+

OEA/Ser.R TRIBAD/Doc.2/11 31 December 2011

Original: Spanish

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL OF THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES

ANNUAL REPORT - 2011

GENERAL SECRETARIAT ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. BACKGROUND................................................................................................................. ..1-3

A. Establishment of the Tribunal ................................................................................... .1 B. Statute and Rules of Procedure ................................................................................. .1 C. Election of the first members of the Tribunal ........................................................... .2 D. Installing the Tribunal ............................................................................................... .2 E. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal ....................................................................................... .2 F. General principles ..................................................................................................... .3

II. GENERAL INFORMATION ..………………………………………………………….....3-4

A. Composition of the Tribunal……………………………...……………………….....3 B. Secretariat of the Tribunal……………………………………………………………4 C. Presentation of the 2010 Annual Report………………………...................................4

III. OAS GENERAL ASSEMBLY……………………………………………………………..5-8

A. Forty-first regular session of the General Assembly…………………………………5

B. Forty-second special session of the General Assembly ...............................................5 C. Forty-second regular session of the General Assembly………………………………5 1. Election of a member of the Tribunal………………………………………………...5 2. Adoption of the Revised Draft of the Amendment to the Statute of the Administrative Tribunal……………………………………………………….6 3. 2011 Annual Report…………………………………………………………………..7

IV. FORTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF THE TRIBUNAL’S ESTABLISHMENT…………...8-11 V. ACTIVITIES IN 2011………………………. …………………………………………..11-14

A. Complaints………………………………………......................................................11

B. LIX regular session of the Administrative Tribunal………………………………...11 1. Composition of the Tribunal………………………………………………………...11 2. Development of the agenda…………………………………………………………12

2.1 Review of the financial situation………………………………………………..12 2.2 Draft Amendment to the Statute of the Administrative Tribunal……………….12 2.3 Planning commemorative activities for the 40th anniversary of the Administrative Tribunal………………………………………………….12 2.4 Meeting of the Administrative Tribunal with the Staff Association…………....13 2.5 Background to Complaint 292………………………………………………….13

ii

C. Consultations and cooperation ties with other institutions………………………….14

VI. PUBLICATIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL…………………………14-15 VII. FINANCIAL SITUATION…………………………………………………………………..15 VIII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS……………………………………….15-16

ANNEXES………………………………………………………………………………………...17-32

Annex 1: Resolution AG/RES. 35 (I-O/71)…………………………………………………………..17

Annex 2: Judgment 155………………………………………………………………………………18

- 1 -

ANNUAL REPORT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL OF THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES 2011

I. BACKGROUND

A. Establishment of the Tribunal

At its first regular session, in San José, Costa Rica, the General Assembly of the Organization of American States (hereinafter “GA/OAS”) adopted resolution AG/RES. 35 (I-O/71)1/ during its ninth plenary session, on April 22, 1971. It provided as follows:

1. To create the Administrative Tribunal of the Organization of American States (hereinafter the “Tribunal”).

2. To empower the Permanent Council of the OAS to adopt the pertinent statutes

and constitute the aforesaid tribunal within sixty days from the closing date of the present session, bearing in mind the draft prepared by the General Secretariat and any proposals that may be presented by the governments of the member states.

B. Statute and Rules of Procedure

In compliance with the mandate conferred upon it, as cited in the preceding paragraph, the Permanent Council of the OAS adopted the Statute of the Administrative Tribunal of the Organization of American States (hereinafter the “Statute”) by resolution CP/RES. 48 (48/71) of July 16, 1971. On September 16, 1971, the Permanent Council of the OAS elected the first Members of the Tribunal. Later, on May 1, 1974, at its fourth regular session, in Atlanta, Georgia, the GA/OAS adopted resolution AG/RES. 158 (IV-O/74)2/ which entrusted to the Tribunal the task of preparing a draft amendment of its Statute. The Tribunal complied by preparing the draft, which was approved by the Permanent Council of the OAS in resolution CP/RES. 142 (158/75). In October 1979, at its ninth regular session, in La Paz, Bolivia, the General Assembly of the OAS adopted resolution AG/RES. 414 (IX-O/79), in which it amended Article III, paragraph 3, of the Tribunal Statute. That paragraph confirmed that the length of the term of Members of the Tribunal would be six years and stated that they could be reelected only once. Finally, in 1997, the GA/OAS, meeting in Lima, Peru, approved the amendments to the Statute by resolution AG/RES. 1526 (XXVII-O/97). Similarly, the Rules of Procedure of the Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter the “Rules of Procedure”) were adopted on October 24, 1975, by its Members. They were amended on November 20, 2000, by resolution No. 340, and on October 5 2005 by Resolution 353 .

1 Proceedings of the General Assembly, Volume II, p.12. 2 Proceedings of the General Assembly, Volume I, p.40.

- 2 -

C. Election of the first Members of the Tribunal

As indicated in the preceding section, pursuant to the first transitional provision of the Statute,3/ the Permanent Council of the OAS elected the first Members of the Tribunal on September 16, 1971, and determined their respective terms by drawing lots, with the following results: Principal Members

• Mr. Juan Bautista Climent Beltrán (Mexico)

• Dr. Mozart Víctor Russomano (Brazil)

• Dr. Carlos Giambruno (Uruguay) Alternates

• Dr. Carlos Alberto Pigretti (Argentina)

• Dr. John Luis Antonio Passalacqua (United States)

• Mr. Ronaldo Porta España (Guatemala) D. Installation of the Tribunal

On January 24, 1972, in a formal ceremony, with the Chair of the Permanent Council of the OAS presiding, and attended by other Permanent Council of the OAS members, the Secretary General, the Assistant Secretary General, high officials of the General Secretariat of the OAS, members of the Staff Committee, and other special guests, the Tribunal was inaugurated with all its Members present.

E. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal

In accordance with its Statute, the Tribunal is competent to “hear those cases in which members of the staff of the General Secretariat of the Organization of American States allege

nonobservance of the conditions established in their respective appointments or contracts or

violation of the General Standards for the operation of the General Secretariat or other

applicable provisions, including those concerning the Retirement and Pension Plan of the

General Secretariat.”4/ It bears noting that the Tribunal’s jurisdiction may be extended “to any inter-American specialized organization of the Organization of American States as defined in the Charter of the

Organization, as well as to any interested American intergovernmental organization, in

accordance with the terms established by a special agreement to be concluded for the purpose by

the Secretary General with each such specialized organization or interested American

intergovernmental organization.”5/

On February 18, 1976, a special agreement was signed to extend the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to the Inter-American Institute of Agricultural Sciences (hereinafter “IICA”).

3 In addition to the transitional provision, the Permanent Council approved the procedures for election of the first members of the OAS Administrative Tribunal (CP/doc.137/71). 4 Article II.1 of the Tribunal’s Statute. 5 Article II.4 of the Statute of the Administrative Tribunal of the OAS.

- 3 -

F. General principles

The Tribunal is an organ of the Organization, and is governed by the following principles and other provisions of its Statute:6/

1. As the supreme organ of the Organization of American States, the General Assembly of the OAS has the final authority to determine the scope and meaning of its own resolutions as it applies them;

2. The Tribunal, like all other organs of the Organization, is subordinate to the

General Assembly of the OAS;

3. The function of the Tribunal is to adjudicate disputes between the Secretary General and the staff members of the General Secretariat arising out of the employment relationship;

4. Determining the general salary policy for the personnel of the General Secretariat is the exclusive responsibility of the General Assembly of the OAS, and the General Assembly has not delegated that authority to any other organ;

5. For the adjudication of any disputes involving the personnel of the General Secretariat, the internal legislation of the Organization shall take precedence over general principles of labor law and the laws of any member State; and, within that internal legislation, the Charter is the instrument of the highest legal order, followed by the resolutions of the General Assembly of the OAS, and then by the resolutions of the Permanent Council of the OAS, and finally by the norms adopted by the other organs under the Charter - each acting within its respective sphere of competence;

6. Any decision of an organ subordinate to the General Assembly of the OAS which violates the basic principles set out in the foregoing provisions is ultra vires and not binding on the Organization, the General Secretariat, its personnel, or the member states.

II. GENERAL INFORMATION

A. Composition of the Tribunal

According to Article III of the Statute, the Tribunal is comprised of six members elected by the OAS General Assembly, with six-year terms of office and entitled to re-election once. The rotation of members is aimed at having the OAS General Assembly elect one different member every year to the Tribunal.

In 2010, the Administrative Tribunal was comprised of the following members:

• Judge Andre M. Surena (United States)

• Judge Homero Máximo Bibiloni (Argentina)

• Judge Susie D’Auvergne (Saint Lucia)

6 Article I of the Statute of the Administrative Tribunal of the OAS.

- 4 -

• Judge Alma Montenegro de Fletcher (Panama)

• Judge Héctor Enrique Arce Zaconeta (Bolivia) In the period referred to, Judge Andre M. Surena was President of the Tribunal and Judge

Homero M. Bibiloni was the Vice-President. When Judge Héctor Arce Zaconeta was appointed Speaker of the House of

Representatives of the Plurinational Legislative Assembly of Bolivia, he tendered his resignation as President of the Administrative Tribunal for 2011, because the Political Constitution of the Plurinational State of Bolivia forbids the Speaker of the House of Representatives to discharge any other parallel duties.

