In July 2014, Ander Kompass, a senior official in the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), received a report about the sexual abuse of children at a camp for those displaced by the brutal conflict in the Central African Republic (CAR). Kompass transmitted the report to the French UN Mission in Geneva for onward transmission to law enforcement in Paris. The report referred to 16 alleged perpetrators of sexual abuse, 11 of whom were French.

In a matter of days, French investigators landed in Bangui and started asking questions. Eight months later, however, an uproar about the case inexplicably hit senior UN management. The purportedly independent oversight offices – the UN Ethics Office and the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) – began consulting with the UN Secretary General’s Chief of Staff, the High Commissioner and his Deputy about investigating Kompass for ‘leaking’ the MINUSCA report to the French authorities.

Zeid Ra’ad al Hussein, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, requested Kompass’s resignation and when he refused, Zeid and the Undersecretary for OIOS placed him under investigation. The Director of UN investigations recused himself and denounced the whole exercise as an abuse of authority. Still, the investigation continues.

Documents concerning the child sexual abuse and the UN’s baffling and belated reaction to it appeared on the website of the Code Blue Campaign, an NGO-sponsored initiative working to end immunity for sexual exploitation and abuse by UN peacekeeping personnel. Among the documents that appeared was a statement by the High Commissioner. He asserted that his objection to Kompass’s transmission of the report of child sexual abuse was the fact that the victims’ names were included. Specifically, according to Zeid, Kompass should have redacted the names of the victims before sending the report to law enforcement.

This is nonsense. In many UN Member States, as well as within the UN system itself, experts and agencies have long recognized that authorities cannot protect victims if the authorities don’t know who they are. In the US, Canada, Australia and the European Union, laws and policies require mandatory reporting of child abuse (evidence about abuse of specific, identified children must be given to the relevant authorities). Why should reporting standards for victimized African children be different – or lower?

The European Union issued a directive in 2011 that is applicable in the Kompass case. Article 16 requires Member States to encourage all persons who suspect child sexual abuse to report it to the competent authorities. Moreover, the EU directive specifies that “the confidentiality rules imposed by national law on certain professionals whose main duty is to work with children do not constitute an obstacle to the possibility, for those professionals, of their reporting to the services responsible for child protection any situation where they have reasonable grounds for believing that a child is the victim of offences...”

In other words, protection of the child overrides any confidentiality obligation.

European legal guidelines are consistent and clear. The Lanzarote Convention 2007, adopted by the Council of Europe and ratified by France, requires member states to adopt specific legislation and take effective measures to prevent sexual violence, protect child victims and prosecute perpetrators. Article 12 of the Convention states that confidentiality agreements shall not prevent the reporting of child abuse. In addition, the same article states:

“Each Party shall take the necessary legislative or other measures to encourage any person who knows about or suspects, in good faith, sexual exploitation or sexual abuse of children to report these facts to the competent services.”

Academic research supports mandatory reporting policies. Ben Matthews, perhaps the best-known international expert on the issue, is unequivocal on this issue. In his article “Mandatory Reporting Laws and Identification of Child Abuse and Neglect,” he wrote:

“Mandatory reporting laws have been created in many jurisdictions in different forms, primarily as a way of identifying existing cases of severe maltreatment which are likely to otherwise remain hidden, so that the child’s victimisation can cease, health rehabilitation and other support can be delivered (both to the child and her or his parents and family), the child’s safety can be promoted, and, where necessary, perpetrators can be held accountable.”

In fact, the UN itself officially agrees. Article 3 of UNICEF’s joint publication with the UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) “Justice in Matters involving Child Victims…” emphasizes the fact that the duty to report child abuse “…supersedes any obligation of confidentiality, except in the case of lawyer-client confidentiality.”

Similarly, ECOSOC Resolution 2005/20, (“Guidelines on Justice in Matters involving Child Victims and Witnesses of Crime”), states:

“32. Where the safety of a child victim or witness may be at risk, appropriate measures should be taken to require the reporting of those safety risks to appropriate authorities and to protect the child from such risk before, during and after the justice process.

“33. Professionals who come into contact with children should be required to notify appropriate authorities if they suspect that a child victim or witness has been harmed, is being harmed or is likely to be harmed.”

In short, mandatory reporting of a child sexual abuse is accepted policy and practice worldwide. The UN, through the UNODC, UNICEF and ECOSOC recognize the duty to report a child victim to the authorities.

France had legal obligations stemming from the Geneva Conventions and the Lanzarote Convention to protect the children in the CAR, including from sexual abuse. In fact by not providing the names of the victims and witnesses to the French Government, the UN would be preventing a Member State from upholding its international obligations and from applying its legislation for the protection of children.

This information about the legal requirements to report child abuse has been provided to the UN Secretary General in a series of letters by Miranda Brown, the Acting Director of the Africa Branch at OHCHR in early August 2014, when French investigators arrived in the CAR. Nonetheless, at present, the UN’s investigation of Kompass continues, and the High Commissioner maintains his position that the children abused in the CAR by peacekeepers should not have been identified.

* Beatrice Edwards is the Executive Director of the Government Accountability Project.

* THE VIEWS OF THE ABOVE ARTICLE ARE THOSE OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF THE PAMBAZUKA NEWS EDITORIAL TEAM

* BROUGHT TO YOU BY PAMBAZUKA NEWS

* Please do not take Pambazuka for granted! Become a Friend of Pambazuka and make a donation NOW to help keep Pambazuka FREE and INDEPENDENT!

* Please send comments to editor[at]pambazuka[dot]org or comment online at Pambazuka News.