns about how this is to be determined, whether the people who are being transported are citizens of Haiti or of the Dominican Republic.  So, we made clear our concerns about this and will continue to do so with the respective authorities on the ground.

Question:  Are there other preparations for if it happens?

Deputy Spokesman:  Well, at this stage it's a hypothetical situation, so I wouldn't have anything to say on it right now.

  But here's Bill de Blasio, a mere one day later:

“I am extremely concerned about the potential forced deportation tonight of hundreds of thousands of people from the Dominican Republic, including many children. I call on the Dominican government to respect basic rights guaranteed to all people, including Dominicans of Haitian descent, under international law. I also call on the government to prevent the inevitable mistakes, dangers and humiliation of forcibly removing people from their homes. Among the people most affected by this action will be Haitians born in the Dominican Republic who are being unjustly stripped of their nationality and legal status, just because of their heritage. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that nationality is a basic right of all individuals. As the mayor of a proud city of immigrants, home of large Dominican and Haitian diasporas, we stand by international human rights, and hope to see a compassionate and humane resolution to this alarming situation.”

 One wonders what Bill de Blasio thinks of the UN's refusal to take any responsibility for introducing cholera into Haiti, which has killed over 8,000 people? On June 16, Nobel Prize winner Jose Ramos Horta told Inner City Press the UN should pay compensation, click here for that.

  Later on June 17, New York City Council member Ydanis Rodriguez put this out:

"According to Dominican President Danilo Medina, there will be no mass deportation in the Dominican Republic. I believe that Dominican Republic President Danilo Medina will work with his counterpart in Haiti, Michel Martelly, to create lasting solutions to this problem."

  In New York City, foreign policy and its perception can change, neighborhood to neighborhood.

UN official Herve Ladsous, who has openly refused to answer Inner City Press question and was abetted in this by Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesperson in his last press conference, used that to brag about ostensibly declining numbers of sexual exploitation and abuse complaints against his UN Peacekeeping: 51 worldwide for a whole year.

  But now it emerges that in Haiti alone, the UN Office of Internal Oversight Services documented 225 women sexual exploited by Ladsous' peacekeepers. This is a cover up; Ladsous should answer or go. On June 10, Inner City Press asked UN spokesperson Stephane Dujarric, video here, transcript here:

Inner City Press: I want to ask about sexual abuse. I'm sure you've seen AP's report on the OIOS [Office of Internal Oversight Services] report on sexual exploitation and abuse, particularly in MINUSTAH [United Nations Stabilization Mission] in Haiti, saying 225 women testified that they were exchange — you know, asked by peacekeepers to exchange sex for money or food or whatever.  So how do you square this with the report made here by the Mr. [Hervé] Ladsous that only 51 cases of sexual exploitation or abuse were alleged worldwide, 51 as opposed to 225 in one country?  And what's going to be done to square what seems to be a dramatic underreporting by the UN?

Spokesman Dujarric:  I think the — first of all, the report that you referred to in the Associated Press filing, as far as my understanding is concerned, it's still a draft report.  There's still comments going back and forth, as usually there are between the concerned department and OIOS.  So I'm not going to go into what's said in the report.

Obviously, the issue of underreporting is of concern.  Every case needs to be looked into.  Every case of sexual abuse needs to be looked into.  The Secretary-General is determined to continue on the zero-tolerance policy.  I think if you look at the special measures report that was issued earlier this year, I think it outlines a number of steps that were taken.  And obviously, you know, all sorts of things are looked at in terms of prohibited conduct, discouraged conduct and others.  So, you know, the report's still in draft form.  I don't have any information on the specific cases you mentioned.

Inner City Press:  Maybe the number will somehow be reduced, but what I did want to ask you is, can you say from this podium that peacekeepers requesting sex in exchange for money or food does constitute sexual exploitation and abuse, for the purposes of this 51 figure that was thrown out in this room?