The judges of the Administrative Tribunal accepted the resignation submitted by Judge Arce and unanimously decided to appoint Judge Andre M. Surena as President of the OAS Administrative Tribunal for the second consecutive year because of his brilliant performance during his administration as President of this body in 2010.

B. Secretariat of the Tribunal

The OAS Secretary General, on the basis of the provisions of Article 4 of the Rules of Procedure of the Administrative Tribunal, designated Mercedes Carrillo Zamora to be the Secretary of this body as of 2011. During her administration in 2011, the Secretary of the Administrative Tribunal, at the same time, discharged the duties of Legal Officer of the Department Social Development and Employment of the Executive Secretariat for Integral Development. During the above-mentioned period, the Secretariat of the Administrative Tribunal benefited from the services of Rosa Charrupi, consultant for this body since September 2011. C. Presentation of the Annual Report for 2010

On March 11, 2011, the President of the OAS Administrative Tribunal, Judge Andre M. Surena of the United States, submitted to the General Committee of the OAS Permanent Council the 2011 Annual Report of the Administrative Tribunal (CP/doc.4539/11). In his presentation address, President Surena took advantage of the occasion to reiterate the request made to the General Assembly to adopt of the Draft Amendment to the Statute previously adopted by the Judges of the Tribunal in November 2009 at its LVII meeting and the need to regularize the employment status of the staff of the Secretariat of the Administrative Tribunal. The General Committee requested that the issue be submitted again to the consideration of the Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Affairs (CAAP) to obtain its ruling in the potential budget implications of this draft amendment.

- 5 -

III. OAS GENERAL ASSEMBLY

A. Forty-first regular session of the General Assembly

At the forty-first regular session of the OAS General Assembly in San Salvador, El Salvador, from June 5 to 7, 2011, the Administrative Tribunal was represented by its President, Judge Andre M. Surena.

At its fourth plenary meeting on June 7, 2011, the OAS General Assembly re-elected by

acclamation Judge Andre M. Surena of the United States as Judge of the Administrative Tribunal for the period 2012-2017 (AG/doc.5233/11).

B. Forty-second special session of the General Assembly

At its forty-second special session, the General Assembly, by means of Resolution AG/RES. 1 (XLII-E/11) of October 31, 2011, defined the Program-Budget of the Organization’s Regular Fund for 2012 and, in this context, the OAS Administrative Tribunal and its Secretariat were allocated US$53,000 for their functioning (Section I.2.3-32C).

Likewise, just as for previous years, it was decided to uphold the professional fees of the members of the Administrative Tribunal at US$150 per day of activity (Section III.B.14 of the resolution part).

C. Forty-second regular session of the General Assembly

1. Election of a member of the Tribunal

At its forty-second regular session, the OAS General Assembly must proceed to elect a

member of the Tribunal to fill the vacancy that will be left when the term of office of Judge Héctor Arce Zaconeta (Bolivia) ends on December 31, 2012.

Judge Héctor Arce was elected on June 6, 2006 at the fourth plenary meeting of the OAS

General Assembly at its thirty-sixth session in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic (AG/doc.4633/06).

In order to elect the Tribunal’s new member, the OAS General Assembly must bear in

mind the guidelines appearing in Article III.2 of the Statute of the Administrative Tribunal, stipulating that “[e]ach member must be a national of an OAS member state, but no two members may be nationals of the same member state. All members shall be experienced lawyers, law

professors, or judges by profession and shall serve strictly in their personal capacity.” Likewise, Article 1 of the Rules of Procedure provides that “[t]he following persons are ineligible to serve as members of the Tribunal: permanent representatives of the member states

on the organs, agencies, or entities of the Organization; persons who serve permanently on those

bodies in any capacity; staff members of the General Secretariat.”

The new Judge elected by the OAS General Assembly at its forty-second regular session shall begin discharging his/her duties as of January 1, 2013 for a period of six consecutive years.

- 6 -

Finally, it should be pointed out that the procedure for electing a member of the Administrative Tribunal is provided for in Annex II of the Regulations of the OAS General Assembly.

2. Adoption of the Revised Draft Amendment to the Statute of the Administrative Tribunal

Bearing in mind that, at its LIII regular meeting, the members of the Administrative Tribunal recognized the need to amend certain provisions of both the Statute and the Rules of the Procedure of the Administrative Tribunal for purposes of ensuring simpler and more expeditious procedures, the Secretariat of the Administrative Tribunal drew up a Draft Amendment for both the Statute and the Rules of Procedure, which were discussed by the Judges at the following meetings, until finally, at the LVII meeting in November 2009, the Judges reached a consensus about the amendments to be proposed. Because, according to Article XIV of the Statute of the Administrative Tribunal, this instrument can only be amended by the General Assembly, the members of the Administrative Tribunal signed, in November 2009, Resolution 362 whereby they submitted the proposed amendments to the consideration of the fortieth regular session of the General Assembly in June 2010.

Months later, in March 2010, at the presentation of the 2009 Annual Report, at the General Committee of the OAS Permanent Council, the President of the Administrative Tribunal, Judge Andre M. Surena, pointed out that the proposals for amending the Statute were aimed at modernizing procedures and making them expeditious and that, after its adoption by the General Assembly, the Judges would subsequently be able to adopt the Draft Amendment to the Rules of Procedure of the Administrative Tribunal, which is aimed at transforming the OAS Tribunal into a pioneer tribunal among its kind as a result of the modernization of procedures and use of technologies. For example, among the changes proposed, there is the use of videoconferencing to submit evidence; the reduction in time-limits for proceedings to speed up cases; the inclusion of new phases of procedures such as a reconciliation hearing among the parties and the regulation of matters up until now not envisaged either in the current Rules of Procedure or in the Regulations of other similar international tribunals, such as the detailed procedure for the designation of experts in the framework of a proceeding.

At the end of the intervention by President Surena, the General Committee of the Permanent Council, at the behest of its Chair, agreed to remit said draft to the Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Affairs (CAAP) to examine possible budgetary implications (CP/CG/SA.1817/10).

On May 27, 2010, the Chair of the Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Affairs,

Ambassador Virgilio Alcántara, submitted the report with the results of the study conducted by CAAP, indicating that four of the proposed amendments to the Statute of the Administrative Tribunal could lead to an increase in the operating costs of said body. As a result of this, on July 14, 2010, the President of the Administrative Tribunal Judge Andre M. Surena, on behalf of all of its members, submitted to the Chair of the CAAP the report TRIBAD/Doc.6/10 focusing on each one of the four objections raised in the report and providing a detailed relevant explanation in order to reiterate that, in fact, the Draft Amendment to the Statute of the Tribunal did NOT entail any increase in this body’s operating costs.

- 7 -

After providing the relevant explanations regarding the conclusions of the CAAP report,

the members of the Administrative Tribunal, at its LVIII meeting in November 2010, adopted Resolution 371 whereby they requested the Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Matters to issue a new official ruling.

On March 11, 2011, on the occasion of the presentation of the Annual Report of the

Administrative Tribunal to the General Committee of the OAS Permanent Council, the President of the Tribunal, Judge Andre M. Surena, confirmed the Tribunal’s interest in having the proposed amendment to the Statute adopted by the General Assembly that year.

When considering the draft resolution submitted by TRIBAD, which indicated the proposed amendments (CP/CG-1859/11), at a meeting of the General Committee held on April 15, the delegations requested that it be submitted a second time to the CAAP, bearing in mind its budget implications and the observations made by the Administrative Tribunal. On May 9, after a presentation by Judge Surena to the CAAP, this Committee agreed to request a second legal and administrative study to determine whether or not the proposed amendments had budget implications, but this time bearing in mind the explanations made by Judge Surena, previously sent to the Chair of CAAP in July 2010. At the meeting of the General Committee on May 20, 2011, the second report was submitted, entitled “Report on the costs associated with the proposed amendment to the internal Statute of the Administrative Tribunal” (Doc.CP/CAAP-3114/11) upholding the position that four proposed amendments in particular would increase the costs required for the functioning of said body.

Because of the urgency of the matter, the General Committee agreed by consensus to recommend to the Permanent Council that the CAAP should issue a new opinion and observations about the Report of the Chair (CP/CAAP-3114/11) but after the regular session to be held in June 2011 in El Salvador.

On December 6, 2011, the Chair of CAAP reported on its inclusion of the above-

mentioned topic for its meeting of January 24, 2012 and requested the delegations to focus on this matter so that a decision could be taken.

At its meeting of January 24, 2012, the delegations agreed that CAAP recommend to the

Committee that the four proposed amendments to the Statute having budget implications according to Doc.CP/CAAP-3114/11 would not be adopted, but that the rest of the proposals would be adopted, so that the draft amendment originally submitted by the Judges would be partially adopted. In view of the above, the Judges of the OAS Administrative Tribunal, after having met all the formalities required by the Committees of the Permanent Council of the Organization over the years 2010 and 2011, are looking forward, with optimism, to having their new revised proposal to amend the Statute (which would be submitted without including the four controversial proposals) adopted by the General Assembly at its forty-second regular session.

3. 2011 Annual Report

The OAS General Assembly, in the framework of its forty-second regular session to be held in Bolivia in June 2012, must consider the observations and recommendations made by the

- 8 -

OAS Permanent Council regarding the present report, in line with the provisions of Article 91 f) of the Organization’s Charter.

