Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haiti

BBC
May 8, 2013

Victims of Haiti’s cholera epidemic have given the United Nations a 60-day deadline to start talks about billions of dollars worth of compensation or face legal action.

The UN is accused of negligently allowing peacekeeping soldiers to pollute Haiti’s water with cholera.

A UN cholera expert agrees that this is “most likely” to be true.

The UN rejected an earlier call for compensation and continues to insist it is immune from legal proceedings.

The cholera epidemic began in Haiti in 2010 near a camp for UN soldiers, where there were leaking sewage pipes. Some human waste was also dumped near a river outside the camp.

The camp housed UN soldiers from Nepal, where cholera is endemic. The UN’s own cholera expert, Danielle Lantagne, has said that Haiti’s outbreak is likely to have come from UN soldiers.

The victims include relatives of the 8,000 people who have died and hundreds of thousands of people who have fallen sick.

Lawyers for the victims say the UN is breaking international law.

They say they will open legal proceedings in New York with claims totalling many billions of dollars if the UN does not start talks within 60 days.

The lawyers say they will file claims for $100,000 (£64,000) for the families of those who have died and $50,000 (£32,000) for every one of the hundreds of thousands who have fallen sick.

The UN’s relative silence on the matter so far may be because it simply does not know what to do in the face of what could be a series of catastrophic and deadly errors, says the BBC’s International Development Correspondent Mark Doyle.

Click HERE to see the Original Article 

By Peter James Spielmann, Associated Press
May 8, 2013

A Boston-based human rights group said Wednesday it will sue the United Nations in 60 days if the world body does not agree to compensate Haitian cholera victims, apologize to the Caribbean nation for introducing the disease through its peacekeeping force, and launch a major effort to improve sanitation.

Lawyers for the Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haiti said they hoped to be able to settle with the United Nations but are ready to go to court in New York if that fails.

The announcement was the group’s response to a U.N. letter in February saying it is legally immune and was not responsible for the cholera outbreak that has sickened nearly 500,000 people and killed over 7,750 people since the outbreak began in October 2010.

The Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haiti cites independent studies suggesting that the disease was inadvertently brought to Haiti by a U.N. peacekeeping battalion from Nepal, where cholera is endemic. A local contractor failed to properly sanitize the waste of a U.N. base, and the bacteria leaked into a tributary of one of Haiti’s biggest rivers, according to one study by a U.N.-appointed panel.

Haiti’s cholera epidemic followed a Jan. 12, 2010 earthquake that killed 316,000 people and displaced more than a million others.

Brian Concannon, the institute’s director, said the U.N. asserted its immunity in its recent letter.

“They may have immunity, but they don’t have impunity,” said Ira Kurzban, another lawyer preparing the lawsuit.

Concannon and Kurzban said they are operating on the legal principle that if the United Nations does not respond to appeals for justice, and leaves the plaintiffs with no legal recourse, the U.N. loses its immunity.

The U.N.-installed water system pumped sewage directed into the river, and “This was the system’s normal operation,” said Concannon.

Haiti had not had a problem with cholera since the 1800s until the 2010 outbreak, said Dr. Jean Ford Figaro, a Haitian doctor speaking for the lawsuit. He said the death toll has now surpassed 8,000, citing Haitian Health Ministry figures.

UCLA’s School of Public Health sent a field mission to Haiti after the outbreak to study its origin. One of the school’s professors, Renaud Piarroux, later wrote that the study confirmed the epidemic was imported and started around the Nepalese peacekeepers’ camp, then “spread explosively due to massive contamination of the water.”

A study of the bacteria conducted in 2010 by scientists at Pacific Biosciences of California Inc. mapped its genome, the set of genes that makes any organism unique. The Haitian strain is almost identical to types found in South Asia and differs greatly from those circulating in nearby Latin America, according to the analysis published in the New England Journal of Medicine. That suggested humans carried the Asian strain into Haiti, though it did not pinpoint the country of origin.

Concannon said that if there is no settlement, the Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haiti will take the United Nations to court in 60 days. He told the AP that they will probably sue in New York State court initially, and anticipated that the United Nations will counter by saying the case should go to U.S. federal court.

He and Kurzban said they are also planning a lawsuit in a European venue.

 Click HERE to see the Original Article 

By TRENTON DANIEL Associated Press
PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti May 8, 2013 (AP)

Former Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide made a rare public appearance Wednesday and thousands of supporters shadowed the ex-leader’s motorcade following a court hearing.

The swelling crowd of backers who chanted songs and waved posters of Aristide in Haiti’s capital pointed to the level of influence the two-time president still holds among the poor more than two years after his sudden return from exile.

It also underscored the strong possibility that his political party could prove a serious contender in legislative elections that are supposed to be held before year’s end.

“For the people, the wasps have been knocked out of the nest,” said Jean Altidor, a 39-year-old motorcycle driver who had a portrait of Aristide taped to his bike. In his metaphor, Aristide is the nest, and the people are the wasps.

With a delegation of longtime allies and former lawmakers at his side, Aristide showed up at a courthouse Wednesday morning in downtown Port-au-Prince to testify before a judge investigating the slaying of one of the Caribbean country’s most prominent journalists, Jean Dominique. The hearing was closed to the public.

Aristide left the crowded courthouse through a back exit three hours later. In an apparent ploy to distract journalists and make it easier for the former president to leave, news media were told to assemble in a nearby room for a news conference with Aristide, which was never held.

Aristide’s lawyer, Mario Joseph, said he couldn’t disclose details of discussions about the case. “What’s important is that President Jean-Bertrand Aristide came and answered questions,” he said.

Aristide was between terms as president when Dominique, a close friend, was gunned down in April 2000 in the courtyard of the radio station that he ran with his wife. A security guard was also killed.

Several people were arrested in connection with the slaying of the outspoken radio personality, but authorities have never pointed to possible architects of the killing.

Haitian police had banned street protests both supporting and opposing Aristide because it needed its officers to provide security for the former leader’s convoy.

Despite the police order, thousands of Aristide supporters spilled into downtown Port-au-Prince and followed his silver Toyota Land Cruiser, which sported a pair of Haitian flags in the front.

“The population clearly said it’s not a protest — it’s a march accompanying President Aristide,” Maryse Narcisse, a spokeswoman for his political party, told Radio Kiskeya.

Instead of taking a direct route home, the caravan snaked through the capital’s poorer neighborhoods as onlookers tried to get a glimpse of Aristide. The crowds grew, and in the hilltop shantytown of Bel-Air, Aristide stood atop his vehicle and waved to supporters.

The gathering constituted the largest demonstration against President Michel Martelly’s government this year, and among the biggest since he took office two years ago this month.

The Dominique case has been largely dormant for years, and Aristide’s supporters have wondered if there are political motivations behind the revived case. An open case against Aristide, the official leader of the Lavalas party, could make it difficult for candidates to register under the party in elections that are supposed to be held before year’s end.

“We hope this isn’t political, that the government isn’t using the Jean Dominique case so Lavalas can’t qualify for the elections,” an Aristide supporter, Jean Cene, said while pressed against a barricade.

A few people carried placards that read: “The more you persecute him, the more we love him.”

Lavalas leaders say the party plans to run in the legislative and local election that was supposed to have been held in late 2011. The still unscheduled vote seeks to fill 10 Senate seats along with dozens of municipal posts.

 There was no immediate comment by the Martelly administration.

Aristide is among Haiti’s most popular political figures. The former Roman Catholic priest was a champion of the country’s impoverished masses and led a movement to oust dictator Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier. Aristide alienated Haiti’s wealthy elite and was forced from power twice, first by a military junta in 1991 and again by a rebellion in 2004.

He returned to Haiti in 2011 following exile in South Africa.
———
Associated Press writer Evens Sanon contributed to this report.

Click HERE to view to original article

Haiti Cholera Victims Announce Next Step Towards Justice at UN

At a May 8 press conference in New York, IJDH and BAI responded to the UN’s refusal to hear cholera claims.

NYIHA Film Festival-Screening of Baseball in Time of Cholera

 

New York, NY – Maysles Cinema

WHEN    Thursday, May 9th

WHERE   Maysles Cinema

                   343 Malcolm X Boulevard/ Lenox Avenue

                   (Between 127th and 128th Streets)

                    New York, NY 10027 

IJDH Staff Attorney Beatrice Lindstorm will attend for Q&A session on Thursday, May 9th. 

NYIHA Film Fest 2013 brings a unique set of films from Puerto Rico, Haiti, Brazil and South Africa to New York. The festival brings films into the public eye that impart knowledge of migrations, diasporas, and interactions of cultural groups.

 

May 7, 2013

Dear Under-Secretary-General O’Brien:

I refer to your letter of 21 February 2013 (the “Response”), dismissing claims for relief and reparations that were submitted to the United Nations (UN) on 3 November 2011 by 5,000 victims of cholera in Haiti (Petitioners).

The Response’s two sentences addressing Petitioners’ claims contend that they are “not receivable pursuant to Section 29 of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations [CPIUN],” because “consideration of these claims would necessarily include a review of political and policy matters.” The Response does not explain how the claims necessarily entail such review, nor does it refer to any international or domestic law authority supporting the contention that such a review renders the claims “not receivable.” In the absence of more information, the Response’s invocation of Section 29 appears arbitrary, self-serving and contrary to international principles of due process.

In fact, under relevant international law, and consistent with long-standing UN practice and UN General Assembly resolutions, Petitioners’ claims are “claims of a private law nature” for which Section 29 requires the UN to “make appropriate modes of settlement.” This letter summarizes that law, and also constitutes a formal request for either:

1. a meeting with UN officials to discuss Petitioners’ claims, including the issues raised by the UN’s Response; or

2. an agreement to enter into mediation to assist in resolving the claims.

 The continued toll that the UN-caused cholera epidemic is taking on the people of Haiti demands the fair and prompt resolution of Petitioners’ claims and requires that they be treated with utmost urgency. Since January 2013, an additional 184 people have died and 18,162 have been sickened from cholera. An evaluation of public health facilities released by Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors Without Borders) in March found that “[a] lack of funds and supplies has crippled cholera treatment programs in Haiti, leading to unnecessary deaths and increasing the risk of greater outbreaks during the upcoming rainy season.” Accordingly, this letter shall also constitute official notice by Petitioners’ counsel that they will file a suit in a national court on behalf of Petitioners and other victims of cholera in Haiti if an appropriate response is not received within 60 days of the date of this letter.

I.  INTERNATIONAL LAW REQUIRES THE UN TO ACCEPT PETITIONER’S CLAIMS AND PROVIDE RELIEF.

A. The UN is legally obligated to consider and settle claims filed by third parties for injury, illness and death attributable to the UN or its peacekeeping forces.

