1

Q&A: Recruitment, gender balance, geographical distribution, ReVision

Following some queries from the representatives of States Parties, within the Hague Working Group and in

contacts with Court officials and staff, pertaining to recruitment, gender balance, geographical distribution,

and the on-going restructuring of the Registry, or ReVision, the present paper seeks to provide informal

answers to these queries. It is aimed at facilitating better understanding and informed discussions between

the States Parties and the Court on these issues.

I RECRUITMENT

What are the principles of recruitment at the ICC?

According to the Rome Statute, the Court has an obligation to “ensure the highest standards of

efficiency, competency and integrity”1 in the employment of staff, while having “regard” 2 or taking

“account” of the “need for the representation of the principal legal systems of the world, equitable

geographical representation and a fair representation of men and women”3.

What are the Recruitment Guidelines?

The ICC Recruitment Guidelines for Established Posts4 is an internal working document that

provides guidance to the Court’s Human Resources Section (HRS), as well as Court staff and

officials generally, on managing the recruitment process. The principles of these guidelines are

competitive recruitment procedures, fairness, transparency, confidentiality and due respect to issues

such as gender balance and geographical representation. The Court is in the process of creating an

Administrative Instruction which will further underpin these principles during the recruitment

process.

How are vacancy announcements advertised?

Vacancy announcements are advertised in both English and French through the ICC e-Recruitment

system which can be accessed via the ICC website.5 Vacancies are also posted on several social

media. Embassies are notified by note verbale of the publication of vacancies in the professional and

higher categories. Upon special request, posting is done in newspapers, magazines and other types

of publications.

1 Article 44(2). 2 Article 44(2). 3 Resolution ICC-ASP/1/Res.10; also Article 44. 4 Available at: http://www.icc-

cpi.int/en_menus/icc/legal%20texts%20and%20tools/vademecum/Other/ICC%20recruitment%20guidelines%20for%2

0established%20posts.PDF 5http://www.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/icc/recruitment/job%20opportunities/Pages/icc%20e_recruiting.aspx

2

How are recruitment panels composed?

Hiring managers establish an interview panel and nominate the chairperson. The proposed panel

composition is reviewed by the HRS to ensure that various requirements are met. A recruitment

panel comprises at least 3 members, representing both genders and diverse nationalities from

different regions. There has to be at least one member not working under the supervision of the

chairperson of the panel. There is normally an HRS representative present who acts either as a

voting member or as ex-officio and ensures that the process is conducted in accordance with the

established rules and best practices.

In written tests, are candidates examined anonymously?

Yes. All written tests completed by the candidates are first submitted to the HRS. The latter then

places each test under a code, removing any personal references, and sends the coded tests to the

recruitment panel for individual assessment by each panel member. The panel compiles a joint

short-list of candidates under codes and transmits it to the HRS, which then reveals the identity of

the candidates and schedules the interviews.

If the list of candidates to be interviewed is insufficiently gender-balanced or does not contain the

candidates from various regional groups, the panel may expand the short list with additional

candidate(s) from the under-represented gender and/or region(s), provided that the score of these

candidates in the written test comes right after the scores of the originally short-listed candidates.

What is a Selection Review Board?

A Selection Review Board (SRB) was established by the Registrar on 20 February 2015 in

consultation with the President and the Prosecutor.6 After each recruitment, the report of the

recruitment panel is sent to the SRB, which will provide advice to the Registrar or the Prosecutor, as

appropriate, on the recruitment and selection process leading to the decision to appoint a staff

member to a fixed-term appointment. The SRB is composed of 8 members appointed by the

Registrar and other organs of the Court, 6 members appointed by the Prosecutor from the OTP, and

6 members designated by the Staff Union Council.

Can candidates be recruited from a roster?

Yes. Candidates not initially selected but found suitable for the position can be retained on a reserve

list to be recommended for any future same or similar position. In case of a new post or resignation,

the HRS identifies rostered candidates for the review of the hiring manager.

6 Pursuant to paragraph 5 of the annex to Resolution ICC-ASP/1/Res.10.

3

Are there any circumstances under which a post may be filled without a vacancy announcement?

In very rare occasions and under exceptional circumstances, particularly for temporary positions,

the Registrar or Prosecutor may use their discretionary authority to carry out a direct recruitment

when it is in the interest of the Court and urgency prevents the regular process to be followed.

What types of contracts exist at the ICC?

The majority of contracts at the Court are “fixed-term”. A small number of short-term appointments

are issued every year, and the Court is currently developing a policy framework to properly utilize

the possibility of these appointments.