IV. FORTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF THE TRIBUNAL’S ESTABLISHMENT

The OAS General Assembly, in the framework of its first regular session held in San José de Costa Rica, adopted, at its ninth plenary meeting, on April 22, 1971, Resolution AG/RES. 35 (I-O/71) providing for the establishment of the Administrative Tribunal of the Organization of American States, with the capacity to hear labor disputes affecting the staff of the General Secretariat. As provided for in this Resolution (see Annex 1), it was necessary to have this body to guarantee the effective observance of the General Guidelines regarding the functioning of the General Secretariat and other provisions referring to the rights and obligations of the staff. As concluded by the records of the deliberations of the sessions “the creation of this Tribunal (…) was a longstanding aspiration of the staff of the former Pan American Union, fully

shared by the current authorities of the General Secretariat. [The Director of the Department of

Legal Services] stressed that the current Secretary General deems that it is an autonomous body

that shall watch over the rights of the staff and the General Secretariat itself and that it is an

essential element of the administrative career stream.”7 Likewise, the establishment of the Tribunal sought to fulfill the commitments stemming from the Headquarters Agreement between the OAS and the United States Government, which provided for the following:

ARTICLE V -- EMPLOYMENT AUTHORITY

The Organization shall have exclusive jurisdiction over the resolution of

any and all disputes and matters arising out of, related to, or deriving

from employment in, by, or with the Organization. In all such disputes, the

Internal Law of the Organization provided for in Article XII below shall

apply (emphasis added).

ARTICLE VIII -- SETTLEMENT OF PRIVATE DISPUTES. Section 1

Without prejudice to the immunities conferred by the IOIA or this

Agreement, the Organization shall make provisions for appropriate modes

of settlement of disputes for which jurisdiction would exist against a foreign

government under Section 1605(a)(2)-(6) of the United States Foreign

Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 ("FSIA"), as amended, and as to which

the Organization is a party and asserts immunity under Section 1 of Article

IV of this Agreement. In all such cases, each party shall bear its own

attorneys fees and no damages in excess of actual damages shall be

recoverable, except as otherwise expressly agreed by the parties. Federal,

state, and local laws of the United States shall otherwise apply to the

7 See General Assembly of the Organization of American States, Minutes of the Meetings of the First Regular Session, San José, Costa Rica (April 14 to 23, 1971) OEA/Ser. P-/I-O.2, April 11, 1972, Volume I, page 612.

- 9 -

resolution of disputes pursuant to such modes of settlement; provided,

however, that disputes between the Organization and officials of the

Organization shall be resolved only in accordance with the Internal Law

of the Organization provided for in Article XII, below, and only by

institutions established or recognized by the Organization for that purpose

(emphasis added).

ARTICLE XII -- LAW AND AUTHORITY IN THE HEADQUARTERS.

Section 1

(b) For the purpose of establishing the necessary legal order for the

exercise of its functions, the Organization shall have the power to make and

apply within the Headquarters the Internal Law of the Organization. The

Organization shall determine the scope and substance of that Internal Law,

which includes, but is not limited to: the Organization's Charter; its

General Standards; its Retirement and Pension Plan; published rules and

regulations of the Organization; international agreements to which the

Organization is a party; the jurisprudence of tribunals duly constituted by

the Organization for the resolution of internal disputes (…)(emphasis

added).

In 1971, an institution was established for the sound functioning of the Organization, as a guarantor of its internal regulatory framework, immunity of jurisdiction, the rights of its staff, and which is today on the leading edge of progress being made in international administrative law of international organizations. Complaints about the classification of positions; performance evaluations; results-based contracts; salaries and benefits; mandatory retirement; staff recruitment and appointment; downsizing; termination of duties, among other issues, have been submitted to the consideration of the OAS Administrative Tribunal. This body is currently the only and last resort that is legally binding for the organization regarding the settlement of labor disputes. Throughout its existence, the Administrative Tribunal has proven, on the basis of verifiable and measurable results, to be an efficient and effective body for the settlement of internal employment disputes, highlighting the following among its achievements:

• Decisions adopted, publications and activities carried out: At present, the Administrative Tribunal has processed 292 complaints; issued 371 resolutions; held 59 meetings; published 5 books; organized various meetings with the tribunals of other international organizations, and consolidated its own case law based on 155judgments issued since 1971.

• Bringing together and consolidating case law in the Region: The Tribunal has been, in turn, the administrative tribunal for the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA), so that its legal precedents have included bodies that, in the region, have viewed it as the best way to guarantee effective administration of justice in relationships with their employees.

• Furthermore, the Administrative Tribunal has considered expanding the scope of this body toward other specialized inter-American bodies of the Organization or any other intergovernmental entity of the Americas. In this regard, there has been a special interest

- 10 -

in concretizing this initiative by absorbing labor disputes arising between the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) and its employees, in view of the absence of any dispute settlement body in that organization.

• Modernizing and updating its work: The Administrative Tribunal has been working to revise and update its regulations, as well as modernize its processes in order to meet current demands of the administrative international judiciary system and lower costs.

• During this process of modernization, the Administrative Tribunal, over the past few years, has been implementing the following strategies, among others:

o Reassertion of its autonomy with respect to the OAS General Secretariat and its

location as an autonomous body in the new organizational structure, separate from the Department of Legal Services, ratifying its capacity to designate the staff of its Secretariat.

o Capacity building of cooperation ties with other international bodies in the light

of the Seminar “Current Issues in the Law and Practice of International Administrative Tribunals: Promoting the Effectiveness of the Decision-Making

Process” at OAS General Secretariat headquarters, attended by representatives from the Administrative Tribunals of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), the International Labor Organization (ILO), the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the World Bank (WB), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the European Council. After this event, the Secretariat of the Administrative Tribunal published an edition with all the presentations made by the attending Justices and Secretaries.

o The exhaustive revision and update of its current regulatory framework in order

to repeal obsolete standards, fill current loopholes, reduce time required for filing proceedings in the framework of a complaint, promoting the use of technologies for the meetings of the Tribunal, among other matters, all of which shall ultimately lead to major economic benefits for the Organization and its staff. All of these changes have been proposed in the Draft Amendments to the Statute and Rules of Procedure of the OAS Administrative Tribunal.

All of this without neglecting the model of austerity in the management of its resources, recognized even by the Organization’s General Assembly, which in 2008 commended the Tribunal for using videoconferencing to conduct hearings. Furthermore, the Tribunal has performed a teaching role. One example of the latter has been the circulars that the OAS Staff Association has repeatedly published since the establishment of the Tribunal8 regarding the management of this body.9 These bulletins have

8 Staff Newsletter, April 5, 1971, Administrative Tribunals of International Organizations, “An administrative tribunal, free from political restraint, is the indispensable safeguard of the international civil service. It has come to

have three primary functions: first, the most important, to protect the rights of staff members; second, to permit the

Secretary General to disprove allegations that he has abused his discretionary power; and third, to interpret and

supplement staff Rules of Procedure and other statutory provisions.”

9 Please see as examples:

- 11 -

historically guided the staff regarding their rights with the administration. Finally, the Tribunal has set major precedents, which can be seen in the Organization’s internal policies. Thus, various specific chapters, rules, and standards of the OAS Staff Regulations have been changed thanks to the Tribunal’s case law, specifically salaries, back pay, income tax payment, types of employment, decline or change in the place of employment, separation from service, disciplinary and regulatory procedures. The above considerations highlight the importance and privilege that the OAS Administrative Tribunal has had during the last 40 years for staff of the General Secretariat and the Organization itself.

V. ACTIVITIES IN 2011

A. Complaints

On May 19, 2011, the complainant, Sergio Biondo, filed a complaint against the Secretary General of the Organization of American States, as authorized in Article II of the Statute of the Administrative Tribunal. After accruing 17 years of service to the Organization, the complainant resigned on July 31, 2010, his last post being that of Principal Legal Officer of the Department of Legal Services. On December 27, 2011, the Administrative Tribunal issued judgment 155 that brought this Complaint to an end (Annex 2). In this document, there is a detailed description of the background to this case.

B. LIX Regular Session of the Administrative Tribunal

1. Composition of the Tribunal

This meeting was held on November 28 to 30, 2011 in the Gabriela Mistral Meeting Room of the building of the General Secretariat of the Organization of American States in Washington, D.C., attended by the following members of the Tribunal:

• Judge Andre M. Surena (United States), President

Staff Newsletter SN-40/04-05 of April 4, 2005. “Role of the Administrative Tribunal. For the staff’s information, documents associated with the Administrative Tribunal are attached herewith (Letter sent by the President of the Staff Association to the Acting Secretary General on March 21, as well as the presentation made by the President of the Administrative Tribunal to the General Committee on March 29, 2005).”

Staff Newsletter SN- 43/09-10 of March 30, 2010 “Speech of the President of the Administrative Tribunal of the

OAS, Judge Andre M. Surena (United States), on the occasion of the presentation of the 2009 Annual Report of the Administrative Tribunal to the General Committee of the Organization’s Permanent Council.”

Staff Newsletter SN-75/10-11 of April 29, 2011 “Fortieth anniversary of the establishment of the Administrative

Tribunal of the Organization of American States.”

Staff Newsletter FYI # 4 /11-12 of November 15, 2011 “Did you know that the Administrative Tribunal of the

OAS was 40 years old?”