Spokesman Dujarric:  Again, I'm not go into that.  I think if you look at the Secretary-General's special measures report, I think it outlines those things and it answers your question

 This resistance to saying that eacekeepers requesting sex in exchange for money or food does constitute sexual exploitation and abuse is part of the problem. We'll have more on this.

 On June 8, Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric first about the French forces' non-inclusion in Ban's Children and Armed Conflict list, then about the whistleblowers, video here, transcript here:

Inner City Press: it seems like the abuse the UN was aware of in the Central African Republic by the French Sangaris forces, was there any consideration of including them and if so, why not?

Spokesman Dujarric:  On the CAR [Central African Republic], the situation in the CAR, part of the CAR was drafted with the information available at the time of the writing of the report.  As you know, the… we do hope to announce soon the external independent inquiry which will shed light on the process.

Inner City Press: I'm sorry to reiterate this.  I'd sent you these questions but wanted to ask you.  I asked the Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights who said that Mr. Kompass is going to be extended, although he also said it's not Geneva's decision; it's up to New York.  And there are several Member State who believe he's not being extended--

Spokesman:  No, I have no indication whatsoever that his contract will not be renewed.

Inner City Press:  It does apparently expire in one month.

Spokesman:  Right.  No, as I said, I have no indication whatsoever that his contract will not be renewed.

Inner City Press: ]OHCHR] had said something about contracts being automatically extended if a person is under investigation.  Is that your understanding?

Spokesman:  I think that is very likely a policy but as I said, for Mr. Kompass, I have no indication that his…

Inner City Press: The other thing I asked you is about Miranda Brown who was an… worked with Mr. Kompass and has since been terminated.  I know that she wrote a letter to the Secretary-General dated 23 May saying she's willing to participate, but not if she's fired by the UN and has no immunity.  Has the Secretary-General’s responded to the letter?

Spokesman:  I don't believe there has been a response.  I don't know if it was received.  I don't believe she was terminated, I think her fixed-term contract was not renewed.

Inner City Press: What would you say to those who say if you actually want to know… this was a person who was number two to Kompass at the time involved.  What arrangements were being made to try to get her evidence?

Spokesman:  I think we would have to leave that to the panel once it's named.

   Miranda Brown wrote to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon:

"I am a key witness in the Office of Internal Oversight Service (OIOS) investigation into the disclosure by Mr Anders Kompass, Director at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), of the MINUSCA report Sexual Abuse on Children by International Armed Forces in the M’Poko IDP camp in Bangui, Central African Republic to the French authorities.

Despite my appeals to the High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, my employment at OHCHR was terminated on 21 May 2015, one day before I was scheduled to provide testimony as a key witness in the OIOS investigation. Please see attached OIOS’ repeated requests to interview me. As a result of my termination, I now have no functional immunity and given this and the punitive termination of my employment, I am scared of testifying in the investigation.

I was the Acting Director of the Africa Branch at OHCHR in early August 2014 during the period shortly after the MINUSCA report came to OHCHR’s attention in Geneva. Mr Kompass was my direct supervisor at the time. Emails document my involvement and I was the key contact between OHCHR and MINUSCA during the period immediately following the disclosure.

My testimony to the OIOS investigation would have supported Mr Kompass’ decision to disclose the MINUSCA report to the French Government and would have shed light on many  elements relating to the disclosure. As such, my testimony would also have been very embarrassing and potentially problematic for High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein and others in the UN leadership, who have publicly denounced Mr Kompass for wrongdoing and placing victims, investigators and witnesses at risk.

The stated reason for the termination of my employment at OHCHR is that there is no position available for me at OHCHR headquarters in Geneva, where half of the roughly one thousand OHCHR staff work. This explanation is implausible, deeply suspicious, bears all the hallmarks of retaliation, and is, at best, an abject failure to protect a key witness and, at worst, constitutes possible witness tampering. I have requested an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the termination of my employment at OHCHR.

