Sixty-first session * A/61/50 and Corr.1. Item 123 of the preliminary list* Joint Inspection Unit Follow-up to the management review of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Note by the Secretary-General The Secretary-General has the honour to transmit to the members of the General Assembly the report of the Joint Inspection Unit on follow-up to the management review of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (JIU/REP/2006/3). Follow-up TO the Management Review of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Prepared by Juan Luis Larrabure Papa Louis Fall Joint Inspection Unit CONTENTS Paragraph Page Abbreviations iv Introduction 1–6 1 General conclusion 7 2 ANALYSIS OF RECOMMENDATIONS 8–53 3 Annex List of countries for the 2005 national competitive recruitment examination (human rights) 14 ABBREVIATIONS and ACRONYMS APPI Advisory Panel on Personnel Issues ARP Advisory Review Panel CBB Capacity Building Branch (OHCHR) DPKO Department of Peacekeeping Operations DRC Democratic Republic of the Congo IMIS integrated management information system ICT information and communication technologies IT Information technology JIU Joint Inspection Unit MONUC United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo NCE national competitive examination NGO non-governmental organization OHCHR Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights OIOS United Nations Office of Internal Oversight Services UNOB United Nations Operation in Burundi UNOG United Nations Office at Geneva Introduction The Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter called the Commission), at its fifty-eighth session, adopted resolution 2002/80 on the composition of the staff of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) (hereinafter called the Office), in paragraph 17 of which it requested “the Joint Inspection Unit to undertake a comprehensive review of the management and administration of the Office of the High Commissioner, in particular, with regard to its impact on the recruitment policies and the composition of the staff, and to submit a report thereon to the Commission at its sixtieth session containing concrete proposals for the implementation of the present resolution”. The Economic and Social Council, at its 39th plenary meeting, on 25 July 2002, endorsed the Commission’s decision. In 2003 the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU), in response to the Commission’s request, prepared a report entitled “Management Review of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights” (JIU/REP/2003/6), and after consideration of the report at the sixtieth session of the Commission, JIU was further requested “to assist the Commission on Human Rights to monitor systematically the implementation of Commission resolution 2004/73 and to submit a follow-up comprehensive review of the implementation of the decisions of the Commission … at its sixty-third session and to the General Assembly at its sixty-first session, containing any concrete proposals for corrective action … ”. It is to be noted that the Commission’s resolution 2004/73 also reiterated … its request to the Secretary-General to increase further his efforts to improve the composition of the Secretariat by ensuring a wide and equitable geographical distribution of staff in all departments; Considers that it is necessary to take urgent, concrete and immediate action to change the currently prevailing geographical distribution of staff of the Office in favour of a more equitable distribution of posts, in accordance with Article 101 of the Charter, particularly by recruiting personnel from developing countries and countries with economies in transition, including to senior posts; Requests once again the Secretary-General to take the necessary measures to ensure that particular attention is paid to recruiting personnel from unrepresented and underrepresented Member States, in particular from developing countries and countries with economies in transition … in the Office of the High Commissioner to ensure an equitable geographical distribution …” In October 2004, the Chairman and the Executive Secretary of JIU held a meeting with the then newly appointed Deputy High Commissioner and with representatives of administration and human resources management of the Office as part of the follow-up to the implementation of the Commission’s resolution. At that time a series of proposals were discussed. Taking into consideration General Assembly resolution 60/251 of 15 March 2006, which “Decides to establish the Human Rights Council, based in Geneva, in replacement of the Commission on Human Rights”, and that the Council should “[a]ssume the role and responsibilities of the Commission on Human Rights relating to the work of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, as decided by the General Assembly in its resolution 48/141 of 20 December 1993”, and mindful that this report should first go to the Commission (now Council) prior to its submission to the General Assembly, the Inspectors are presenting this report to the Council. The structure of the present report is based on the analysis of the status of implementation of the ten recommendations included in JIU/REP/2003/6. These recommendations are fully reflected in the Commission’s resolution 2004/73; each recommendation is followed by the Office’s comments, which in turn is followed by