- 12 -

• Judge Homero Máximo Bibiloni (Argentina), Vice-President

• Judge Susie D’Auvergne (St. Lucia)

• Judge Alma Montenegro de Fletcher (Panama)

• Judge Magali Rojas (Peru)

At the opening session, the President of the Administrative Tribunal expressed his satisfaction to all the judges for the magnificent quorum achieved for this meeting and provided a brief overview of the activities carried out in 2011 and requested that the new Judge Magali Rojas be sworn in.

2. Development of the Agenda

2.1 Review of the financial situation The working sessions started with a presentation by Judge Andre M. Surena on the

annual budget of the Administrative Tribunal allocated by the General Assembly for 2012. A comparative table of the budget allocated to the Administrative Tribunal over the past decade was presented to highlight, for the Judges, the decline in resource allocation.

2.2 Draft Amendment to the Statute of the Administrative Tribunal The President of the Administrative Tribunal explained in detail all the steps taken in 2011 for adoption of the Draft Amendment to the Statute as explained in section C.2 of Chapter III of the present report. The Judges reviewed all the documents that had been prepared and distributed by the Secretariat of the Administrative Tribunal during that year to support the efforts of President Surena to secure adoption of the draft amendment. The President concluded that the principal issue discussed with these committees was the alleged budget implications of some of the proposed amendments and indicated that the goal would be to achieve at least a partial amendment of the Statute. 2.3 Planning commemorative activities of the 40th anniversary of the Administrative Tribunal

On April 22, 2011, the Administrative Tribunal completed 40 years since it was established. For that date, the Tribunal was waiting for the formal designation of its new Secretary, and therefore the events commemorating the Tribunal’s establishment were temporarily suspended until the employment situation of the Secretariat’s staff was regularized. Bearing in mind that, for 2012, the Administrative Tribunal was also celebrating the fortieth anniversary of the first session of the Tribunal, the members of the Tribunal decided, at their LIX meeting, to hold activities commemorating the fortieth anniversary that year after the forty-second regular session of the General Assembly. In 2012 it is Argentina that must hold the office of President of the OAS Administrative Tribunal, and therefore it was tentatively proposed that its sixtieth meeting would be held in Argentina and that activities involving that celebration would take place there.

The Secretary of the Tribunal, Mercedes Carrillo, presented the following proposals to

- 13 -

commemorate the 40th anniversary: 1. Colloquium to which high-ranking officials of the General Secretariat would be invited,

along with representatives from other Administrative Tribunals of related international organizations (UN, IMF, IDB, World Bank, ILO), former members of the OAS Administrative Tribunal, and representatives of the academic sector to have a dialogue on issues of interest in the framework of international administrative justice (this would probably take place in Washington, D.C.).

2. Relaunching the web page of the Tribunal to adjust it to the standards of the institutional image of the OAS. The web page would have new contents, interactive images, and biographical information on the members of the Tribunal, and its major progress would consist of implementing a new search engine that would make it possible to identify with greater ease all the rulings and resolutions of this body by year, number and subject.

3. New printed edition of the Rules of Procedure and Statute of the Tribunal on the occasion of the changes to the Statute adopted by the General Assembly. Special editions commemorating the 40th anniversary shall be published with a preface providing a brief history of the tribunal, its purpose and achievements, highlighting the importance of the Administrative Tribunal for the OAS and its staff. That edition would also have annexes describing with charts the various administrative procedures before, during or after the intervention of the Tribunal (hearing, reconsideration, regular proceedings with the TRIBAD, prior review in the IICA, prior review in the Pension and Retirement Fund), for the purpose of making it easier for the staff to understand them.

4. Commemorative video for internal circulation presenting the Tribunal’s role, its importance for the staff, a statistical overview of the rulings that have exerted an impact on staff rules and regulations, interviews with judges, images since its date of establishment, among other aspects.

The members of the Tribunal requested the Secretary to draw up a proposal for their consideration that would include the dates and resources required for each activity.

2.4 Meeting of the Administrative Tribunal with the Staff Association

The Staff Association of the OAS General Secretariat, via its Chair Carla Sorani, invited the members of the Administrative Tribunal to celebrate the fortieth anniversary of the establishment of the Tribunal. This celebration took place on November 28th at the headquarters of the General Secretariat. The members of the Staff Association, the Tribunal and its Secretariat, as well as the Secretary for External Relations, Ambassador Alfonso Quiñónez, on behalf of the Secretary General, attended this event. 2.5 Background to Complaint 292

On November 29th, hearings of witnesses presented by the parties to Complaint 292 “Sergio Biondo v. the Secretary General of the OAS” pursuant to Article 38 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure took place. Oral testimony of the following persons was taken:

• Harris Ammerman, attorney for the complainant in the bankruptcy proceedings.

- 14 -

• Carlos Calderón, Executive Chair of the OAS Staff Federal Credit Union.

• Lucía Hughes, Executive Vice-president of the OAS Staff Federal Credit Union.

• Kenneth Frankel, Director of the OAS Department of Legal Services.

• Altamira Araujo, Specialist of the OAS Department of Human Development.

• César Pérez, Accountant of the OAS Retirement and Pension Fund.

• Alex Figueroa, Chief of the Financial Operations and Analysis Section of the OAS Department of Financial and Administrative Management Services.

• Sergio Martínez, Advisor to the OAS Secretary General.

On November 30, there was an oral debate between the parties as stipulated by Article 39 of the Rules of Procedure of the Tribunal. After this debate, the Judges started deliberations regarding Judgment 155 that would bring this Complaint to an end, which is now attached to the present report.

C. Consultations and cooperation ties with other bodies

Another activity that merits highlighting is the assistance provided by the Administrative

Tribunal for the public in general when it receives and responds to queries by phone, e-mail or regular mail.

In 2011, queries were received about the general functioning of the Administrative

Tribunal, especially with respect to the procedures that must be exhausted prior to resorting to this body. Mail was also received from students working on their theses to learn about the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and from OAS staff to learn generally about what regulatory procedure is required to file a complaint.

Information was exchanged with the Inter-American Development Bank about the process of selecting the Judges of the OAS Administrative Tribunal, the membership of the tribunals, the number of cases, annual budgets, professional fees, and other aspects involving the Tribunal’s operations. A query from the IDB’s staff association on pay raises was received and the judgments on this specific issue were sent.

Information was exchanged with the International Monetary Fund on the pay scale and

travel costs of the Tribunal’s members. All queries that were received, as well as their corresponding responses prepared by the

Secretariat of the Tribunal, have been duly recorded in order to have an idea, over the medium term, of the legal issues of most interest for the public and to identify the most frequent concerns of individuals regarding the rules governing the procedure. All of this is aimed at helping the Tribunal’s members, at the time of reviewing the standards related to said body or issuing any decisions, take into account the elements provided by the general public in the light of the queries that have been made.

VI. PUBLICATIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

Pursuant to Article 4.3 of the Rules of Procedure, “The Secretary shall be responsible for the publication of a collection of the judgments of the Tribunal, and the compilation and maintenance of other records.”

- 15 -

To date, the Tribunal has published the following volumes:

• Volume I: Judgment #1 to Judgment #56, from 1971 to 1980

• Volume II: Judgment #57 to Judgment #100, from 1981 to 1988

• Volume III: Judgment #101 to Judgment # 138, from 1989 to 1997. These publications are deposited with the Columbus Memorial Library of the OAS General Secretariat and are available in the office of the Tribunal Secretariat and on the Tribunal’s Web page (http://www.oas.org/tribadm/default_sp.asp). The Tribunal Secretariat continues to compile those Tribunal judgments that were issued after the publication of its third volume of judgments, from 1998, so as to begin to prepare for publication of Volume IV in due course. To date, the Secretariat has 20 decisions slated for that volume.

VII. FINANCIAL SITUATION

In its fortieth special session, through resolution AG/RES. 1 (XL-E/10) of September 30, 2010, the General Assembly assigned to the OAS Administrative Tribunal and its Secretariat the sum of $53,000 for its operations during the year 2011 (Section I.2.3-32C). This amount is exactly the same as the amount authorized in 2010.

With regard to other matters, it should be remembered that on February 18, 1976 the Director General of what was then called the Inter-American Institute of Agricultural Sciences (today the Inter-American Institute of Cooperation for Agriculture –“IICA”) and the Secretary General of the OAS signed the “Special Agreement to extend the competence of the Administrative Tribunal of the Organization of American States to the Inter-American Institute for Agricultural Sciences (IICA).” In accordance with article 9 of this agreement, the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture has yearly deposited a sum equal to fifty per cent (50%) of the annual salary of a staff member at the G-5 level, in two payments each semester. This source of income provides for the specific fund of the Administrative Tribunal of the OAS.

VIII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The OAS Administrative Tribunal, within the time-limits stipulated by the regulations and in accordance with the objectives provided for in Article 91 f) of the OAS Charter, hereby submits to the OAS Permanent Council its annual report, which covers the activities carried out by this body in 2011 and which has been drafted in line with the guidelines provided by the General Assembly. As a result, the Administrative Tribunal would like to make the following recommendations to the forty-second regular session of the OAS General Assembly, for review and consideration: 1. To request the OAS Permanent Council to transmit the present report to the consideration

of the OAS General Assembly at its forty-second regular session, with the observations it

- 16 -

deems relevant and in line with the guidelines of Article 91 f) of the Charter of the Organization of American States.

2. To request the OAS Permanent Council to transmit the revised proposal of amendments to the Statute of the Administrative Tribunal to the General Assembly for its respective adoption.