I understand there may have been a second disclosure of the MINUSCA report to the French authorities by a female staff member at OHCHR, and that because of my prior history as a whistleblower at World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), suspicions may have fallen on me as the source of the second disclosure. This is false. While I agree with Mr Kompass’ decision to disclose the report to the French authorities and enjoy good relations with the French Permanent Mission in Geneva, I have had no contact with the French Government on the MINUSCA report. The French Government would be able to confirm this. I believe that I know the female OHCHR staff member who made the second disclosure to the French Permanent Mission in Geneva. I do not expect her identity will be revealed as she would then herself become at risk of reprisal.

Secretary General, if you would like my testimony in the OIOS investigation and for this investigation to have any credibility at all, you will need to immediately reinstate me in a P5 level position in Geneva, if necessary in another UN organisation or entity. I shall be willing to testify in this investigation or another inquiry if one is launched, once my functional immunity is restored, my job is safe and I no longer fear retaliation.
I am sure you will agree that the Member States of the United Nations expect the investigation into Mr Kompass’ disclosure of the MINUSCA report to the French authoritiesand any subsequent inquiry into these matters to be thorough, fair, transparent and impartial.

This will not be the case without my testimony, however inconvenient this might prove to some in the UN leadership."

   What will Ban do, now that he has belatedly said he will appoint an “independent” Panel?

  Meanwhile, amid reports that OHCHR would not extend Kompass' contract, Inner City Press asked OHCHR spokesperson Rupert Colville to “confirm or deny this decision to not extend this fixed term contract.”

   Colville has, in fact, denied, writing to Inner City Press that

“It is not true. Like all the rest of us, Anders's contract has an end date (which is indeed some time in July). The High Commissioner will request that it be extended (the final decision for someone at Anders's very senior D2 level is in fact made in New York not Geneva). However, when someone's contract ends while they are under investigation, an extension is automatically granted anyway.”

   The answer is appreciate. But why didn't that policy apply to Miranda Brown? Watch this site.

 On June 3, after Secretary General Ban Ki-moon announced an intention to name an independent panel at least 14 UN member states met about its terms of reference and to whom beyond Ban it should report, as Inner City Press exclusively details below.

  Now Inner City Press reports on the June 5 meeting between four of those states -- minus South Africa - which met on June 5 with Ban Ki-moon and more than a half dozen other officials, including Deputy Eliasson, DFS' Atule Khare, Herve Ladsous' fill-in and others.

  The states -- the UN identified them as Australia, Guatemala, Japan  and Finland, though the last was Norway -- went in with a series of positions and questions, including:

"We are concerned by the damage that these incidents, and their follow-up, have done to the UN’s reputation and credibility in an area where the UN is expected to uphold the highest standards and values.

The review must be conducted in an expeditious manner and the results must be fully transparent.

It is crucial that the review looks at the whole chain of events, including the senior management’s decisions leading to disciplinary action against Mr. Anders Kompass. This has cast doubt about the credibility of the UN’s human rights commitments in field missions and about the integrity of its whistleblower policy.

It is crucial to remove any doubts that the UN is fully committed to preventing sexual exploitation and abuse and to ensure effective investigation of any such allegations in field missions. In addition, accountability for perpetrators, and protection and assistance to victims, must be ensured.

Questions: What will be the scope of the Independent External Review (CAR only? The UN’s handling of the investigation, SEA more broadly?)

To what extent has the Human Rights Up Front approach been applied?

Will the review look at institutional reforms to better address cases of SEA, including timely reporting and action in cases of abuse?

Will the review look at the protection of whistleblowers? What is the status regarding the pending case against Mr. Anders Kompass – in light of doubts that have been raised about this process?"

  In fact, Inner City Press is informed that OHCHR and Zeid personally are poised to not renew Kompass' fixed term contract, set to expire on July 8, 2015, and to give the required one month notice by June 8.

