Washington, Apr 17 (EFE).- The investigation to which the Secretary General of the Organization of American States (OAS), Luis Almagro, was subjected for having maintained an intimate relationship with an employee determined that he violated the internal provisions on common sense and good judgment”, although not intentionally.
“The External Investigation concluded that the Secretary General violated the Rules and Regulations of the OAS regarding the provisions on common sense and good judgment and the additional ethical obligations for the Secretary General,” said that text to which EFE had access. this Monday.
The report did specify that it “did not violate OAS Rules and Regulations regarding supervisory obligations, salary increases, intimidation, travel, or conflicts of interest.”
By maintaining the intimate relationship while allowing the OAS official to continue collaborating as an integral part of her team of advisers, “she violated her additional ethical obligations and contravened the very spirit of ‘common sense and good judgment’ always required of all members of the staff and other service providers of the General Secretariat,” said that text.
Almagro, who was Foreign Minister of Uruguay between 2010 and 2015, has been in charge of the OAS since 2015. He was subjected to an investigation to determine if, in the framework of his sentimental relationship with a subordinate, he violated OAS regulations.
These external investigations determined that, in the allegations related to the intimate relationship itself, his conduct “does not reflect the level of intent necessary to support the occurrence of an intentional violation.”
Almagro, according to the lawyers from the Miller & Chevalier office, in charge of that evaluation, internally analyzed and consulted with his advisors the scope of the obligations regarding conflicts of interest under the Code of Ethics and maintained a sufficient administrative and hierarchical distance with the official to avoid setting up a superior-supervised relationship.
Likewise, “he refused to participate in administrative processes that affected the interests” of that worker, “he did not allow the intimate relationship to interfere in the performance of his duties and he did not hide it or disguise it, allowing the intimate relationship to become public. knowledge from its inception.
“Having not received formal or informal complaints, denunciations, or comments inside or outside the OAS alluding to possible discomforts in the face of an intimate relationship, the Secretary General maintained his conviction that his conduct did not infringe his ethical obligations to the OAS,” Added that document.
Miller & Chevalier estimated that the violation of the code of ethics arises precisely from “not having refrained from working closely and closely with the official” after having started the intimate relationship or, failing that, having continued the relationship while working in close collaboration. and closeness with that employee.
The lawyers of that firm “could not corroborate” that Almagro “had sought verbal or written advice from the directors of the three areas indicated in the Code of Ethics.”
The controversy surrounding this relationship broke out shortly after the Board of Governors of the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) decided in September by a majority to dismiss its president, Mauricio Claver-Carone, for having a loving relationship with a subordinate, something which the latter denied.
Miller & Chevalier noted that their findings “suggest” a review of the OAS rules and regulations “in such a way that this type of situation is avoided in the future.”
“The OAS would benefit from a more exhaustive regulation against conduct related to intimate relationships to broaden its field of application and to have a procedure to follow against the risks, reports, and applicable mitigation measures,” concludes its analysis, according to 121 pages.
In an additional document to the investigation, in which Almagro responds to the findings, the Secretary General maintained his position that at no time did he commit “faults or deficiencies” in his duties by having a relationship with the official.
“Everything is objective evidence that my action and intention was to conduct myself publicly and privately, keeping highly in mind the respectability of the role of Secretary General and the prestige of the OAS, as well as of each of the Member States that are part of it.” , he wrote in his reply.
The Uruguayan assured that common sense is “difficult to define” and maintained that he adhered to the “more objective foundations that may exist regarding it” seeking the opinion of third parties and documenting himself legally and ethically.