Petitioners, who are 5,000 victims of UN-caused cholera in Haiti, filed private law claims in accordance with Section 29 of the CPIUN and Articles 54 and 55 of the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) signed between the UN and the Government of Haiti. Section 29 requires that the “United Nations shall make provisions for appropriate modes of settlement of … [d]isputes arising out of contracts or other disputes of a private law character to which the United Nations is a party.” In Section 29, the UN promises to balance immunity from legal action in national courts with a commitment to provide settlements of private law claims through the UN internal claims process. Notably, Section 29 does not prescribe any type of claim as not receivable.

In the context of peacekeeping operations, the UN has further committed to establish “Standing Claims Commissions” to hear private law claims submitted by third parties. Article 55 of the SOFA expressly mandates that the UN establish such a commission in Haiti to receive claims by individuals who are victims of harms attributable to the UN Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH).

 These treaty obligations under the CPIUN and SOFA help to ensure that the UN’s immunity regime will not amount to a complete denial of justice for victims of harms caused by the UN. The obligations accord with the fundamental right to an effective remedy, which has been recognized in major human rights instruments, including those adopted by the UN itself. Moreover, they are consistent with the UN’s express aim to promote human rights and justice. Yet over two-and-a-half years after the outbreak of cholera in Haiti, the UN Secretariat has refused to receive Petitioners’ claims, and the UN in Haiti has not established a standing claims commission, thus resulting in a complete denial of justice to those who have been injured or killed by the UN cholera epidemic.

The UN’s obligation to accept and respond to claims of liability for third-party personal injury and death attributable to the organization extends beyond the CPIUN and SOFA. Your predecessor as UN Legal Counsel stressed that “[a]s a matter of international law, it is clear that the Organization can incur liabilities of a private law nature and is obligated to pay in regard to such liabilities.” The UN Secretary-General, in studying the financial limitations on UN liability, reiterated the general principle that compensation should be paid with a view to redressing the damage caused by the UN, and restoring the situation to what it had been prior to the occurrence of the damage. When tortious liability arises, “the fact that funds have not been appropriated to pay legal obligations is not an excuse for failing to pay these obligations.” The International Court of Justice has also ruled in two advisory opinions that, “although the General Assembly has the authority under the Charter of the United Nations to approve the budget of the Organization, it has no alternative but to honour obligations incurred by the Organization.” Thus, principles of international law firmly establish the UN’s obligation to hear and settle claims such as Petitioners’.

This obligation is particularly well-established with respect to UN peacekeeping operations such as MINUSTAH. For example:

• In 1996, the Secretary-General observed that “the United Nations has, since the inception of peacekeeping operations, assumed its liability for damage caused by members of its forces in the performance of their duties.”

• The Secretary-General has also accepted that “[i]t has always been the policy of the United Nations, acting through the Secretary-General, to compensate individuals who have suffered damages for which the Organization was legally liable. This policy is in keeping with generally recognized legal principles and with the [CPIUN].” 

• The UN General Assembly has decided specific temporal and financial measures to govern third-party liability resulting or arising from peacekeeping operations conducted by the Organization, reaffirming the general principle of liability for peacekeeping.

 The Secretary-General’s evasion of these principles and practice in the Haiti cholera context violates international law and the UN’s legal commitments, and departs from the organization’s long-honored practice.

B. Petitioners’ cholera claims are of a private law character within the meaning of Section 29 of the CPIUN and Articles 54 and 55 of the SOFA.

Petitioners’ cholera-related claims are precisely the type of claim envisioned in Section 29 of the CPIUN and Articles 54 and 55 of the SOFA, which the UN has an obligation to hear and settle. A tort, i.e., a claim for injury suffered by individuals, is an archetype of the kind of “private law” claim such as that covered in the provisions of the CPIUN and SOFA. The UN Legal Counsel has confirmed this citing personal injury claims as a common example of claims that are of a “private law nature”. UN practice also confirms it: in a report on UN procedures implementing Section 29, the Secretary-General identified four common types of private law claims that the UN must settle:

1. Disputes arising out of commercial contracts;

2. Third-party claims for personal injuries, including tort claims, arising outside of the peacekeeping context;

3. Third-party claims related to UN peacekeeping operations, including claims for compensation for personal injury or death;

4. Claims related to the conduct of operational activities for development.

Furthermore, the Secretary-General has specifically affirmed that “claims for compensation submitted by third parties for personal injury or death … incurred as a result of acts committed by members of a United Nations peace-keeping operation within the ‘mission area’ concerned” are “of a ‘private law’ character.” The UN followed this principle when it established the Human Rights Advisory Panel to review human rights violations committed by the UN Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK).  In assessing the types of claims that fell under its original jurisdiction, the Panel determined that complaints of human rights violations involving personal injury, illness or death constituted private law claims, and, therefore, fell within the purview of the UN’s Section 29 internal claims process.

 Accordingly, under generally recognized definitions of private law and by the UN’s own standards, all of the characteristics of a private law claim are present in this case. Petitioners are third-party complainants seeking compensation for personal injury, illness or death incurred as a result of acts committed by the UN and its peacekeeping operation MINUSTAH, as well as for the consequent human rights violations they have suffered. Since their claims (which are brought by private individuals represented by non-governmental organizations and private law firms) sound in private law tort, the UN has an obligation to settle those claims pursuant to Section 29 of the CPIUN and Article 54 and 55 of the SOFA.

C. The Response’s asserted “policy or political matters” exception has no basis in law.

 Notwithstanding the UN’s well-established obligations discussed above, the Response asserts that Petitioners’ claims are “not receivable” because considering them “would necessarily include a review of political or policy matters.” The Response cites no legal authority for any “political” or “policy” related exception to the UN’s obligation to hear claims, nor in fact does any such exception exist. Moreover, assuming arguendo that such an exception existed, it would not excuse the UN from hearing Petitioners’ claims.

Nowhere does the CPIUN or SOFA excuse the UN’s obligation to settle private law claims that entail a review of political or policy matters.  Similarly, none of the documents generally establishing the scope of the UN’s legal obligations toward third parties (such as relevant General Assembly resolutions, Secretary-General reports, or publicly-available opinions of the UN’s own legal office) creates such a carve-out. Rather, those documents exempt the UN from its obligation to settle third-party private law claims only for claims of harms resulting out of operational necessity — an exception which is not at issue and the UN has not invoked in this case.

The only UN document to mention “political or policy-related” claims characterizes such claims as those “denouncing the policies of the Organization and alleging that specific actions of the General Assembly or the Security Council have caused the claimant to sustain financial losses.” This characterization seems to refer to petitions that, for example, seek compensation for business losses incurred as a result of sanctions imposed on a government by a Security Council resolution.  Petitioners’ have not asserted any such “political or policy-related” claims. Nothing in Petitioners’ claims relates to actions of the General Assembly or the Security Council (unless the UN is suggesting that the malfeasance it committed in Haiti rises to the level of a deliberate General Assembly or Security Council policy).  Nor are Petitioners seeking compensation for policy-induced financial losses.

Even if such an exception were more broadly construed, Petitioners’ claims do not seek a review of any UN policy or politics at any level. They seek reparations for injuries resulting from the UN’s negligent omission to adequately screen troops for cholera prior to deployment, and its reckless acts that caused untreated, contaminated human waste to leak into and poison Haiti’s central river, in accordance with the UN’s agreement to pay for its tortious liability. Such claims for personal injury are universally actionable around the world.  If the UN separately chooses to review its policies so as to prevent similar harms and liability in the future, that is a decision the UN is free to make, but it is neither a remedy sought by Petitioners nor a necessary precursor to providing Petitioners with just compensation for the injury they have suffered.

Even if Petitioners’ claims implicated matters of UN policy, that would not change their nature so as to render them unreceivable. As the International Court of Justice has noted, matters involving the UN often have political significance and may be intertwined with political questions, but that does not provide a valid reason for refusing to review those matters. 

The UN’s refusal to address Petitioners’ claims on the grounds that they implicate political or policy matters is untenable and has two dangerous consequences for the UN and its commitment to promoting human rights. First, it implies that the UN’s tortious dumping of raw sewage into rivers of vulnerable countries where it operates is a matter of UN policy. Second, it would carve out an exception to Section 29 that is so broad as to swallow the UN’s obligation to compensate.  If Petitioners’ claims involve a review of policy or political matters so as to render it non-receivable, it is difficult to imagine what type of claim would not involve such a review. Nearly all UN acts and omissions that result in injury to third parties could be construed to touch on matters of “policy” at some level. For example, the UN has routinely compensated for third party injury resulting from car accidents caused by UN peacekeepers, but even such relatively minor accidents could be said to involve a review of the “policies” that led to the UN vehicle taking that route; the training, supervision and regulation of UN drivers; and the maintenance of vehicles. Such a situation may spur the UN to review the process and policies that led to the injury-causing error, but this does not, and should not, affect the UN’s obligation to compensate the injured third party. If it were so, very few situations would remain where the UN retained an obligation to compensate third parties injured by its actions, essentially rendering the critical promise in Section 29 meaningless.

II. THE UN CONTINUES TO HAVE OUTSTANDING OBLIGATIONS TO VICTIMS OF UN CHOLERA IN HAITI. 

Cholera is an ongoing emergency in Haiti, and unless adequate measures are taken to control the epidemic, hundreds of thousands of Haitians will continue to fall sick and die over the coming years. In its letter of February 21st, the UN acknowledged that the outbreak of cholera in Haiti has been “catastrophic.” Between January and March 2013, twice as many people died from cholera as compared to the same period the year prior. The UN Secretary-General himself has stressed that the situation is “particularly worrying since non-governmental organizations that responded at the beginning of the epidemic are phasing out their support for lack of funding.”

 In their Petition for Relief, Petitioners requested that the UN work with the Government of Haiti to establish and fund a countrywide program for clean water, adequate sanitation, and appropriate medical treatment to prevent the further spread of cholera. Petitioners stressed that the funds for this program should be furnished by the UN and allocated for measures that will end the cholera epidemic, including measures that improve (i) water quality and access; (ii) sanitation conditions; and (iii) access to medical services. 

In your letter of February 21st, you stated that the UN has “expended considerable efforts and resources in combating cholera and improving Haiti’s water and sanitation facilities, training, logistics and early warning systems.” The fact that over 680,000 people have been sickened by cholera and over 8,000 have died since the start of the outbreak in 2010 (including 1,000 new recorded deaths in the last year) demonstrates that the UN’s efforts have been highly inadequate to stop the suffering from the UN-caused harm, and that a more urgent response is needed to properly address this crisis.