Fixed-term appointments are issued at either the General Service (GS) or Professional (P) and higher

category. In principle, GS category staff are considered as having been locally recruited and P and

higher category staff are considered as having been internationally recruited.

Contracts are issued against either an established post or a GTA (General Temporary Assistance)

funded position. Established posts are in principle posts which belong to the core and longer-term

structure of the Court. They are however not “permanent” as also established posts may be ended

or re-deployed when there is no longer an operational need. GTA-funded positions are normally

approved for a particular budgetary year, although funding can be approved for several years when

warranted.

II GENDER BALANCE AND GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION

What is the legal basis for the principle of gender balance and equitable geographical

representation?

Art 44(2) of the Rome Statute stipulates that “[i]n the employment of staff, the Prosecutor and the

Registrar shall ensure the highest standards of efficiency, competency and integrity, and shall have

regard, mutatis mutandis, to the criteria set forth in article 36, paragraph 8”. The latter refers to

"equitable geographical representation" and a “fair representation of female and male judges”.

ASP resolution ICC-ASP/1/Res.10, in its Preamble, reiterates this by stating that “in the employment

of the staff of the International Criminal Court the highest standards of efficiency, competency and

integrity shall be ensured and account shall be taken of the need for the representation of the

principal legal systems of the world, equitable geographic representation and a fair representation of

men and women[.]”

When and how are gender balance and geographical representation considered in recruitment?

They are considered at virtually all stages of the recruitment process. When vacancy announcements

are drafted, every effort is undertaken that the duties stipulated do not unjustifiably favour one

gender over the other or a specific country/region. In light of the under-representation of women, all

4

vacancy announcements encourage female candidates to apply. When making short-lists of qualified

candidates, HRS identifies candidates from non-represented and under-represented States in order

to make the panel members aware of the need for adequate geographical distribution. When

recruitment panels are constituted, due regard is given to gender and geographical balance.

Recruitment panels need to explain in the panel report how the need for gender balance and

adequate geographical representation has been addressed. When making the final selection, in case

of two candidates having performed equally well, the candidate from a non-represented or under-

represented State is given preference.

If Candidate A is somewhat more qualified for a position than Candidate B, but Candidate A

comes from an over-represented State while Candidate B comes from an under-represented State,

can candidate B still be hired for this position?

In principle, no, as this would be contrary to the Court’s obligation, as stipulated by the Rome

Statute, to ensure, in the first place, that those with the “highest standards of efficiency” and

“competency” be recruited. Only if the two candidates were indistinguishable in terms of their

overall performance would geographical over- or under-representation be decisive. If the Court

were to hire Candidate B over Candidate A, it would also be contrary to the principle of “equal

opportunity”, as guaranteed by the Court’s Administrative Instruction on Equal Employment

Opportunity and Treatment7 and international labour standards generally.

What is the current8 gender distribution at the Professional level?

Level No. of Approved Posts F M Total Female %

D-1 9 1 8 9 11,1%

P-5 35 10 19 29 34,5%

P-4 75 24 42 66 36,4%

P-3 134 50 72 122 41,0%

P-2 116 68 32 100 68,0%

P-1 23 12 7 19 63,2%

Total 392 165 180 345 47,8%

What has been gender distribution at the Court since its establishment?

Gender distribution has been relatively balanced over the years, although it was least balanced in

the first four years of the Court’s functioning.

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Female

staff

39,77%

42,86%

43,23%

43,70%

48,25%

50,00%

50,85%

48,59%

48,88%

49,58%

49,15%

47,83%

7 ICC/AI/2005/006, para 1.1. 8 As of 31 May 2015, applies to “current” in all other charts.

5

How is target geographical representation of a State Party calculated?

There are no quotas for geographical representation but only targets based on “desirable ranges”.

The same principle is applied by the United Nations, and it is calculated according to the same

formula, as decided by the Assembly of States Parties.9 Three factors are taken into consideration: a

State’s financial contribution to the budget (55%), population size (5%) and total membership (40%).

For the purpose of geographical representation, only established posts at the professional level are

taken into account, excluding language staff.

What is the current geographical distribution per organ?

Region Judiciary OTP Registry Total Actual Target All ICC

African 10,00% 18,98% 14,73% 16,23% 13,01%

Asian 3,33% 5,11% 6,20% 5,52% 18,69%

Eastern European 3,33% 7,30% 8,53% 7,14% 8,33%

GRULAC 10,00% 6,57% 9,30% 8,44% 16,00%

WEOG 73,33% 62,04% 61,24% 62,66% 43,97%

What is the current geographical distribution per level?