  Inner City Press in response to the UN read-out on the evening of June 5 formally asked the UN Spokesman: "I have heard that UN OHCHR has decided not to extend Anders Kompass' fixed term contract, which is set to expire on July 8, 2015. I understand that under UN rules, he must be given one month's notice and will thus need to receive notification by no later than Monday June 8, 2015.

"Given the allegations of retaliation (and the UNDT ruling), please confirm or deny this decision to not extend this fixed term contract."

  This retaliation, despite US Mission attempts to protect the UN, could result in funding cuts or at least damaging hearings. But as with Ladsous, high UN officials are allowed to operate out of control in their fiefdoms.

  In response to the above, Inner City Press can exclusively report these UN responses:

The Office of the High Commisioner for Human Rights is sending a team to the Central African Republic.

Regarding the External Independent Review, it was assured that it will be done by someone completely outside the UN, also excluding the UN’s own investigative capacity. It was still not decided who would lead the panel, but it would consist of at least one woman and one African. It would examine the specific case of allegations in the Central African Republic, but also look at the broad range of systemic issues being raised.

Regarding the time-frame and further ToR’s of the Review, this would be discussed after the meeting and be determined shortly.

Regarding the case of Anders Kompass, it was pointed out that the separate investigation was ongoing, and the outcome must be awaited before further comments.

  But if Zeid intends to not extend Kompas' fixed term contract, that part of it is moot. And Ban is heading off on another long trip. Watch this site.

Note: three days after Inner City Press exclusively reported that Ban told the ambassadors he would name an African and a woman, slower others are repeating it, citing "diplomats." That's the UN beat.

  An emerging and damaging question for the UN is who knew what, when. Inner City Press asked when Ban knew of the alleged child rapes -- "March" is now the answer.

  There was a retreat of all senior UN officials in Turin, Italy on March 18-19, 2015. This was days after Kompass says he was told the French Under Secretary General for Peacekeeping Operations Herve Ladsous wanted him to resign. (Ladsous now denies this, see below.)

  In Turin, Ban's chief of staff Susan Malcorra put together the ostensibly independent Ethics Office and Office of Internal Oversight Services, calling into further question the UN's claimed whistleblower protections.

  If Ban's chief of staff knew of the alleged child rapes, it is difficult to believe Ban didn't know. But what did he do?

 Which of the other high UN officials present in Turin learned there or before about the alleged child rapes, by then already covered up for months? There is a photo of the participants.

UN in Turin, March 19, 2015 UN Photo/Eskinder Debebe ICP: Who knew?

 These include some who want to run to replace Ban, or for other high positions. We will have more on this.

Absent from the UN Fifth (Budget) Committee's May 18 meeting was not only embattled Peacekeeping chief Ladsous,, but also OIOS' Carman Lapointe.

 In her stead for OIOS was Michael Stefanovic, who told the Fifth Committee that he has recused himself from the investigation and has written to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon as to why.

  This is highly irregular. If the recusal was made on a personal connection between Stefanovic and the whistleblower Anders Kompass, Stefanovic would have recused himself from the earlier investigation - but he didn't. If it were such a recusal, he would have written to Lapointe, and not to the S-G.

   For now we add this -- if OIOS Director Stefanovic has a conflict of interest, how can the UN be asking others to rely on an OIOS investigation? Inner City Press has asked a Permanent Member of the Security Council -- not France -- if an OIOS investigation would be sufficient, and has been told "No."

 Now we have this, from the Fifth Committee's May 20 meeting:

Lapointe, summoned to the meeting via her Byun-kun Min, was asked

-When did OIOS/ID start the investigation into Anders Kompass?

-Why did Mr. Stefanovic recuse himself from the Kompass investigation?

-In view of Mr. Stefanovic recusing himself, did Ms. Lapointe see any impediments for the scope of the investigation, especially as it appeared to implicate an ASG or USG in misconduct?

  Note - this is a reference to UN Peacekeeping USG Ladsous.