The Haitian Government, in partnership with the Pan-American Health Organization, UNICEF, and U.S. Centers for Disease Control, has determined that it will take ten years and cost $2.2 billion to eliminate the cholera that the UN brought to Haiti. On 27 February 2013, the Haitian Government launched a full plan for the elimination of cholera, and appealed to the international community for support. In your letter, you noted that the Secretary-General has committed $23.5 million in support of the Haitian Government’s initiative. While this represents a positive step, the amount represents a mere 1% of the total needed, and cannot be considered an adequate response to the crisis in Haiti. Given that it triggered the epidemic in Haiti, the UN has a legal and moral obligation to ensure that this cholera initiative is fully and immediately funded.

Moreover, in addition to reparations in the form of a comprehensive water and sanitation program and just compensation for the victims, Petitioners seek a public acknowledgment and apology from the UN for the thousands of deaths and innumerable amount of suffering it has caused. The UN made no mention of this request in its response.  Petitioners also requested that the UN take prompt action to establish a standing claims commission in accordance with its commitments under the SOFA to hear the claims in an independent, transparent matter.  Petitioners interpret the UN’s silence on the matter as an indication that the UN has no intent of fulfilling this obligation, and requests that the UN inform petitioners immediately if this is not the case.

 III. PRAYER FOR A PROMPT RESPONSE.

In light of the fact that the UN’s letter of February 21 leaves many outstanding questions regarding Petitioners’ claims, and in consideration of the UN’s commitment to transparency and the rule of law, Petitioners request a meeting with the UN’s Office of Legal Affairs to discuss this matter. Petitioners seek to understand what reasonable legal explanation exists for why their claims may not be “receivable” under Section 29. They also seek to work towards resolving this matter amicably, in furtherance of both parties’ expressed dedication to combatting the ill-effects of cholera in Haiti and to containing and eradicating the current epidemic.

Alternatively, Petitioners request that the UN consent to mediation regarding the reviewability and merits of their claims by an independent mediator (mutually agreed upon by both parties).  Petitioners believe that mediation may facilitate an expeditious resolution of this matter, help avoid litigation, and provide a just resolution to Petitioners’ claims.

If Petitioners do not receive a timely response to this letter within 60 days, they will be left with no other option than to file suit against the UN so as to pursue a fair resolution of their claims in a court of law.

Respectfully submitted on May 7, 2013

———————————————

Mario Joesph, Av.

Attorney for Petitioners

Bureau des Avocats Internationaux

No. 3, 2:ieme Impasse Lavaud

Port-au-Prince, Haiti

———————————————

Brian Concannon, Jr., Esq.

Attorney for Petitioners
Institute for Justice & Democracy in Haiti

666 Dorchester Ave.

Boston, MA 02127

———————————————

Ira Kurzban, Esq.

Attorney for Petitioners

Kurzban Kurzban Weinger Tetzeli & Pratt P.A.

2650 S.W. 27th Ave

Second Floor

Miami, Florida 33133
CC:

H.E. Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations

Nigel Fisher, UN Special Representative to the Secretary-General on MINUSTAH

Paul Farmer, UN Special Representative to the Secretary-General on the Elimination of Cholera

Click HERE to download the PDF.
Click HERE to read the French version.
Click HERE to read the press conference.
Click HERE to watch the video about  stories of the victims.

 

07 mai 2013

Madame la Secrétaire générale adjointe O’Brien,

En référence à votre lettre du 21 février 2013 (la ‘Réponse’), dans laquelle sont rejetées les demandes d’indemnisation et de réparations qui ont été soumises à l’Organisation des Nations Unies (ONU), le 3 novembre 2011 par 5000 victimes du choléra en Haïti requérants.

Les deux phrases de la Réponse concernant les réclamations des requérants, soutiennent qu’elles sont « non recevables » en vertu de la Section 29 de la Convention sur les privilèges et immunités des Nations Unies [CPIUN]», car « l’examen de ces demandes devrait nécessairement impliquer une réévaluation de questions politiques et stratégiques ». La Réponse n’explique pas comment ces revendications impliquent nécessairement un tel examen, et ne se réfère pas à une législation nationale ou internationale soutenant la thèse selon laquelle un tel examen rend les réclamations « non recevables ». En l’absence de plus amples renseignements, l’invocation de la Section 29 dans la Réponse semble arbitraire, désintéressée et contraire aux principes de la légalité internationale.

En vertu du droit international pertinent et conforme à la longue pratique des Nations Unies et des résolutions de l’Assemblée générale de l’ONU, les allégations des requérants sont des « réclamations qui relèvent du droit privé » pour lesquelles la Section 29 indique que l’ONU « devra prévoir des modes de règlement appropriés ». Cette lettre résume cette loi, et constitue également une demande officielle pour:

A) une réunion avec des fonctionnaires de l’ONU pour discuter de leurs revendications, y compris les questions soulevées dans la Réponse de l’ONU; ou
B) un engagement d’entreprendre une médiation pour aider à régler les réclamations.

Le lourd bilan de l’épidémie du choléra introduite par l’ONU en Haïti exige un règlement immédiat et équitable, ainsi qu’un traitement d’urgence des réclamations des requérants. Depuis janvier 2013, un nombre additionnel de 184 personnes sont décédées et 18162 ont contracté le choléra. Une évaluation des établissements de santé publique  publiée par Médecins Sans Frontières ce mois-ci a démontré que « le manque de fonds et d’équipements a paralysé les programmes de traitement du choléra en Haïti, ce qui a conduit à des décès qui auraient pu être évité et augmente le risque d’épidémie pendant la prochaine saison des pluies ».[1] Par conséquent, cette lettre constitue également un avis officiel du conseil des requérants concernant le dépôt d’une plainte devant une juridiction nationale au nom des requérants et des autres victimes du choléra en Haïti, si aucune réponse appropriée n’est reçue dans les 60 jours suivant la date d’émission de cette lettre.
I. Le droit international exige que l’ONU accepte les réclamations des requérants et fournisse de l’aide.

A. L’ONU a l’obligation légale de considérer et de régler les réclamations déposées par des tiers en cas de blessure, de maladie et de décès imputables à l’ONU ou à ses forces de maintien de la paix.

Les requérants, qui sont 5000 victimes du choléra que l’ONU a introduit en Haïti, ont déposé des réclamations de droit privé conformément à la Section 29 de la CPIUN[2] et aux articles 54 et 55 du Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) signé entre l’ONU et le Gouvernement d’Haïti.[3] Selon la Section 29, « l’Organisation des Nations Unies devra prévoir des modes de règlement appropriés pour… les différends en matière de contrats ou autres différends de droit privé dans lesquels l’Organisation serait partie ». Cette Section 29 indique que l’ONU promet d’équilibrer son immunité face aux poursuites devant les tribunaux nationaux, en s’engageant à fournir des mécanismes de réclamations en droit privé à travers la gestion des réclamations internes de l’ONU. De plus, la Section 29 ne prévoit pas de demandes non-recevables.

Dans le contexte des opérations de maintien de la paix, l’ONU s’est également engagée à établir des « commissions permanentes de réclamations » pour entendre les réclamations de droit privé soumises par des tiers.[4] L’article 55 du SOFA prévoit expressément que les Nations Unies établissent une telle commission en Haïti pour recevoir des réclamations de personnes qui sont victimes de préjudices imputables à la Mission de stabilisation des Nations Unies en Haïti (MINUSTAH).[5]

Ces obligations conventionnelles en vertu du SOFA et de la CPIUN aident à garantir que le régime d’immunité de l’ONU ne résultera pas en un déni complet de la justice pour les victimes de dommages causés par l’ONU. Ces obligations sont en accord avec le droit fondamental à un recours effectif, qui a été reconnu par les principaux instruments internationaux relatifs aux droits de l’homme, y compris ceux adoptés par l’ONU.[6] De plus, elles sont concordantes avec l’objectif exprimé par l’ONU de vouloir promouvoir le respect des droits humains et de la justice.[7] Toutefois, presque deux ans et demi après le début de l’épidémie de choléra introduite par l’ONU en Haïti, le Secrétariat de l’ONU a refusé de recevoir les réclamations des requérants, et l’ONU n’a pas établi la commission de réclamations permanente en Haïti, ce qui constitue une négation complète de justice à ceux qui ont été atteints par le choléra, ou qui en sont décédés.

L’obligation de l’ONU d’accepter et de répondre aux réclamations de responsabilité pour les blessures et de décès de tiers imputables à l’organisation s’étend au-delà de la CPIUN et SOFA. Votre prédécesseur au poste de Conseiller juridique de l’ONU a souligné «[qu’en] matière de droit international, il est clair que l’Organisation peut contracter des dettes relevant du droit privé et est tenue de payer à l’égard de ces engagements ».[8] Le Secrétaire général, dans l’étude des limites financières de la responsabilité des Nations Unies, a rappelé le principe général que des indemnités doivent être payées dans l’optique de redresser un dommage causé par l’ONU, et ramener  la situation à ce qu’elle était avant la survenance du dommage.[9] Lorsque la question de la responsabilité délictuelle se pose, « le fait que les fonds n’aient pas été affectés pour payer les obligations juridiques n’est pas une excuse pour ne pas avoir à payer ces obligations ».[10] La Cour internationale de justice a également établi dans deux avis consultatifs que, « bien que l’Assemblée générale ait l’autorité en vertu de la Charte des Nations Unies d’approuver le budget de l’Organisation, il n’y a pas d’autre choix que de respecter les obligations encourues par l’Organisation ».[11] Ainsi, les principes du droit international établissent fermement l’obligation de l’ONU d’entendre et de régler les revendications telles que celles des requérants.

Cette obligation est particulièrement bien établie en ce qui concerne les opérations de maintien de la paix des Nations Unies telles que la MINUSTAH. Par exemple:

• En 1996, le Secrétaire général a fait observer que « [l]es Nations Unies ont, depuis le début des opérations de maintien de la paix, assumé leur responsabilité pour les dommages causés par les membres de ses forces dans l’exercice de leurs fonctions ».[12]
• Le Secrétaire général a également admis que « [cela] a toujours été la politique de l’Organisation des Nations Unies, agissant par l’intermédiaire du Secrétaire général, d’indemniser les personnes qui ont subi des dommages pour lesquels l’Organisation est légalement responsable. Cette politique est conforme aux principes juridiques généralement reconnus et avec la [CPIUN] ».[13]
• L’Assemblée générale des Nations Unies a établi des mesures temporelles et financières spécifiques pour régir la responsabilité d’un tiers parti « résultant ou découlant d’opérations de maintien de la paix menées par l’Organisation », et réaffirmant le principe de responsabilité dans ces opérations de maintien de la paix.[14]

L’éloignement du Secrétaire général de ces principes et de la pratique dans le contexte haïtien constitue une violation du droit international et des engagements juridiques de l’ONU, et s’éloigne d’une pratique longuement établie et respectée de l’organisation.