3. To thank the OAS General Secretariat for its cooperation during the activities carried out

in the lapse of time covered by the present report.

December 2011

- 17 -

Annex 1

- 18 -

Annex 2

LIX REGULAR SESSION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL OF THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES

OEA/Ser.R TRIBAD/SEN.155 December 27 2011 Original: Spanish

Judgment 155 Complaint 292 Sergio Biondo v. Secretary General of the Organization of American States

THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL OF THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES,

Meeting in Washington, D.C. and composed of Andre M. Surena, President; Homero Máximo Bibiloni, Vice President; Suzie D’Auvergne, Alma Montenegro de Fletcher, and Magali Rojas Delgado.

Has before it for judgment the proceedings on complaint 292, filed by Sergio Biondo against the Secretary General of the Organization of American States.

The Complainant was acting on his own behalf and the Secretary General was represented by Messrs. Kenneth Frankel, William Berenson, Rubén Farje, Lorena Pérez, and Rubén Rudolph, all attorneys from the Organization’s Department of Legal Services.

In conformity with Article 50 of the Rules of Procedure of the Administrative Tribunal, Judge Magali Rojas Delgado was designated to serve as the first opining judge in this complaint. WHEREAS: I. On May 19, 2011 the Complainant, Sergio Biondo, filed a complaint with this Tribunal against the Secretary General of the Organization of American States, as authorized in Article II of the Statute of the Administrative Tribunal, alleging the following:

That on June 8, 2010 he accepted an offer by the General Secretariat of the OAS (GS/OAS) and signed an Early Termination of Services Agreement (the Agreement) under the terms of which he separated from the Organization on July 31, 2010.

That that Agreement stipulated that, on completion of the administrative formalities related to his separation, the General Secretariat of the OAS should make a final payment to him, in accordance with the pro forma liquidation statement attached to it.

- 19 -

That the Agreement does not indicate a specific date for effecting the payment; however, he was informed by the Department of Human Resources and the Department of Financial Services that the payment would be made at the end of the two-week period following that in which the Complainant fulfilled his obligations; therefore, since these were fulfilled before July 31, 2010, the payment should have been made on August 13 of that year.

That the payment was late and, moreover, incomplete, as the General Secretariat improperly withheld from his assets the sum of US$134,512.91, turning that sum over to the OAS Staff Credit Union (hereinafter the Credit Union) to pay off a debt that the Complainant had contracted with the Credit Union.

That the General Secretariat’s withholding of the funds was improper, since the guarantee of the debt that was to be paid off with the funds withheld (consisting of the assignment of his termination benefits) had not been valid since March 2009. This, because subsequent to the signing of the assignment of benefits document on June 12, 2009, the Complainant filed for bankruptcy and the Bankruptcy Court where he filed the petition stipulated that those benefits would no longer secure any debt with the Credit Union.

That on June 4, 2010 the Bankruptcy Court of the District of Maryland approved a tendered payment plan, notification of which was sent to all creditors of the debtor (the Complainant). Under that plan, the Complainant’s debt with the Credit Union was absorbed and incorporated into a mass of “unsecured” debt and thus, from that moment on ceased to enjoy any privilege, including that of payment with the Complainant’s termination benefits (as indicated in pages 70 and thereafter of the file). The plan likewise established that monthly deductions would be taken from the debtor’s salary in the amount of $3,600 for the first three months, and then $1,330 per month for a total of 60 months. No deductions were to be taken over and above those indicated in the plan.

That under bankruptcy protection, the Credit Union cannot claim additional debts, it cannot add interest, and it must respect the court-approved repayment schedule.

That the General Secretariat deliberately ignored him for the entire time it took to determine the admissibility of the withholding request from the Credit Union and comply with its obligations to him and, that after weeks of silence, the General Secretariat sent him a draft liquidation statement late at night, which he rejected in its entirety.

That had he known beforehand that the General Secretariat intended to deduct funds from his settlement for a guarantee that no longer existed, he would not have agreed to the early termination of his services.

That the General Secretariat did not comply with rule 103.20 of the OAS Staff Rules, which states that the staff member must receive advance notice that deductions will be taken from his termination benefits.

That the General Secretariat also did not comply with executive orders related to its own operations and that it lacks rules to appropriately regulate an ordinary situation like the retirement of a staff member, basing his argument on paragraphs 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, and 25 of the Report of the Committee on Reconsideration.

That, in light of the above, this Tribunal should order the General Secretariat of the OAS to:

- 20 -

1. Return the funds withheld at the request of the Credit Union. 2. Compensate him for its due process violations with the sum of US$100,000 or more, if applicable; 3. Compensate him for its failure to comply with the terms of the Termination of Services Agreement that he signed with the General Secretariat, paying him US$18,000 for each month that has passed or beginning August 1, 2010, calculated to the time this payment is made; and 4. Pay him whatever amount the Tribunal deems reasonable for expenditures, costs, and court fees.

On May 25, 2011 the Secretary of the Tribunal delivered a copy of the complaint to the Secretary General. II. On June 22, 2011, the representatives of the Secretary General presented their brief in response to the complaint, making the following arguments:

That the GS/OAS fully complied with the Agreement of June 8, 2010. The GS/OAS paid the Complainant and/or on his account the entire sum specified in the estimated pro forma liquidation statement attached to that Agreement. According to the regulations of the Organization and its customary practice, the GS/OAS deducted the funds from the Complainant’s termination benefits necessary for meeting his obligations to the Credit Union and the Rowe Fund, in conformity with the assignment of benefits that he agreed to as a guarantee.

That The Complainant himself did not comply with the agreement when he failed to make an accurate and good-faith Statement of Personal Worth, as required, prior to his separation. Articles 137 and 138 of the General Standards require him to fill out the declaration as a prerequisite of the GS/OAS for receiving the benefits deriving from the separation from service.

That the time it took the GS/OAS, from August 2010 to September 24 2010, to pay the termination benefits to the Complainant and on his account, did not constitute a due process violation, since it was reasonable given the complexity of the issues that had to be resolved and other extraordinary circumstances, such as the Complainant’s own deliberate delay in communicating to the Credit Union his decision to separate from service, and failure to alert the GS/OAS staff responsible for his liquidation of the complex problems with his special obligations to the Credit Union that would ensue with his separation from service in the context of his bankruptcy proceedings.

That the decision taken by the Secretary General to honor the Complainant’s assignment of his termination benefits as collateral for a consolidated loan in the context of his bankruptcy was purely administrative. It was about who had the right to receive part of his termination benefits, the Complainant or his creditors (in this case the Credit Union and the Rowe Fund), which had given him credit based on the prior assignment of those benefits to them. The decision had no disciplinary overtones, nor did it affect the course of his career or result in separation from service for misconduct or poor performance, nor was it taken after long delays in the internal grievance process. Moreover, the internal grievance process initiated by the Complainant proceeded in a timely fashion and, during the course of that process, the Complainant had the opportunity to make his position clear to the pertinent officials. Thus, the Complainant’s allegation that there had been a violation of due process has no basis and therefore, no type of indemnity should be afforded him.

- 21 -

That, therefore, the Secretary General requests the Tribunal to dismiss all petitions and

requests filed by the Complainant in relation to this complaint.

On June 28, 2011 the Secretary of the Tribunal sent a copy of the Secretary General’s written response to the Complainant. III. On July 6, 2011 the Complainant submitted his written observations on the response of the Secretary General. In his brief, the Complainant reiterated the allegations contained in the complaint that was filed.

On July 18, 2011 the Secretary of the Tribunal provided the respondent with a copy of the observations on the response. IV. On July 28, 2011 the attorney for the respondent submitted his written comments on the Complainant’s observations in which he reaffirmed each of the arguments set forth in his written response.

On August 1, 2011 the Secretary of the Tribunal submitted to the Complainant a copy of

the Secretary General’s comments about the observations on the response.

On November 29, 2011 witnesses in the present complaint were heard and on November 30, the respective oral arguments. V. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

1. The Complainant, Sergio Biondo, a citizen of Argentina, was hired by the Organization of American States (OAS) in July 1993 commencing his duties in the Secretariat for Legal Affairs as Legal Officer. At the time of his retirement from the Organization on July 31, 2010, he was working as Principal Legal Officer for the Department of Legal Services, having accrued 17 years of service. 2. From 1999 to 2007, the Complainant was a member of the OAS Credit Union (hereinafter the Credit Union) and served on the Board of Directors, as Chair and First and Second Vice Chair. He was also a member of the Supervisory Committee from November 1998 until his election to the Board of Directors in 1999. 3. The Credit Union is a non-profit institution whose members (current and former staff of the OAS or affiliated institutions and their families) are co-owners and make loans to themselves. 4. In March 2002 the Complainant obtained a $65,000 line of credit from the Credit Union, putting his retirement benefits up as collateral pursuant to the guidelines set forth in the agreement between the OAS General Secretariat’s Retirement and Pension Fund and the Credit Union on October 13, 1988. This line of credit is known as Loan 1. 5. In March 2009 the Complainant received an emergency loan for $13,292.29 while he was in Colombia on personal matters. On returning from his trip, he met with Carlos Calderón, Chief Executive Officer of the Credit Union, to explore the possibility of consolidating his various outstanding loans into a “consolidated loan” in the amount of $126,319.00, which included, among other things, the emergency loan of March 2009, as well as the loan for the purchase of his

