The US complaint about the manner in which the Director General decided on inspection targets should therefore be considered invalid. In fact, the matter is more serious, because the wording of the complaint indicates that the US brought pressure to bear on the Director General to alter his decision. Such behaviour is prohibited by Article VIII, paragraph 47:
Each State Party shall respect the exclusively international character of the responsibilities of the Director General, the inspectors and other members of the staff and not seek to influence them in the discharge of their responsibilities.
In Mr. Bustani’s response to this complaint, it is encouraging to note that he refused to alter his decision except to reduce the number of inspections to a level that the National Authority could accommodate.
IV. THE NATURE OF THE COMPLAINTS
In addition to the complaint relating to the selection of inspection targets, there are many others that need to be considered. Let it be said at the outset that the paper distributed by the US dated 6th March 2002 listing some thirty different complaints against Mr.Bustani contains nothing that could be classified as legal grounds for his dismissal. Actions taken by a Director General could become grounds for dismissal if he were guilty of corrupt practice, or if he were to disregard directions given to him by the Conference of the States Parties or the Executive Council, or if his actions exceeded his legal powers. Nothing in the US list of complaints has alleged behaviour of this nature.
Each State Party shall respect the exclusively international character of the responsibilities of the Director General, the inspectors and other members of the staff and not seek to influence them in the discharge of their responsibilities.
In Mr. Bustani’s response to this complaint, it is encouraging to note that he refused to alter his decision except to reduce the number of inspections to a level that the National Authority could accommodate.
IV. THE NATURE OF THE COMPLAINTS
In addition to the complaint relating to the selection of inspection targets, there are many others that need to be considered. Let it be said at the outset that the paper distributed by the US dated 6th March 2002 listing some thirty different complaints against Mr.Bustani contains nothing that could be classified as legal grounds for his dismissal. Actions taken by a Director General could become grounds for dismissal if he were guilty of corrupt practice, or if he were to disregard directions given to him by the Conference of the States Parties or the Executive Council, or if his actions exceeded his legal powers. Nothing in the US list of complaints has alleged behaviour of this nature.