the Inspectors’ views, findings and recommendations as applicable. General conclusion The Inspectors believe that progress has been made in the implementation of a series of recommendations. However, it is regrettable to reconfirm that the issue of the imbalance regarding the geographical distribution of the staff has not really been dealt with to date in a sufficiently vigorous manner. The Inspectors recognize that the High Commissioner has very recently (in February 2006) put in place an action plan that deals, amongst other things, with achieving a more balanced geographical distribution of the staff of the Office. The results of this action plan will only begin to be seen from the end of 2006. The Inspectors wish to point out that the skewed nature of the actual composition of the staff could result in diminishing the effectiveness of the work of the Office if it is perceived to be culturally biased and unrepresentative of the United Nations as a whole. ANALYSIS OF RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendation 1 The new High Commissioner should: (a) Reconsider the request to create a post of Chief of Staff to perform the functions detailed in the proposed programme budget document, so as to ensure streamlined management and avoid duplication of functions by the senior management of the Office, which should be exercised by the High Commissioner and his Deputy; (b) Review the grading of the Chiefs of Branch with a view to ensuring optimal leadership and consistency of structures, presenting budgetary recommendations, as appropriate. Response from OHCHR: Recommendation 1(a) “The High Commissioner has reconsidered the request to create a post of Chief of Staff and decided not to make such a request in light of the two new posts approved by the General Assembly for the 2006-2007 biennium, namely the post of Chief of Administration which has been upgraded to D1 and the Chief of Policy, Planning, Monitoring Evaluation Section also at D1 level. These two posts will de facto cover the function of the proposed Chief of Staff.” Recommendation 1(b) “OHCHR notes that management reviews have indicated that OHCHR managerial staff are under graded compared to the rest of the Organization. This recommendation has important budgetary implications. OHCHR requested 2 D-2 posts for the 2006-2007 budget in order to strengthen the management of the Branches, and they were approved by the General Assembly. Accordingly, no further review of grading of the chiefs of branch is required.” Inspectors’ comments: OHCHR accepted this recommendation as indicated in the note of the Secretary-General (A/59/65/Add.1). The Inspectors consider that the above recommendation has been implemented and that no further action is required. Recommendation 2 The organigram of the proposed Capacity Building and Field Operations Branch should be revised by integrating the National Institutions Team within the various geographical Teams in order to provide comprehensive support within each geographical area while assuring the availability of expert advice, as requested. Response from OHCHR: “CBB’s (Capacity Building Branch) structure has retained a national institutions unit, yet has endeavoured to implement the recommendations of the JIU by ensuring that the work-plan and priority of the unit corresponds to provide comprehensive support and expert advice to each geographical area working through the respective desk officers and corresponding geographic units in the Branch who are assuming responsibility for the implementation of activities.” This system is being reviewed by the United Nations Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) to determine if comprehensive support is being provided. In the note by the Secretary-General, A/59/65 Add.1, it is mentioned that the National Institutions Team works closely with the geographical teams. Inspectors’ comments: The Inspectors are satisfied with the above approach, as the National Institutions Team should be fully aware of possible cultural differences and contexts that might be better understood within the geographical teams. In the view of the Inspectors, no further action is needed in this case as the OHCHR proposal meets the spirit of the recommendation. Recommendation 3 (a) Field operations conducted exclusively by OHCHR should be limited to a minimum and to those cases where it has been proved that no alternative exists. The implementation of field operations should be channelled through operational partners whenever possible; (b) The Office might consider drawing an action plan detailing measures to develop cooperation with different partners such as non-governmental organizations (NGOs), specialized agencies and United Nations programmes. Response from OHCHR: Recommendation 3(a) “The new vision of the High Commissioner as endorsed last year by the General Assembly foresees stronger country engagement and increase in field operations. A major reform exercise designed to better equip OHCHR in implementing this new vision is currently underway. This involves, inter alia, the undertaking of thorough assessment processes involving various stakeholders with a view to defining most appropriate types of field engagement as part of human rights strategies tailored to the country-specific needs. Furthermore, the Office is working on strengthening its geographic desks at headquarters, the establishment