- 22 -

vehicle; however, the aforesaid loan for $65,000, known as Loan 1, was not included. This new consolidated loan would lead to a more flexible payment plan for the Complainant, reducing his monthly payment from $2,580 to $1,316 for a 12-year period. 6. Mr. Carlos Calderón informed the Complainant that the approval of this loan would be conditioned on two requirements: -the assignment of his OAS termination benefits to the Credit Union as security for the loan and, -the submission of an OAS pro forma liquidation statement verifying that the benefits payable at that time (under the assumption that he would be separated from service) would exceed the amount of the consolidated loan. 7. Concerning the last of the requirements mentioned by Calderón (the pro forma liquidation statement), on May 5, 2009, the Complainant requested Altamira Araujo, the staff member in the Department of Human Resources, to provide an estimate of the termination benefits that he would receive on that date with the termination of his contract. 8. On May 7, Mrs. Araujo remitted to him the requested pro forma liquidation statement, containing an estimate of his termination benefits, which came to $77,815.28; however, as can be seen from the sworn declaration of Mr. Carlos Calderón (found on page 218 of the file) the pro forma liquidation statement that the Credit Union received (also dated May 7, 2009) indicated that the Complainant’s termination benefits came to $185,273.22, exceeding the amount of the consolidated loan. 9. On June 12, 2009, Biondo assigned the termination benefits from his contract with the OAS to the Credit Union as security for the consolidation of his US$126,319 debt for full payment of the outstanding balance, including capital and interest, to the satisfaction of the Credit Union (Loan 7). The US$20,000 for Loan 7 was secured with the Complainant’s vehicle. Thus, based on the pro forma liquidation statement that was submitted and the assignment of benefits signed by the Complainant, the Credit Union’s Credit Committee approved his application for a consolidated loan. 10. In October 2009, the Complainant met with Carlos Calderón to inform him of his decision to declare bankruptcy, indicating that nevertheless, it would not jeopardize execution of the payment plan for the consolidated loan. 11. On November 16, 2009, five months after taking out a consolidated loan with the Credit Union, the Complainant filed for bankruptcy protection from his creditors with the Bankruptcy Court of Maryland under Chapter 13 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. Debts under this type of bankruptcy are divided into two categories: secured and unsecured. When he sought protection under Chapter 13, the Complainant listed the two aforesaid loans from the Credit Union (Loan 1 and Loan 7) as unsecured debt. 12. Between November and December 2009, through the Rowe Fund the OAS General Secretariat received notification that Mr. Biondo had filed for bankruptcy. 13. On December 9 2009, the GS/OAS notified the Court of Maryland that it was not subject to its jurisdiction under the legislation currently in force in the United States governing the privileges and immunities of International Organizations, and thus, it continued to take payroll deductions from Mr. Biondo’s salary to pay his loan against the Rowe Fund (another of his creditors). 14. On December 17, 2009, the Credit Union filed its objection to the original payment plan

- 23 -

proposed by Sergio Biondo with the Bankruptcy Court of Maryland, under which plan, his debts with the Credit Union were considered unsecured. 15. On December 22, 2009, copies of the aforesaid objection were delivered to the Debtor’s Attorney, Harris S. Ammermann, the Chapter 13 Bankruptcy debt trustee, and the Attorney for the OAS Federal Credit Union, Alfred Lawrence Toombs. 16. On December 23, 2009, the attorney sponsoring the Complainant in his bankruptcy proceedings, Harris Ammerman, sent an email to the Complainant informing him of the Credit Union’s initial opposition to all debts being considered unsecured. 17. According to Ammerman, the consolidated loan that had been extended to the Complainant by the Credit Union should not be considered a secured loan, because the guarantee was “virtual,” since the asset securing it (the termination benefit) was not tangible as long as the Complainant had not yet separated from the Organization or received cash benefits. In his view, of the $126,319.00, only $20,000 was secured (with the Complainant’s automobile), while the remaining $106,319.00 was unsecured. 18. In February 2010, the Complainant had a meeting with Carlos Calderón and Lucía Hughes, Chief Executive Officer and Executive Vice President of the Credit Union, respectively, during which, according to Calderón, Mr. Biondo made a commitment through a “Gentlemen’s Agreement” that regardless of the outcome of the bankruptcy proceedings before the Bankruptcy Court of Maryland, he would comply with the payment plan for his consolidated loan even if it was characterized as unsecured. This agreement was intended to survive any bankruptcy discharge and to apply to Mr. Biondo’s termination benefits in the event of his separation from the OAS. Mr. Biondo denies having reached such a Gentlemen’s Agreement. 19. Between February and March 2010, there was an exchange of emails between the Attorney for the Complainant and the Credit Union in which they negotiated and agreed to treat the debt of US$106,488.38 as unsecured debt. 20. In March 2010 the Complainant signed a reaffirmation agreement in Bankruptcy Court for Loan 1 of the Credit Union. The debtor thus remained committed to honoring Loan 1 notwithstanding his declaration of bankruptcy. 21. In June 2010 the GS/OAS received a notice dated June 4, 2010 with the plan approved by Bankruptcy Judge Paul Mannes of the Bankruptcy Court of Maryland about the bankruptcy proceedings under Chapter 13 to which the Complainant had submitted (Case # 09-32192-PM- Chapter 13). Under this court-approved plan (which was proposed by the Complainant in March 2010), US$20,000 of the debt consolidated by Mr. Biondo with the Credit Union, US$126,488 at the time, was indeed secured with Mr. Biondo’s vehicle (turned over to the Credit Union the first week of November 2010), while the remaining US$106,488 was unsecured, since the Court considered the assignment of Mr. Biondo’s termination benefits as a future guarantee. 22. Likewise, under this plan the Complainant was to make three (3) payments of US$3,600.00 and 57 payments of US$1,330.00 to the Court-appointed debt Trustee, Timothy P. Branigan, for a total of 60 monthly payments, to be distributed by the latter among the debtor’s unsecured creditors. This notice of the Bankruptcy Court also ordered the GS/OAS to garnish Mr. Biondo’s wages for the monthly payments to the debt trustee for subsequent distribution to Biondo’s unsecured creditors. The Court likewise ordered that there be no garnishment of the Complainant’s income from the GS/OAS beyond what was owed to his bankruptcy debt trustee.

- 24 -

23. As of November 2009, the GS/OAS discontinued the payroll deductions it had previously taken from Mr. Biondo’s salary to pay his debts with the Credit Union and in June and July 2010 proceeded to take the deductions (US$1,330.00 monthly) from the Complainant’s salary and issue the payments to the Court-appointed debt trustee. 24. During the month of June 2010, the Complainant entered into negotiations with representatives of the GS/OAS about the possibility of early retirement from the Organization. 25. On June 8, 2010 the GS/OAS and the Complainant signed a Termination of Services Agreement pursuant to Article 110.4 (a) (vii) of the Staff Rules. That Agreement stipulated that on completion of the respective administrative formalities, Biondo would receive an indemnity from the GS/OAS equivalent to twelve (12) months of his base salary and 60 days of his salary and benefits in conformity with Staff Rule 110.4 (b) (i), together with the benefits listed in the pro forma liquidation statement (“Estimated Termination Benefits”) attached to the Agreement signed by the two parties. 26. In July 2010, the Complainant obtained an advance of approximately $12,000 against his termination benefits from the OAS General Secretariat. 27. As a requirement prior to separation, on July 21, 2010 the Complainant submitted the “Statement of Personal Net Worth to the GS/OAS, in compliance with Article 114 of the General Standards to Govern the Operations of the General Secretariat;” that is, a declaration of the net value of his personal assets, indicating that the value of his assets was $3,800. 28. On July 29, 2010 Credit Union Loan Officer Cristian Calle informed Accountant Cesar Pérez of the OAS Retirement and Pension Fund that Biondo owed the Credit Union $205,210.00, $67,576.00 of which was secured by the OAS Retirement and Pension Fund. This $67,576.00 corresponds to the aforementioned Loan 1, a sum that was originally $65,000 but since then had accrued interest. 29. On 31 July 2010 the Complainant ceased his functions as an OAS staff member. His departure was defined as one of mutual agreement with the General Secretariat. 30. On August 4 Cesar Pérez wrote to the Complainant to notify him of the information that he had received from Cristian Calle and advised him that the Pension Fund could only pay $65,000 of his total debt of $225,000 reported by the Credit Union (as the response of the Secretary General indicates on page 137, Cesar Pérez appears to have confused the amounts and in his email to Biondo put $225,000 instead of the $205,000 that were indicated by Calle). 31. That same August 4 the Complainant sent an email to Carlos Calderón, Chief Executive Officer of the Credit Union, stating that the Credit Union had reported an incorrect debt figure to the Retirement and Pension Fund, since according to the information provided by Cristian Calle to Cesar Pérez, his debt with the Credit Union was 225,000, which was incorrect, and he also reaffirmed that the only debt that was secured was Loan 1 (and not Loan 7); thus, the Complainant expressed his vehement objection to having a sum other than the $65,000 corresponding to Loan 1 withheld from his termination benefits. 32. On separation, as a result of his payments into the OAS Retirement and Pension Fund during his years of service, the Complainant had the right to receive $677,133.90. On August 9, 2010 the OAS Retirement and Pension Fund deposited $612,131.90 to his account at the World