B. Les demandes des requérants concernant le choléra ont un caractère de droit privé au sens de la Section 29 de la CPIUN et des articles 54 et 55 du SOFA.

Les plaintes liées au choléra sont précisément le type de réclamations prévues par la Section 29 de la CPIUN et par les articles 54 et 55 du SOFA, que l’ONU a l’obligation d’entendre et de régler. Une lésion, c’est à dire, une réclamation pour le préjudice subi par les particuliers, est l’archétype d’une forme de réclamations de « droit privé » telles que celles couvertes par les dispositions de la CPIUN et du SOFA.[15] Le conseiller juridique de l’ONU a confirmé cela, en nommant les réclamations pour préjudice corporel comme un exemple courant de réclamations étant de « nature de droit privé ».[16] La pratique de l’ONU le confirme également: dans un rapport sur les procédures de l’ONU pour mettre en œuvre la Section 29, le Secrétaire général a identifié quatre types communs de réclamations de droit privé que l’ONU doit régler:

a)      Les différends en matière de contrats commerciaux;

b)      Les réclamations de tiers pour dommages corporels, y compris les réclamations en responsabilité civile délictuelle, en dehors du contexte de maintien de la paix;

c)      Les réclamations de tiers liées aux opérations de paix des Nations Unies, y compris les demandes d’indemnisation pour les dommages corporels ou les décès;

d)     Les réclamations relatives à la conduite des activités opérationnelles de développement.[17]

En outre, le Secrétaire général a expressément affirmé que « les demandes d’indemnisation présentées par des tiers pour les dommages corporels ou le décès… encourues à la suite d’actes commis par des membres d’une opération de maintien de la paix des Nations Unies dans des zones de mission concernées » sont « du caractère du droit privé ». [18]« L’ONU a suivi ce principe quand il a créé le Groupe consultatif des droits de l’homme pour examiner les violations des droits de l’homme commises par la Mission des Nations Unies au Kosovo (MINUK). En évaluant les types de demandes qui relevaient de sa compétence en première instance, le Groupe a déterminé que les plaintes de violations des droits de l’homme impliquant blessures, maladies ou décès constituaient de réclamations de droit privé, et, par conséquent, relevaient de la compétence  de l’ONU selon la Section 29 sur le processus interne de revendications.[19]

En conséquence, selon les définitions généralement reconnues du droit privé et en vertu des normes de l’ONU, toutes les caractéristiques d’une réclamation de droit privé sont présentes dans ce cas. Les requérants sont des tiers plaignants demandant une indemnisation pour préjudice corporel, maladie ou décès survenu à la suite d’actes commis par l’ONU et son opération de maintien de la paix (MINUSTAH), ainsi que pour les graves violations des droits humains qu’ils ont subies. Puisque leurs revendications (portées par des particuliers représentés par des organisations non gouvernementales et des entreprises de droit privé) sont du ressort du droit privé,[20] l’ONU a l’obligation de régler les réclamations en vertu de la Section 29 de la CPIUN et des articles 54 et 55 du SOFA.

C. L’exception  « des questions politiques ou stratégiques » donnée dans la Réponse n’a pas de base légale.

Nonobstant les obligations bien établies de l’ONU énoncées précédemment, la Réponse affirme que les allégations des requérants sont « non recevables » parce qu’elles « impliqueraient nécessairement un examen des questions politiques ou stratégiques ». La Réponse ne cite aucune loi explicitant une exception d’ordre «politique» ou  « stratégique » à l’obligation de l’ONU d’entendre les demandes, et une telle dérogation n’existe pas en réalité. Par ailleurs, si une telle exception existait, elle ne constituerait pas une raisons suffisante pour que l’ONU refuse d’entendre les réclamations des requérants.

Il n’est dit nulle part que la CPIUN ou SOFA permettent une dérogation à l’obligation de l’ONU de régler les revendications de droit privé qui impliquent un examen de questions politiques ou stratégiques. De même, aucun des documents établissant généralement la portée des obligations juridiques de l’ONU à l’égard de tiers (tels que les résolutions pertinentes de l’Assemblée générale,[21] des rapports Secrétaire général, ou des opinions disponibles publiquement de son propre bureau juridique de l’ONU[22]) mentionnent une telle exception. Au contraire, ces documents exemptent l’ONU de son obligation de régler des réclamations de droit privé déposées par des tiers uniquement pour les demandes de dommages résultant d’une nécessité opérationnelle – une exception qui n’est pas en cause et qui n’a pas été invoquée par les Nations Unies dans le cas qui nous concerne.

Le seul document de l’ONU mentionnant des revendications « d’ordre politique ou stratégique » caractérise ces demandes comme étant celles qui « dénoncent les politiques de l’Organisation et allèguent que les actions spécifiques de l’Assemblée générale ou du Conseil de sécurité ont causé au demandeur  des pertes financières ».[23]  Cette description semble se référer aux pétitions qui, par exemple, cherchent à obtenir compensation pour les pertes commerciales subies en raison des sanctions imposées à un gouvernement par une résolution du Conseil de sécurité. Les requérants n’ont pas émis de réclamations « d’ordre politique ou stratégique ». Aucun élément dans les allégations des requérants ne porte sur des actions de l’Assemblée générale ou du Conseil de sécurité (à moins que l’ONU suggère que le méfait qui lui est imputable en Haïti relève d’une politique délibérée de l’Assemblée générale ou du Conseil de sécurité). Les requérants n’ont pas non plus demandé à être indemnisés pour des pertes financières occasionnées par une  politique particulière.[24]

Même si une telle exception était plus largement interprétée, les allégations des requérants ne visent l’examen d’aucune politique ou stratégie des Nations Unies, et ce, à n’importe quel niveau. Ils demandent réparations pour les dommages causés par l’omission négligente de l’ONU de tester correctement ses troupes pour dépister le choléra, avant de les déployer sur le terrain. Ils demandent aussi réparations pour ces actes irresponsables qui ont permis l’infiltration de déchets humains contaminés dans la rivière centrale d’Haïti, conformément à l’accord de l’ONU d’assumer sa responsabilité délictuelle.[25] Ce genre de réclamations pour blessures corporelles est passible de sanction partout dans le monde.[26] Si l’ONU choisit indépendamment de revoir ses politiques de manière à prévenir des préjudices et une responsabilité similaires à l’avenir, c’est un choix de l’ONU – mais n’est ni une solution recherchée par les requérants, ni un précurseur nécessaire à la juste réparation du préjudice que les requérants ont subi.

Même si les revendications des requérants devaient porter sur des questions de politiques de l’ONU, cela ne changerait pas leur nature au point de les rendre irrecevable.[27] Comme la Cour internationale de justice l’a soulevé, les questions touchant les Nations Unies ont souvent une signification politique et peuvent être liés à des questions politiques, mais cela ne constitue pas un motif valable pour refuser d’examiner ces questions.[28]

Le refus de l’ONU de répondre aux réclamations des requérants parce qu’elles concernent des questions politiques ou stratégiques est intenable et a deux conséquences dangereuses pour les Nations Unies et son engagement à la promotion des droits humains. D’abord, elle implique que le déversement délictuel d’eaux usées non traitées dans les rivières d’un pays vulnérable où elle exerce ses activités est relative à une politique de l’ONU. En second lieu, cela introduit une exception à la Section 29  suffisamment large pour annihiler l’engagement de l’ONU à régler les différends. Si les demandes des requérants impliquent un examen de questions politiques ou stratégiques et qu’elles deviennent dès lors non-recevables, il est difficile d’imaginer quel type de réclamations ne nécessite pas un tel examen. Presque tous les actes et omissions de l’ONU qui entraînent des blessures à des tiers pourrait être perçus comment touchant aux questions de « politiques » d’une manière ou d’une autre. Par exemple, l’ONU a régulièrement indemnisé pour les dommages aux tiers résultant d’accidents de la route causés par les Casques bleus de l’ONU. Cependant, même ces accidents relativement mineurs pourraient engager un examen des « politiques » qui ont résulté au trajet particulier d’un véhicule de l’ONU; ou qui concernent la formation, la supervision et la gestion des conducteurs de l’ONU, et l’entretien des véhicules. Une telle situation peut inciter l’ONU à examiner le processus et les politiques qui ont conduit à l’erreur causant des blessures, mais cela ne peut pas, et ne devrait pas affecter l’obligation de l’ONU à compenser un tiers lésé. Si cela s’avérait vrai, il resterait très peu de situations où l’ONU conserverait une obligation d’indemniser les tiers lésés par ses actions, ce qui rend la promesse fondamentale de la Section 29 essentiellement vide de sens.

II. L’ONU CONTINUE D’AVOIR DES OBLIGATIONS ENVERS LES VICTIMES DU CHOLÉRA EN HAÏTI.

Le choléra est une urgence en cours en Haïti, et à moins que des mesures adéquates soient prises pour lutter contre l’épidémie, des centaines de milliers d’Haïtiens continueront de tomber malade et de mourir au cours des années à venir. Dans sa lettre du 21 février, l’ONU a reconnu que l’épidémie de choléra en Haïti a été «catastrophique». Entre les mois de janvier et mars 2013, le nombre de personnes décédées du choléra a doublé comparativement à l’année précédente à la même période.[29] Le Secrétaire général lui-même a souligné que la situation est « particulièrement préoccupante, car les organisations non gouvernementales qui ont répondu au début de l’épidémie sont progressivement entrain de se retirer en raison du manque de financement ».[30]

Dans leur pétition pour mettre fin au choléra, les requérants ont demandé que les Nations Unies travaillent avec le Gouvernement d’Haïti pour établir et financer un programme national pour l’eau potable, l’assainissement et le traitement médical approprié pour prévenir la propagation du choléra. Les requérants ont souligné que les fonds de ce programme devraient être fournis par l’ONU et alloués pour des mesures qui mettront fin à l’épidémie de choléra, y compris les mesures visant à améliorer (i) l’accès et la qualité de l’eau, (ii) les conditions sanitaires et (iii) l’accès aux soins médicaux.

Dans votre lettre du 21 février, vous avez dit que l’ONU a « déployé des efforts et des ressources considérables dans la lutte contre le choléra et l’amélioration des installations sanitaires et de la qualité de l’eau en Haïti, la formation, la logistique et les systèmes d’alerte efficaces ». Le fait que plus de 680000 personnes ont été atteintes du choléra et que plus de 8000 en sont décédées depuis le début de l’épidémie en 2010 (dont 1000 nouveaux décès enregistrés l’année dernière) démontre que les efforts de l’ONU ont été très insuffisants pour mettre fin aux souffrances du préjudice causé par l’ONU, et qu’une action reste à faire d’urgence pour mettre fin à cette crise.

Le Gouvernement haïtien, en partenariat avec l’Organisation panaméricaine de la santé, l’UNICEF et les US Centers for Disease Control, a déterminé qu’il faudra dix ans et a coûté 2,2 millions de dollars pour éliminer le choléra que l’ONU a introduit en Haïti. Le 27 février 2013, le gouvernement haïtien a lancé un plan complet pour l’élimination du choléra, et lancé un appel à la communauté internationale pour un soutien. Dans votre lettre, vous avez noté que le Secrétaire général a engagé 23,5 millions de dollars à l’appui de l’initiative du gouvernement haïtien. Bien que cela représente une étape positive, le montant représente à peine 1% du total nécessaire, et ne peut pas être considérée comme une réponse adéquate à la crise en Haïti. Étant donné qu’elle a déclenché l’épidémie en Haïti, l’ONU a l’obligation légale et morale d’assurer que cette initiative contre le choléra soit entièrement et immédiatement financée.

Par ailleurs, en plus des réparations sous la forme d’eau  potable, d’un programme d’assainissement et d’une juste indemnisation pour les victimes, les requérants cherchent une reconnaissance publique et des excuses de l’ONU pour les milliers de décès et les innombrables souffrances qu’elle a causé. L’ONU ne fait aucune mention de cette demande dans sa réponse.

III. DEMANDE EN REPONSE IMMEDIATE POUR LES REQUERANTS

En tenant compte du fait que la lettre de l’ONU de 21 février laissent de nombreuses questions en suspens concernant les allégations des requérants, et en considérant l’engagement de l’ONU envers la transparence et la primauté du droit, les requérants demandent une réunion avec le Bureau des affaires juridiques des Nations Unies pour une discussion sur cet enjeu. Les requérants demandent à comprendre quelle explication juridique raisonnable existe pour affirmer que leurs revendications ne peuvent pas être « reçues » en vertu de l’article 29. Ils cherchent également à œuvrer pour la résolution de cette affaire à l’amiable, dans la lignée du dévouement que les deux parties ont exprimé quant à la lutte contre les effets néfastes de choléra en Haïti et à la nécessité de contenir et d’éradiquer l’épidémie actuelle.

Alternativement, les requérants demandent que l’ONU consente à ce que la médiation concernant la recevabilité et les mérites de leur demande soit faite par un médiateur indépendant (dont le choix sera fait d’un commun accord par les deux parties). Les requérants croient qu’une médiation pourrait faciliter un traitement rapide de cette question, aiderait à éviter des litiges, et fournirait un règlement plus juste aux réclamations des requérants.

Si les requérants ne reçoivent pas une réponse prompte à cette lettre, ils n’auront d’autre choix que de déposer plainte contre l’ONU afin d’obtenir un règlement équitable de leurs réclamations dans une cour de justice.

Veuillez agréer, Madame, nous salutations distinguées,

Mario Joseph, Av.
Avocat de la partie réquerante
Bureau des Avocats Internationaux
No. 3, 2:ieme Impasse Lavaud
Port-au-Prince, Haiti

Brian Concannon, Jr., Esq.
Avocat de la partie réquerante
Institute for Justice & Democracy in Haiti
666 Dorchester Ave.
Boston, MA 02127

 

Ira Kurzban, Esq.
Avocat de la partie réquerante
Kurzban Kurzban Weinger Tetzeli & Pratt P.A.
2650 S.W. 27th Ave
Second Floor
Miami, Florida 33133

CC:

Son Excellence Ban Ki-Moon, Secrétaire Général des Nations Unies

Nigel Fisher, Représentant Spéciale adjoint du Secrétaire Général pour la MINUSTAH

Paul Farmer, Représentant Spéciale adjoint du Secrétaire Général pour l’élimination du choléra

 

[1] Communiqué de presse, Médecins Sans Frontières, Haïti : des dizaines de centres de traitement du choléra dans un état déplorable (12 Mars, 2013), http://www.msf.fr/presse/communiques/haiti-dizaines-centres-traitement-cholera-etat-deplorable.

[2] Convention sur les Privilèges et Immunités des Nations Unies, § 29, 13 févr. 1946, 1 U.N.T.S. 15 [ci-après CPINU].

[3] Accord entre l’Organisation des Nations Unis et le Gouvernement Haïtien concernant le statut de l’opération des Nations Unis en Haïti, ¶¶ 54-55, 9 Juillet 2004 [ci-après SOFA].

[4] Secrétaire Général, Rapport du Secrétaire Général en Aspects Administratifset Budgétaires du Financement des Opérations de Maintien de la Paix des Nations Unies, ¶ 7, UN Doc A/51/389 (20 sept. 1996) (“Conformément à la section 29 de la [CPINU], elle s’est engagée…à régler, par l’intermédiaire d’une commission permanente, les demandes d’indemnisation se rapportant à des dommages causés par des membres d’une force des Nations Unies…”)

[5] SOFA ¶ 55 (“une commission permanente desréclamations créée à cet effet statue sur tout différend ou toute réclamation relevant du droit privé… auquel la MINUSTAH ou l’un de ses membres est partie et à l’égard duquelles tribunaux d’Haïti n’ont pas compétence en raison d’une disposition du présent Accord.”).

[6] cf., e.g., Déclaration Universelle des Droits De L’Homme, G.A. Res. 217A (III), art. 8 (10 déc. 1948) (“Toute personne a droit à un recours effectif devant les juridictions nationales compétentes contre les actes violant les droits fondamentaux qui lui sont reconnus par la constitution ou par la loi.”); Pacte International Relatif aux Droits Civils et Politiques, G.A. Res. 2200A (XXI), art. 2 (16 déc 1966); Convention internationale sur l’élimination de toutes les formes de discrimination raciale, G.A. Res. 2106 (XX), art. 6 (21 déc 1965); Convention contre la Torture et autres peines ou traitements cruels, inhumains ou dégradants, G.A. Res. 39/46, art. 14 (10 déc. 1984); and Convention relative aux droits de l’enfant G.A. Res. 44/25, art. 39 (20 nov. 1989).

[7] cf., Effet de Jugements du Tribunal Administratif des Nations Unies Accordant Indemnité, avis consultatif, 1954 I.C.J. Rapports 47, à 57 (15 juil.) (constatant que l’échec de l’ONU à fournir une voie alternative contrecarre l’objectif de promouvoir la liberté et la justice exprimé dans la Charte de l’ONU).

[8] Mémorandum du Bureau des affaires juridiques au Contrôleur concernant le paiement des demandes d’indemnisation, 2001 U.N. Jurid. Y.B. 381 (emphase ajoutée) [ci-apres Mémorandum au Contrôleur].

[9] Rapport du Secrétaire Général en Aspects Administratifs et Budgétaires du Financement des Opérations de Maintien de la Paix des Nations Unies, supra, 4, ¶ 37.

[10] Id.

[11] Effet de Jugements du Tribunal Administratif des Nations Unies Accordant Indemnité, supra, note 7; Certaines Dépenses des Nations Unies, 1962 I.C.J. Reports 151 (20 juil.).

[12] Rapport du Secrétaire Général en Aspects Administratifs et Budgétaires du Financement des Opérations de Maintien de la Paix des Nations Unies, supra, note 4, ¶ 7.

[13] Le Secrétariat, Pratique suivie par l’Organisation des Nations Unies, les institutions spécialisées et l’Agence internationale de l’énergie atomique en ce qui concerne leur statut juridique, leurs privilèges et leurs immunités: étude préparée par le Secrétariat, ¶ 56, p. 220, UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.118 et Add.1 et 2 (8 mars, 5 & 23 mai, 1967), disponible à http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/documentation/french/a_cn4_l118.pdf.

[14] G.A. Res. 52/247, U.N. Doc. A/RES/52/247 (17 juil. 1998).

[15] Voir, Randy E. Barnett, Foreward: Four Senses of the Public Law—Private Law Distinction, 9 HARV. J.L. & PUB. POL’Y 267, 268-69 (1986); Voir aussi les commentaires écrits du Secrétaire général concernant le Différend relatif à l’immunité de juridiction d’un rapporteur spécial de la commission des droits de l’Homme, ¶ 14 (30 Oct. 1998) (« Il est clair que la revendication de diffamation et / ou calomnie constitue un litige de caractère civil » et se trouve sous la juridiction de la Section 29 de la CPIUN), disponible à l’adresse http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/100/8658.pdf.

[16] Mémorandum au Contrôleur, supra, note 8.

[17] Secrétaire Général, Rapport du Secrétaire Général en Modalités mises en place pour appliquer la section 29 de l’article VIII de la Convention sur les privilèges et immunités des Nations Unies, ¶ 15, UN Doc. A/C.5/49/65 (24 avril 1995) (emphase ajoutée).

[18] Id.

[19] N.M. and Others v. UNMIK, Case No. 26-08, Décision de 31 mars 2010 (Hum. Rts. Advisory Panel).

[20] Demande de Réparation,  ¶¶ 1, 2, & 18-20 (3 Nov. 2011) (La négligence, faute grave, imprudence et indifférence délibérée à l’égard de la santé et des vies des haïtiens sont des bases juridiques de la demande).

[21] cf., e.g., G.A. Res. 52/247, supra, note 14 (délimitant les types de lésions indemnisables et approuvantla  nécessité opérationnelle comme une exemption de responsabilité, mais ne faisant aucune mention de la politique ou de la stratégie comme une exception)

[22] See 1967-2011 U.N. Jurid. Y.B.; La responsabilité des organisations internationales, Commentaires et observations des organisations internationales, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/637/Add.1 (17 févr. 2011).

[23] Rapport du Secrétaire Général en Modalités mises en place pour appliquer la section 29 de l’article VIII, supra, note 17.

[24] Comme expliqué ci-dessus, les requérants ne demandent qu’une indemnisation pour les pertes financières résultant des blessures ou de décès – soit précisément le type de pertes que l’ONU a explicitement accepté d’indemniser. cf. G.A. Res. 52/247, supra, note 11 (identifiant les pertes économiques résultant de blessures ou de décès comme indemnisable).

[25] Mémorandum au Contrôleur, supra, note 8.

[26] La Commission internationale des juristes a examiné le droit comparé au niveau mondial et a conclu que “dans chaque système juridique, en dépit des différences en matière de terminologie et d’approches, un acteur peut être tenu responsable au regard du droit de la responsabilité civile si, suite à un comportement négligent ou intentionnel, il cause un préjudice à autrui.” Complicité des entreprises et la résponsabilite juridique, VOL III Recours civils 10 (2010).