 Multiple sources tell Inner City Press Lapointe replied that Stefanovic told only the Secretary General, not her, that he recused himself, and that the Deputy Director of OIOS in Vienna is now "overseeing" the investigation.

So those now on the case are James Finniss, Kanja and Margaret Gichanga -- who has been asking to interview WIPO whistleblower Miranda Brown, who worked alongside Kompass for a time. We'll have more on this. It is a new low for the UN.

Back on May 18, Inner City Press, staking out the Budget Committee meeting, spoke with Ban's chief of staff Susana Malcorra when she left the meeting. Here is a transcript, followed by an exclusive summary of what happened inside the closed meeting.

Inner City Press: How did it go in there? Are their questions answered?

CdC Malcorra: Well I hope, yes. Some of them still have questions that will be answered by my colleague. I think I’ve made a point of what it is that we’re discussing here. This investigation is a UN investigation. It was led by the UN in the field when they had allegations handed to them. It was the human rights cell in the mission that led this investigation. It looks like we were absent, but it was us...

And this investigation could, at least prima facie, there were places clear enough to further investigate by the member state. And as such, the information was provided to a member state. On a separate front, is how the information is provided. And we cannot accept the irresponsibility of the names of the victims, the witnesses and the investigators shared with the member states ... it’s inacceptable. It may look like a bureaucratic approach. It’s not a bureaucratic approach...

Inner City Press: What about not telling Central African Republic authorities?

CdC Malcora: They are discussing that now.

   After the meeting ended, and Inner City Press spoke with numerous attendees - a common refrain was that the UN leadership is "in denial" - we have pieced together this summary of the meeting, and the totally insufficient answer on UN Peacekeeping chief Ladsous' role, a lack of recognition of his UNAMID mission's previous cover up of rapes in Tabit in Darfur, which the US and UK and other say they care about, and lack of follow up on whistleblowers.

Attendees' summary of Ban Ki-moon chief of staff Malcorra:

"Malcorra said she had no idea the session would go into the specifics of CAR, she thought it was to touch upon general Sexual Abuse and Exploitation policy (several attendees were dubious and angry about this approach.)

  Malcorra said that in the case of misconduct by UN staff the procedures were in place. In this case, even when it was not UN peacekeepers the human rights cell in Bangui was there and they were the ones that initiated the investigation. It is thanks to the UN that allegations were substantiated and it was enough to decide to proceed with a further investigation.

  The wrongdoing of the UN staffer Anders Kompass was to have shared the information without it being redacted putting the victims, witnesses and investigators lives in danger. She repeated many times this was a serious breach and that she disagreed with anyone that didn’t view this conduct wrong.

   According to Malcorra the UN investigation lasted three months which allowed them to substantiate the allegations.  When that finding was final it went to the two lines of command: The head of mission in CAR and the OHCHR.  But, several asked, why didn't either of these tell the CAR authorities?

Malcorra said she would have preferred this case hadn't surfaced in the media and that it is regrettable member states have had to learn matters from the press. But that, Malcorra said, member states have to be aware that the press manipulates everything. Several states talked about the UN image and credibility to which Malcorra said she was very sad with those comments because if not for the UN these troops could have gotten away with these disturbing acts. She also said this was a clear case of damned if you do damned if you don’t. But what about the cover up? What about Ladsous?

  Malcorra said that “no other element had been taken into account” for Kompass' firing. But member states were aware of Paragraph 9 of the UN Dispute Tribunal ruling reinstating Kompass. As noted, one Permanent Representatives (and several other diplomats) told Inner City Press that Ladsous should resign.

  Tellingly, the sources say, Malcorra claimed didn’t recall any UNAMID coverup allegations. Tabit?

   Malcorra didn’t even address the Otis report on whistleblowers - which Inner City Press has been asking Ban's spokesman about, repeatedly -- but assured member states that due protections are in place and that an adequate policy exists.

