51ÁÔÆæ

The Tribunal found that there were severe failures in affording the Applicant due process during the investigation. After first interviewing her as a non-subject, SIU later decided that she would be a subject of the investigation but did not then afford her the due process entitlements under section 10 of ST/AI/2017/1. While there was procedural unfairness to the Applicant, inefficiency and a lack of reporting transparency; there was no due process failing on the part of the decision-maker since her decision expressly considered not only the SIU investigation report but also the Applicant¡¯s...

The burden of proving the provenance and authenticity of the footage is on the Respondent. The Tribunal found that the challenge as to the evidentiary value of the video can properly be dismissed, given the type of document (a video file), its content (a continuous show of people interacting with no discrepancies) and the comments on it by the Applicant (as mentioned). The Tribunal found that a forensic examination of the files was not necessary and that the anonymity of the sources did not undermine its clear and objective content. In this case, the Applicant was not simply careless to have...

UNAT considered the motion for execution of judgment No. 2013-UNAT-359. UNAT noted that it had been provided with information from the Secretary-General that all six members of Dalgaard et al. had either resigned, retired or transferred from ICTY prior to the issuance of the impugned decision. In light of this information, UNAT held that none of them could rightfully claim that they were entitled to moral damages as a result of their rights being violated by the impugned decision. UNAT opined that the course of action taken by the Secretary-General, in deciding that Dalgaard et al. were...

The Respondent had no clear and convincing evidence on which to decide on dismissal of the Applicant for violating Ivorian law in 2007 by accepting payment to produce false passports and committing fraud. On a literal interpretation of staff regulation 1.2(b), the Applicant engaged in misconduct. His negative response to the PHP question about prior indictments, fines or imprisonment amounted to an intentional withholding of required information pertinent to the Organization¡¯s background integrity checks. The answer was neither truthful nor honest. The Applicant certified in his PHP that he...