The Truth about UNAIDS and its Campaign Against Martina Brostrom
This post is part of the Code Blue Campaign’s blog, which features opinions and analysis from staff members.
By Sharanya Kanikkannan
@sharanyakkn
In 2015, Martina Brostrom alleged that she was sexually assaulted by Luiz Loures, then-Deputy Executive Director of UNAIDS.
A shoddy UN investigation rife with conflicts of interest concluded that there was insufficient evidence to prove the claim, even while another victim came forward publicly to allege sexual assault by Loures.
Brostrom was then put on the defensive as UNAIDS doubled down on an investigation into her and her now-husband. The final report claimed wrongdoing, focusing largely on her consensual workplace relationship, and revealing a disturbing, almost prurient focus on her personal sex life, all to arrive at the accusation of “sexual misconduct.” Who orchestrated the retaliatory investigation and covertly hacked into Brostrom’s partner’s emails in search of something to pin on her partner? The answer is Luiz Loures, who was aided by subordinates who may or may not have felt pressured to assist in their boss’s vigilante efforts.
Attacking the credibility of a victim of sexual assault and harassment by denouncing her personal sex life is a tried-and-true bully’s technique, one adopted by the worst defense attorneys. Brostrom refused to stay silent. She called out this behavior for what it really is: retaliation.
In response to Brostrom’s claims, UNAIDS alleged that “an independent investigation proved beyond reasonable doubt” that Brostrom herself had committed misconduct.
Let's examine that.
First, no “independent investigation” was conducted. UNAIDS’ own internal investigative body was forced to recuse itself from looking into the specious claims against Brostrom. Then, UNAIDS hired and paid 89,000 Swiss francs for a private firm to review old documents and interviews and form a conclusion based on UNAIDS' instructions. They never even interviewed Brostrom.
Second, “beyond a reasonable doubt" is not a civil standard; the fact that UNAIDS makes such a claim about the strength of the “evidence” against Brostrom is not just a matter of semantics. It’s indicative of a long-running problem. UNAIDS puts soundbites over facts. Legal-sounding words have no meaning in a UN press release.
This response alone wasn’t enough, however, and the spokesperson for UNAIDS went on to state: “Any claims of retaliation are baseless and misleading.” This is the final nail in the coffin for credibility. No investigation has taken place into Brostrom’s claim of retaliation. The overblown charges against her, the continuous harassment of her while she’s on qualified medical leave, the public maligning of her reputation and character—all of it constitutes an institutional effort to send a message to victims: Stay in line.
If the UN wanted to take positive action, it should call for a truly independent, external, entirely unbiased investigation carried out by people with no allegiances or patronage to UN senior officials. The investigation should review the entire case including the original assault, UNAIDS' allegations against Brostrom, and Brostrom's claims of retaliation.
Since no such investigation has taken place, the default assumption must be to trust Brostrom’s claims, given that the report of an Independent Expert Panel last year warned that UNAIDS has no effective safeguarding procedures to prevent retaliation, and that the entity is rife with abuse of authority. Retaliation is all but inevitable in such an environment, and we must not allow UNAIDS to shrug off its burden to prove otherwise; dismissing a claim as “baseless” does not make it so.
We are witnessing the conclusion of an old vendetta, a continuation of what the Independent Expert Panel called UNAIDS’ culture of "nothing to see here."
Sharanya Kanikkannan is Legal and Policy Adviser
for AIDS-Free World and its Code Blue Campaign.