In the peacekeeping context, withholding or withdrawing support in the face of a failure by recipient security forces to comply with the core principles of the policy may significantly diminish the mission’s ability to fulfil the overall mandate and objectives set out by the Security Council. Suspension or withdrawal of logistical, material or technical support may, however, become necessary where continued support would implicate the Organization in grave violations of international humanitarian, human rights or refugee law. The Secretary-General should keep the Council informed of measures taken by a peacekeeping operation under this policy and, where it is thought that application of this policy would have a critical impact on the ability of the operation to discharge its mandate, should advise the Council in a timely manner and seek the Council’s advice regarding the way forward. Similarly, should the withholding or withdrawal of support by a United Nations agency, fund or programme affect the ability of that entity to fulfil its mandate, the Executive Head of the said agency, fund or programme will advise the governing body of the agency, fund or programme in a timely manner, and seek its advice regarding the way forward. F. Accountability 29. Following endorsement of the present policy framework by the Secretary-General, senior managers at Headquarters (Under-Secretaries-General, the Administrator of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the Executive Directors of funds and programmes) are responsible for ensuring that support for non-United Nations security forces and institutions and implementation of the policy are kept under regular review in their areas of responsibility. They are also responsible for ensuring that significant developments in the implementation of this policy, including mitigatory actions taken under it, are brought to the timely attention of the Secretary-General and the relevant legislative bodies. 30. Where relevant, integrated mission task forces and integrated task forces should include in their agendas a standing item on review and evaluation of support provided to non-United Nations security forces. 31. A further submission to the Policy Committee should be prepared in one year’s time, in the light of experience gained to determine, inter alia, if any further implementation measure(s) or mechanisms are required.
The presence in a senior command position of the unit of one or more officers about whom there are substantial grounds to suspect: • Direct responsibility for the commission of “war crimes”, “gross violations” of human rights or acts of refoulement; or • Command responsibility, as defined in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, for the commission of such crimes, violations or acts by those under their command; or • • Failure to take effective measures to prevent, repress, investigate or prosecute other violations of international humanitarian, human rights or refugee law committed on a significant scale by those under their command; (b) In the case of civilian or military authorities that are directly responsible for the management, administration or command of non-United Nations security forces: (i) Commission of grave violations by one or more units under their command; (ii) Instalações técnicas — Armazenamento — Oficinas — Estações de combustível — Armazenamento de munições — [Original: English and French] Human rights due diligence policy on United Nations support to non-United Nations security forces I. Core principles 1. Support by United Nations entities to non-United Nations security forces must be consistent with the Organization’s purposes and principles as set out in the Charter of the United Nations and with its obligations under international law to respect, promote and encourage respect for international humanitarian, human rights and refugee law. Such support should help recipients to attain a stage where compliance with these principles and bodies of law becomes the norm, ensured by the rule of law. Consistent with these obligations, United Nations support cannot be provided where there are substantial grounds for believing there is a real risk of the receiving entities committing grave violations of international humanitarian, human rights or refugee law and where the relevant authorities fail to take the necessary corrective or mitigating measures. For the same reasons, if the United Nations receives reliable information that provides substantial grounds to believe that a recipient of United Nations support is committing grave violations of international humanitarian, human rights or refugee law, the United Nations entity providing such support must intercede with the relevant authorities with a view to bringing those violations to an end. If, despite such intercession, the situation persists, the United Nations must suspend support to the offending elements. Notwithstanding the present policy, existing obligations of human rights, humanitarian and refugee law continue to apply to all United Nations activities. 2. United Nations entities that are contemplating or involved in providing support to non-United Nations security forces must therefore pursue a policy of due diligence, comprising the following key elements: (a) Before support is given, an assessment of the risks involved in providing or not providing such support, in particular the risk of the recipient entity committing grave violations of international humanitarian law, human rights law or refugee law; (b)