Region Actual

Target D-1 P-5 P-4 P-3 P-2 P-1

African 11.11% 17.24% 12.96% 20.19% 13.98% 15.79% 13.01%

Asian 0.00% 3.45% 7.41% 5.77% 5.38% 5.26% 18.69%

Eastern European 0.00% 3.45% 5.56% 5.77% 9.68% 15.79% 8.33%

GRULAC 22.22% 3.45% 9.26% 9.62% 6.45% 10.53% 16.00%

WEOG 66.67% 72.41% 64.81% 58.65% 64.52% 52.63% 43.97%

What could be possible explanations for WEOG’s significant over-representation at the Court?

Several factors may have contributed:

1) The majority of job applications come from nationals of WEOG states. In 2014, 52,63% of all

applications for established positions at the P-level came from WEOG nationals; 21.37% came

from the nationals of the States of the African Group, 12.95% from Eastern Europe, 6.98% from Asia

and 6.08% from GRULAC.

2) For the first four years of the Court’s existence, WEOG’s target regional representation was much

higher, around 60%. This was an intensive phase of the Court’s growth (in 2007, the Court

already had 647 established positions, of which 327 were at the Professional level).

9 ICC-ASP/1/Res.10, 9 Sep 2002, para 4.

6

Target

All ICC10 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

African 11,56% 13,03% 12,70% 13,09% 12,77% 12,87% 12,57% 12,76% 12,86% 13,84% 13,11% 13,01%

Asian 8,11% 7,79% 7,65% 7,69% 19,53% 19,76% 18,54% 18,36% 19,31% 18,81% 18,43% 18,69%

E/Europe 7,37% 7,15% 7,01% 7,32% 7,37% 7,19% 8,28% 8,46% 8,13% 7,99% 8,37% 8,33%

GRULAC 13,53% 12,47% 14,43% 14,15% 13,05% 13,17% 14,24% 14,33% 14,16% 16,17% 16,06% 16,00%

WEOG 59,43% 59,56% 59,25% 57,74% 47,28% 47,00% 46,38% 46,09% 45,53% 43,20% 44,04% 43,97%

3) Among other factors which have possibly influenced WEOG’s over-representation is a high

number of GTA contracts which, due to their short-term nature and the proximity of the Court to

the WEOG States, favour the recruitment of nationals from this region. In turn, such GTA

contracts provide most relevant work experience at the Court which has frequently enabled the

GTA staff to obtain established positions.

If a national from a State which is under-represented but from a region which is over-represented

applies for a position, would State- or regional representation matter more?

The starting point and primary consideration of geographical representation is the State-level. A

candidate from a non-represented or an under-represented State, regardless of the regional

geographic distribution, would still be given preference over a candidate from an over-represented

State, provided that the two candidates, as mentioned above, are equal in terms of their overall

performance during the recruitment process.

A number of States Parties are not represented at the Court. How can these State Parties be

represented?

The system of “desirable ranges”, just like within the United Nations system, indirectly implies that

it is virtually impossible to ensure that every State is represented. However, the Court recognises

that the situation is far from ideal. Out of 123 States Parties, 63 are non-represented (although they

may have staff at the general service level or on GTA contracts). For a full overview, please consult

the Annex to this document.

What measures is the Court taking to improve the geographical distribution?

The Court has been undertaking a number of measures in this regard. There has been increased

attention to proper geographical representation in recruitment processes, both when forming panels

and when short-listing and selecting candidates. Furthermore, when drafting reports on the

selection of a candidate, panels need to specifically include the information as to how the need for

adequate geographical distribution has been addressed. The Court has also been closely monitoring

trends at the UN and other international organisations in order to come up with best practices. As a

result, it is currently considering introducing focal points on geographical representation among

10 For the month of May in each year.

7

staff who would alert the relevant hiring managers as to the gaps in geographical distribution in the

relevant sections and raise awareness generally.

The President, the Prosecutor and the Registrar have also decided to allocate funds in the 2016

budget for paid internships which would be used particularly for applicants from developing non-

represented and under-represented countries. As internships provide valuable work experience, this

would assist in expanding the pool of qualified applicants for established posts from such countries.

The Court will also be requesting a greater number of longer-term positions and reduction of GTAs

in areas where continuous service is needed. Since GTA contracts are more attractive for nationals of

WEOG states, due to geographical proximity, and since GTA staff are usually well placed to apply

for and obtain established positions at the Court, this measure would also in the long run contribute

towards a more balanced geographical distribution.