of standing capacities for rapid deployment, investigations, country (stand-alone) offices, regional offices, as well as through operational partners such as through DPKO/UNDP missions and United Nations Country Teams in an integrated fashion. A recent example is joint planning with peace missions in Burundi (ONUB) and DRC (MONUC) to develop one human rights plan.” Recommendation 3(b) “The Office already works closely with different partners, such as NGOs, specialized agencies and United Nations programmes. The 60-day review (Plan of Action), which was completed by 20 May 2005 as requested in the Secretary-General’s 2005 report, identified closer partnerships with civil society and United Nations agencies/programmes among the key action points for the Office. An internal Task Force was established to make concrete recommendations as to how to move forwards towards closer partnership with civil society. 2006-2007 biennium budget includes a P-5 Senior Civil Society advisor and a G-6, which together with the existing NGO Liaison Officer, will further develop cooperation with civil society actors.” Inspectors’ comments: OHCHR accepted this recommendation as indicated in the note of the Secretary-General (A/59/65/Add.1). The Inspectors consider that the environment has changed considerably since this recommendation was written. At that time, OHCHR had much more limited resources and experience in field operations. The Inspectors consider that the strengthening of the structure of the Office and the actions taken, such as cooperation with more experienced partners in field operations, meet the spirit of the recommendation. In particular, the cooperation of the Office with DPKO in the context of the new integrated peacekeeping missions must be noted, as in the view of the Inspectors, it is a very positive approach to make human rights operational, which should be an integral part of the activities of other United Nations funds and programmes, as well as of the field activities undertaken by the United Nations Secretariat and United Nations specialized agencies. The implementation of the above recommendation is considered by the Inspectors to be “work in progress”. It is expected that the new resources allocated to develop the cooperation of the Office with civil society actors will play an important role in the better integration of human rights within the activities of different partners. In particular, the Inspectors would like to stress the importance of further improving cooperation with other United Nations system organizations and specialized agencies. As per the Commission’s resolution 2004/73, the Inspectors intend to continue to monitor closely this and other recommendations under implementation and in particular the capacity of the Office to undertake field operations. Recommendation 4 The Administrative Section should establish a system to account for the assets of field representations and develop a field administrative procedures manual. Response from OHCHR: “On December 2005, guidelines on Procurement, Inventory and Logistic for the field missions were communicated to all OHCHR field missions and are being implemented.” “There have been discussions with UNOG for a physical inventory to be conducted at OHCHR following which responsibilities for asset management will be entrusted to OHCHR. The process started yesterday, 8 May [2006], and according to the information received from UNOG, the exercise will take a few months. Notwithstanding the Secretary-General’s delegation of the authority for property management to Heads of Department, this authority remains within the purview of UNOG. With regard to field offices, OHCHR has in fact conducted an inventory and have established a database with the information obtained. We intend to conduct annual physical inventories for field offices.” Inspectors’ comments: JIU has reviewed the Administrative Manual for OHCHR and its field offices, in particular the part relating to property management and inventory control, and is satisfied with its content, as well as with the measures taken by the Office to undertake a physical inventory of headquarters and field offices. No further action is required. Recommendation 5 The Office should develop a clear information technology strategy, taking the strategic plan developed by the Secretariat of the United Nations as a starting point to build upon, with a view to avoiding duplication of effort and waste of resources. The development of the Core Management System is duplicative of IMIS and should not be pursued. Response from OHCHR: “The ICT strategy issue has been discussed in the OHCHR ICT Committee. The Committee is aware that the General Assembly has approved a number of ICT strategies for the United Nations in the past and they are applicable to OHCHR. But with responsibilities of the Office increasing over the coming years, the Committee agreed that it would be advantageous to have a comprehensive ICT strategy in OHCHR. The secretariat of the Committee has contacted several consulting firms and is awaiting their proposals. The ICT strategy will be established in the first half of 2006. In the beginning of 2005, the Core Management System was carefully redesigned and all duplicated modules were excluded from the system. The newly designed Core Management System has been developed together with the UNOG IMIS Section, IMIS data are