  Malcorra said she looks forward to working further on the UN convention in paragraph 57 of the SG report on SEA and agrees that there are systemic flaws, and therefore there will be a review of all the processes.

  According to sources in the meeting -- Inner City Press asked and was told to inquiry with member states -- the  Legal Counsel and head of OLA qualified as excellent the cooperation with the French Authorities and that the lifting of immunity so far hasn’t been necessary because at this stage its very general requests of information that the UN promptly has given to the French authorities. For the sake of efficiency hasn’t gone through the lifting of immunity process but if a trial or judge becomes involved they will do it quickly at a later stage. Several member states were dubious. The EU, Inner City ress is informed, said “accountability starts at the top.”

 Malcorra left unanswered why the host state, the CAR, was not involved. She is said to have ignored the specific question on the status of the OIOS investigation. She ignored the complaints about under-reporting saying that the trend of decrease was very clear and that the USG of DFS would go into details (what he did, genially, was repeat the Secretary General's report).

  An impartial investigation was called for, from both sides of the Atlantic and elsewhere. There was a refrain afterward: Ladsous should resign."

  A well-placed African Permanent Representative before the meeting told Inner City Press before the meeting that Ladsous should resign. But with him conveniently absent, would others be left holding the bag, trying to explain why he, Ladsous, appears in the UN Dispute Tribunal ruling as urging that the whistleblower resign?

  Here is the video of Inner City Press questions to US Ambassador Power:

  It is an answer that may move things forward. Ladsous, it should be noted, just this week snubbed a Joe Biden-linked Hemispheric peacekeeping conference in Uruguay, wasting an $8,000 first class plane ticket and angering many troop contributing countries. He refuses to answer Press question, for example on rapes in Minova, DRC and Tabit in Darfur.

   As noted, on May 8, High Commissioner Zeid held a press conference, and twice refused to comment on why Ladsous was said to have pressured to fire or suspend the whistleblower.

  Inner City Press has covered Ladsous' role from the beginning, and highlighted his appearance in Paragraph 9 of the UN Dispute Tribunal ruling reinstating Kompass. On May 7, Ladsous told Inner City Press, "I deny that" - then refused to take questions.

 Zeid was asked, and first time said he should first give his view of the pressure to the investigator, not the media.

 The second time, he said he was surprised to read it -- his Office did not contest that part of the ruling, effectively admitting it -- and that the head of UN Peacekeeping should not have been intervening about a non-UN force.  Video here.

 Neither he nor the questioners in the room in Geneva said the obvious: Ladsous is a longtime French diplomat; it is not rocket science to read Paragraph 9 as him (inappropriately) still working for "his" country.

 Zeid said other things we'll report later; he alluded to the need for a Commission of Inquiry. Some ask, will Ladsous quit before then? Or after?

 For more than nine months, no action was taken -- no interviews of victims or alleged perpetrators were done -- other than the UN suspending Kompass for the leak, on which the UN Dispute Tribunal ruling recites that UN Peacekeeping chief Ladsous requested Kompass' resignation. (See Paragraph 9, here.) Ladsous told Inner City Press he denies it - then refused questions.

  Early on May 8, UN system staff complained to Inner City Press that UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Prince Zeid of Jordan, in a closed staff meeting on May 8, tried to downplay the scandal, going so far as to blame imams in Bangui for not playing their role.

  But it was OHCHR which didn't even give the report of the rape of CAR children to CAR authorities, only to the French.

  In places, Zeid appeared to try to use his record ten years ago on sexual abuse to shift the blame to imams.  Inner City Press has shown a failure by his Office to act on past leaking, to Morocco. We'll have more on this.

  On May 7, Inner City Press asked more questions about this - including to Herve Ladsous himself.

  After a long closed-door consultation meeting of the Security Council, Ladsous emerged. Inner City Press asked him, based on Paragraph 9 of the UNDT ruling, Why did you ask Kompass to resign?"

  Ladsous stopped and said, "I deny that." Inner City Press put the handheld video online, here.