The Court is also planning to introduce a Junior Professional Programme, similar to that in the

United Nations system. Such a programme would facilitate a restricted entry into junior level

professional positions for candidates from non-represented and under-represented States.

The support from States Parties in better promoting the Court’s vacancy announcements among the

relevant audiences in national systems, such as universities and national judicial institutions, is also

needed.

III REVISION

Why did the Registrar initiate the reorganisation?

After 11 years into the Court’s existence, it was necessary to carry out a detailed review of the

Registry’s functioning. Based on his experience as Registrar of other international criminal courts

and tribunals, the Registrar saw a clear need for a better organisation of the Registry and better use

of its resources. ICC staff members themselves, in an overwhelming majority, also stated in a

comprehensive survey that the change was necessary. The project has also been strongly supported

by the other Court organs.

Where does the ReVision’s mandate come from?

The Registry’s reorganisation has been explicitly mandated by the Assembly of States Parties. At its

12th session, the ASP:

“[a]uthorise[d] the Registrar to reorganize and streamline the Registry’s organizational

structure within the envelope of the approved programme budget for 2014 and the

maximum number of established posts and approved positions.”11

At its 13th session, the ASP reiterated this mandate and extended it for another year, under identical

terms. The ASP:

11 ICC-ASP/12/20, Section H, para 3.

8

“[a]cknowledg[d] the continued efforts of the Registry to reorganize and streamline the

Registry’s organizational structure and [a]uthorise[d] the Registrar to continue with this

process within the envelope of the approved programme budget for 2015 and the maximum

number of established posts and approved positions.”12

Is there a link between geographical representation and ReVision?

No, the ReVision project is by definition not concerned with individual staff but looks at the

organizational structure and performance.

What does the ReVision project actually entail?

The project is much more than determining the new Registry structure. It consists of a

comprehensive review of the functioning of the Registry, covering, among others: organisational

design; delegations, roles and responsibilities; internal communication and coordination; regulatory

documents; work processes and workflows; key performance and workload indicators; performance

management and staff development policies; managers development policies; staff morale,

organisational culture and engagement; and management systems.

Will ReVision produce savings?

Not directly. The project is not about “down-sizing” but about “right-sizing”. It is about doing more

in a more efficient and effective way within the same number of positions and the same amount of

resources.

What has been the general timeline of the project?

In July 2014, the Registrar finalised decision-making on the high-level structure of the Registry

including, notably, the creation of a new Division focusing on external relations, while consolidating

some already existing Registry Sections into this Division. By 30 March 2015, the ReVision team

finalised all their recommendations which included a comprehensive proposal for the Registry’s

new structure at the level of each individual position. On 9 and 10 April 2015, together with the

Registry Directors and in consultation with the Registry Sections Chiefs, the Registrar decided on

the new structure, thereby following most of the ReVision’s recommendations. These decisions are

currently being implemented through the work on job descriptions and determination of the grades

by external classifiers, as well as through informing all the staff as to the impact on their individual

positions and the options available to them.

ReVision’s recommendations in relation to the establishment of the proposed Victims’ and Defence

Offices are still being considered by the Registrar. The adoption of these recommendations is related

to a decision by the Judges on the Court’s Regulations.

12 ICC-ASP/13/Res.1, Section I, para 2.

9

The Registrar and the Directors are currently considering a number of other ReVision’s

recommendations which tackle the areas of workflows, processes and the like. The project, with the

exception of the Victims’ and Defence Offices, is to be completed by September 2015.

Why are some staff affected and not others?

Staff are affected if positions which they occupy have either been abolished or have undergone

substantial change to the extent that they will have to be advertised. The evaluation of substantial

change is determined by an external classification expert. Staff can also be affected if the number of a

particular type of a position has been reduced.

Where do the staff whose positions will be abolished come from?

Thus far, 67 Registry positions have been abolished, out of which 61 are occupied by staff members

from States Parties. Out of these 61 staff members, 38 are WEOG, 15 from Africa, 5 from Asia and 3

from Eastern Europe. However, a number of positions are still awaiting the determination by the

external classifier. It is certain that more positions will be affected.

What are the “Principles and Procedures applicable to decisions arising from the ReVision

Project”?

Principles and Procedures applicable to decisions arising from the ReVision Project13 were adopted

by the Registrar on 19 August 2014, after extensive consultations with the Staff Union Council. They

are in conformity with the best practices in other international organisations and the UN case law.

Separation of a staff member from the Court, if the necessities for the service require the abolition of

the post or reduction of the staff, is already provided in Staff Regulations.14 The document merely

establishes the framework for the implementation of the decisions resulting from the ReVision in

order to ensure that decisions affecting staff members are implemented in a fair and transparent

manner and with full respect for staff members’ contractual rights.15

Were these Principles and Procedures adopted in accordance with the Presidential Directive of

2003?

Since the document concerned the Registry staff only and is in operation temporarily (i.e. for the

specific period of the ReVision project), it fell under the category of an Information Circular. As such,

as per the Presidential Directive on the Procedures for the Promulgation of Administrative Issuances

of 9 December 2003, it did not require the prior consent of the other principals. However, the

13 Available at http://www.icc-

cpi.int/en_menus/icc/legal%20texts%20and%20tools/vademecum/PD/Procedures%20for%20the%20Promulgation%20

of%20Administrative%20Issuances.PDF. 14 Regulation 9.1(b)(i). 15 Principles and Procedures applicable to decisions arising from the ReVision Project, para 5.

10

Registrar has regularly briefed the President, seeking the President’s feedback and support for the

project, and has also kept the Prosecutor informed. Prior to promulgation, the Information Circular

was shared for information with the President and the Prosecutor.

What options are available to the affected staff?

All affected staff members are given two options, namely either to take an enhanced separation

indemnity or apply for positions as a “priority candidate”.

The enhanced separation indemnity is based on the Staff Rules but also offers an additional amount

of 3 months’ salary, including allowances and post adjustment.

For all new positions created as a result of the ReVision, priority candidates will be considered first.

Only if no priority candidate is found suitable for a particular position will other candidates be

considered for the position. Where the number of positions of the same profile within a section is be

reduced, the staff occupying these positions will participate in a selection process in order to

determine whose positions will be abolished. This selection process ensures that the most suitable

staff members are retained within the organisation.

It is the Registry’s intension to retain as many staff members as possible.

Have the Registry staff members had a chance to express their views?

Staff members have been consulted at all the stages of the ReVision project. Initially, all Registry staff

members, as well as Registry clients, were asked to complete an extensive questionnaire covering

various aspects of the Registry’s functioning. This served as one of the main determinants for the

subsequent course of the ReVision. Subsequently, when a particular section was reviewed, the

ReVision team met with a large number of staff from that section, both individually and in groups.

In some instances, follow-up meetings were held to continue discussions or provide further

clarifications. ReVision’s recommendations were then presented to the staff collectively for each

section, and staff members who were personally affected by the ReVision’s recommendations were

met individually and separately prior to such group meetings. Every effort was made to take the

views of staff on board and to minimize the stress imposed on them. Furthermore, throughout the

ReVision process, relevant information has been regularly updated on an internal website

specifically dedicated to the ReVision project.

Has the Registrar personally explained to the staff what is happening?

In addition to the information provided by the ReVision team, the Registrar has personally provided

regular updates to the staff, through town-hall meetings and by email, of the different stages of the

restructuring and the possible impact on the staff. In February this year, the Registrar started having

small informal lunches with 4-5 staff members every week in order to better and most directly

understand the concerns of staff, about the work generally, but also the ReVision.

11

What was the rationale behind the composition of the ReVision team?

The team has been composed of three external members and a number of internal members, that is

the Court staff. Due to the urgency of the project, the external members were hired by the Registrar

directly in accordance with the Staff Regulations and the ICC Recruitment Guidelines, and only for

the purpose of this particular project. The internal members were taken on through an expression of

interest and competitive selection process. This mix of external and internal members allowed for

the consideration of both fresh perspectives from the outside and of substantive institutional

knowledge from the inside.

Who have been the ReVision’s team members?

There have been 8 core ReVision team members coming from Bulgaria, Colombia, Denmark, France,

Ireland, Netherlands, Togo and United Kingdom, working full-time or part-time. An additional 8

individuals, coming from Algeria, Bosnia, Germany (2x), Kenya (2x), Netherlands and United

Kingdom have provided temporary assistance. In each of these two categories, 5 members were

male and 3 were female. As such, the team has been diverse in relation to geographical origin and

gender, although there is no requirement for gender balance and adequate geographical distribution

for ad hoc projects and staff working on temporary assignments.

What is the role of the ReVision Project Board?