replicated to the system everyday, and all functions, including financial reporting, grants management and project management, are complementary to IMIS”. Inspectors’ comments: The Inspectors are satisfied with the answer provided by the Office, in particular with the avoidance of duplicate modules in different systems, and with the cooperation of the Office with the UNOG IMIS Section in order to guarantee the consistent development of information systems. The Inspectors intend to monitor closely and to evaluate the implementation of the Core Management System during the 2008–2009 biennium. Recommendation 6 The Office should review the mandate of the Advisory Panel on Personnel Issues (APPI) with a view to ensuring that it contributes towards the improvement of the geographical composition of the staff of the Office in general. The composition of the Panel itself should be reviewed so as to reflect a more balanced geographical distribution of its membership. Response from OHCHR: “The APPI has been discontinued and been replaced by the Advisory Review Panel (ARP). The purpose of the ARP is to provide oversight and transparency of the selection process for those vacancies not covered by other review body procedures. The workload of this body is not expected to be heavy as, with the completion of the regularization exercise at the end of the year the vast majority of OHCHR vacancies will be filled, regardless of source of funding, through the formal staff selection system and thus be subject to review by the Central Review Bodies. While there are new posts approved for 2006-2007, they will be subject to the procedures for established bodies. As foreseen in the Panel’s term of reference its composition is balanced in terms of gender, nationality, geographic composition and the office representation.” Inspectors’ comments: The Inspectors still believe it is important that a more balanced composition of the Advisory Review Panel be established, in accordance with the regulations governing the Panel, in particular those related to its composition, which state that “[i]n the selection of the panel the High Commissioner will balance the composition in terms of nationality and grades while making every effort to ensure a balanced representation with respect to geography and gender”. The current geographical composition of the Panel (comprising six members), is not reflective of the membership of the United Nations as a whole; if the membership of the new Panel is organized according to the five regional groups established by the General Assembly, the composition is as follows: African States: 0 members (only one alternate member); Latin American and Caribbean States: 1 member (one additional alternate member); Asian States: 1 member (one additional alternate member); Eastern European States: 1 member (no additional alternate member); Western European and Other States: 3 members (two additional alternate members). In this respect the Inspectors suggest that the High Commissioner review the composition in order to allow each region to have at least one representative on the panel. Recommendation 7 The Office should compile annually a list of those countries, which are either unrepresented or underrepresented within the Office, and the Secretariat should take that list into consideration when organizing specialized competitive human rights examinations. Response from OHCHR: “The NCE exam held in February 2005 was offered to 69 Member States of which 57 chose to participate. It is expected that as a result, OHCHR will have a wider pool of candidates interested in the subject of human rights from which to choose”. “This recommendation has been studied together with OHRM, which has the Secretariat-wide responsibility to determine the list of countries whose nationals may take part in an NCE, in reference to the status of un/underrepresented countries Secretariat-wide. The second exam took place in February 2005. Interviews are currently being conducted at Headquarters. In the meantime, there were 14 NCE recruitments from eight countries in 2005 such as the Islamic Republic of Iran, Madagascar, Portugal and others.” Inspectors’ comments: It is to be recalled that the Office is part of the United Nations Secretariat, which, in accordance with a number of General Assembly resolutions, submits an official report annually to the Assembly on the composition of staff at the global Secretariat level and not at the departmental level. It is to be noted that this approach might lead to contradictory situations, where a specific country belonging to one of those regions underrepresented within the Office might be one of those overrepresented at the Secretariat level, or vice versa. It is to be noted that despite being a department of the Secretariat, OHCHR should make every effort to improve geographical distribution as requested by the General Assembly, which in paragraphs 32 and 33 of its resolution 57/305 of 15 April 2003, reiterated its request to the Secretary-General “to further increase his efforts to improve the composition of the Secretariat by ensuring a wide and equitable geographical distribution of staff in all departments”, and requested the Secretary-General “to hold the heads of relevant departments accountable for the human resources action plans and to ensure that they in turn take due account of equitable geographical representation when