Haitians urge judges to find UN culpable for cholera outbreak that killed thousands

[Elderberry]

The Guardian 10/1/2019

    Supreme court consider whether to take up Laventure v UN
    UN peacekeepers introduced disease after 2010 earthquake

Victims of the 2010 cholera outbreak in Haiti, which killed at least 10,000 people and infected hundreds of thousands more, are petitioning the US supreme court on Tuesday to hold the UN accountable for having brought the disease to the stricken country.

The nine supreme court justices will meet in conference to discuss whether to hear Laventure v UN as one of their cases of the new term. The petition goes to the heart of the question: should the world body be answerable in domestic courts for the harm it causes people it is there to serve?

The UN has admitted that cholera was introduced to Haiti by peacekeepers in 2010 after about 1,000 troops were redeployed from Nepal to help in emergency work following a devastating earthquake. Basic health measures that could have been taken to prevent the transfer of the disease at the cost to the UN of only $2,000 were not taken, and instead raw sewage from the peackekeepers’ camps was dumped directly into rivers from which thousands of Haitians routinely drew water for cooking and drinking.

More: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/01/haiti-cholera-2010-un-us-supreme-court

[PeteS in CA]

Since the actual cholera outbreak happened in Haiti, why is this case in US courts? Because the UN infestation is in the US?

[Elderberry]

Developments in the Haiti Cholera Case: US supports absolute immunity of UN and two new suits filed

http://opiniojuris.org/2014/03/13/developments-haiti-cholera-claims-un-us-support-uns-absolute-immunity-two-new-suits-filed/

There have been some interesting developments this past week regarding the legal proceedings against the UN following the outbreak of cholera in Haiti in 2010.  For background on this tragic and politically sensitive case see my prior posts here, here, here and here.

Readers will recall that efforts to obtain compensation for the victims moved to US courts in October 2013, when the Institute for Justice & Democracy in Haiti initiated a law suit, Georges et al v. UN in the Southern District of New York.

On Friday, March 7, 2014, the United States filed an 18 page “statement of interest” in the case (at the request of the Court) in support of the UN’s absolute immunity from process.  The full document is available here.   It argues that all defendants, including the UN and MINUSTAH, are immune from suit, absent an express waiver.   Citing three cases on treaty interpretation, the statement of interest also asserts that if there is any alternative reading of the General Convention’s text, the Court should defer to the Executive Branch’s interpretation.

Another important development is that within the last week, two new suits have been filed against the UN, which seem to borrow from and overlap with the class of plaintiffs proposed in Georges et al. v. United Nations.    On March 6, Petit Homme Jean-Robert  et. al. v UN was filed by Emmanual Coffy, a Haitian American lawyer.

The case filed on Tuesday, Laventure v. UN, is another class action, and the press release states the attorneys involved have had experience in national tobacco lawsuits, the national BP gulf oil spill, and recent Goldman Sachs aluminum antitrust litigation.  The latter suit is of particular interest because the central argument is that the UN expressly waived its sovereign immunity in its 2004 agreement Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) in Haiti.  The basis of this argument is para. 54 of the SOFA which states:  “Third-Party claims for…. Injury, illness or death arising from or directly attributed to (Stablization Agreement) shall be settled by the United Nations …. And the United Nations shall pay compensation.”

What should we make of all these developments?

There is no question that the UN’s immunity is extremely broad.   Privileges and Immunities are meant to protect the UN’s independent functioning and shield it from vexatious litigation.  Nonetheless, the position that the UN’s immunity is absolute deserves careful examination.

Section 2 of the General Convention protects the UN from any form of Process, while Section 29 of the Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the UN requires the United Nations to “make provisions for appropriate modes of settlement of […] disputes arising out of contracts or other disputes of a private law character to which the United Nations is a party.”   This has not happened in this case.  I argued in an earlier post that Article 29 mitigates the absolute de facto immunity of the United Nations, and August Reinisch has argued that the rationale of Section 29 is to ensure due process of law and to protect fundamental human rights.

More at link above.