- 25 -

Bank Credit Union (BFS-FCU), after deducting $65,000 from the original sum to pay off Loan 1 with the Credit Union. 33. After the Complainant separated from service on July 31 2010, the GS/OAS’ monthly garnishment of the Complainant’s salary, with the funds forwarded to the debt trustee, ceased, since from then on the Complainant would not be receiving that salary from the GS/OAS. 34. Before returning to his country, Argentina, the Complainant was requested to fulfill a series of administrative requirements for the Departments of Human Resources and Administration and Finance so that they could proceed with the liquidation of his termination benefits (which differ from his retirement benefits). The Complainant fulfilled the requirements, and the payment process for the liquidation of benefits commenced. 35. On 16 August 2010, during the processing of the Complainant’s liquidation, Mr. Alex Figueroa, Chief of the Financial Operations and Analysis Section of the Department of Financial and Administrative Management Services (DFAMS), found it necessary to take deductions from the Complainant’s termination benefits for the various debts that he had contracted with the Credit Union. He began an internal interdepartmental consultation to determine how best to proceed. Alex Figueroa wrote to Kenneth Frankel, Director of the Department of Legal Services, requesting his legal opinion on what to do about the Complainant’s assignment of termination benefits to the Credit Union as collateral for his consolidated loan (Loan 7), in light of the June 4, 2010 order from the Court of the District of Maryland. 36. On August 19, 2010, the Complainant sent an email to Altamira Araujo stating his intention to send a copy of his new lease in Argentina shortly to fulfill the requirement for receiving his repatriation benefit. He also requested information on the status of his liquidation, commenting that he had understood that they would pay him on August 15, but that he had not received anything, and he requested that she send him a copy of an adjusted liquidation statement. 37. On August 24, 2010 the Credit Union presented proof of a modified loan, characterizing the consolidated loan as “secured” by the Complainant’s termination benefits and his Vehicle, a BMW. That same day, (August 24, 2010), the Complainant sent an email to Ms. Araujo reiterating that he had no debt with the Credit Union that was secured with funds from his termination benefits. 38. On September 4, 2010, the Department of Legal Services (DLS) issued the legal opinion requested by Alex Figueroa of DFAMS. 39. On September 20, 2010 the Complainant sent an email with a request for a hearing by the Secretary General to formalize his complaint and obtain a copy of the final liquidation of his assets so that he could review and approve it and obtain payment, in addition to the compensation for what the Complainant alleged was the Organization’s failure to comply with the terms of the Termination Agreement and the due process violations resulting from its lack of attention and response to his requests for information. 40. On September 22, 2010, the then Secretary for Administration and Finance, Frank Almaguer, sent a memo (SAF 119-10) to the Directors of the Department of Human Resources and the Department of Financial and Administrative Management Services, Tony Gaxiola and Heather Alsopp, respectively, instructing them to pay Mr. Biondo’s liquidation, indicating that they should dispatch a draft liquidation statement to him no later than September 22 for purposes of notification. That very day, Heather Alsopp sent the Complainant an email containing a draft

- 26 -

liquidation statement that included deductions from his termination benefits in the amount of $134,512.91, and informed him that at close of business on Friday, September 24, 2010, a payment of US$ 42,185.88 would be sent to his address in Buenos Aires. This draft liquidation statement was rejected by the Complainant through the same medium, and he demanded that his termination benefits be paid to his bank account via electronic transfer. 41. On September 23 of that same year the GS/OAS and the Credit Union signed an Indemnity Agreement whereby the Credit Union agreed to hold the GS/OAS harmless against all claims by Mr. Biondo for up to US$150,000. 42. On September 24, 2010, the Office of the Director of the OAS Department of Financial and Administrative Management Services deposited the payment of the liquidation settlement, $42,185.88, directly into the Complainant’s bank account and sent him an email notification indicating that any concerns he might have in this respect should be channeled through the Department of Human Resources. The deductions taken from the Complainant’s liquidation settlement consisted of: $11,941.54 corresponding to the Leo Rowe Fund; $12,343, corresponding to the advance obtained; and $134,512.91 corresponding to the consolidated loan (Loan 7) with the Credit Union, which by that date had grown from $126.319 to $134,512.91 due to accrued interest. The Credit Union transferred that sum to an escrow account while awaiting a final ruling from the Bankruptcy Court. 43. That same day, the Complainant sent an email to Altamira Araujo, with a copy to his attorney for the Bankruptcy Court, Harris Ammerman, and the attorney for Legal Services, Kenneth Frankel, informing them that he rejected the liquidation settlement that had been made and would continue to pursue his complaint. 44. On October 5, 2010 Mr. Biondo emailed a document to the Department of Human Resources detailing his complaint, which was based on the following grounds: - GS/OAS’s failure to comply with the terms of the Termination Agreement; -his rejection of its withholding funds in the calculation of the final payment – and GS/OAS’s violations of basic principles of due process in the case. In this document he requested compensation in the amount of US$100,000, a monthly payment of US$18,000 for each month elapsed since his separation from the OAS, and the return of the US$134,512.91 that was deducted from his liquidation of termination benefits and turned over to the Credit Union. 45. Pursuant to the request for a hearing by the Secretary General, on October 13, 2010 Mr. Hector Arduz was appointed Hearing Officer, and the Complainant was notified of his appointment. Mr. Biondo requested that the document of October 5 2010, in which he presented his complaint, be given to the Hearing Officer. 46. On November 12, 2010, the Hearing Officer contacted the Complainant asking if he had anything more to add to his complaint. In response, on November 16, 2010 the Complainant sent a document providing further arguments with the grounds for his request for a hearing. 47. The Hearing Officer issued his report on December 9, 2010, concluding that the GS/OAS had acted properly in taking the US$134,512.91 deduction to be turned over to the Credit Union; however, he noted that that procedure could not be considered without fault. The report recommended: -that the Credit Union be requested to hire a first-level auditing firm to completely reconstruct all documentation of the loans that the Credit Union had extended to Sergio Biondo; -that a special procedure be established for any such extraordinary cases in the future concerning the separation from service of employees with financial problems, and; -that an agreement be

- 27 -

drafted as soon as possible formalizing the practice by which the GS/OAS should recognize the guarantees issued by its employees with respect to their termination benefits. 48. On December 21, 2010, the OAS Secretary General, Mr. José Miguel Insulza, through the Department of Human Resources, notified the Complainant of its acceptance of the recommendations of the Hearing Officer. That same day, the Complainant submitted a petition for reconsideration, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter XII of the Staff Rules. 49. On January 4, 2011 the Joint Advisory Committee on Reconsideration was notified of the Complainant’s petition by the Director of the Department of Human Resources. Soon afterward, on January 11, 2011, through a memorandum, the Members of the Joint Advisory Committee on Reconsideration notified the Director of DHR of the appointment of Mr. Stephen Bender, a retired staff member of the General Secretariat, as Committee Chair, as well as the date that the review of the petitioner’s request would begin, which would be January 18, 2011. 50. The Joint Advisory Committee on Reconsideration met on several occasions to study the case in question, ultimately recommending the following to the Secretary General on March 17, 2011:

50.1 Study Mr. Biondo’s proposal with a view to find a conciliatory solution to the case (as can be seen on page 65 of the file), taking into account that Mr. Biondo would also be required to provide the GS/OAS with full release and settlement, releasing the GS/OAS from all liability and renouncing any claim or demand before any jurisdiction against the GS/OAS and its staff members; 50.2 Establish an appropriate legal framework to regulate the use of termination benefits by GS/OAS staff members, including a mechanism to formally verify the status and nature of such benefits, and establishing the role of the GS/OAS in executing this credit guarantee with the Credit Union. All staff members should be made fully aware of this legal framework; 50.3 Establish clear procedures and channels of communication in the liquidation process of staff members upon their separation from service to the GS/OAS; 50.4 Include, with respect to the calculation of the termination benefits in termination agreements concluded with staff members upon their separation from service to the GS/OAS, the most up-to-date information available to the GS/OAS at the time these agreements are signed, i.e., consult with the relevant areas in order to identify possible types of deductions and their justification.

51. In response to the report of the Committee on Reconsideration, on April 14, 2011, the Secretary General of the OAS in a letter addressed to Mrs. Tony Gaxiola, Director of the Department of Human Resources, issued his final decision ratifying the determination of the Secretariat for Administration and Finance in September 2010 to deduct from the benefits on termination of Sergio Biondo’s contract, the $134,512.91 that he owed to the Credit Union for the consolidated loan (Loan 7). On April 18, 2011, through communication DHR167/11, the Department of Human Resources transmitted a copy of the Secretary General’s final decision to the Complainant and Kenneth Frankel, with a copy of the report of the Committee on Reconsideration. 52. With the decision of the Secretary General, the administrative procedures prior to

- 28 -

submitting the matter to the jurisdiction of the OAS Administrative Tribunal of was complete, as established in Article VI of the Statute of the Administrative Tribunal. 53. On April 20, 2011 the Complainant responded to the Department of Human Resources, informing it that he would take his case to the Administrative Tribunal of the OAS. 54. On May 19, 2011 the Complainant filed his complaint with this Tribunal. 55. Simultaneously, on May 27, 2011, the debt trustee filed a motion with the Bankruptcy Court, asking the Court to dismiss Mr. Biondo’s Chapter 13 case unless he paid the US$4,850 past due and owed for those months by June 26, 2011, pursuant to the payment plan approved by the Court in June 2010. 56. On June 21, 2011, the “Hearing on Confirmation” of Case No. 09-32192 of the Complainant on Chapter 13 was held in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland, Greenbelt Division. 57. At the present time, as was reported during the proceedings, there are issues pending before the local Court.