considering candidates on the lists endorsed by the central review bodies, as well as on the rosters, and to report to the General Assembly annually on progress made by departments in the implementation of their respective human resources action plans”. The Inspectors note that in the report of the Secretary-General “In larger freedom: towards development, security and human rights for all”, the following is stated: Achieving geographical balance in OHCHR will remain one of the priorities of the High Commissioner. While the primary consideration in the selection of staff is the need to secure the highest standards of competence, integrity and efficiency, OHCHR will also pay due regard to recruiting and selecting individuals on as wide a geographical basis as possible. In an effort to widen the pool of qualified human rights candidates, it will continue to work with the Office of Human Resources Management to organize specialized competitive human rights examinations, and successful candidates from underrepresented countries will be carefully considered. The Inspectors would like to stress that for the 2005 NCE exercise, only 10 of the 57 countries that participated in the examination process have nationals who passed the written part of the examination process and reached the interview stage. At best, therefore, only candidates from 10 countries could be selected, of which only three are from developing countries. To date the NCE has not helped to improve the geographical distribution issue. While, in the long run the NCE may help to gradually improve the geographical distribution of staff at the entry level, the NCE on its own is not sufficient to improve significantly the overall situation (please see paragraph 37 below). The annex indicates the list of all the countries that were invited to participate in the examination process, those that participated and those that either refused to participate or did not answer. The Inspectors consider that this recommendation is “work in progress”. It is suggested that the list of countries, which are either unrepresented or underrepresented within the Office, be updated annually and submitted to OHRM so that it may be taken into consideration when programming future NCEs and used to follow progress. Recommendation 8 The imbalance in the geographical distribution of the staff of the Office is an issue that can only be solved through a determined management action. Thus, the High Commissioner should prepare an action plan aimed at reducing the current imbalance and indicating specific targets and deadlines to be achieved. Response from OHCHR: “The HC took up her position in July 2004 and has sought, since this time to address the issue of geographical distribution in OHCHR; it is one of her priorities. However, she notes that achieving an appropriate geographical balance of staff in the P and above categories will take time. An action plan is in place to improve geographical balance and remains a priority in OHCHR selection and recruitment process for newly approved posts in 2006-2007”. Inspectors’ comments: The tables below show the evolution of the geographical distribution of staff from 1998 to 2005 for posts subject to geographical distribution (table 1) and not subject to geographical distribution (table 2). Table 3 shows combined figures for geographical distribution taking into consideration the total number of posts. Professional posts subject to geographical distribution The figures below show a very negative evolution of geographical distribution of staff; the percentages for all regions, excluding Western European and Other States, are lower for 2005 than for previous years. Furthermore, the percentage for the Group of Western European and Other States in 2005 (64.2 per cent) is the highest for the last eight years. It is to be noted that the significant increase in the total number of posts subject to geographical distribution, from 87 in 2004 to 106 in 2005, has not been used to improve the imbalance; on the contrary, the situation has worsened. Table 1: Posts subject to geographical distribution 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 % % % % % % % % Africa 11 14.5 12 14.8 11 14.7 10 12.8 12 13.2 10 11.6 9 10.3 5 4.7 Asia 13 17.1 15 18.5 15 20 13 16.7 17 18.7 16 18.6 16 18.4 19 17.9 LA+C 5 6.6 8 9.9 8 10.7 9 11.5 9 9.9 9 10.5 9 10.3 9 8.5 EE 5 6.6 5 6.2 5 6.7 5 6.4 5 5.5 6 7 7 8 5 4.7 WEO 42 55.3 41 50.6 36 48 41 52.6 48 52.7 45 52.3 46 52.9 68 64.2 Total 76 100 81 100 75 100 78 100 91 100 86 100 87 100 106 100 Note: In the tables the following abbreviations are used LA + C Latin American and Caribbean States EE Eastern European States WEO Western European and Other States Professional posts not subject to geographical distribution Of note is the considerable increase in the number of posts under this category from 166 in 2004 to 257 in 2005, and at a first glance, an improvement and a positive trend in their contribution towards achieving a more balanced distribution. However, the figures reported by the Office for 2004 and 2005 are not directly comparable. Figures provided by OHCHR for 2005 (257 staff) include 41 national officers who were not included in previous years. Thus, the actual improvement is considerably smaller than that indicated in table 2a. Table 2a: Posts not subject to geographical distribution 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 % % % % % % % % Africa 32 31.1 20 26.7 25 26 21 18.8 22 16.3 24 16 25 15.1 41 16 Asia 9 8.7 4 5.3 1 1 6 5.4 9 6.7 8 5.3 11 6 29 11.3 LA+C 7 6.8 7 9.3 8 8.3 10 8.9 13 9.6 15 10 19 11.4 45 17.5 EE 1 1 1 1.3 1 1 6 5.4 6 4.4 7 4.7 7 4.2 11 4.3 WEO 54 52.4 43 57.3 61 63 69 61.6 85 63 96 64 104 62.7 131 51 Total 103 100 75 100 96 100 112 100 135 100 150 100 166 100 257 100 Professional posts not subject to geographical distribution (excluding national officers) If national officers are excluded from table 2a, the actual improvement from 2004 to 2005 is only about a 2 per cent reduction of the percentage corresponding to the Group of Western European and Other States. This region continues to represent more than 60 per cent of the total posts under this category. Table 2b below shows figures excluding national officers. Table 2b: Posts not subject to geographical distribution 2004–2005 (excluding national officers) 2004 2005 % % Africa 25 15.1 26 12 Asia 11 6 24 11.1 LA+C 19 11.4 27 12.5 EE 7 4.2 8 3.7 WEO 104 62.7 131 60.6 Total 166 100 216 100 Total professional posts (includes posts subject and not subject to geographical distribution) As can be seen, there would appear to be a positive evolution in the reduction of the percentage of representation of the Group of Western European and Other States from 59.3 per cent in 2004 to 54.8 per cent in 2005. However, as stated in the previous paragraph, this reduction comes only from posts not subject to geographical distribution and cannot be compared adequately with previous years as national officers have been included in the data provided for 2005. Table 3a. Total posts 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 % % % % % % % % Africa 43 24.0 32 20.5 36 21.0 31 16.3 34 15.0 34 14.4 34 13.4 46 12.7 Asia 22 12.3 19 12.2 16 9.4 19 10.0 26 11.5 24 10.1 27 10.7 48 13.2 LA+C 12 6.7 15 9.6 16 9.4 19 10.0 22 9.7 24 10.1 28 11.1 54 14.9 EE 6 3.4 6 3.8 6 3.5 11 5.8 11 4.9 13 5.5 14 5.5 16 4.4 WEO 96 53.6 84 53.8 97 56.7 110 57.9 133 58.8 141 59.7 150 59.3 199 54.8 Total 179 100 156 100 171 100 190 100 226 100 236 100 253 100 363 100 Total Professional posts (same as table 3a above but excluding national officers) Table 3b below reflects in reality the actual changes in geographical distribution if national officers are not included in 2005 as was done in previous years. The percentage of representation of the Group of Western European and Other States goes up from 59.3 per cent in 2004 to 61.8 per cent in 2005 confirming a negative evolution in the balance. Table 3b. Total posts (excluding national officers) 2004 2005 % % Africa 34 13.4 31 9.6 Asia 27 10.7 43 13.4 LA+C 28 11.1 36 11.2 EE 14 5.5 13 4 WEO 150 59.3 199 61.8 Total 253 100 322 100 Geographical distribution of recruitments to Professional posts made by OHCHR in 2005 Table 4 further confirms the above analysis of the geographical distribution of the staff. The Group of Western European and Other States accounts for 60 per cent of the total recruitments made during 2005. If only recruitment for posts subject to geographical distribution is considered, this group accounts for 80 per cent of posts. Table 4. New recruitments from 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2005 Region Posts subject to geographical distribution Posts not subject to geographical distribution Total % Africa 1 6.7% 12 15.4% 13 14% Asia 0 0.0% 12 15.4% 12 12.9% Latin American & the Caribbean 2 13.3% 7 9.0% 9 9.7% Eastern Europe 0 0.0% 3 3.8% 3 3.2% Western Europe & Other States 12 80.0% 44 56.4% 56 60.2% Total 15 100.0% 78 100.0% 93 100.0% Geographical distribution for P-5 and above posts It is to be noted that the Group of Western European and Other States is also overrepresented under this category. This region accounted for 63.6 per cent of the incumbents of posts for grades P-5 and above in 2004. This percentage has not changed significantly in the past year, as it represents 62.5 per cent at the end of 2005. The geographical imbalance is of a greater magnitude for senior positions. Table 5. Geographical distribution by grade (P-5 and above) 2004 2005 Subject to Not subject to Total Subject to Not subject to Total   %   %   %   %   %   % Africa 1 5.6% 2 13.3% 3 9.1% 2 10.0% 2 10.0% 4 10.0% Asia 4 22.2% 0 0.0% 4 12.1% 3 15.0% 2 10.0% 5 12.5% LA+C 1 5.6% 1 6.7% 2 6.1% 3 15.0% 2 10.0% 5 12.5% EE 2 11.1% 1 6.7% 3 9.1% 1 5.0% 0 0.0% 1 2.5% WEO 10 55.6% 11 73.3% 21 63.6% 11 55.0% 14 70.0% 25 62.5% Total 18   15   33   20   20   40   The above tables are self-explanatory. After more than eight years, figures regarding geographical distribution have not changed much. Thus only a strong and continuous commitment from management can help to improve the issue. The Inspectors agree with the High Commissioner’s view that this issue can only be resolved in the mid to long term (see paragraph 28 above) but the trend can and should be reversed immediately. Results should be monitored annually and subsequent corrective actions taken. It is recommended to the High Commissioner that the Office prepare annual geographical distribution targets, taking into consideration, to the extent possible, new posts, foreseen retirements and anticipated turnover. The Inspectors consider the status of this recommendation as “work in progress”. The action plan is in place, as reflected in E/CN.4/2006/103. Its effects can only be evaluated in the coming years. The