The Project Board advises and supports the Registrar in the overall direction and management of the

ReVision. The board provides high-level guidance and approves the project plan. Since the project is

delivered in several phases, the board approves the opening and closing of each phase, verifying

that the project is on track. The board also reviews (interim) ReVision reports and advises the

Registrar on recommendations made. Out of 7 members, 3 are female and 4 are male. They come

from Argentina, Canada, Croatia, Japan, Sierra Leone, Netherlands and the United Kingdom.

How does the ReVision project relate to the other organs of the Court?

The project does not extend to the functioning of the Office of the Prosecutor, Chambers and the

Presidency. However, in light of the interaction between the Registry and the other Court organs,

the ReVision team have consulted with the other organs whenever relevant. Other organs have also

been consulted in their capacity as Registry’s clients in order to determine their needs regarding the

Registry operations.

Has the Registrar briefed other relevant actors, including the President, the Prosecutor and

States?

In addition to his briefings to the Project Board, the Registrar has regularly updated the President on

the progress of the ReVision project and has sought the President’s feedback and support. He has

also had a number of briefings to the judges, most recently on 3 June 2015. The Registrar has also

12

regularly briefed the Prosecutor, as well as her senior management team on 23 April 2015.

Furthermore, he has also provided regular updates to the Hague Working Group, most recently on

26 May 2015.

When will the new positions in the Registry be advertised?

Newly established positions at levels P-5 and D-1 have already been advertised on the Court’s

website, and some of the recruitments have already been finalised. All other newly created positions

will be advertised in the coming weeks as soon as they are classified by the external classifiers and

vacancy announcements are drafted in both working languages of the Court.

Can the ReVision team members apply for the Registry positions?

In theory, ReVision team members have the same rights as any other person to apply for positions at

the Court. However, external ReVision members in the course of 2014 publicly committed to not

applying for positions that are vacant or created as a result of ReVision’s recommendations. Internal

ReVision members, who have remained ICC staff, have the same rights as other staff members.

When will the majority of the new Registry positions be filled?

It is expected that the last notification letter will be issued to affected staff members by 30 June 2015.

This will trigger the relevant recruitment processes. All recruitment processes involving priority

candidates are expected to be concluded by 30 September 2015.

What will be the key advantages of the new Registry structure?

While the recommendations of the ReVision project go beyond the Registry structure, the new

structure alone is expected to bring a number of significant improvements. With the creation of the

Division of External Relations and redistribution of various Registry sections within the three

Divisions, the structure and the reporting lines are much more streamlined. One of the greatest

advantages of the new Registry is a markedly stronger presence in the field, especially through the

positions of Heads of Field Office. Individuals occupying these positions will be the face of the

Registry and the Court in the field, enabling prompt and effective cooperation with various local

interlocutors, while also ensuring that the field offices are managed more efficiently and effectively.

13

ANNEX

Geographical distribution as of 31 May 2015

Non-

represented

Afghanistan, Andorra, Antigua and Barbuda, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belize,

Bolivia, Botswana, Burundi, Cambodia, Cabo Verde, Central African Republic,

Chad, Comoros, Congo, Cook Islands, Czech Republic, Djibouti, Dominica,

Dominican Republic, Estonia, Fiji, Gabon, Grenada, Guatemala Guyana,

Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Latvia, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania,

Luxembourg, Madagascar, Maldives, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mauritius,

Montenegro, Namibia, Nauru, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Republic of Korea,

Republic of Moldova, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa,

San Marino, Seychelles, Slovakia, Slovenia, St. Kitts and Nevis, Suriname,

Tajikistan, The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Timor-Leste, Tunisia,

Uruguay, Vanuatu, and Zambia. (However, a great number of these States Parties have a target representation of 1 staff member,

which means that even relatively small changes in staff distribution could have a big impact on

the geographical representation of these States)

Under-

represented

Austria, Brazil, Chile, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo,

Denmark, Germany Ghana, Greece, Japan, Mexico, Philippines, Poland,

Sweden, Switzerland, and Uganda.

In balance Albania, Benin, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Costa Rica,

Côte d’Ivoire, Cyprus, Georgia, Guinea, Italy, Jordan, Lesotho, Malawi,

Mongolia, Nigeria, Palestinian Territory (occupied), Spain, and Venezuela.

Over-

represented

Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Croatia, Ecuador, Finland,

France, Gambia, Ireland, Kenya, Mali, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger,

Peru, Portugal, Romania, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, South Africa,

Trinidad and Tobago, United Kingdom, and United Republic of Tanzania.