[27] Cf., e.g., Interprétation de l’accord signé le 25 mars 1951 entre l’Organisation mondiale de la santé et le Gouvernement d’Egypte, avis consultatif, C. I.J. Recueil 1980, p. 73, ¶ 33 (20 déc) (jusgeant une réclamation comme étant acceptable, en dépit de son «caractère prétendument politique»); id, l’opinion de J. Gros («la question posée à la Cour est liée à des questions politiques,« mais ce n’est pas une raison pour refuser d’examiner la demande [en question] … »). Les systèmes juridiques nationaux qui empêchent certaines questions purement politiques d’être jugées par les tribunaux continuent de soutenir que les demandes d’indemnisation pour des préjudices délictueux devraient être menées en court, même si elles touchent à des questions politiques. Aux États-Unis, voir, par exemple, Baker c Carr, 369 US 186, 211 (1962) («[O]n aurait tort de croire que chaque affaire ou controverse touchant les relations extérieures échappe au contrôle judiciaire. »); Alperin v . Banque du Vatican, 410 F.3d 532, 548 (9th Cir. 2005) (jugeant que «[s]implement parce qu’une banque étrangère est en cause et que le cas émerge d’un contexte « politiquement chargé » ne transforme pas [les allégations de conversion , d'enrichissement sans cause, de restitution et de comptabilité] en questions politiques », et jugeant ces demandes comme étant justiciables); en France, voir, par exemple, la Compagnie générale d’énergie radio électrique, Conseil d’Etat, le 30 Mars 1966 (alors que certains actes politiques concernant les affaires étrangères sont non justiciables, les actions délictuelles d’invidivus contre l’État français le sont pour les préjudices individuels, même quand elles résultent de conventions internationales).

[28] Différend relatif à l’immunité de juridiction d’un rapporteur spécial de la Commission des droits de l’homme, avis consultatif, C.I.J. Recueil 1999, p. 62, ¶ 33 (29 avril).

[29] Rapports journaliers du MSPP sur l’évolution du choléra en Haiti, Ministère de la Santé Publique et de la Population.

[30] Le Secrétaire Général, Rapport du Secrétaire général sur la Mission des Nations Unies pour la stabilisation en Haïti , ¶ 45, U.N. Doc. S/2012/678 (31 août 2012), disponible à www.un.org/Docs/journal/asp/ws.asp?m=S/2012/678.

Click HERE to see the PDF Version
Click HERE to see the English Version

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Press Contact:Beatrice Lindstrom, Esq., Institute for Justice & Democracy in Haiti, beatrice@ijdh.org, +1-404-217-1302 

 

PRESS ADVISORY 

Monday, May 6, 2013, New York — On Wednesday, May 8, 2013, attorneys representing victims of the UN cholera in Haiti that filed claims with the UN in November 2011 will host a press conference to respond to the UN’s refusal to acknowledge claims of Haitian cholera victims and to announce next steps in their lawsuit. Attorneys Brian Concannon and Ira Kurzban will be joined by Jean Ford Figaro, MD, MPH, a Haitian advocate for a stronger UN public health response to the cholera epidemic.

What: Press conference to respond to the UN’s dismissal of claims filed by 5,000 victims of the UN cholera epidemic in Haiti.

When: Wednesday May 8, 2013 at 2 p.m.

Where: United Nations Dag Hammarskjold Library Auditorium, 405 East 42nd Street, New York, NY.

The press conference will be hosted by the U.N. Correspondents Association (UNCA).  U.N. accreditation is required to attend; UNCA is not responsible for accreditation. Victims’ representatives and advocates will be available for interviews in a public location following the press conference. To schedule an interview, please contact Beatrice Lindstrom at +1-404-217-1302. Attorney Mario Joseph of the Bureau des Avocats Internationaux will be available for interviews on Thursday, May 9.

The Bureau des Avocats Internationaux (BAI), Haiti’s leading public interest law firm, has helped vic­tims pros­e­cute human rights cases, trained Hait­ian lawyers and advocated publicly for the rule of law in Haiti since 1995. The Institute for Justice & Democracy in Haiti (IJDH) works with Haitians in their non-violent strug­gle for jus­tice and human rights, by dis­trib­ut­ing objec­tive and accu­rate infor­ma­tion on human rights con­di­tions in Haiti, pur­su­ing legal cases, and coop­er­at­ing with human rights and sol­i­dar­ity groups in Haiti and abroad. Kurzban, Kurzban, Weinger, Tetzelli & Pratt, P.A. is a prominent U.S. law firm specializing in international and human rights law with extensive experience litigating cases related to Haiti. The organizations have been leading the fight for UN accountability and justice for cholera victims since 2011.

Click HERE to watch the video about  stories of the victims

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Press Contact:Beatrice Lindstrom, Esq., Institute for Justice & Democracy in Haiti, beatrice@ijdh.org, +1-404-217-1302 

 

PRESS ADVISORY 

Monday, May 6, 2013, New York — On Wednesday, May 8, 2013, attorneys representing victims of the UN cholera in Haiti that filed claims with the UN in November 2011 will host a press conference to respond to the UN’s refusal to acknowledge claims of Haitian cholera victims and to announce next steps in their lawsuit. Attorneys Brian Concannon and Ira Kurzban will be joined by Jean Ford Figaro, MD, MPH, a Haitian advocate for a stronger UN public health response to the cholera epidemic.

What: Press conference to respond to the UN’s dismissal of claims filed by 5,000 victims of the UN cholera epidemic in Haiti.

When: Wednesday May 8, 2013 at 2 p.m.

Where: United Nations Dag Hammarskjold Library Auditorium, 405 East 42nd Street, New York, NY.

The press conference will be hosted by the U.N. Correspondents Association (UNCA).  U.N. accreditation is required to attend; UNCA is not responsible for accreditation. Victims’ representatives and advocates will be available for interviews in a public location following the press conference. To schedule an interview, please contact Beatrice Lindstrom at +1-404-217-1302. Attorney Mario Joseph of the Bureau des Avocats Internationaux will be available for interviews on Thursday, May 9.

The Bureau des Avocats Internationaux (BAI), Haiti’s leading public interest law firm, has helped vic­tims pros­e­cute human rights cases, trained Hait­ian lawyers and advocated publicly for the rule of law in Haiti since 1995. The Institute for Justice & Democracy in Haiti (IJDH) works with Haitians in their non-violent strug­gle for jus­tice and human rights, by dis­trib­ut­ing objec­tive and accu­rate infor­ma­tion on human rights con­di­tions in Haiti, pur­su­ing legal cases, and coop­er­at­ing with human rights and sol­i­dar­ity groups in Haiti and abroad. Kurzban, Kurzban, Weinger, Tetzelli & Pratt, P.A. is a prominent U.S. law firm specializing in international and human rights law with extensive experience litigating cases related to Haiti. The organizations have been leading the fight for UN accountability and justice for cholera victims since 2011.

Click HERE to watch the video about  stories of the victims.

IJDH Press Conference: UN Cholera, 2pm, New York

 

 

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Press Contact:Beatrice Lindstrom, Esq., Institute for Justice & Democracy in Haiti, beatrice@ijdh.org, +1-404-217-1302 

PRESS ADVISORY 

Monday, May 6, 2013, New York — On Wednesday, May 8, 2013, attorneys representing victims of the UN cholera in Haiti that filed claims with the UN in November 2011 will host a press conference to respond to the UN’s refusal to acknowledge claims of Haitian cholera victims and to announce next steps in their lawsuit. Attorneys Brian Concannon and Ira Kurzban will be joined by Jean Ford Figaro, MD, MPH, a Haitian advocate for a stronger UN public health response to the cholera epidemic.

What: Press conference to respond to the UN’s dismissal of claims filed by 5,000 victims of the UN cholera epidemic in Haiti.

When: Wednesday May 8, 2013 at 2 p.m.

Where: United Nations Dag Hammarskjold Library Auditorium, 405 East 42nd Street, New York, NY.

The press conference will be hosted by the U.N. Correspondents Association (UNCA).  U.N. accreditation is required to attend; UNCA is not responsible for accreditation. Victims’ representatives and advocates will be available for interviews in a public location following the press conference. To schedule an interview, please contact Beatrice Lindstrom at +1-404-217-1302. Attorney Mario Joseph of the Bureau des Avocats Internationaux will be available for interviews on Thursday, May 9.

The Bureau des Avocats Internationaux (BAI), Haiti’s leading public interest law firm, has helped vic­tims pros­e­cute human rights cases, trained Hait­ian lawyers and advocated publicly for the rule of law in Haiti since 1995. The Institute for Justice & Democracy in Haiti (IJDH) works with Haitians in their non-violent strug­gle for jus­tice and human rights, by dis­trib­ut­ing objec­tive and accu­rate infor­ma­tion on human rights con­di­tions in Haiti, pur­su­ing legal cases, and coop­er­at­ing with human rights and sol­i­dar­ity groups in Haiti and abroad. Kurzban, Kurzban, Weinger, Tetzelli & Pratt, P.A. is a prominent U.S. law firm specializing in international and human rights law with extensive experience litigating cases related to Haiti. The organizations have been leading the fight for UN accountability and justice for cholera victims since 2011.

Click HERE to watch the video about  stories of the victims

Jacquline Charles, The Miami Herald
May 3, 2013

As the rainy season looms, cholera is still a deadly threat in Haiti, where resources to combat the disease are lacking and international donations have slowed.

Five months after U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon promised to “use every opportunity” to push for funding to eliminate cholera from Haiti and the neighboring Dominican Republic, government officials in both nations are still waiting on donors to open their wallets.

The feet-dragging comes as the rainy season begins and a new French study says the disease could quickly be eliminated from Haiti if investments are made to restrain transmissions.

“Cholera is only shrinking and has not yet disappeared. But it can disappear if the fight is correctly managed,” said Dr. Renaud Piarroux, who has studied the deadly waterborne disease in Haiti since it first appeared in October 2010.

Piarroux’s study first came to light last week when Prime Minister Laurent Lamothe was asked at Columbia University about the government’s plan to combat cholera.

But he mischaracterized the report’s findings when he stated that “cholera right now is disappearing” from Haiti and the country is seeing less than three cases a day. Lamothe’s Ministry of Health statistics show an average of 150 cholera cases a day so far this year.

His comments triggered a debate in Haiti about whether the government was underplaying the seriousness of the epidemic. He later backed off the statement when asked by The Miami Herald for clarification.

“This isn’t a sign of cholera’s disappearance, but rather its persistence and the reasons are simple — funding for the cholera response has greatly declined, and the response capacity has therefore diminished,” said Jake Johnston, international research associate and lead blogger on Haiti’s relief and reconstruction for the Center for Economic and Policy Research.

“This is now the third year that funding for cholera has diminished prior to the rainy season when cases will predictably spike, leading to more easily preventable and unnecessary deaths,” Johnston added.

Johnston said he isn’t surprised by the U.N.’s inability to mobilize funding to eradicate cholera in Haiti, where more than 654,000 have been sickened and more than 8,100 have already died.

More than three years after the international community pledged $5.4 billion to help Haiti rebuild after its devastating Jan. 12, 2010 earthquake, more than $2 billion remains outstanding. Meanwhile, emergency cholera funds in Haiti are quickly drying up.

A $32 million appeal after an upsurge in cholera cases following Hurricane Sandy in October only received 32 percent of funding, said George Ngwa, spokesman for the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. And as of Tuesday, a $37 million Haiti Humanitarian Action Plan (HAP) has only received 19 percent of funding.

“Water, sanitation and health activities related to cholera are so far the least funded sectors of the HAP,” Ngwa said. “The impact of this drastic underfunding is glaring on the ground.”

Not only are the number of non-governmental organizations responding to cholera in Haiti dwindling but the number of cholera treatment centers and units have fallen from 186 in December 2010 to 38 today. Even a surveillance system implemented to save lives by detecting outbreaks is dysfunctional, said the head of mission for Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières in Haiti.

“With a disease like cholera, the first hours are the most important to save lives and make a significant difference. With a surveillance and alarm system that does not give exact data, more lives are in danger,” Oliver Schulz said.

Doctors Without Borders and Partners in Health, a Boston-based medical aid group working in Haiti’s Central Plateau, said while the number of people contracting cholera is down from the onset of the disease, too many Haitians continue to get sick — and die — from it. They agree with Piarroux that the low incidences of the disease in the dry season provides the opportunity to eradicate it.

“There is a sense that it’s OK for people to be getting sick from a preventable disease,” said Dr. Louise Ivers of Partners in Health, which saw a spike in January and February. “No deaths from cholera should be acceptable. We should be striving for zero deaths.”

Both Ivers and Schulz say they welcome the 10-year cholera elimination initiative, and Haiti’s National Cholera Plan, which the Health Ministry launched in February as part of the initiative. But while the plan details the government’s roadmap for eradicating the disease, concerns about funding remain unclear.

“We do not know how the $2.2 billion will be raised and how patients will be treated in the coming weeks, in case numbers rise again,” Schulz said.

Christophe Boulierac, a spokesman with UNICEF in Haiti, said the U.N. has discussed funding with the government and is awaiting approval of how the money should be disbursed.

In lending his support to eliminating cholera, Ban announced that the U.N. was chipping in $23.5 million — about 1 percent of the plan’s $2.27 billion price tag — for 2013.

Johnston, who blames the global body’s peacekeepers for introducing cholera to Haiti, said it “has the moral, if not the legal responsibility to fund the cholera eradication plan itself.”

His criticism of the U.N. joins that of Boston-based Physicians for Haiti, which on Friday accused the U.N. of not doing enough to stop the spread of the disease.

Two years after an independent panel of experts issued a report on Haiti’s cholera outbreak, the U.N. has failed to implement many of its own recommendations, the group said. The report, commissioned by Ban, steered clear of placing blame for the outbreak but listed seven recommendations to move forward.

A spokesman for the U.N. secretary general said five of the seven recommendations are being implemented. For example, additional wastewater treatment centers have been installed along with septic tanks and other sanitary measures at all U.N. camps in Haiti.

Meanwhile, as the rains begin, Piarroux said it’s important for Haiti to view eliminating cholera “as an emergency” issue.

“We can stop cholera transmission before providing safe water to the entire population,’’ he said. “Of course, the end of cholera will not be a reason to stop investments in water supply.”

Click HERE to see the Original Article 

2nd Annual Conference on Haitian Mental Health

 

Newton, Massachusetts 2nd Annual Conference on Haitian Mental Health

WHEN:  Friday & Sunday, May 3-4, 2013
WHERE:  Massachusetts School of       Professional Psychology One Wells Avenue, Newton, MA

Weathering the Storm Like Bamboo : Rethinking the Concept of “Resilience” in the Haitian Community

To register, go to www.mspp.edu/ce

KEYNOTE & INVITED SPEAKERS:
Marjory Clermont Mathieu, Ph.D.
Guerda Nicolas, Ph.D.
Ronald Jean Jacques, DESS, DEA
Jean B. Tropnas, MD
Patrick Bellegarde‐Smith, Ph.D.

By Laura Pukatch, Take Part
April 23, 2013

The global epidemic of violence against women and girls can be addressed by how America spends its foreign aid funds.

It’s appalling.

In some countries, up to 70 percent of women will experience some form of violence in their lifetimes.

But earlier this month I found reason for hope in the words of a Haitian women’s advocate—we’ll call her Marie—who I met in a rural town a few hours away from Port-au-Prince.

“I want women to see themselves as women with possibility,” she told me.

Marie—and women across the world—work every day to reclaim that sense of possibility for the millions of women and girls facing gender-based violence.

For her part, Marie works with a local organization that fights domestic child slavery—known in Haiti as the restavek system.

Most of these domestic child slaves are girls. They are often malnourished, neglected, and abused physically, sexually or mentally.

Tragically, child slavery isn’t the only form of gender-based violence in Haiti. High rates of sexual and domestic abuse are also pressing concerns. Sometimes violence is at the hands of a guardian or parent. Sometimes it’s at the hands of a husband. Sometimes it’s at the hands of a stranger.

Marie’s organization is working to change attitudes and social norms through public education campaigns, peer meetings and more. Local organizations such as Marie’s shouldn’t go it alone in their fight to end gender-based violence.

That’s why Women Thrive Worldwide is working to amplify the voices of local partners around the globe to stop abuse, rape, so-called honor killings, dowry deaths and other gender-based violence.

U.S. international assistance has an important role to play.

American assistance goes a long way to making sure women have the resources to lift themselves and their families out of poverty. It supports organizations such as Marie’s that work to keep girls safe. It can target resources to areas like Haiti that have been affected by disaster, when violence against women often increases. And it bolsters efforts to eliminate the root causes of gender-based violence.

We know that ending gender-based violence is key to empowering women and girls.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was a tireless advocate for women and girls. Fortunately, our new Secretary of State also has a long record as a champion for the world’s women. While in the Senate, John Kerry was a leading architect of the International Violence Against Women Act.

And now is the time to ensure that Secretary Kerry remains committed to addressing gender-based violence.

We are all safer when girls are free to fetch water without fear of being attacked.

We are all stronger when women can speak up about rape without being stigmatized.

Click HERE to sign the Petition

PRESS RELEASE

Contact:
Rishi Rattan
Chair, Advocacy, Physicians for Haiti
(312)339-7497  |  rrattan@physiciansforhaiti.org

REPORT CARD FINDS THE MOST EFFECTIVE, NO-COST UN RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHOLERA IN HAITI REMAIN UNIMPLEMENTED TWO YEARS LATER

BOSTON, MA — On the second anniversary of the UN report on the origins of cholera in Haiti, a Physicians for Haiti report card finds that the UN has not implemented the most effective, no-cost recommendations from their own report on the outbreak. The Final Report of the Independent Panel of Experts on the Cholera Outbreak in Haiti, commissioned by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, included 7 recommendations to prevent a repeat introduction in Haiti or elsewhere in the world, and to effectively respond to Haiti’s cholera epidemic. In May 2011, Mr. Ki-moon promised a “prompt” follow-up to the recommendations. However, two years later, most recommendations are not implemented.

For example, the UN medical screening protocols only test for cholera if there are symptoms, but most cholera carriers are asymptomatic. The UN report recommended providing all peacekeepers coming from areas with cholera with antibiotic prophylaxis. Because troop-contributing nations would bear this cost, implementing this recommendation would not cost the UN anything. The UN has still not changed their medical screening protocols. The attached Physicians for Haiti report card reviews each recommendation and explains in detail whether or not the UN has implemented it.

Starting in October 2010, the cholera epidemic in Haiti is ongoing. It has infected over 654,000 Haitians, killed over 8,000 Haitians, and spread across the Western hemisphere. Incidence has nearly doubled since last year. The mortality rate in some departments has increased to more than quadruple what is expected. The scientific community and UN report co-authors agree that the UN military mission in Haiti, MINUSTAH, is the most likely source of cholera in Haiti.

# # #

Physicians for Haiti (P4H) is a Boston- and Port-au-Prince based non-profit organization dedicated to promoting excellence in Haitian medical education and healthcare leadership. P4H provides didactic, technical, and clinical training for Haitian medical professionals and leadership training to Haitian medical workers committed to improving healthcare in Haiti. Additionally, they host the largest and longest-running medical education conference in Haiti.

P4H’s Advocacy Committee provides briefings to the UN and governments on water security and cholera in Haiti. Their technical expertise is used to form policies, revise protocols, and help secure the right to water.

Rishi Rattan MD
Chair, Advocacy
Physicians for Haiti Yon angajman pou ankouraje ekselans nan edikasyon medikal Ayisyen
A sustained commitment to promoting excellence in Haitian medical education Click HERE to see the report and press release in PDF version

April 15, 2013, by Defenders of the Oppressed (DOP)

On Saturday, April 13, 2013 around 2:30 PM residents reported that the attorney Raynold Georges, Jean Claude Duvalier’s lawyer, arrived in the camp to claim his land. Judge Dimanche, a magistrate judge in the Delmas municipal court, accompanied Georges. Georges held a gun in his hand and warned residents that he would set the camp on fire or bulldoze it if they did not leave. It seems this threat soon became real. On Monday April 15, 2013, early in the morning before sunbreak, a fire broke out in the camp. The people in the camp woke to fight the fire and resist the threat. A delegation went to the Delmas 33 police station to ask for help, but police said they did not have the resources to go to the camp, which sits just a couple hundred feet away. Having been refused police assistance, the residents of Camp Acra decided to block the road to keep watch for their own safety and to protest the behavior of the Delmas 33 police. Although the police claimed they could not find the resources to help the people of Camp Acra put out the fire, they found the resources to come to the camp and harass residents.

Click HERE to see the PDF version
Click HERE to see the Kreyol version

One of our collaborators, Isabeau Doucet, speaks on Radio Canada about cholera, the UN and the presence of the MINUSTAH.

Click HERE to listen to the interview. 

Join the Haitian Cultural Association at Boston University for a film screening and discussion of Baseball in the Time of Cholera !