Inspectors would like to stress that the increase foreseen in the resources to be allocated to the Office in the near future represents an important opportunity, which should not be missed, to address the actual imbalance of the geographical distribution of staff. The Inspectors believe that much more can be done; the Office should adopt a more proactive approach to identify and recruit candidates from those countries, which are unrepresented or underrepresented within the Office. The Inspectors urge the High Commissioner to ensure that action is taken without further delay. In this respect, one measure that might be considered is to use the offices of the United Nations resident coordinators, as well as local offices of United Nations and other agencies working in related fields to publicize vacancies, as well as established national rosters of candidates where feasible, as widely as possible. The Human Rights Council should request the Office to adopt all necessary measures to address the issue of the imbalance of the geographical distribution of staff, including the elaboration of annual targets for improvement and annual reporting. The Human Rights Council should also systematically monitor and evaluate this issue every two years. According to Commission resolution 2004/73 (see paragraphs 2–3 above), the Inspectors intend to review and monitor progress in this regard at the end of 2006, based on the High Commissioner’s action plan, as well as on the implementation of the additional measures suggested in this report. Recommendation 9 The Office might offer a transition period, not longer than one year, during which contracts of staff currently under the 200 series of the Staff Rules and performing core functions, would be regularized into 100-series contracts “limited to service with OHCHR”. Thereafter, the Office should align its recruitment and contractual policies with those of the Secretariat. Response from OHCHR: “OHCHR, together with OHRM, is currently in the process of filling all core posts under the United Nations Secretariat/Galaxy procedure. All staff charged to those posts will be employed under 100 series contracts. The post regularization exercise at headquarters will be finalized by March 2006.” Inspectors’ comments: This exercise had been completed by the end of April 2006 as indicated by the Office. The Inspectors consider that this recommendation has been implemented. No further action required. Recommendation 10 The Office should check and align its post-classification criteria with those of the Secretariat before any post is advertised, and should discontinue the practice of advertising extra-budgetary posts without first checking the classification criteria with the United Nations Office at Geneva. Response from OHCHR: “Since October 2003 all extra-budgetary and regular budget posts have been submitted to the United Nations Office at Geneva Classification officer for evaluation and formal classification prior to any advertisement”. Inspectors’ comments: The Inspectors are satisfied with the answer received and consider that this recommendation has been implemented. No further action is required. Annex LIST OF COUNTRIES FOR THE 2005 NATIONAL COMPETITIVE RECRUITMENT EXAMINATION (HUMAN RIGHTS). A total of 69 countries were invited to participate in the examination process. List of participating countries (57): Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Bhutan, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Central African Republic, China, Comoros, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Haiti, Honduras, Iraq, Israel, Japan, Kiribati, Kuwait, Liechtenstein, Maldives, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Micronesia, Moldova, Monaco, Netherlands, Niger, Norway, Oman, Panama, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, Suriname, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Tuvalu, United States of America, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu and Viet Nam. Countries that did not accept the invitation to participate (3): Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Marshall Islands and Nauru. Countries that did not respond (9): Bahrain, Guinea-Bissau, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Palau, Qatar, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates and Yemen. Official Records of the Economic and Social Council, 2002, Supplement No. 1 (E/2002/99), decision 2002/272. Letter of 27 February 2006 from the Office and attachment (FIN/Audit related/JIU), and letter of 9 May 2006 from the Deputy High Commissioner. For additional information, see “Management review of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights” (JIU/REP/2003/6), paras. H and 28. Regulations of the Advisory Review Panel, para. 3. See the latest report of the Secretary-General on the composition of the Secretariat (A/60/310). A/59/2005/Add.3, para. 120. Figures for 2005 have been taken from the advanced edited version of E/CN.4/2006/103 as provided by OHCHR in its official answer of 9 March 2006 to the JIU request for data.   sss1 \* MERGEFORMAT A/61/115 sss1 \* MERGEFORMAT A/61/115 FooterJN \* MERGEFORMAT 06-44509 \* MERGEFORMAT 2 15 FooterJN \* MERGEFORMAT 06-44509 United Nations A/61/115 General Assembly Distr.: General 27 June 2006 Original: English jobn \* MERGEFORMAT 06-44509 (E) 270706 Barcode \* MERGEFORMAT *0644509* 14 iii 13