VI. UNIQUE LEGAL RELATIONSHIPS

This Tribunal recognizes the extraordinary nature of the present case, especially because of the participating actors. It is considered that there are three levels of legal relations among them. On the one hand, there is the relationship between the complainant and the Credit Union, governed by the Credit Union’s own regulations and now affected by U.S. bankruptcy law, to the extent that the loans owed are now being examined by the U.S. bankruptcy court. On the other hand, there is the relationship between the complainant and the GS/OAS, with regard to which this proceeding is under way, which basically relates to the appropriateness of garnishment of the amount owed to the Credit Union, decided and enforced by the General Secretariat, on the basis of the Early Termination Agreement. For this level of the legal relationship, the immunities of the Organization and the internal provisions governing it are applicable. It is then possible to identify another level of legal relationship between the GS/OAS and the Credit Union, maintained by custom whereby the General Secretariat has complied with agreements that guarantee the loans granted to staff members of the same Organization. It is also necessary to clarify that the OAS General Secretariat, by virtue of its own immunities and the Headquarters Agreement, is not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. bankruptcy court, and therefore that it is not incumbent on this Tribunal to rule on or to interfere with the content of the proceedings in that Court, or to validate the concepts used in those proceedings.

VII. ANALYSIS OF THE CLAIMS

This Tribunal will now examine each of the claims as presented in the complaint.

- 29 -

A. On full compliance by the General Secretariat with the obligations assumed in the

Agreement, returning the amount withheld against his will.

A.1 On compliance with the complainant’s obligations regarding the Early Termination

Agreement

a. Having seen the evidence offered by the complaining and responding parties, it is established that the complainant met in part and imperfectly the necessary requirements for payment of his liquidation, having presented imprecise and incomplete documentation. b. In the set of documentation and information requested from the complainant, strictly for purposes of implementing the Early Termination Agreement and the payment of the corresponding liquidation, it was possible to ascertain during the present proceeding that the complainant, on August 19, 2010, provided evidence of a change of domicile, by attaching a copy of a rental agreement for a building in Argentina. c. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Tribunal noticed as part of the process of negotiation and implementation of the Early Termination Agreement that the complainant filled out the declaration of his net assets incompletely and inaccurately, which was not noted before the Termination Agreement was signed but at the time the corresponding liquidation took place. This delayed even further the implementation of concrete actions by the GS/OAS. d. The GS/OAS did not notice this failure of compliance because it was simply waiting for all requirements to be met and for the situation to be fully investigated, before proceeding to deduct the corresponding payment. During the period when the liquidation payment was delayed, the General Secretariat conducted internal analysis and investigation, to support the most appropriate action. e. Therefore, as concerns compliance by the complainant, it has been shown that he completed the requirements for which he was responsible to ensure payment of the liquidation, on August 19 (see paragraph V.36 above). f. The remaining period of time corresponds to identification of the necessary and appropriate measures for the complex coexistence of legal relations, especially in connection with a topic that is also complex, the matter related to bankruptcy law. This time was used by the General Secretariat to adopt the decision, as warranted by the complex situation. A.2 On late payment and undue garnishment of a sum of money, as a result of the

General Secretariat’s breach of the Agreement.

a. As stated earlier, the alleged procedural delay has not been sufficiently supported since, on the one hand, the General Secretariat was supposed to verify the information provided by the complainant and that he, in turn, did not provide all necessary information and/or documentation and, in some cases, presented incomplete or imprecise information, specifically in some statements presented for purposes of payment of the Termination Agreement. b. With regard to garnishment of US$ 134,512.91 from the complainant’s final liquidation, which went to an escrow account at the Credit Union and not garnished (but rather set aside) by the General Secretariat, it should be specified that that amount corresponds to a consolidated loan

- 30 -

granted by the Credit Union, against the guarantee of an agreement signed by the complainant by virtue of which he assigns his early termination rights plus the corresponding interest. c. However, the complainant later initiated bankruptcy proceedings in bankruptcy Court in which the type of debt owed to the Credit Union is now under discussion within a group of debts classified as secured or unsecured, which constitute payment obligations owed by Mr. Biondo. d. Within the framework of the events, it should be noted that the attorneys for both parties, that is, the Credit Union and the complainant, jointly presented a document changing the nature of the guarantee of the loan in question to an unsecured loan, on the basis, according to testimony by Credit Union staff, of a Gentlemen’s Agreement. According to the testimony of Mr. Calderón, in his capacity as Chief Executive Officer of the Credit Union, said Gentlemen’s Agreement had to be oral because there was no written agreement could conflict with the bankruptcy process. e. According to the facts, in the Bankruptcy Court the Credit Union loan was modified to an unsecured loan, which has subsequently been questioned by the Credit Union itself and which that Court will evaluate within the sphere of its competence. However, this Tribunal does not consider that said modification has nullified the assignment of rights of his early termination agreement, especially because this type of loan is granted on the basis of criteria of trust and solidarity among GS/OAS staff members and therefore traditionally effective guarantees are accepted with more than 40 years of institutional custom that has never been questioned that are directly related to the nature of the employment relationship. f. In addition, for purposes of the procedures established over years by the GS/OAS and under Rule 103.20, without prejudice to the nature of the loans granted by the Credit Union, the General Secretariat has always deducted the debts that staff members owed to all agencies and/or entities related to the GS/OAS, as long as there were valid agreements on the assignment of termination rights, within the internal legal and customary framework applicable to the functions and competencies of the General Secretariat. g. What the Bankruptcy Court decides regarding this loan will apply to the relationship between the Credit Union and the complainant, and thus not to its relationship with the General Secretariat, because the General Secretariat is immune from the Court’s jurisdiction and discharges its functions without being subject to them. The Credit Union is not part of the GS/OAS, so that it must continue battling with the Court. However, the GS/OAS must act within the framework of its immunities. h. Finally, there is no precedent opposing or calling into question this constant practice of the GS/OAS. i. The complainant, an expert on the one hand, and taking into account his activities in the GS/OAS and in the Credit Union itself, has consented to these proceedings with respect to third parties. No objections are known. The theory of estoppel is therefore applicable to the extent that the complainant was part of the structure of the General Secretariat and the Credit Union, as indicated.

B. On compensation for due process violations

a. There was no official communication between the GS/OAS and the complainant until the GS/OAS sent the draft liquidation document for him to comment on. The arguments from the GS/OAS were received later in the proceeding before the Committee on Reconsideration.

- 31 -

b. The complainant was heard by the Hearing Officer and the matter was discussed by the Committee on Reconsideration, and his case has had access to this Tribunal, therefore there has not been any violation of due process. C. On compensation for breach of contract

a. In the Termination Agreement, the parties agreed to move forward the separation from service in exchange for payment of a liquidation of benefits. Pursuant to this Agreement, the General Secretariat prepared the corresponding liquidation, deducting the amounts owed for the consolidated loan in keeping with commonly used practices that were never questioned. This action in the context of the bankruptcy proceeding did not have any effect in GS/OAS practice under which the complainant assigned rights. b. It is not a question therefore of whether a prior agreement was needed to deduct the amounts owed; to the extent that the assignment remained valid as did the Early Termination Agreement, the General Secretariat was fully empowered to make the deduction, by virtue of the internal rules and custom of the GS/OAS. c. This Tribunal considers that the Termination Agreement is valid, even if it was signed on the basis of partial or imprecise information from the complainant, which will be determined in any case by the subsequent auditing mechanisms of the Credit Union itself or the GS/OAS, as appropriate. d. Therefore, in view of the aforementioned considerations, compensation is not in order since noncompliance, frustration, or ineffectiveness of the Early Termination Agreement has not been identified, and the garnishment took place within the applicable legal framework of the GS/OAS.

D. On payment of expenses and cost of this proceeding

Taking into consideration the outcome of the aforementioned claims, which are unproven, and the complainant’s arguments, there are not sufficient elements to justify the payment of the expenses and costs of this proceeding, as the allegations have been rejected. VIII. DECISITION

The Administrative Tribunal of the Organization of American States, taking into

consideration the factual and legal considerations recorded in the above paragraphs, UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVES TO: FIRST: Determine that no sum should be returned to the complainant by the GS/OAS. SECOND: Determine that the General Secretariat should be diligent in staying informed of the final resolution of the issues stemming from this dispute, which will not be binding on it, to incorporate teachings on such issues for future analogous situations. THIRD: Reject the claims of violations of due process put forth by the complainant.

- 32 -

FOURTH: Reject the complainant’s claims for compensation not only as without foundation but as inadmissible, including rejecting the request for additional monthly sums as of August 1, 2010. FIFTH: Recommend that the GS/OAS adopt detailed written procedures and, as necessary, written agreements with third parties, such as the Credit Union, to govern the disposition of funds of OAS staff members that are under the control of the GS/OAS and that have been pledged as security for loans or other indebtedness; and that the GS/OAS notify all staff members in writing of these procedures and agreements. Let notification be given

Judge Andre M. Surena President

Judge Homero Máximo Bibiloni Judge Alma Montenegro de Fletcher Vice Presidente

Judge Suzie D’Auvergne Judge Magali Rojas Delgado

Mercedes Carrillo Secretary

Washington, D.C., December 27, 2011