Jurisdictional immunity of international organizations and State obligations to ensure fair trial under the Covenant

Facts

The author is an Australian national, an Asian Development Bank (ADB) employee from 2007 to 2015, who was terminated for alleged poor performance. She contested this before the ADB Administrative Tribunal, citing unfair dismissal and gender discrimination, but her claims were dismissed in 2017. She argues that the tribunal lacks independence since its judges’ terms depend on the ADB president, the respondent in all cases. She also claims due process violations, including denial of an oral hearing and improper consideration of evidence. With ADB’s immunity preventing legal action in Philippine courts, she sought government intervention in 2017 but received no response.

The author claims that the lack of a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, along with the State party’s failure to intervene, violated her rights under article 14 (1), read with article 2 (3) of the Covenant. By not addressing or preventing gender-based discrimination, the State party denied her an effective remedy, violating articles 2 (1), 3, and 26. Additionally, by failing to take action under the Headquarters Agreement to ensure justice in her case, the State party violated her rights under article 17, read with article 2 (3).

Admissibility

The Committee rejected the State party’s objection that the author failed to exhaust local remedies by not initiating privacy-related proceedings in national courts. The Committee held that due to the ADB’s immunity, the author had no effective domestic remedies or reasonable alternative dispute resolution within the ADB available. Thus, it considered the claims under article 14 (1) (right to a fair trial) and article 17 (right to privacy), both read with article 2 (3) (right to an effective remedy), admissible.

The State party also argued that the author was outside its jurisdiction, but the Committee rejected this, noting that the issue of jurisdiction was central to the dispute. Since the author had no access to an independent tribunal due to ADB’s immunity, her submission was not an abuse of the right of submission.

The Committee found the author’s claims under articles 2 (1), 3, and 26 unsubstantiated and therefore inadmissible.

Merits

The Committee concluded that the facts of the case did not disclose a violation of article 14 (1), read in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant. The Committee acknowledged that the termination by the ADB left the author without legal protection, as the Bank’s immunity prevented her from accessing national courts, and its internal dispute resolution mechanisms lacked independence and due process safeguards.

The Committee reaffirmed that, while international organizations enjoy jurisdictional immunity to ensure their independent functioning, such immunity must not deprive individuals of access to justice. It emphasized that States cannot be absolved of their obligations under the Covenant simply because legal authority has been transferred to an international organization. However, it also noted that internal dispute resolution mechanisms within international organizations may have different fair trial standards than national courts, as long as they remain objective, necessary, and free from arbitrariness.

The Committee found that the author had access to ADB’s internal dispute mechanisms and that the tribunal reviewed her claims, issued a reasoned decision, and determined that oral hearings and witness testimony were not necessary. The Committee saw no evidence that these proceedings were arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice.