±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøECA Administration did not comply with the procedures which prescribe how to handle issues related to the arrest and detention of staff members. The ±¬ÁÏÍøECA Administration did not act to protect the applicant in a manner consistent with ±¬ÁÏÍø international legal instruments on human rights. The ±¬ÁÏÍøECA Administration failed to safeguard the applicant¡¯s privileges and immunities as a staff member of the United Nations and to protect the interests, standards and values of the Organization.The OIC of the ±¬ÁÏÍøECA SSS at the time, in his actions and inactions, fell far short of many of the core values...

The Tribunal found that: 1) The DG failed in her legal obligation to review and promptly appoint an investigation panel into the Applicant¡¯s complaint of prohibited conduct and that the delay was unlawful and resulted in serious consequences for the Applicant. 2) The instigation by DSS ±¬ÁÏÍøON of the detention and charging of the Applicant by the Kenya Police without a waiver of immunity by the Secretary-General was unlawful. 3) DSS ±¬ÁÏÍøON acted covertly without the knowledge of the Director-General or the United Nations Headquarters in its dealings with the Kenya Police on 21 August. This...

Receivability: The Tribunal concluded that MEU had taken a rather restrictive view of the nature of the Applicant¡¯s request when it deemed it to be irreceivable. While it cannot be disputed that the Applicant requested closure of the investigation against him, and the investigation was closed, he also listed a number of instances that, in his view amounted to ¡°violations of procedural fairness¡±. The procedural matters did not exist in a vacuum but were connected to the investigation. The closure of the investigation notwithstanding, the Tribunal found that there were still live issues that...

It was not unreasonable to infer that on 3 July 2015, having gone through the rigors of a criminal judicial proceeding and having been acquitted of all charges, the Applicants became aware that there may have been breaches of the applicable rules governing their arrest and detention as United Nations staff members and the waiver of their immunities. The Applicants¡¯ causes of action in relation to the remedies for the alleged breaches of the procedures under A/63/331 and ST/AI/299 arose on 3 July 2015. Accordingly, pursuant to staff rule 11.2(c) the Applicants were, therefore, required to seek...