Where: The Howard Thurman Center in the basement of the George Sherman Union located at 775 Commonwealth Avenue Boston, MA 02215

When: Monday, April 29 7-9 pm

Questions? Interested? Email Amy at volunteercoordinator@ijdh.org .

Savannah, Screening of “Baseball in the Time of Cholera”

Calling all Georgia supporters: Come to a screening of “Baseball in the Time of Cholera,” followed by an evening of jazz! Your $10 donation helps fight for justice for the victims of the cholera epidemic that still rages through Haiti today.

 

Where: 5406 LaRoche Ave. Savannah, GA 31406

 

When: Friday, April 26th. The screening begins at 7 pm, jazz begins at 8 pm.

 

Interested? Questions? Contact Ben Murray at benmurrayjr@gmail.com

 

To download the flyer, click HERE.

Don Seiffert, Boston Business Journal
April 18, 2013

In an effort to spur more science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) education in Haiti, MIT resources will be translated into Kreyòl language and distributed throughout the country under an agreement signed Thursday between the university and the Haitian prime minister.

The joint initiative, funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation and MIT, will not only translate and disseminate MIT-developed and technologically-based open education resources, but will also evaluate their effectiveness, according to a statement from the university. The work will be done in conjunction with professors and educators from institutions in Haiti, including the State University of Haiti, Université Carïbe, École Supérieure d’Infotronique d’Haïti, Université Quisqueya, NATCOM and the Foundation for Knowledge and Liberty.

Kreyòl is one of two principal languages spoken in Haiti (the other is French), and the idea to teach more in Kreyòl is a longtime belief of MIT linguistics professor Michel DeGraff, a native of Haiti. DeGraff’s research on public perceptions of Kreyòl indicates that most people consider the language as a “kind of hybrid tongue, in comparison to English or French, (which) unfairly diminishes the language.”

The agreement was signed Thursday in MIT’s Vannevar Bush Room by Haitian Prime Minister Laurent Lamothe and MIT Provost Chris Kaiser.

New educational resources are needed in Haiti following the January 2010 earthquake that devastated the country, and Kreyòl-language educational tools will help provide “access to quality education for all,” according to Lamothe, given that 97 percent of Haitians speak Kreyòl. Half of all Haitians have an income of less than $1 per day, he said.

Click HERE to read the original article. 

Travis Ross
April 9, 2013

Montreal — Haiti Grassroots Watch (HGW) has just completed a two month investigation of the state of the education system in Haiti. The investigation has revealed that the “Program for Universal Free and Obligatory Education” (Programme de scolarisation universelle gratuite et obligatoire — PSUGO) has encountered major problems; including allegations of fraud, mismanagement, and corruption.

Michel Martelly made education one of the four top priorities of his mandate in his 2010-11 run for the presidency of Haiti. The two-round election was fraught with interference from foreign governments. Many political parties, most notably Fanmi Lavalas, were blocked from participating.

Upon assuming office in May 2011, President Martelly announced the creation of the National Fund for Education (Fonds national pour l’éducation–FNE). The FNE would fund PSUGO and guarantee classroom seats for 1.5 million Haitian children.

An education system in shambles

In 2009, approximately 50% of Haitians were illiterate. Half of school aged children were not in school. Haiti’s school system was then devastated by the earthquake of January 12, 2010.

According to Rea Dol, the director of the SOPUDEP School in Pétionville, a district of Port au Prince, “25 per cent of our schools were destroyed, 50 per cent were seriously damaged, and another 25 per cent are standing but staff and students won’t work in the buildings. Classes have resumed under tarps, but at least half of the students haven’t returned. Many died and others have been dispersed throughout the city in the tent cities, often far from their schools. It’s a very difficult time for education.”

Upon his assumption to office, Martelly proposed taxing all international phone calls in and out of Haiti at five cents per minute and all international money transfers at $1.50 per transfer. The goal was to raise 360 million dollars over five years. In Haiti, new taxes cannot be levied without the approval of Parliament. Martelly eventually pressured and cajoled a majority of deputies in the Legislature to accept the plan. But a majority of senators refused, saying they would not act as a rubber stamp. Among their concerns was that the taxes disproportionately affect the poor who rely on family members in the Haitian Diaspora to help support their families via money transfers.

So collection of the levies proceeded without the required constitutional approval. Almost two years after the FNE was unilaterally implemented, it seems that the education plan has failed to achieve any significant change.

According to Haiti’s Ministry of Education (MENFP), the PSUGO program aims to pay all school fees for the first and second cycles of schooling, roughly equivalent to primary school. The annual amounts allocated are 250 gourdes, about 6 Canadian dollars, for each public school student and 3,600 gourdes (about CAN$90) for those at private school. In Haiti a little over 80% of schools are private.

Fuzzy math

A recent article by Francklyn B. Geffrard, published by the weekly newspaper Haiti Liberté, reveals a huge discrepancy between the amount of money the government claims to have raised and the much larger amount that the taxation formula would indicate has been raised.

Geffrard’s findings echo criticisms from other writers and observers. As far back as 2011, Digicel mobile phone company CEO Denis O’Brien requested an audit of the fund when 26 million dollars went unaccounted only six months after the FNE was created.

On December 10, 2012, at a meeting in Miami with some members of the Haitian community, Martelly announced that 16 million dollars had been collected. Geffrard shows that by the Martelly regime’s own formula, the figure ought to have been several times higher. And that does not include the money collected from levies on money transfers.

While an exact total of money collected from phone taxes is unavailable, the numbers presented by Martelly’s representatives have fluctuated widely. Geffrard concludes, “Nobody seems to know exactly how much money has been collected on behalf of this organization by the Central Bank and CONATEL (National Telecommunications Council).” The disparity has reached tens of millions of dollars and continues to climb.

In early March 2013, Haiti’s central bank finally announced that 100 million dollars had been collected for the FNE.

The stated number of school aged children claimed to be supported by PSUGO varies, depending on who the number is coming from. The government has promoted claimed successes through publicity campaigns consisting of radio and television ads, giant posters, tweets, Facebook postings and articles in state-owned newspapers. The publicity states that at least 1,021,144 children are now in school thanks to the president’s policies. HGW’s investigation was unable to confirm the number.

In a document filed by the government with the International Monetary Fund (IMF), reports Haiti Grassroots Watch, the figure was only 165,000.

Lamothe & Global Voice telecom

Laurent Lamothe, Haiti’s current prime minister, is also a co-founder of international telecom company, Global Voice Group. The company has developed quasi-taxation levy systems for foreign governments and has reportedly negotiated agreements that see it receiving up to 50% of the value of all levies collected in such schemes.

Lamothe first worked his company into the Haitian economy through a “Sweet Mickey” telephone calling card marketing campaign in 2002. Martelly was then a popular konpa singer who went by that name. Calling cards are frequently used by Haitians to maintain contact with family members around the world. The branded calling cards became very popular in Haiti.

Mismanaged funds

Some PSUGO funding has found its way to Haitian schools. HGW interviewed staff from over twenty schools in and around Haiti’s capital, Port-au-Prince. The investigation has shown that while some schools have received funds to pay for school entrance fees, funding for school supplies, infrastructure and staff has yet to appear.

In an interview with HGW, the director of a public school in Darbonne explained that “The only benefit that the students get is that they don’t pay anything. Apart from that, there’s nothing. The students come to school, but they don’t have the books that were promised so that they can follow courses.”

As of late November 2012, only one of the 20 schools reported having been paid its per-student subsidy for the current school year. Sixteen out of 20 said the school still had not received the subsidies for the previous school year. The National Confederation of Haitian Teachers (Confédération nationale des éducateurs et éducatrices haïtiens), one of the country’s national teachers’ unions, confirmed the claim.

The 2012 report by Michel Forst, the UN Independent Expert on the Situation of Human Rights in Haiti, concurs with the observations of the school directors interviewed by HGW. His report estimates that 60 per cent of schools are housed in unsuitable premises (small churches or hangars) with up to 75 students per class and no teaching equipment. (Forst recently submitted a surprise resignation, one year before his six-year term was to end.)

HGW’s investigation also revealed a stunning lack of supervision of schools on the part of the MENFP. Some schools are unclear over whether they are even participating. Most of the schools the investigation looked into had never received a visit from a government education inspector.

The mismanagement of funds and lack of supervision has facilitated several instances of fraud. Rosny Desroches, a former Education Minister, told HGW that a recent study of PSUGO concluded that the program had created a number of phantom schools. “In our study, we discovered that a third or a quarter of the schools being paid by the government hadn’t even been officially approved.”

A free public education system?

Article 32 of Haiti’s constitution says: “the state guarantees the right to education” and “education is the responsibility of the state and its territorial divisions. They must make schooling available to all, free of charge, and assure that public and private sector teachers are properly trained.”

Despite Martelly and Lamothe’s claims to the contrary, it is clear the implementation of the education plan has been disorganized and dysfunctional. School enrolment has increased but schools have not received the necessary funds to meet their needs.

Martelly has publicly denounced school directors who have spoken out about the education plan’s failings.

The failings underlie two fundamental problems with the Martelly government. First, PSUGO pays private schools six times the amount paid to public schools. This formula makes building a viable public school system virtually impossible.

In an interview with HGW, Edith Délourdes Delouis, a teacher and General Secretary for the National Confederation of Haitian Teachers explained: “There is the category for the rich people… one for the poor, one for those who are extremely poor… This means that children, citizens, do not meet one another, when in fact a school should be a place where all levels of society mix.”

Second, the failure to obtain constitutional approval for the education levies mirrors contempt for democracy that has characterized the Martelly government. Nearly three quarters of Haitians did not vote in the 2010/11 presidential election.

According to Roger Annis, a coordinator of the Canada Haiti Action Network, “Martelly has taken many unilateral executive actions since coming to power, including the ousting nationwide of municipal government representatives whom he replaced with his own appointees.”

Haiti’s former dictator, Jean-Claude Duvalier, has been able to freely roam in Haiti in defiance of a court order that placed him under house arrest shortly following his return to the country from exile in early 2011. Late last year, the government provided Duvalier with a diplomatic passport and Martelly has mused that the former tyrant should be granted amnesty for his past crimes.

Concern about the drift to authoritarian government in Haiti is being voiced by growing numbers of observers, including those otherwise inclined to favor Martelly’s “open for business” verbal pronouncements.

In an interview with HGW, Professor Haram Joseph, the director of a school in Darbonne, described what is needed to meet the education needs of the Haiti’s poor majority. “We have to invest billions of gourdes in education. And in five years, we need to see a result. In my opinion, if the government continues the way it has started, we will have a lot of school directors with full pockets, but children who don’t know anything.”

Travis Ross is a teacher in the public school system in Montreal.

Click HERE to read the original article.