34 BOX 4 Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Difference Relating to Immunity from Legal Process of a Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights Facts Mr. Dato’ Param Cumaraswamy, a Malaysian jurist appointed by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in 1994 as Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, faced several lawsuits filed in Malaysian courts by two plaintiffs who asserted that he had used defamatory language in an interview. The plaintiffs sought damages amounting to US$ 112 million each. However, according to the United Nations Secretary-General, Mr. Cumaraswamy had spoken in his official capacity of Special Rapporteur and was thus immune from legal process by virtue of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations. The Economic and Social Council, of which the Commission on Human Rights was a subsidiary organ, requested an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice in August 1998, after efforts by the Secretary-General to ensure respect for Mr. Cumaraswamy’s immunity had not achieved the desired result. Opinion The Court recalled that a special rapporteur who was entrusted with a mission for the United Nations must be regarded as an expert on mission within the meaning of article VI, section 22, of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations. Moreover, the Court indicated that such experts enjoyed the privileges and immunities provided for under the Convention in their relations with States parties, including those of which they are nationals. The Court also observed that Malaysia had acknowledged that Mr.  Cumaraswamy was an expert on mission. The Court pointed out that the Secretary-General, as the chief administrative officer of the United Nations, had the primary responsibility and authority to assess whether its agents, including experts on mission, acted within the scope of their functions and, where this was the case, to protect those agents by asserting their immunity. In doing so, the  Secretary-General protected the mission entrusted to the expert. Turning to the legal obligations of Malaysia, the Court stated that, when national courts are seized of a case in which the immunity of a United Nations agent is at issue, the State in question should immediately notify the court of any finding by the Secretary-General on the question of immunity and give that